It’s not like the Archive doesn’t know what kind of people they are dealing with. They know publishers are out to stop second hand sales, ebook lending, right of resellers to set prices, and a million other things. It’s like expecting the RIAA or the MPAA to settle for an injunction when they have the chance to kill Napster/TPB/IsoTorrent/whatever. If it’s really in order to set a precedent then that’s damn short-sighted.
You're assuming the country being closed is especially relevant. The point is rather that they had physical books and weren't physically lending them out, in which case they should be able to digitally lend them out. If you're not lending more copies than you have, how is that not a reasonable argument?
> typically a single case is hand-picked to serve as the exception to the rule taking great care to make it as palatable, appealing, and free of recriminations as possible and you take that to the courts.
It's a well-loved actual library that only wants to lend out its books, what more do you want?
And if they'd only lent out a single book, would that have gotten them into court? It had to be enough for the plaintiffs to care.
> some other website or organization should gamble their entire existence that isn’t worth as much as the Archive to get this precedent
Why? It has to be a real library. You would rather some other library take the risk, or that nobody ever do it?
> It’s not like the Archive doesn’t know what kind of people they are dealing with.
And that's the point. The people they're dealing with are the bullies and the Archive is supposed to back down? Somebody has to fight the fight.
That's the crux of the problem, though. The Internet Archive originally followed that model making that very argument; that argument hasn't actually been tested in court and the legality of it isn't settled, but publishers were generally looking the other way. But in March, the IA lifted the limit, allowing an unlimited number of people to read the same book on the grounds that closing physical libraries created a national emergency.
And we still haven't heard their response, only what the plaintiffs are claiming.
> The reason this could bankrupt them is mostly because they don't have a lot of money. Their net assets are only a couple million dollars. They have to raise more than that every year just to keep operating.
Are you trying to claim that Internet Archive purposely tried to set a precedent, knowing they don't have enough money to actually do it? That sounds like a pretty damning accusation of gross incompetence.
It remains to be seen whether this blunder will actually destroy the Internet Archive.
In general, I think the idea that good things have to last forever is overrated. Organizations willing to compromise their values eventually drift away from those values completely, which is worse than simply ceasing to exist--such organizations can linger on and do more harm than good.
That is pretty unambiguous.
[1] https://archive.org/about/
EDIT: The previous version of this post was unnecessarily combative, in response to what may have been a good faith question. Sorry.
Well, at least there's an implicit admission justice is bought by the highest bidder.
I've looked at the complaint, and I've lived through the Napster trial. It would be one thing if they had a good case and just needed funds to make it through the trial. That's not what's going on here.
When you mix statutory copyright violation with digital technology, you get infinite fines. Any money you donate is going to the book publishers at the end of the day.
Not all laws need to be followed.
And just because some people will beleive anything doesnt make this belief any less relevant or important.
I find your understanding of this rather contrived given that your constitution has nothing to do with me.
Your ip laws on the other hand, well, they stretch far and wide around countries that would rather have nothing to do with you.
I would prefer, if youre going to refute my claims, you at least acknowledge them.
Like, the fact ip law had a net benefit to society when they were conceived. But have since been twisted and applied dishonestly.
Can anyone tell me what the real damage would be if we limited copyright terms to one year? And what would be the real benefit to society at large to freely access information?
Your concerns about the effect of America's IP laws is a totally different issue. Your government presumably either believes that IP law is a net benefit today, or else wants something else that america had enough to hold their nose and make a deal. There are some political steps you can take to try to reverse that scenario but I'm afraid IA's actions here have no bearing on that. They can't possibly help you at all.
As to the rest of what you said, does it have merit? I don't know. What I do know is that IA will be worse off after this lawsuit is done.
Rosa Parks launched a boycott to protest a bus system that was so racist that even the horrific Jim Crow laws weren't enough for bus drivers who kicked off black people (and police officers who arrested them) who had a legal right to their seats.
Other protests broke the law with sit-ins.
Actual Libraries buy materials and loan them. I don't think that is what archive.org was doing. I don't think the content owners are being bad guys here.
I found this initiative really irritating, as there are almost certainly better ways to accomplish the objective legally.
The reason this could bankrupt them is mostly because they don't have a lot of money. Their net assets are only a couple million dollars. They have to raise more than that every year just to keep operating.
But it's also because the plaintiffs are vindictive. They know this is about setting a precedent. They don't like the precedent, so they're out for blood. They could have been civilized and only asked for an injunction.