|
Top-level
 @jik It wasn’t a shitty, stupid overstep. It was a well-intentioned overstep at a time when people couldn’t go to the library. Was the result damaging and ultimately out of bounds? Yes. But I absolutely draw the line at calling it dumb. The publishers moved out of bounds too here—they didn’t have to go after the whole thing. That was their choice. Let us not lose context here. 10 comments
@jik @ernie Fully scanning, storing electronically, and distributing a work protected by someone else's copyright is out of bounds of legality and fairness. The Internet Archive pirated someone else's property in the name of a purported social cause or closeted authoritarian socialism. They held no entitlement to do so. This is where I stand on this. And all I was honestly trying to say to @jik before he kind of went left. I wasn’t trying to piss him off, just to say the program was to some degree defensible. @AndersBaerbock @jik You clearly disagree, but this is my view. The Internet Archive should be able to scan books and lend them. Fair use should extend in this way. @ernie @jik If most people, after a healthy discussion, agree with you, your idea will become incorporated as law. If democracy is nowadays broken, IMHO is better to fix it rather than embracing the law of the jungle like the IA attempted. @AndersBaerbock @jik I disagree. That frames the content owner as having fewer rights in a digital realm. Fair use should bend more than that. Libraries should work exactly the same in the digital era as they do the physical one. It's the belief that they're somehow different feels like a warping of the library’s intent, as well as the intent of fair use It's possible the case in front of the court may go either way on this point. @AndersBaerbock @jik You totally misread what I said. The content owner is the person who bought the object. I specifically did not say copyright owner. |
Gregory's Server
@ernie Ah, so now we're moving the goalposts.
You knew when you posted your first post above what IA _actually_ did, but you chose to describe it inaccurately so you could make IA look better and the corporations who sued them look worse than actually justified by the circumstances?
And then when called out on it, you came back with "well ok, it actually wasn't as bad as I said, but lord, it wasn't good."
Yeah, no.
I don't waste my time here with people who pull shit like this.
*plonk*,,