this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2025
162 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

2547 readers
714 users here now

Which posts fit here?

Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.


Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original linkPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

[email protected]
[email protected]


Icon attribution | Banner attribution


If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @[email protected].

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I mean it was a precarious case that was on the verge of being acceptable to most people, but legally was clearly not. Scanning books and providing a single digital copy was legally grey, but everyone looked the other way. Providing extra copies during a pandemic was kind, but allowing it to go to court and not settling (and then doubling down with appeals, all of which has to be funded by donations that could have been spent elsewhere) ended up with a judge ruling that no one can scan books and publish a single copy without an explicit license from the publisher. So that grey area is now black and white.

I can't help but resent them for this, given that the main part of the organisation - the actual Internet Archive - is so important and they've put its survial at risk with their side hussle. Some of the blame (perhaps even a majority?) should also go to the lawyers that represented IA.