It’s a fair point. Most of what the IA does is probably technically copyright violation but I’d argue there’s a qualitative difference between making copies of public websites, software that publishers have abandoned, and other things in that vein—especially given they historically bent over backwards to stop sharing copyrighted material if someone got upset— and sharing digitized copyrighted books Willy-nilly given there was already precedent that you just can’t do that.
As I understand it, they're pretty good about taking your site out if you ask them to. That's not quite the letter of the law on copyright, and potentially leaves them open to lawsuits, but few web site publishers are really going to pursue them once they've taken the material down.
If they'd applied that same level to the books, they might have avoided this mess.
> Just to be clear, it is your position that the IA's Wayback Machine and abandonware archives should also not exist, right?
No, I fully support these missions. Both have defensible fair use protections and do not try to break new legal ground with flimsy justifications. I wish the IA were little more aggressive about not retroactively applying robots.txt rules on archived content.
It's hard to reconcile how overly careful they are with the Wayback Machine compared to the carelessness of unlimited lending. I am livid they risked their priceless archives for book piracy - that's not a great hill to die on.
Book piracy or not, IA seems to be the only source for many programming books from the 2000s. (Everyone’s go-to pirate library has a much less comprehensive collection of those.)
> It's hard to reconcile how overly careful they are with the Wayback Machine compared to the carelessness of unlimited lending
Indeed. It's maybe worth reflecting on the apparent conflict there. What info are you missing, that could explain the conflict? The IA folks aren't crazy, but they are opinionated and willing to take action where others might not, and the world was in a very crazy state at the time the decision was made. Consider some sympathy for the people leading the project you feel so passionately about.
But they could issue a mea culpa, and move on. Admit defeat, pay a token fine or settlement, and keep their donations to preserve the rest of their archive. Why don't they cut out the rot, to preserve the rest of the archives. I know they had a mission, or some goal, or whatever, but it failed - it failed a long time ago.
It can be right or wrong, i don't know. I want organizations to fight the battles that gain us new rights and freedoms. I know that they have a lot to lose here though, and they shouldn't risk it.
Concretely, I was a big individual donor to the IA until this lawsuit. I support their mission, I love their work, I help (technically and financially) other organizations like local museums and non-profits handle their archival work. This is something important to me, and I really want their archives to persist.
I stopped donating to the IA - and won't resume - until this lawsuit is resolved. I don't want to donate to the book publishers, and it looks that's going to be the outcome of their entire funds.
>It's hard to reconcile how overly careful they are with the Wayback Machine compared to the carelessness of unlimited lending.
Is it really? The cynical side of me wonders if it just might be intentional. What if this is a nonprofit analogue to VC monetization? Do you dislike an existing law? Create a similar but legal service you know other people will appreciate, use donations to undercut competitors and become the defacto monopoly, ride the network effect to a large crowd that basically relies on you, then rugpull by tying their narrow, legal use to your crusade for a different legal system by infecting their data with illegal material and declaring the whole thing must sink or swim together. Now your users have to pay you to fight your policy crusade or they lose their already legal resource they value much more, and you can use your legal half as a moral shield to get approval from anyone who only had the time to read the headline when the prosecution inevitably shows up at your door. All you need yo hold the almost-grift together is to lie by omission about who instigated it all.
Just to be clear, it is your position that the IA's Wayback Machine and abandonware archives should also not exist, right?