If you hear a scream across the internet right now, it is the sound I am making while reading the Internet Archive v. Hachette Books appeal, which IA has lost: https://www.wired.com/story/internet-archive-loses-hachette-books-case-appeal/
-
If you hear a scream across the internet right now, it is the sound I am making while reading the Internet Archive v. Hachette Books appeal, which IA has lost: https://www.wired.com/story/internet-archive-loses-hachette-books-case-appeal/
-
David/Dragon 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️replied to evacide last edited by
@evacide Which is particularly galling in the light of the current AI discourse
-
Ooze 𓁟replied to David/Dragon 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ last edited by
-
@evacide Do you genuinely support Brewster Kahle's broad interpretation of the #InternetArchive mission? Do you believe his expanding efforts to override the rights of authors and publishers, as well as the laws of the United States, are justified—especially when they come at the cost of millions in Internet Archive funds that could otherwise be used for services that directly benefit global netizens? I continue to donate each month to IA, yet these questions weight heavy on my mind.
-
@Ooze No it isn't. The crucial part of the law was ridiculously arbitrary, by design. Which means, it doesn't easily leave useful precedents. By design.
Fair use should be properly codified: if you do these things, you're safe from the arbitrariness. Because of an old publishers' lobbying effort, it isn't. This only helps bad actors.
-
Riley S. Faelanreplied to JohannessNilsson last edited by
@JohannessNilsson You'd be more effective if you just posted an URL to your talking points supplied by whatever "think tank" made them up.
:blobcatglare: @evacide