this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
148 points (93.0% liked)
Technology
59308 readers
5443 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes. That I don't have an issue with, although I think it was a mistake in hindsight.
The issue was trying to face the publishers head on in court, and then coming at them with a frivilous legal argument that had no hope in succeeding. They've done the same with their appeal - and donors have paid for both. They should have done absolutely everything they could to settle out of court.
I agree, but just because archive.today is more polished doesn't mean it's more trustworthy or respectable.
Ah, that makes me much calmer. I thought they also lost their right to classic library-style lending...
No they did lose it, I believe. As part of the trial a judge ruled that scanning physical copies and lending out one digital copy per physical copy scanned was illegal. They were operating in a legal grey area, then as soon as they came out of that grey area they lost it. That's why I think they should have settled out of court.
They were sued for lending unlimited copies, fought it, then ended up being told they couldn't lend any copies without a license.