• FaceDeer@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    17 days ago

    It’s victim-blaming because I’m sure you also know that they would have been sued eventually regardless of what they did or did not do.

    No, I “know” no such thing. How do you “know” that?

    In fact, I think the IA wouldn’t have been sued if they’d continued to keep a low profile and stuck to the common practice of limiting their “digital lending” to one copy at a time. I don’t “know” it because you can’t know the future, only predict it, but I think that’s most likely given how many other libraries get away with exactly that same practice and how IA itself was getting away with it for years before they blew it.

    So yeah, that makes what you said a lie by your own admission.

    You are imagining that I “know” I’m lying, and then using that to claim that I’m lying “by my own admission.” This is so blatantly fallacious it’s actually kind of remarkable.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 days ago

      You were lying by admission because you admitted you knew that it was a window of opportunity to sue them for something unrelated to that.

      Please read more carefully before having such silly knee-jerk reactions.

      • FaceDeer@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        17 days ago

        You were lying by admission because you admitted you knew that it was a window of opportunity to sue them for something unrelated to that.

        I honestly have no idea what you mean here.

        It wasn’t a “window of opportunity”, it was a provocation that couldn’t be ignored. The publishers have had the opportunity to sue for a long time, as you’ve said. They just didn’t want to for PR reasons, again as you’ve said.

        The lawsuit isn’t for “unrelated” reasons. It’s for copyright violation due to their practice of distributing ebooks without permission.

        You’re clearly very passionate about this matter, but you’re only paying attention to things that support one view of it and are instantly dismissing anything that might challenge that as being “supporting the enemy” or outright lies. I like the Internet Archive, I want them to survive and flourish. That’s not going to happen if the keep tilting at windmills and picking unwinnable fights. I don’t cheer them when they’re charging headlong into a meatgrinder.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          17 days ago

          No, I’m paying full attention to your claim that the Internet Archive provoked publishers into suing them for something unrelated to that supposed provocation.

          • FaceDeer@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            17 days ago

            The Internet Archive was distributing unlimited copies of ebooks whose rights were held by major publishers.

            The major publishers sued them for distributing copies of ebooks whose rights were held by them.

            Yeah, totally unrelated.

              • gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                17 days ago

                You are both speculating about what triggered the lawsuit because the only people that know for sure what triggered the lawsuit are the publishers and they aren’t talking.

                If all public libraries are using CDL and the publishers have only sued IA, who flagrantly violated CDL, and they sued them only 2 months after they started violating the CDL, then that certainly seems like a very possible factor in the lawsuit, right?