• FaceDeer@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months 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
      0
      ·
      5 months 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
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months 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.