I've never taken the internet for granted — have scraped anything and everything I have found interesting. I suggest everyone do the same.<p>(As a bonus, you don't even need internet for the content you have backed up.)
It's curious how corporations try to litigate business models that struggle to survive the Internet age, enabling places like Anna's Archive to pop-up and do more damage than simply leaving the IA alone.
It's frustrating that there's no published date on this page. I'm just particularly curious as to if this is related to yesterday's SCOTUS opinions or something else. Granted, searching legal decisions is admittedly not a strength of mine, and this might be trivial to some.<p>A quick search on Wikipedia suggests that a "final judgement" was made in August of last year, but also that it was appealed last year. Is this being posted now because the appeal now over?
Am I the only one disgusted by the number of "University of ___ Press" or "___ University Press" entries in the list of publishers that got books taken down?<p>I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that universities aren't the bastions of knowledge sharing that we want them to be. I just think it's sad.
There was a good article posted previously here on HN about the lawsuit.<p>There is something in the current framework that allows libraries to lend out digital copies — by having purchased a physical copy. They can lend out one digital copy for each physical copy they hold.<p>What Internet Archive did was, during Covid, opened up lending to exceed the physical copies they held. They did not ask the copyright holders when they did this.<p>They broke the law, and their case has no legal merit. Their argument was to appeal to public opinion. The results of the lawsuit may jeopardize their main mission.<p>I really respected the IA, but how they are going about this is dishonest.