> it was quite boneheaded to do this legal experiment under the same corporate umbrella as their archival work.
I disagree. This is a wickedly good idea, and a very good hill to fight on. It is not a "legal experiment" but a major battle against evil people. Everybody loves the Internet Archive, it is our sacred castle. If a decisive battle is to be won against the publishing parasites, it may be likely this one, and we have to be all on the same side! After Aaron Swartz, the book parasites have never been so potentially hated by everybody. We must go all-in.
The error is on the side of the book parasites for having decided to fight against an institution that is so loved by mankind. They cannot but lose the battle (socially), regardless of what the short-time legal outcome is.
Dude: I'm an author. The books I write pay for the food that feeds my family. Are you saying I'm evil for asking to be paid for my work?
I can tell you that if the IA/EFF prevail, professional authors will disappear and the only people who will get to be artists will be those with trust funds and rich spouses. Is that what you want the world to become?
Do you really think artists are evil for wanting to be paid?
> Are you saying I'm evil for asking to be paid for my work?
No. I love and appreciate the work of authors, and I spend more than 1000 EUR per year in books. I systematically buy technical books that the author offers for free on their website. For the authors of the free software that I depend on, I try to donate if it is possible.
To answer your question very clearly: you are not evil by asking to be paid for your work. That is a very reasonable thing to do! Can you please point me to your books? I will likely buy them (if they are tangentially interesting to me).
All of that will not change the fact that sharing books is not stealing, and that using the verb "stealing" for the act of sharing is a callous manipulation of the language, even if it is sanctioned by law.
What is the point of putting the Archive at risk though? The same battle could have been fought by a new entity that only digitally lent books, without putting the archives at risk. You seem to be implying that putting more at risk will make them fight harder, which seems ridiculous. What I see is them needlessly choosing this as a hill to die on.
Putting the glorious Archive "at risk" is equivalent to charging the enemy all together behind our king. Sure, a risky move, but undoubtedly very encouraging. The battle is not only legal, but mostly social and PR. A new entity, independent from the Archive, would receive few popular support, and if the book parasites killed it nobody would be really bothered. Yet, if they try to kill the Archive, that's a huge mess on their part that nobody can forget nor forgive.
I disagree. This is a wickedly good idea, and a very good hill to fight on. It is not a "legal experiment" but a major battle against evil people. Everybody loves the Internet Archive, it is our sacred castle. If a decisive battle is to be won against the publishing parasites, it may be likely this one, and we have to be all on the same side! After Aaron Swartz, the book parasites have never been so potentially hated by everybody. We must go all-in.
The error is on the side of the book parasites for having decided to fight against an institution that is so loved by mankind. They cannot but lose the battle (socially), regardless of what the short-time legal outcome is.