But I think the law is pretty clear, and a precedent calling their use case fair use would be mind blowing. You need new, much more common sense IP legislation that redefines consumer rights in a digital world.

Indeed. I'm a big supporter of IA's mission, and I'm a big supporter of piracy (copyright has gone insane over the years), but this outcome was obvious from the moment IA did this and it was a mistake for them to fight this fight. They should focus on preservation. Let the EFF handle the lawsuits, and let Library Genesis handle the illegal distribution of books. Everyone focus on what they're best at.

[–] kilgore_trout@feddit.it 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Their distribution of books is completely legal.

Corporations just have more money to warp the laws in their favour.

That's why the Archive is appealing: they still believe they are right.

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

There's really no credible argument that their distribution of books even might be legal.

Their only defense is fair use, and there's no precedent for a "fair use" defense justifying copying a work wholesale for mass distribution. (Yes, "one copy at a time" to multiple people is mass distribution.) Copying a whole work has effectively only qualified as fair use when that copy is not re-distributed, and is actually for a personal backup.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Their distribution of books is completely legal.

Corporations just have more money to warp the laws in their favour.

You just contradicted yourself in two sentences.

[–] nintendiator@feddit.cl -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Oh, you believe law is fair? You sound so cute.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 1 points 4 months ago

What did I say that implied that? I'm pointing out a contradiction in kilgore's comment, I'm not adding anything of my own here.