> The whole "Emergency Lending Library" situation was just strange.
That was adjudicated years ago, and has nothing to do with the case at hand.
> The whole "Emergency Lending Library" situation was just strange.
That was adjudicated years ago, and has nothing to do with the case at hand.
It's related, it demonstrates the IA's attitude toward copyright and how it's already gotten them into trouble. The huge amount of pirate content seems to largely fly under the radar, but the Library was advertising that they're not going to respect copyright and it puts the website archives at risk.
> The huge amount of pirate content seems to largely fly under the radar,
That’s literally how copyright enforcement works in the United States, it’s not specific to IA. Every user-submitted content publishing site is rife with piracy.
> but the Library was advertising that they're not going to respect copyright
A gross misreading of their stated intentions.
> and it puts the website archives at risk.
The archives are probably also not fair use in the present legal environment. They just happen to not to contain anything valuable enough for a big media company to get litigious. Yet.
> A gross misreading of their stated intentions.
Not really, they just kind of made up an "emergency" exemption. Their FAQ, instead of saying what legal precedent they were operating under, handwaves it away with a quote from a paper on libraries in general. I'm a fan of them, but they really open themselves up to liability a lot more than necessary.
> It's related, it demonstrates the IA's attitude toward copyright and how it's already gotten them into trouble
Then why the case makes no reference to that?