So the Internet Archive lost in appeal against Hachette, Penguin, HarperCollins, and Wiley. Judgment looks fair by the current laws, but here the law seems to cause harm.

So the Internet Archive lost in appeal against Hachette, Penguin, HarperCollins, and Wiley. Judgment looks fair by the current laws, but here the law seems to cause harm.

https://www.wired.com/story/internet-archive-loses-hachette-books-case-appeal/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hachette_v._Internet_Archive

Scientist and engineer interested in Life.

Work on (GOF)AI, Agriculture, Biology, Energy, Robotics, Space---all topics climate-aware.

Aside the fact confirmed by external reviewers that "The Internet Archive's digital lending had no measurable effect on the market whatsoever", Lessig's point is subtle and solid: "We need access to our past, not just the part of our past that is economically or commercially viable."

Focusing only on the hot FOMO stuff is very Sisyphean lifestyle---going nowhere.

Settlement numbers are not disclosed. Given externals say the 2-month problem had little commercial impact, I wonder who wins here?

According to the Association of American Publishers president and CEO Pallante, "infringement is both costly and antithetical to the public interest". This sounds very wrong: The interests served here are clearly the publishers' and most likely the best-selling authors.

But again, no number to suggest so. Yet suing costs a lot (and part of the GDP in the US, haha). And yet the Wired article mentions IA may face a $400M case on music. It looks like "worth it for publishers" to sue, including signalling.

IA may have been one step too far? But so many game changers and superstar CEOs do all the time with all kinds of side effects.