It's not a crime to inform patrons of the existence of shadow libraries.
> That pretense is the only thing that's keeping IA online at this point. Otherwise, there would be no excuse to allow their distribution of copyrighted works at all.
> If you want to fight copyright, fight it directly, don't gamble the IA for it.
I agree with you. There is no (legal) excuse for the National Emergency Library, digital lending DRM is just a pretense, and they shouldn't have gambled the Archive on it. The battle will be won by shadow libraries, who by their extra-legal nature are better equipped to fight copyright directly.
> It's not a crime to inform patrons of the existence of shadow libraries.
That is indeed a crime: "promotion and incentivisation of crime", one of the major ways of starting an organised crime in fact. Do you want IA to be declared a criminal organisation?
This is a huge stretch. If I go to my local library, I can take a book off the shelves, walk over to the photocopier, deposit some coins, and make a copy. Is that promotion and incentivization of (and profiteering from) copyright infringement? I can check out a copy of the Anarchist Cookbook, or any number of other books that detail and arguably glorify crime of various forms. Is that promotion and incentivization of crime?
Libraries are repositories of information, including "forbidden" information.
> That pretense is the only thing that's keeping IA online at this point. Otherwise, there would be no excuse to allow their distribution of copyrighted works at all.
> If you want to fight copyright, fight it directly, don't gamble the IA for it.
I agree with you. There is no (legal) excuse for the National Emergency Library, digital lending DRM is just a pretense, and they shouldn't have gambled the Archive on it. The battle will be won by shadow libraries, who by their extra-legal nature are better equipped to fight copyright directly.