While you are correct on the tactical level, with this I do not agree:

> The National Emergency Library was a serious lapse of judgement - a moment of madness amongst a backdrop of widespread Covid madness.

NO! It was a moment of sanity prompted by an exceptional situation in an absolutely insane world, a world that pretends to value property yet undermines property using IP. It is IP that is the real madness. It is IP that is used to suck every drop of life out of culture the same way Exxon sucks oil out of the ground. And it is IP that is used to bind people when other measures are not effective.

I get that the thought that the world is absolutely insane and absurd may not be a popular idea in the startup space which relies on a blind optimism, but IP is simply part of the cancer afflicting this world.

You are correct that it was a tactical mistake that endangered the rest of the project but the values that prompted that decision are some of the values that should guide us in building a better world if we want to stand any chance of avoiding a Black Mirror like dystopia on the path towards which the world is very much on.

> I am saddened to say that the prosecution appears to have a strong case here.

This is a civil case so plaintiff not prosecution. This comment made me double check that there wasn't an associated criminal case I was unaware of.

Very little of what the IA does is strictly kosher under current law more or less anywhere in the world. They've mostly gotten away with it because, for example, they've mirrored websites that the owners put out in public and generally respect even retroactive requests to take them down. And, as you say, lending out 1 digital for 1 physical is reasonable enough that it's easy enough to believe publishers would overlook.

(And, yes, they're a library/archive but that basically means nada in the digital world.)

I used to donate to them every year, but I stopped when they did this stunt because I was afraid any money I donated now would go to pay for lawyers in a lost cause that I don't believe in. It pains me deeply in my heart because I think the Wayback Machine is a great and noble cause, and I would like to keep donating to it, but I don't want to contribute to what I see as a pointless crusade against copyright at the same time.

I am also a strong supporter of them, but I wrote them immediately and said that this plan of theirs was both very illegal and insulting to artists, writers and creators throughout the world.

The only reason we have professional or semi-professional artists and writers is because they're able to sell copies one way or another. The EFF and the IA would like to believe the writers and publishers are outrageously wealthy and able to sustain the kind of bleeding and pseudo-piracy they endorse. The reality is that most are barely getting by. It's sad to watch the richy riches of Silicon Valley steal from the artists and writers.

> the prosecution appears to have a strong case here. Controlled Digital Lending is a controversial legal theory, not something that has any clear statutory basis.

What is that based on? If you could share an expert analysis, that would be great (or do you have expertise?).

"Controlled Digital Lending is a controversial legal theory"

DiVX might like a word with you.

> is a controversial legal theory, not something that has any clear statutory basis

let the court decide that, you are essentially pronouncing judgement. Maybe "internet" or "digital" has changed the situation?

The post asked people to support IA