• darkcalling [comrade/them, she/her]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    354 months ago

    This is what idealism does to you.

    Hmm today we will openly, defiantly, and unambiguously break the law.

    Hmm we’ve gotten a legal demand to stop and a lawsuit, they say if we stop, apologize and promise never to do it again they’ll settle for a pittance but we are taking a moral stand here and believe our moral philosophical arguments hold more weight than the law as written that clearly places us unambiguously in violation of the law.

    Court proceeds to ignore their philosophical arguments and enforce bourgeois law as written

    shocked-pikachu

    This was beyond obvious as the outcome. Bourgeois courts don’t serve some public interest.

    So instead now we stand to lose an invaluable, irreplaceable archive of not just the internet over decades of time but also rare media such as movies, TV shows, music videos, and much more all also archived with them. And for what? Because someone couldn’t back down and thought that courts in the US served the common interest instead of the wealthy. Because someone forgot the golden rule of piracy and breaking IP laws and that’s keep quiet about it.

    • CyberSyndicalist [none/use name]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      124 months ago

      Naive to think the internet archive would have been fine if they backed down. Settling would have only been the thin end of the wedge as more new lawsuits flood in seeking to destroy the archive piece by piece. The bourgeois want to destroy the commons and the law is only a temporary obstacle at most.