[flagged]
If you cannot or will not consider what an archive is legally defined as, you cannot discuss in good faith about archives, archivists, or the act of archiving.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/108
> it is *not an infringement of copyright* for a library or archives
Emphasis is mine here. The OPs link does not define what an archive is or isn't, it defines constraints on an archive or library such that it doesn't infringe on copyright according to US law.
To conclude that the IA is not operating an archive because they might be infringing on some copyrights according to US law is fallacious thinking.
The Internet Archive quite clearly does not abide by those exceptions, and as such they are infringing copyright and not an archive protected by these laws.
If the Internet Archive (or anyone and anything for that matter) wants to spend my tax dollars, they can start by first abiding by the laws and regulations of the legal jurisdiction they reside in, in this case the USA's.
> An archive very clearly means something very specific
What you perhaps meant to say was:
"An archive that infringes US copyright laws should not be afforded protections under US law"
Most people, myself included, took issue with the way you dismissed IA as not being an archive altogether; it clearly is an archive and whether or not it infringes US copyright law does not change that fact.
Whether it should be protected by law is a different matter.
Internet Archive goes far beyond that and I stand by my claim that it is not an archive.
This does not apply to unreleased work. If you create something and keep it private, I don't consider you to have a moral obligation to ensure your work eventually becomes public domain. If you do distribute that work to the public, at that point I do consider you to have that obligation, and if you won't do it, then someone else has every right to ensure that the public will gain ownership of the work at the appropriate time of copyright expiration.
To be frank with you, it seems to me like this organization did something that is counter to your politics, and so you refuse to acknowledge the obvious reality that engaging in archival activity makes them an archive (to all the world if not you personally). I don't think you're speaking from a place of interest in preserving cultural and historic artefacts, it would appear your interest is in lashing out at them because you have chosen to view them as your ideological enemies.
And I think that's a shame, and not compatible with the goal of curious discussion. I think you ought to be able to express your disapproval without taking these ontological liberties. The other commenter's suggestion ("they shouldn't be protected by the law") is a good example.
Well, then, most files that call themselves archives can't be legal under that definition. Wipe your computer of every archive you've downloaded, that would also include Linux ISO files.
Even librarians (my husband being head librarian for a city library) shake their head at this, and they're trained in databases and archives and related materials as a matter of profession, some to a higher degree than some CS students.
That is one of the more, if not most, flagrant demonstrations of the Internet Archive not understanding what an archive is. There's more where that came from, including stuff like their one:many digital book lending program.
The law stipulates what an archive/library is and how they are protected from certain copyright prosecutions. The Internet Archive does not abide them, and thus I would absolutely not want my tax dollars sent their way. If they want to engage in flagrant piracy and political activism, they can do so on their own dime.
What's that adage? If you don't want it on the internet, don't put it there? The internet is basically one giant interconnected archive.
Note that redistribution isn't among them, and as such copyright doesn't apply because there is no copying for copyright to be concerned with. Aside from copying that must occur as a practical matter of archiving, of course, which are protected by the exceptions I cited.
This is why I said archives may not be directly available to the public, because once you start redistributing you are beholden to copyright regulations and otherwise the demands of rightsholders thereof. The very fact we can access that page freely is proof that the Internet Archive is not an archive.
Libraries, specifically those that aren't private libraries which are a form of archive, such as public libraries and institutions like the Library of Congress operate abiding copyright. Either by signing contracts with rightsholders permitting such redistribution or by adhering to the exceptions provided by copyright laws.
In other words: No, the Internet Archive is not an archive; they either don't know what an archive is, or more likely they are disingenuously calling themselves an archive to try and skirt the law which is unacceptable particularly if someone is proposing funding them with public monies.
For the record, I have no personal qualms with the Internet Archive dealing in pirated goods if they are honest about it. They will still reap the books thrown at them anyway, but honesty is a virtue. I do have a problem with them claiming to be an archive or even a library and serving a public good: Hell no they are not, fucking liars they are.