It'll move to a different country, or its authors will be hounded down by the United States and gigantic corporations.

Working for Sony, UMG, Netflix, any media distribution group, is, as far as I'm concerned, evil. You actively work to make human existence worse. I'd have a word for their lawyers, but I'm sure they're busy being paid hundred of thousands to be sacks of shit.

Lol. Look, after having worked for most of these guys, I can assure you of something: all of them come from old money, have basically a fuck-all understanding of what IA is or does, and It wouldn't surprise me if they were playing some emulated nintendo games on AI's online emulators while being fed this bullshit lawsuit.

As a music producer once told me "it's LA man, there must be something in the water."

If you want a good idea on how these guys operate, check that Fyre Fest documentary on Netflix.

Do you know what they do understand? Lawyers. The same lawyers that told them to sue the Archive because they can make more cash this way (or not, it's not really a cause of concern of their lawyers other than making them spend more money) will tell them to stop keep pushing for a lawsuit once they realize they can lose a lot more money they were planning to make and they have to skip this month trip to Thailand or something.

we'll lose it like the great library of alexander

Or like gigapedia : https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2012/3/1/the-disappearing...

Few people remember that. But losing it was such a shame.

The great library was lost by abandon not fire. That's a really strongly held belief that's hard to debunk unfortunately.

I think you mean Alexandria.

There were actually two libraries. Alexandria was the better known of the two, so it always drowns out the search results, but the Library of Alexander has a long and storied history. https://www.alexander.lib.ia.us/

Still a shadow of its former self though.

Imagine a mixture of 1984: Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.

On the specifics of the lawsuit.. well if the law us bad, then change the law. But not following the law is not nice.

In principle, not following an unjust law is a moral obligation. Yes, you can argue the edge cases. I also agree that there's some good in obeying a particular law even if it is a little bad (to uphold respect for law in general).

This doesn't refute the general principle though - unjust laws should be broken. Historically enough repulsive stuff was mandated by law.

> On the specifics of the lawsuit.. well if the law us bad, then change the law.

The March on Selma and Greensboro Lunch Counter Sit-ins agree with you.

> But not following the law is not nice.

The March on Selma and Greensboro Lunch Counter Sit-ins disagree with you.

Those who have the power will never give it up. If they DO give it up, be afraid, be very afraid as they have moved on to a bigger power, and let you have the old rusty one.

I do insist about the power of the Law. And I do insist that we should either respect or change a law. An unfair law should not exist.

But we should never make law voluntary. But that's my opinion, it's not the Law :)

Tbh that's how cliques on wikipedia work.

There are cases when 2 admins "guard" an article and no user can change them. Worst is that wikimedia foundation takes tens of millions and doesnt even bother to spend anything to defend wikipedia from that.

Sometimes civil disobedience ins the only way to change unjust laws.