Kendra Albert
Role at the time: Technology lawyer, speaking personally
Condemned
Statement summary
Albert argues that the Copyright Office did not seriously engage with evidence against market harm.
“I do believe we made the best case we could that scholarly access to video games *that are not commercially available* does not harm the market. I do not believe that this evidence was seriously engaged with by the Copyright Office.”
Read the original post (opens in a new tab)Kendra Albert criticizes the evidence assessment in the game-preservation decision · Kendra AlbertPost 3l7e3h6rzy52y
Kendra Albert's post comments on rejecting expanded controlled remote research access to preserved video games. The post was published in October 2024.
Why we used this label
Relative to the decision to refuse remote research access, Albert argues that the Copyright Office did not seriously engage with evidence that scholarly access would not harm the market.