Wikimedia removes the Diary of Anne Frank due to copyright law • Hacker News Board

Re: Wikimedia removes the Diary of Anne Frank due to copyright law

#141

Post by ensignavenger » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 3:56 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #25

magicfractal wrote: post #6

That's barbaric. That's why civil disobedience is the only adequate answer to the current overreach of copyright in the united states. It's up to us, technologists, to create and disseminate tools to help out in the dismantlement of an absurd system that is obsolete in the digital age.

This logic is the reason why we have so many archaic laws surrounding the technology. Too often our community simply decides it is easier to ignore the law in question than trying to fight it and so we withdraw ourselves from the debate. It isn't our job as technologist to build tools to circumvent the law. It is our job as technologist to educate politicians and the greater population as a whole why these issues are…

You seem to be presenting a false dichotomy. Why not do both?

Re: Wikimedia removes the Diary of Anne Frank due to copyright law

#142

Post by njharman » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 4:01 PM UTC

magicfractal wrote: post #6

That's barbaric. That's why civil disobedience is the only adequate answer to the current overreach of copyright in the united states. It's up to us, technologists, to create and disseminate tools to help out in the dismantlement of an absurd system that is obsolete in the digital age.

I'm very much against modern IP/Copyright.

But calling that barbaric is absurd hyperbole. It casts people wanting copyright reform as fringe extremists. When when I explain how much copyrights actually cover, for how long, and the extreme penalties for violations most people can't believe it (many don't, it's too absurd and conflicts with their property and profits world view. similar to how you can't convince a climate denier with facts). But, if they do, they realize that MPAA, RIAA, et al are the fringe extremists.

Re: Wikimedia removes the Diary of Anne Frank due to copyright law

#143

Post by TazeTSchnitzel » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 4:04 PM UTC

raddad wrote: post #31

https://archive.org/details/AnneFrankTheDiaryOfAYoungGirl Claims it is open source. The torrent somebody asked for: https://archive.org/download/AnneFrankTheDiaryOfAYoungGirl/A...

The license info there is almost certainly wrong. On whose authority is it Creative Commons?

If it's in the "open source" collection, I think that's just because it hasn't been moved to a different one yet by administrators.

Re: Wikimedia removes the Diary of Anne Frank due to copyright law

#144

Post by TazeTSchnitzel » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 4:07 PM UTC

poizan42 wrote: post #116

raddad wrote: post #31

https://archive.org/details/AnneFrankTheDiaryOfAYoungGirl Claims it is open source. The torrent somebody asked for: https://archive.org/download/AnneFrankTheDiaryOfAYoungGirl/A...

The Internet Archive is absolutely fearless when it comes to risk of litigation for copyright infringement. One could fear that it will be their dead.

They are indeed fearless. They have put up thousands of copyrighted video games, for example.

Re: Wikimedia removes the Diary of Anne Frank due to copyright law

#145

Post by sago » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 4:08 PM UTC

vacri wrote: post #120

sago wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Lib Dems in the UK have been fighting a similar fight for decades and still have little-to-no representation despite consistently getting 20%ish of the vote. FWIW: They were in the previous coalition government, so they got very good representation for their votes. Unfortunately their voters hated what they did, so their vote collapsed at the next election (and the party they were in government with grew in vot…

"What they did" was strike a bargain to try and fix the voting system to make it more representative in future. The two major parties combined forces to campaign against more representative voting, because they were happy when it was just the two of them. The flip side of the bargain was that they'd vote alongside whichever party took them up. Because of that bargain, they didn't really get to vote in a representativ…

> they didn't get 'good representation' anyway

They formed the government. Your original comment said they had 'little to no representation' - for a party with cabinet seets and the deputy prime minister, that's a bizarre claim.

Feel free to nuance it and segue into a discussion of FPTP, sure. I'm a Green Party member, so I need no persuasion there. But if you're a LibDem, then telling yourself you imploded because of 'striking a bargain to try and fix the voting system' is pretty self-delusional. The LibDems imploded because of their government record. They voted against the policy interests of the people who voted for them. If that's because of a bargain and sense of duty, then more fool them for getting played like a tool. No proportional representation will help with that. If they can't be trusted to stand for what they offered the electorate.

Which is all a side show from your original comment that I was responding to.

Re: Wikimedia removes the Diary of Anne Frank due to copyright law

#146

Post by phlakaton » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 4:16 PM UTC

njharman wrote: post #142

magicfractal wrote: post #6

That's barbaric. That's why civil disobedience is the only adequate answer to the current overreach of copyright in the united states. It's up to us, technologists, to create and disseminate tools to help out in the dismantlement of an absurd system that is obsolete in the digital age.

I'm very much against modern IP/Copyright. But calling that barbaric is absurd hyperbole. It casts people wanting copyright reform as fringe extremists. When when I explain how much copyrights actually cover, for how long, and the extreme penalties for violations most people can't believe it (many don't, it's too absurd and conflicts with their property and profits world view. similar to how you can't convince a clim…

They're fringe extremists who are nevertheless the appointed representatives of vast numbers of artists, producers, and heavily-monied interests.

We're a bunch of angry people.

I have no problem with people expressing the outrage of the situation in strong language.

(That being said, I too am an artist and sympathize with their plight. I wouldn't like some of you do away with copyright outright. But these laws as written are shackles and chains on our artists and culture as well.)

Re: Wikimedia removes the Diary of Anne Frank due to copyright law

#147

Post by guard-of-terra » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 4:24 PM UTC

lloyd-christmas wrote: post #140

scotty79 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or, they get threatened with loss of their seats. They get seats by spending money on campaigns. Public is easily manipulated by political marketing. The only thing that could put them out of there seats would be more money spent for a smear campaign against them. > It's a lot more gratifying to live in this conspiratorial world where a romanticized resistance against our corporate overlords is the only way, but it…

Let's play a game. It's called "NAME! YOUR! REPRESENTATIVES!!!!". We'll start with the easiest and work our way up (subjectively): 1) Who's the President? 2) Who's your Governor? 3) Who's your Mayor? 4) Who are your Senators? 5) Who's your Representative? 6) Who's your State Senator? 7) Who's your State Representative/Assembly member?* I ask these questions every time someone brings up their "The system is rigged, ma…

Sounds like a useful website to have.

Re: Wikimedia removes the Diary of Anne Frank due to copyright law

#148

Post by guard-of-terra » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 4:26 PM UTC

webkike wrote: post #71

azernik wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, they get threatened with loss of their seats. Which is accomplished by educating the population. It's a lot more gratifying to live in this conspiratorial world where a romanticized resistance against our corporate overlords is the only way, but it's not a useful mental model for actually succeeding at anything.

The fact of the matter is we've always lived in a 50/50 conspiracy world. Sure, its never as bad as the worst extreme we can think of, but its always half as bad. Not even Stalin's dictatorship, which is what 1984 is based on, was as bad as 1984.

Stalin's dictatorship was much much bloodier than what is described in 1984. Some years of it, anyway.

Both in peace time and during the war.

1984 to Stalin is what burning is to explosion.

Re: Wikimedia removes the Diary of Anne Frank due to copyright law

#149

Post by khattam » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 4:32 PM UTC

lloyd-christmas wrote: post #140

scotty79 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or, they get threatened with loss of their seats. They get seats by spending money on campaigns. Public is easily manipulated by political marketing. The only thing that could put them out of there seats would be more money spent for a smear campaign against them. > It's a lot more gratifying to live in this conspiratorial world where a romanticized resistance against our corporate overlords is the only way, but it…

Let's play a game. It's called "NAME! YOUR! REPRESENTATIVES!!!!". We'll start with the easiest and work our way up (subjectively): 1) Who's the President? 2) Who's your Governor? 3) Who's your Mayor? 4) Who are your Senators? 5) Who's your Representative? 6) Who's your State Senator? 7) Who's your State Representative/Assembly member?* I ask these questions every time someone brings up their "The system is rigged, ma…

The way system is setup, there is no way someone who cares for me is in any of those positions, because I did nothing to put them there, and nor did anyone who voted for them. They did it themselves and got help from people who they can help back.

You can waste your time knowing about these people and trying to get them to do something which you think is good for everyone even though there are powerful people who pay him to not do it, or spend the time to be one day in a position to get them to do something good for you by paying them.

I think the latter will be much more effective and long term that you don't need to know anything or anyone. You just need to find the person who has that power. When that person is no longer in power, just find the next one who is. If you never need those people, even better that you didn't spend time on any of those shitheads.

Re: Wikimedia removes the Diary of Anne Frank due to copyright law

#150

Post by Shivetya » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 4:46 PM UTC

r0muald wrote: post #119

tome wrote: post #108

Lots of rage here against the US government, little rage against the Anne Frank Fonds that actually asserts the copyright. If you really feel so strongly then go and rail against the foundation who could transfer the book into the public domain with least a million times (literally) less difficulty than it would take to get US copyright law changed to have the same effect. http://www.annefrank.ch/qa-en.html

So today rally against the Anne Frank Fonds. Tomorrow against Disney. Then what? If the law creates an artificial incentive that damages the public good, are you going to separately criticize each one of those who take advantage of that, or to ask to change the law?

there can be no public good if you deprive people of their property rights because you somehow take offense at their exercise of those rights.

While there should be some limit on how long you can retain copyright I seriously would not want it to be less than the current and following generation, if not the third.