Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Activists rally to save Internet Archive as lawsuit threatens site

decrypt.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 409 posts

Re: Activists rally to save Internet Archive as lawsuit threatens site

#271

Post by JoshTriplett »

wriq wrote: post #264
jedberg wrote: post #260

The more interesting thing here is the "controlled digital lending" test case that will almost certainly come of all of this. If they somehow prevail on that aspect and set a legal precedent there, that would resolve a lot of issues for a lot of companies. For example, Netflix could stream every movie ever, as long as they bought enough DVDs for peak demand. Or those companies that would set up 1000 TV antennas in a…

"Or those companies that would set up 1000 TV antennas in a datacenter and then stream" I believe Aereo tried just that and failed - https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/06/25/325488386...

They didn't fail, they were sued out of business. They had a good, innovative product that people wanted, and they got killed by a lawsuit. This is the tradeoff we're making when we grant more exclusive privileges over works: we kill innovations like these, and we get...probably not any more creative works than we would have gotten otherwise.

Re: Activists rally to save Internet Archive as lawsuit threatens site

#272

Post by musicale »

> Controlled digital lending is a legal framework, developed by copyright experts, where one reader at a time can read a digitized copy of a legally owned library book.

And digital downloading is a communication framework, developed by technology experts, where an unlimited number of readers can read the same digital library book at the same time.

Re: Activists rally to save Internet Archive as lawsuit threatens site

#273

Post by JoshTriplett »

miles wrote: post #268
intopieces wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When America fixes copyright to be life of the author only, I will agree with your concerns.

Life of the author seems potentially too short. What if an author is struck down early? Shouldn't their family left behind be able to enjoy some of the profits for a period of time?

Indeed. A fixed duration would be preferable for that and many other reasons.

Re: Activists rally to save Internet Archive as lawsuit threatens site

#274

Post by kempbellt »

6510 wrote: post #219

Yeah, its only 10 PB, why don't we p2p a copy? 1000 people with 10 TB to spare wouldn't work but 50 000 storing 100-400 GB each would be managable. 50 k pp is ofc nothing and probably not even enough to get it done before everyone gets bored. (you know who you are) Tubing it into the boxes would be the hard part. Most wouldn't need to do much more than contribute bandwidth and temp storage. Why isn't file coin done?

The archive is closer to 60PB - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23485594

So, more like 300,000 people storing 200GB, which is quite a tall order to fill.

Re: Activists rally to save Internet Archive as lawsuit threatens site

#275

Post by ghaff »

jedberg wrote: post #260

The more interesting thing here is the "controlled digital lending" test case that will almost certainly come of all of this. If they somehow prevail on that aspect and set a legal precedent there, that would resolve a lot of issues for a lot of companies. For example, Netflix could stream every movie ever, as long as they bought enough DVDs for peak demand. Or those companies that would set up 1000 TV antennas in a…

>Or those companies that would set up 1000 TV antennas in a datacenter and then stream the signal.

Aereo lost their case at the SCOTUS level. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo

IANAL, but I have trouble believing that the number of antennas matters. (And I assume Aereo tried every workaround they could think of. Although I believe there's another case at the moment with another organization trying a non-profit loophole.)

But, yes, at the moment it seems as if the IA has let the genie out of the bottle and may well force a ruling on something that the publishers were willing to let slide given the limited impact.

Re: Activists rally to save Internet Archive as lawsuit threatens site

#276

Post by nordsieck »

saikia81 wrote: post #105
nordsieck wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you want to establish a legal precedent, you can't just go to a court and ask them to. Courts only hear "cases and controversies" -- to establish what the law is, you have to get somebody to sue you. > The reason this could bankrupt them is mostly because they don't have a lot of money. Their net assets are only a couple million dollars. They have to raise more than that every year just to keep operating. Are yo…

They can count on support from many. Maybe they have a plan.

> They can count on support from many. Maybe they have a plan.

I've looked at the complaint, and I've lived through the Napster trial. It would be one thing if they had a good case and just needed funds to make it through the trial. That's not what's going on here.

When you mix statutory copyright violation with digital technology, you get infinite fines. Any money you donate is going to the book publishers at the end of the day.

Re: Activists rally to save Internet Archive as lawsuit threatens site

#277

Post by musicale »

miles wrote: post #268
intopieces wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When America fixes copyright to be life of the author only, I will agree with your concerns.

Life of the author seems potentially too short. What if an author is struck down early? Shouldn't their family left behind be able to enjoy some of the profits for a period of time?

Copyright is a temporary monopoly granted to incentivize the creation of new works, for the benefit of the public.

As you suggest, a time-based copyright term (such as the original Copyright Act term of 14 years with a single renewal) would preserve this incentive even for authors who expect they might die before the end of the term.

Re: Activists rally to save Internet Archive as lawsuit threatens site

#278

Post by mcguire »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #27

I warned about this very outcome when they announced the initiative [0]. The Internet Archive is too big and too important to gamble on this short term of a win (giving everyone free and unlimited access to all books for a few months at most). Assuming the organization continues to exist after this ordeal, their entire board should step down for putting at risk one of the most invaluable archives in existence. I’m an…

"I’m an executive board member for a much smaller IRL non-profit and could never imagine opening us up to such liabilities."

Most non-profits, like almost all organizations, have the primary goal of continuing to exist as an organization, not do whatever charitable ideals they purport to support.

Re: Activists rally to save Internet Archive as lawsuit threatens site

#279

Post by MR4D »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #271
wriq wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Or those companies that would set up 1000 TV antennas in a datacenter and then stream" I believe Aereo tried just that and failed - https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/06/25/325488386...

They didn't fail, they were sued out of business. They had a good, innovative product that people wanted, and they got killed by a lawsuit. This is the tradeoff we're making when we grant more exclusive privileges over works: we kill innovations like these, and we get...probably not any more creative works than we would have gotten otherwise.

But they did fail.

The Supreme Court ruling is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-461_l537.pdf

Re: Activists rally to save Internet Archive as lawsuit threatens site

#280

Post by ghaff »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #271
wriq wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Or those companies that would set up 1000 TV antennas in a datacenter and then stream" I believe Aereo tried just that and failed - https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/06/25/325488386...

They didn't fail, they were sued out of business. They had a good, innovative product that people wanted, and they got killed by a lawsuit. This is the tradeoff we're making when we grant more exclusive privileges over works: we kill innovations like these, and we get...probably not any more creative works than we would have gotten otherwise.

>They had a good, innovative product

They had a product that involved giving away other people's stuff. Yes, copyright terms are too long. But I'm pretty sure that a vanishingly small amount of that stuff they were giving away would be out of copyright even with a copyright term of 20 years.

Post reply on HN