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

EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 275 posts

Re: EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

#121

Post by gpm »

jjcon wrote: post #101
gpm wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it isn't. By saying the EFF is on the wrong side of the law you are implying that they are acting badly, this is simply not the case and needs correcting. There is a reason why falsley accusing someone of a crime is libel in and of itself and is actionable under the law regardless of damages, I don't think this quite reaches that standard, but it is damn close.

EFF IS on the wrong side of the law. Yes everyone deserves a defense but you yourself admitted IA was in the wrong and EFF is choosing to go to bat for them.

No. As explained above acting as legal council for someone who has broken the law does not make you yourself be "on the wrong side of the law".

Re: EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

#122

Post by gpm »

jjcon wrote: post #115
__s wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read their argument in the context of legal proceedings after the defendant pleads guilty The lawyer is still on the right side of the law after the plea

A defense attorney defending a guilty criminal doesn’t typically pledge financial and moral support and state publically that they are proud to stand with them (not for, with). EFF is tying themselves to IA far beyond just acting purely as a legal representative.

Taking a political stance that the existing law is bad is not only not illegal, but it is one of the few things that is very explicitly legal. Doing so does not put you on the wrong side of the law. This includes when your political actions involve making statements in support of, defending and funding the legal defense of those who have broken the law.

Re: EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

#123

Post by myself248 »

garmaine wrote: post #105

Well EFF won’t be getting any more donations from me, just like I cut off IA when they started this. Don’t ask for money to fight a legal battle where you are so obviously in the (legal) wrong.

How do you go about challenging a corrupt and unjust law, then?

Re: EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

#124

Post by gpm »

izacus wrote: post #113
gpm wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you broke the law you don't just role over and give the other side whatever they want. They're inevitable going to ask for more compensation than they are entitled to (why wouldn't they), and you need to push back to make the penalty fair. That's just how our legal system is set up to work. The EFF is on the right side of the law the same way a lawyer for a criminal is. The lawyer (eff) is fulfilling a necess…

Please stop equating owners of IA and EFF with criminals - copyright infringmenent is nowhere near equivalent to actual crimes that cause harm. It's a disgusting rhetoric that was paid for by rent seeking publishers.

I am merely making the analogy to such lawyers, not attempting to call them criminals. Sorry if I came off as doing otherwise.

That said, while not in this case (I think), copyright infringement is in many for profit contexts criminal under the laws of the United States.

Re: EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

#125

Post by shuntress »

dangerlibrary wrote: post #82
WaltPurvis wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worse than that. They're violating copyrights, i.e., stealing, and then saying "if you don't want us to steal from you, we have an opt out form you can fill out." EDIT: People are downvoting this because I equated violating copyrights to stealing, which is odd because US law explicitly defines copyright infringement as stealing property. That's not debatable; it's a simple fact. (A fact that apparently bothers s…

Violating copyright and stealing are fundamentally different things. If I steal your tv, you no longer have a TV. If I pirate a book, all existing copies of the book still exist. If you price a book above what I'm willing to pay for it, I'm never going to buy it. Ever. If my willingness to pay is "$0", then you can't even argue that the creator has lost revenue if I pirate it. I was never going to buy it - it's too e…

By spending the time to acquire and consume a copy of the content you have proven that your willingness to pay is above "$0".

Granted, perhaps not _much_ above 0. But still evidently above 0.

edit: Even if your "consumption" is merely acquiring and storing (or even acquiring and immediately discarding)

Re: EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

#126

Post by bluesign »

Gaelan wrote: post #84

[I typed this up as a reply to a comment that has now been flagged. I think it's a conversation worth having, so I'm putting it at the top level instead.] I'd argue that "intellectual property" is fundamentally different from physical property, and can't really be "stolen" per se. If I steal your car, I have a car and you don't have a car. If I "steal" your book, we both have the book. I'm better off, and you're no w…

I think another analogy can be better.

Imagine I want to fly somewhere, plane is half empty, I am going there and sitting. Don’t have ticket. (Imagining no enforcement)

Should I? Eventually this plane will fly there, my effect on cost is ignorable, I will be better, airline will not be worse.

Re: EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

#127

Post by jjcon »

gpm wrote: post #121
jjcon wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EFF IS on the wrong side of the law. Yes everyone deserves a defense but you yourself admitted IA was in the wrong and EFF is choosing to go to bat for them.

No. As explained above acting as legal council for someone who has broken the law does not make you yourself be "on the wrong side of the law".

And as I said - EFF isn’t acting as blind legal council - they are tying themselves to IA even saying they are proud to stand with them and pledging financial support for them. This is totally different from a public defender being elected for a citizen. I didn’t say it was illegal for EFF to do this or that they were breaking the law, I said they were on the wrong side of the law.

Re: EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

#128

Post by zozbot234 »

gamblor956 wrote: post #116
pitaj wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I imagine there's been measurable harm to our society's cultural and scientific advancement because copyright forces us to recreate others' work instead of building off of it. Part of that harm is in creating monopolistic entities like Youtube because only big players can take on big media. If Youtube didn't have contentID they'd be sued into the ground by the publishers. > But what does that world look like? Quite…

Those monetization options pay less than you think they do for the vast majority of creators. The US copyright regime has been responsible for an amazing exponential growth in IP creation because creators are financially incentivized to create.

> Those monetization options pay less than you think they do for the vast majority of creators.

Traditional publishing has the same issue to a far greater extent, due to the inherent barriers to entry in that model. Something like Kickstarter or Patreon is actually far more equitable. (Bearing in mind that this sort of content provision is very much a superstar sector, with a handful of unicorns and lots and lots of also-rans, so "more equitable" is still quite relative!)

Re: EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

#130

Post by thrownaway954 »

Gaelan wrote: post #84

[I typed this up as a reply to a comment that has now been flagged. I think it's a conversation worth having, so I'm putting it at the top level instead.] I'd argue that "intellectual property" is fundamentally different from physical property, and can't really be "stolen" per se. If I steal your car, I have a car and you don't have a car. If I "steal" your book, we both have the book. I'm better off, and you're no w…

"If I steal your car, I have a car and you don't have a car. If I "steal" your book, we both have the book. I'm better off, and you're no worse off. In an "ideal" society, the free sharing of knowledge would be not just allowed, but encouraged."

you are so wrong in this mentality. the bottom line is, that someone took the time and energy to write and publish that book to make money, so that person should be paid. with your mentality, it can be argued the same as downloading a movie or a song or an application. now... aren't all those things illegal and a form of stealing??? so why is downloading a book any different?

i really think that alot of people just don't think things though before they open their mouth and this is one time where you should have thought through your answer instead of jumping on the "knowledge should be free" bandwagon.

Post reply on HN