Live data from Hacker News

EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

torrentfreak.com

211–220 of 275 posts

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

#211

I recognize some of the names here. This will be a case to watch, which ever way it goes the constructions allowed here will percolate through the law for years to come. This case hinges on the exact wording of the law that authorizes the National Emergency Library. IIRC, it basically gives copyright impunity during a declared national emergency. As far as I am aware, the coronavirus declared national emergency is st…

Isn't the income stream mostly donations, and is getting publicity from being targeted by unpopular entities a great way to get more donations?

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

#212
EFF - lawyers with good intentions, a bad legal case and bad facts.

vs.

Publishers - lawyers with good intentions, a good legal case and good facts.

IA = good. IA's library service = bad.

--

Simply put, IA will lose this case* while publicly saying they "won" the case when a settlement is reached where IA keeps the service shutdown (as it is now) and avoids paying infringement fees (publishers are not trying to shutdown the IA)

(e.g. IA arguing its service is a public good, because libraries failed to provide access during COVID, when in reality public libraries dramatically increased online access during COVID)

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

#213

It's well established at this point that IA took a big misstep here and is too important and singular an entity to run afoul of current laws. To those who think IA is wrong not just tactically but morally on the basis of "violating the law", I'd like you to consider the following: Unjust laws exist. - Shall we be content to obey them? - Shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded? - Shall w…

[deleted]

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

#214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If something is beneficial for everyone involved, why should it be illegal?

how old are you? teenagers think like that.

Everybody thinks like that. Illegal acts should cause harm, not benefit everyone.

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

#215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a lot of supposing. Suppose instead if piracy wasn't an option the poster just played free games instead, or did something else with their time. > but it's also probably not "buy zero games". In this scenario, the poster may very well not have a credit card (because what's the point if you have no income, also a minor), so it might very we be the case he was physically unable to purchase these games online, es…

"the maximum amount I could theoretically spend on games per year? $120" For someone who complains about the quantity of my supposing, it's strange that you are supposing counterfactuals explicitly rejected by the OP.

Max theoretically i can spend (sum of all my income after basic needs met) != max i will spend on video games. In fact, it would be insane to assume that i would spend 100% of my disposible income on one thing.

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

#216
post #207
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…

Did You Say “Intellectual Property”? It's a Seductive Mirage https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html

I'm aware of that article. My comment doesn't really pertain to trademarks, but I think my comment pertains equally well to copyright and patent laws. While it may be true that US law treats them differently, they are fundamentally the same thing—a mechanism to reward work that results in ideas, not tangible objects—and it often makes sense to discuss them at the same time, especially when we're broadly discussing how they should be handled as opposed to to the specifics of how US law handles them now.

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

#217
post #98
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'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. I agree that theft of digital goods is not equivalent to physical goods but abolition of copyright does not follow from that fact nor does it follow that theft of intellectual property is not possible. I also agree this is an important conversation to have. The whole idea around c…

"The whole idea around copyright is to encourage the creation of intellectual property. If there is a fundamentally better way to do it that idea should flourish but I have yet to hear a realistic alternative."

How about a basic income so the artists stop starving?

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

#218
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. wit…

> 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.

Respectfully, if the original poster didn't think things through, you should be able to come up with a counter argument that goes beyond just asserting s/he is wrong. Something that appeals to some sort of underlying principle.

For non-intellectual property most justifications rest on, there is only 1 car, we can't both have it. Seems like it is most fair it belongs to the entity who made it (or for things in nature first to find), who can then trade it to other people. This argument rests on the notion "we can't both exclusively use something" which doesn't apply to ideas. The foundation for why intellectual property makes sense (in a philosophical sense) is much less clear, is a much more modern invention, and most of the time seems much more akin to the gov giving a tax benefit than to a natural right.

>"it can be argued the same as downloading a movie or a song or an application."

I don't think anyone is disputing this. I certainly think movies, songs and programs should be treated the same as books.

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

#219
post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Illegal does not equal immoral; copying does not equal stealing. Piracy of songs, movies, and applications actually improves sales, according to a study that the European Union funded and then tried to keep from getting published: https://gizmodo.com/the-eu-suppressed-a-300-page-study-that-... The law shouldn't guarantee you a successful business model. If you believe in capitalism, this should be self-evident. If yo…

"Piracy of songs, movies, and applications actually improves sales, according to a study that the European Union funded and then tried to keep from getting published" doesn't mean anything. it's still illegal.

People are arguing for what should be, not what is. In that context it doesn't matter what happens to be illegal right now. Laws do change over time - and intellectual property is a relatively recent invention compared to normal property.

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

#220
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 the dilemma is more important than how we do the copyright laws right now. Sharing is always better as a model, it demands less restrictions for one, less oversight. I don't have a number how much the world population have grown since the laws were inacted, but it's at least in the 10 fold? What works on a "small" number of people might not scale. We as programmers know that. So what gives if everyone wants to be a millionare, which in a sense promotes that ignoring values/others around is a good idea if you yourself get a good life. In an ironic twist the most shared idea is the one that anyone could be rich, and that it is a good thing to be much richer than those around you.

So, what is a good life? I don't see living in a mansion or castle as a good way of life if measured that way. I rather see it how many people I can help along during my stay here, that's my measurement. Of course I absolutely hate copyright and the notion of IP.

Maybe the laws and lengths are good for the life views that people have right now. But maybe there's other incentives than the Right to the work, maybe good work could be measured in an other sense and rewarded more directly in your community. Globalisation when done badly is so bad for us since the ones in that bubble optimize for their own profit instead of the greater good (which is the best scenario in long sight).

Maybe I'm weird, but I am soo tired of the idea that we should only focus on ourselves all the time. Get good ideas out that will solve big problem, reward those that produce those ideas and those that want to do the miles. Less of the, look I changed color of this thing and now I got a patent on it and I will sue you. Reward ideas that makes sharing easier. We as a planet just don't have the time if we want to make it as a whole.

Post reply on HN