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

241–250 of 275 posts

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

#241

Post by bawolff »

bluesign wrote: post #238
bawolff wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is an interesting analogy (maybe even better would be bus fare for a city bus). However marginal cost is not zero for the airline. Fuel costs money. There are limited seats on the plane. The marginal cost of copying a digital book is actually zero. However, even if marginal cost was 0 (lets say a movie theatre that is empty), it does somehow still seem wrong if its physical in a way i can't easily distin…

Problem is audience, if we had unlimited number audience, maybe marginal cost would be zero. In current situation, cost of production (including labor), is shared with intended audience. Imagine a edge case, I am writing a book to a very specific audience, lets say only 100 people would be interested. I spent lets say 100 usd. So basically cost for each reader will be 1 usd. Or maybe you developing a SaaS app, would…

> Even the marginal cost of production/copying is zero, actual marginal cost is not.

??? I'm confused. You seem to be redefining the term marginal cost to mean the opposite of what its normal definition is.

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

#242

Post by zaarn »

WalterBright wrote: post #228
Thorentis wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a big supporter of copyright reform. However, I think we do need some nuance when it comes to comparing OSS and multimedia/creative work. On OSS, the only people working on it are people that a) volunteer to work on it b) people that are paid by a larger organisation to work on it (e.g. given x hours/week to work on OSS). In film/TV, people do not volunteer to act, or edit footage, or operate cameras. Yes, there…

> But big budget AAA effects cost money, and somebody has to pay for them. On the other hand, why does society need movies that cost $100 million to make? (Much of that being what the stars cost.) > In film/TV, people do not volunteer to act, or edit footage, or operate cameras. Programmers didn't do it much for free before OSS. > Yes, there are indie films, and indie creators. They're all over YouTube. Exactly. > Th…

>On the other hand, why does society need movies that cost $100 million to make? (Much of that being what the stars cost.)

I personally like some of these big budget movies.

This reminds me of when I was talking on reddit about OSS games and if it would work if everyone did OSS games. I countered to another comment that modern games require a lot of money because artists have to put in a lot of work to make the music and textures and images, coders have to put out a lot of lines of code, etc.

To which the reply was "I don't like these games anyway, I prefer text-based games without any of that."

That reply isn't wrong per-se, it just misses the target. Maybe you question why it's necessary or you simply don't enjoy them. But other people do and taking away something they enjoy needs to be weighed against why you're taking it away.

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

#243

Post by bluesign »

bawolff wrote: post #241
bluesign wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is audience, if we had unlimited number audience, maybe marginal cost would be zero. In current situation, cost of production (including labor), is shared with intended audience. Imagine a edge case, I am writing a book to a very specific audience, lets say only 100 people would be interested. I spent lets say 100 usd. So basically cost for each reader will be 1 usd. Or maybe you developing a SaaS app, would…

> Even the marginal cost of production/copying is zero, actual marginal cost is not. ??? I'm confused. You seem to be redefining the term marginal cost to mean the opposite of what its normal definition is.

Sorry for confusion, second marginal was mistake, I meant even marginal cost is zero, actual cost is not.

My main point is even marginal cost is zero, there is another cost ignored (saas service example)

If you are ok with to pay 0 when marginal cost is 0, you should be ok to pay X when marginal cost is X. Then this justifies for you to pay marginal cost only.

So if we move to physical world, I can say I paid for one iPhone, but if marginal cost of iPhone is half price, so If I bought one, I can steal one.

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

#244

Post by Thorentis »

WalterBright wrote: post #228
Thorentis wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a big supporter of copyright reform. However, I think we do need some nuance when it comes to comparing OSS and multimedia/creative work. On OSS, the only people working on it are people that a) volunteer to work on it b) people that are paid by a larger organisation to work on it (e.g. given x hours/week to work on OSS). In film/TV, people do not volunteer to act, or edit footage, or operate cameras. Yes, there…

> But big budget AAA effects cost money, and somebody has to pay for them. On the other hand, why does society need movies that cost $100 million to make? (Much of that being what the stars cost.) > In film/TV, people do not volunteer to act, or edit footage, or operate cameras. Programmers didn't do it much for free before OSS. > Yes, there are indie films, and indie creators. They're all over YouTube. Exactly. > Th…

> Programmers didn't do it much for free before OSS.

Yes they did. Most people started their programming careers by doing it for free at home. The 70s and 80s was full of people working on coding projects and sharing it with friends. This is what the OSS movement was born out of.

The reason people don't make high quality films as much for free, is because the equipment and much more expensive. And it also requires a coolocated team. It's just a very different ball game, and I don't think you can compare them.

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

#245

Post by Chris2048 »

WalterBright wrote: post #228
Thorentis wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a big supporter of copyright reform. However, I think we do need some nuance when it comes to comparing OSS and multimedia/creative work. On OSS, the only people working on it are people that a) volunteer to work on it b) people that are paid by a larger organisation to work on it (e.g. given x hours/week to work on OSS). In film/TV, people do not volunteer to act, or edit footage, or operate cameras. Yes, there…

> But big budget AAA effects cost money, and somebody has to pay for them. On the other hand, why does society need movies that cost $100 million to make? (Much of that being what the stars cost.) > In film/TV, people do not volunteer to act, or edit footage, or operate cameras. Programmers didn't do it much for free before OSS. > Yes, there are indie films, and indie creators. They're all over YouTube. Exactly. > Th…

> why does society need movies that cost $100 million to make?

Why don't they need them? Who decides what is worthy?

The best answer is - the market. Ignore these movies and they might as well not exist for you.

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

#246

Post by Chris2048 »

bawolff wrote: post #223
xhkkffbf wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if I just borrow your car when you're sleeping? You lose nothing. What if I break into your house and use your TV while you're at work? You lose nothing. What if I set up a tent on your lawn and take it down whenever you want to play frisbee? You lose nothing. What if I grab some girl's butt at a dance club? She loses nothing. As you can see, requiring an act to explicitly deprive someone of property is a slippe…

> What if I set up a tent on your lawn and take it down whenever you want to play frisbee? You lose nothing. Much of northern europe has a "freedom to roam" making this explicitly legal and acceptable (within certain limits). Nobody is saying that all law should be based in property. There are plenty of laws that aren't based in property and that is ok. E.g., we don't say murder is wrong because it deprives someone o…

> Much of northern Europe has a "freedom to roam"

I think this usually applies to large parks, forests and beaches etc; not residential lawns

> there are many examples of "borrowing" that are considered acceptable

can you give examples? of acceptable borrowing without consent, or in direct opposition to consent.

> Society is not under a general responsibility to make people money

What are the general responsibilities of society?

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

#247

Post by 38e7eeeh »

hyko wrote: post #57

How do we back up the Internet Archive? If they lose this case then it will be like losing The Great Library of Alexandria. This is our culture. This is our heritage! Edited to add: when I say “back up”, I mean preserve the data and the archival mission (minus the legal quagmires). The technical challenges can be solved, and we should do this before it’s too late. It seems there was a previous effort, but it has lost…

Seriously, how will people carry on their lives without the IA? Unfathomable.

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

#248

Post by SirSavary »

aaron695 wrote: post #185
loughnane wrote: post #96

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…

You missed the step a lot of us believe this law is moral. So this isn't about not following unmoral laws. More so, on top of this, many people also think it's ok in some circumstance to break moral laws. If someone steals food they need, then many people think that's ok. If someone breaks copyright when they wouldn't have normally payed for the product, then some people also think this is ok. But I think this is non…

Right, but in this scenario Walmart is closed and the people want food.

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

#249

Post by 6510 »

waterhouse wrote: post #138
dctoedt wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're channeling Thomas Jefferson, who himself channeled a Zoroastrian idea. Jefferson said: "... no one possesses the less because everyone possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me receives [it] without lessening [me], as he who lights his [candle] at mine receives light without darkening me." [0] The flaw in this concept is the free-rider problem: 1. Not all new IP can be created as a side projec…

There are free-rider problems everywhere. From a "rights" perspective, the fact that you can see a free-rider problem and have an idea for some kind of law that you think would improve incentives doesn't justify using legal force to impose these changes on everyone else. But I'm not sure how many people there are these days for whom a "rights" argument carries weight. For a more empirical approach, I think it's worth…

Very good stuff to read. I'm sure many like me came to the same conclusion on a [shall we say] more emotional level where a few good examples are enough to tip the scale. That book really demolish the monopoly rights from a functional perspective. An argument much more convincing for those who still think patents have merit.

Prince applauded Napster and said people could finally go back to making music for the sake of making music.

I personally don't consider any entertainment important enough to play a role in the design of society. As long as people are working themselves to death merely to sustain themselves they shouldn't be made to pay for your entertainment in any way.

That it also doesn't make any technical sense never truly occurred to me.

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

#250

Post by jjcon »

teawrecks wrote: post #178
gpm wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm beginning to think you actually just don't know what "the wrong side of the law" means. Here is the definition https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/on%20the%20wrong%... Exercising their first amendment rights to support an organization that broke the law is unequivocally legal, a healthy part of society, and not on the wrong side of the law.

Fwiw I think everything you're saying makes perfect sense. Regardless of the plaintiff and defendant's cases, the lawyers are there to ensure the judicial system is fair to the best of their ability. IA might be wrong, but EFF and their legal team are there to make sure they are fairly represented.

Nice alt
Post reply on HN