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

Judge decides against Internet Archive

file770.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 835 posts

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#41

Post by scoot »

14 wrote: post #22
ipcress_file wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But breaking it before it has changed is risky and foolish, and does more harm than good. As I recall, this is precisely how British Columbia got Sunday shopping. Stores and shopping malls broke the law repeatedly. There were fines, but Sunday shopping was popular. Eventually, public pressure led governments to legalize Sunday opening. I didn't agree with it then and I don't fully agree with it now, but it can work…

I am from BC and the Sunday no shopping was a bit before my time but my dad talks about how stupid it was. If you had a problem and needed something in an emergency well too bad. Didn’t realize you were low on bread and forgot to get it Saturday oh well kids are not getting a sandwich in their lunches for Monday morning school. Like you say eventually people realized the fines were actually just the cost of doing bus…

> Didn’t realize you were low on bread and forgot to get it Saturday oh well kids are not getting a sandwich in their lunches for Monday morning school.

Probably not the best example, because it's not like a sandwich is the only lunch option (the lazy one for sure), but I take your point. Migraine and no painkillers, period and no pads, sex and no condom, alcoholic and no alcohol (with risk of lethal DTs)? Too bad...

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#42

Post by majormajor »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #27
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> system shouldn't require lobbying to get results that benefit the greater good It does when there is disagreement over what constitutes the greater good.

This made me chuckle pretty hard. When lobbying enters the picture there's only a small, selective group of people that are going to constitute the greater good.

I think you're referring to financial aspects of today's lobbying alone, but I think it's impossible to suggest you could have any sort of consideration of the greater good without taking into account different people's view on what that is, which means them trying to persuade you of it, which is the exact definition of lobbying.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#44

Post by jodrellblank »

14 wrote: post #22
ipcress_file wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But breaking it before it has changed is risky and foolish, and does more harm than good. As I recall, this is precisely how British Columbia got Sunday shopping. Stores and shopping malls broke the law repeatedly. There were fines, but Sunday shopping was popular. Eventually, public pressure led governments to legalize Sunday opening. I didn't agree with it then and I don't fully agree with it now, but it can work…

I am from BC and the Sunday no shopping was a bit before my time but my dad talks about how stupid it was. If you had a problem and needed something in an emergency well too bad. Didn’t realize you were low on bread and forgot to get it Saturday oh well kids are not getting a sandwich in their lunches for Monday morning school. Like you say eventually people realized the fines were actually just the cost of doing bus…

I take it your dad want a low wage retail employee working Sundays? Not sacrificing everything to the grass good consumerism isn’t “stupid”.

> “Didn’t realize you were low on bread and forgot to get it Saturday oh well kids are not getting a sandwich in their lunches for Monday morning school.”

It is possible to make bread. And to eat other things. And to buy school lunches. And to borrow or trade food with neighbours.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#46

Post by sourcecodeplz »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #19
sva_ wrote: post #5

This sucks, big time.

It does suck, but it was self-inflicted. I love the IA, I've even done volunteer work for the Physical Archive, but the "emergency library" was mad. I can't imagine how they justified it.

Locked inside with "nothing" to do, one guy probably got high and had this "revelation" that would "help" everyone else locked inside /s.

It's sad because it has muddied the image of IA and it made them look like rebels when in reality they were doing just fine flying (somewhat) under the radar.

I've also read some comments here from people saying they would possibly stop donating to the IA because of this. Because of donations, the scrutiny is 1000x more for non-profits vs regular companies.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#47

Post by boomboomsubban »

cmiles74 wrote: post #40
bawolff wrote: post #9

Wow, reading the article this seems like a clear cut case. Did IA really think they could win this? Edit: reading other sources, it seems like the crux of the idea is they would only lend out books where they had the same number of physical copies. I can see the reasoning for that, but it seems hard for fair use to get you there.

During the pandemic, libraries closed and weren't lending out physical books at all. Did the emergency policy lend more digital books than the number of physical books locked in libraries? We'll probably never know, but I think that was the logic. The scanned books are not so much fun to read, it is definitely less ergonomic than a Kindle. I would expect those using the program likely needed it.

>Did the emergency policy lend more digital books than the number of physical books locked in libraries? We'll probably never know, but I think that was the logic.

The most checked out book, The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, had ~850 check outs. I think it's safe to assume they didn't come close to the amount of physical books locked in libraries.

Not that it's very important, the pandemic policy is barely mentioned in this ruling.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#48

Post by CaptainNegative »

bawolff wrote: post #28
formerly_proven wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But breaking it before it has changed is risky and foolish, and does more harm than good. That's how most laws get abolished.

Sometimes, but its also how people end up in prison.

Precedent for federal cases is typically first set at the appellate level. If you're working your activism through the courts, you usually have to lose before you can win.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#49

Post by mardifoufs »

formerly_proven wrote: post #21
Thorentis wrote: post #2

I think most people here saw this coming. Unfortunately this isn't a question of whether the law is good, it's a question of whether IA broke the current laws we have. IA can and should lobby for copyright law to change. But breaking it before it has changed is risky and foolish, and does more harm than good.

> But breaking it before it has changed is risky and foolish, and does more harm than good. That's how most laws get abolished.

Not with such a completely one sided court case. If anything, this will probably kill the Open Libraries (lending digital books backed 1:1 by real copies of them) model of lending entirely (the court decision mentions no right to digitally lend copyrighted material). Publishers seemed to not really care about it before the IA covid library stunt, but now it might very well die.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#50

Post by bobsmooth »

jodrellblank wrote: post #44
14 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am from BC and the Sunday no shopping was a bit before my time but my dad talks about how stupid it was. If you had a problem and needed something in an emergency well too bad. Didn’t realize you were low on bread and forgot to get it Saturday oh well kids are not getting a sandwich in their lunches for Monday morning school. Like you say eventually people realized the fines were actually just the cost of doing bus…

I take it your dad want a low wage retail employee working Sundays? Not sacrificing everything to the grass good consumerism isn’t “stupid”. > “ Didn’t realize you were low on bread and forgot to get it Saturday oh well kids are not getting a sandwich in their lunches for Monday morning school. ” It is possible to make bread. And to eat other things. And to buy school lunches. And to borrow or trade food with neighbo…

> I take it your dad want a low wage retail employee working Sundays?

Is the low wages of retail workers less bad on the other days of the week?

Post reply on HN