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

61–70 of 835 posts

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#61

Post by pncnmnp »

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.

Just to clarify, what are the consequences of their actions? It appears to be a clear case of copyright infringement. Therefore, I assume that the legal penalties listed on this website (https://www.lib.purdue.edu/uco/infringement) can be applied in this case:

- The infringer paying the monetary damages and profits.

- The law offering a range from $200 to $150,000 for each infringed work.

- The infringer paying for all lawyers' fees and court costs.

Is it more likely for the case to be resolved outside the court? I am worried about their future.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#62

Post by RedCondor »

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.

It's a little amusing to compare the reactions here to Internet Archive breaking the law ("The law is the law…") to Uber/AirBnB breaking the law ("Newcomers challenging the system! Ambitious, bold disruption!").

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#63

Post by serf »

jijji wrote: post #52
trinsic2 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I have to agree copying entire works and lending them out is probably not the best idea. I wonder how Google got away with the same though.

how does a library get away with it.... they have to purchase the book first? is that how it works? how is internet archive different from a library, A lot of libraries are online right now and do the same thing.... It seems like a real harm if internet archive is forced offline because of a decision like this

that still doesn't really explain Google's position.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#64

Post by kelseyfrog »

majormajor wrote: post #17
alexfromapex wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The system shouldn't require lobbying to get results that benefit the greater good

How would that be accomplished? What are the options here? 1) an elected legislature that's supposed to consider the greater good? 2) a generally non-elected judiciary that is supposed to consider the greater good to override the legislature? 3) a hopefully-benevolent dictator to consider the greater good? Obviously any of these methods can fail; the first of them is the easiest to "edit," as it were. Things like ter…

We're kinda taught that we choose representatives which reflect our values through the process of election and that those elected officials should they not reflect our values, are at the mercy of the electorate in the next election.

Instead, few elections are competitive and the representation happens through the lobbying process.

In short, the accountability story we're taught isn't true and money talks more than votes. It's this bait and switch that has the unintended consequence of fueling populism and the disbelief that representatives represent us, and that institutions work.

Here's a dumb idea. Create and advocate for a congressional proportional representation interstate compact in the same vein as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact[1]. Then advocate for pooled campaign financing as a function of proportional representation[2].

The nice thing about interstate compacts is that they can eventually capture a majority given election variability over time. They divide and conquer the problem into actionable tasks that effectively aggregate.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...

2. purposefully being vague. what would softmax(T>>1) look like, for instance?

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#65

Post by iudqnolq »

RedCondor wrote: post #62
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.

It's a little amusing to compare the reactions here to Internet Archive breaking the law ("The law is the law…") to Uber/AirBnB breaking the law ("Newcomers challenging the system! Ambitious, bold disruption!").

I'm sad the IA put good work like the wayback machine at risk. I hate Uber/AirBnB, but they at least correctly predicted they'd get away with it.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#66

Post by crazygringo »

trinsic2 wrote: post #4
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.

Yeah I have to agree copying entire works and lending them out is probably not the best idea. I wonder how Google got away with the same though.

Google never did? Google Books does that with public domain books only.

Copyrighted works only show snippets, and publisher-enabled limited previews.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#67

Post by ocdtrekkie »

pncnmnp wrote: post #61
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.

Just to clarify, what are the consequences of their actions? It appears to be a clear case of copyright infringement. Therefore, I assume that the legal penalties listed on this website ( https://www.lib.purdue.edu/uco/infringement ) can be applied in this case: - The infringer paying the monetary damages and profits. - The law offering a range from $200 to $150,000 for each infringed work. - The infringer paying for…

The consequences may be the loss of the entire Internet Archive, if it can't afford to both pay the fines of deciding to ++++ around and find out with book publishers and running its servers at the same time.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#68

Post by happytoexplain »

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.

>should lobby for ... law to change. But breaking it before it has changed is risky and foolish, and does more harm than good.

This advice is reasonable in most cases, but applying it as a rule is devastating for society.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#69

Post by iudqnolq »

dragonwriter wrote: post #30
sva_ wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didnt offer the full books afaik.

> They didnt offer the full books afaik. They got sued, and the settlement didn’t allow them to offer the full books except for-purchase with a particular revenue sharing arrangement.

...and then the court threw out the settlement as unfair, and then the court ruled in Google's favor.

But the court noted that Google was right on the edge of fair use. Google notably prevented the previews from being usable as a replacement for an original purchase by only displaying 1/8 of a page snippets, blacklisting 1 snippet per page, blacklisting every tenth page completely, and blacklisting works where a single snippet could be all you wanted such as dictionaries and recipe books.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#70

Post by ocdtrekkie »

CaptainNegative wrote: post #48
bawolff wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is a less than zero percent chance this Supreme Court decides in favor of the Internet Archive, if they ever even cared to hear the case.
Post reply on HN