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

81–90 of 835 posts

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#81

Post by jodrellblank »

dgacmu wrote: post #59
jodrellblank wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Not everyone cares about working Sunday. Why is it Sunday? Why not Saturday? Right - one set of religious beliefs that aren't universal. Why should the state be mandating this? Isn't it better to use state power to prevent employers from being able to coerce employees into working excessively or being unable to negotiate the days off that are important to them?

> "Why should the state be mandating this? Isn't it better to use state power to prevent employers from being able to coerce employees into working"

Remember when Arkansas rolled back some child labour laws? Hopefully you do, it was last week[1]. The reason why not "just do something good for workers instead" is because companies want cheaper employees with fewer options to leave, not better protections for workers.

> "Why is it Sunday? Why not Saturday?"

Great, well done, you've bikeshedded it from "mandatory day off" to "no mandatory day off" because you can't see a difference between them. Religion bad, Atheism good, therefore roll back labour protections?

[1] https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/08/politics/sarah-huckabee-s...

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#82

Post by libraryatnight »

scoot wrote: post #41
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…

> 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...

The logic you use to dismiss the sandwich example extrapolates to your own examples. "Shut off the lights and go to bed or go to the ER" "Stuff a cloth in your underwear" "Don't have sex" "Don't you have any sterno or mouthwash?!"

Why even do this to someone if you understood their meaning and more or less agree?

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#83

Post by [deleted] »

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

[deleted]

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#84

Post by bentley »

jodrellblank wrote: post #81
dgacmu wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everyone cares about working Sunday. Why is it Sunday? Why not Saturday? Right - one set of religious beliefs that aren't universal. Why should the state be mandating this? Isn't it better to use state power to prevent employers from being able to coerce employees into working excessively or being unable to negotiate the days off that are important to them?

> " Why should the state be mandating this? Isn't it better to use state power to prevent employers from being able to coerce employees into working " Remember when Arkansas rolled back some child labour laws? Hopefully you do, it was last week[1]. The reason why not "just do something good for workers instead" is because companies want cheaper employees with fewer options to leave, not better protections for workers…

> Religion bad, Atheism good

In the United States, blue laws have historically been used to oppress religious minorities like Jews and Sabbatarian Christians.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#85

Post by cultureswitch »

Zurrrrr wrote: post #32

Yet another example that piracy is not just a superior product or about not paying for content, but is an absolute core need.

In the face of senseless copyright law, avoiding to fund the organizations responsible is a moral imperative, and piracy is typically the way to do that.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#86

Post by echelon »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #67
pncnmnp wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'll donate everything I can if that happens. And I'll call all of my representatives.

I value Internet Archive as much as Wikipedia. And with LLMs set to replace Wikipedia, I think IA will have longer societal and historical value.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#87

Post by wmidwestranger »

mardifoufs wrote: post #49
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.

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.

If the publishers could push the button and kill digitally lending at their whim then there isn't a reason to pretend it was actually alive and well, in any real sense. I believe Machiavelli observed, "War is never avoided, only delayed for the benefit of one participant or another." Librarians have always had a zealous faction that has even frustrated United States Federal Agents, often at the least convenient time for the librarians who did so. Given the money and influence wielded by the publishers, how would the digital librarians fair better in the future? They're better off winning or losing here and letting the natural consequences of the publisher's decisions come to bite them in the ass than building further efforts on a rug the publishers can yank from beneath them at any time.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#88

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

krapp wrote: post #54
jijji wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

>how does a library get away with it.... they have to purchase the book first? is that how it works? Yes. And they can lend those books to people due to the first-sale doctrine, which allows the legal owners of a work to lease, lend or sell it without the copyright owner's permission.

this definition also seems to fit what libraries were doing, lending out their copy, sometimes digitally, sometimes in person, always only 1 copy at a time

the judge said the conversion to digital was not transformative, so I don't see why it should constitute another work versus the original one

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#89

Post by zenexer »

egberts1 wrote: post #37
tuckerconnelly wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you disagree because of the Sabbath?

Does it matter?

Yes: if it’s the sabbath, that’s an argument with which I’m familiar. My counter-argument is that I don’t want to be forced to practice someone else’s religion. If your religion already imposes those rules on its followers, why does it need a secular government to assist?

If it’s not the sabbath, then I’m intrigued and want to learn more.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#90

Post by FpUser »

ipcress_file wrote: post #18
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. 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 didn't agree with it then and I don't fully agree with it now, but it can work."

I actually do agree with it. Same reason as jury nullification. If enough people (jury members in this case) believe that the law / particular application is unjust then fuck it. In nullification the government must give in. I do not see why it should be any different in general. The key here should be what constitutes "enough"

Post reply on HN