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

111–120 of 835 posts

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#111

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#112

Post by ZunarJ5 »

Algemarin wrote: post #106
crazygringo wrote: post #80

Yikes. I borrow books constantly from the IA that are hard/impossible to find elsewhere because they've gone out of print. A lot of academic-ish non-fiction from the 1960s-1980s, stuff you can only otherwise get through inter-library loan that takes weeks rather than seconds. Any idea if this means IA has to shut down lending by when? Tomorrow? Next month? Any chances for appeal here? Or any chance they relocate the…

> I borrow books constantly from the IA that are hard/impossible to find elsewhere because they've gone out of print. A lot of academic-ish non-fiction from the 1960s-1980s, stuff you can only otherwise get through inter-library loan that takes weeks rather than seconds. Try Library Genesis: https://libgen.is/

Even better: https://annas-archive.org/

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#113

Post by nonethewiser »

FpUser wrote: post #90
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 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"

This has a name.

Mob rule.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#114

Post by nikau »

ncallaway wrote: post #53
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…

What makes Sunday so special? Why not just pass worker protection laws that prevent people from overworking, rather than dictating a magical day that nobody can work. It's a stupid idea and a dumb law that it only makes sense if your worker protection laws are too weak.

Having a fixed day off allows people to plan leisure activities with friends and family as it was guaranteed they too would also have the day off.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#115

Post by nonethewiser »

zenexer wrote: post #89
egberts1 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That isn’t forcing you to practice a religion.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#116

Post by brewdad »

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?

Nobody wants to go to work on Monday. Let’s shut everything down on Mondays. :)

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#117

Post by Dalewyn »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #64
majormajor wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 vo…

Citing the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact indicates you have no understanding of the political organization of the United States of America.

I implore you to do your homework, but I will tell you the compact would only serve to reduce the voice of the people (that is to say, reduce democracy) rather than increase them.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#118

Post by danielheath »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #107
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> loss of the entire Internet Archive They host a lot of material that is not copyrighted and expired copyrights. Also this ruling does not apply to software.

Yeah, and if they are financially wiped out they will no longer be able to do so.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#119

Post by dgb23 »

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…

Worker protections are fought for and maintained by unions.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#120

Post by brewdad »

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…

Sunday blue laws were NEVER about labor protections.
Post reply on HN