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

121–130 of 835 posts

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#121

Post by jodrellblank »

bobsmooth wrote: post #50
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…

> 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?

High wage employees have leverage, and can afford to quit. They are less pushed into the position "we're allowed to open on Sunday so you're working Sundays now".

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#124

Post by Dalewyn »

sourcecodeplz wrote: post #46
LeoPanthera wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

>It's sad because it has muddied the image of IA and it made them look like rebels

Considering their software archive is one of the easiest source of warez today, I'd say they have a thing for painting targets on themselves.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#125

Post by LegionMammal978 »

yamrzou wrote: post #57
userbinator wrote: post #31

Is the Internet Archive itself going to need archived next? Or is most or all of what it has already available in the pirate libraries?

My experience has been that many of the Internet Archive books (especially rare/old ones) are not available in pirate libraries. So this is sad news.

Personally, I've had good luck with HathiTrust Digital Library [0] for old books in the public domain. A majority of the books that I've cared to check are mirrored on both IA and HathiTrust. It has an arbitrary restriction that you can't download full PDFs, but at least the contents are all available.

[0] https://www.hathitrust.org/

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#126

Post by AnimalMuppet »

nonethewiser wrote: post #113
FpUser wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"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.

Not doing this has a name, too.

Slavish obedience.

The jury is not supposed to be robots. They're there because there's supposed to be someone with judgment.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#127

Post by Aeolun »

Spivak wrote: post #94
crazygringo wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. I'm not a lawyer but I'm baffled they went the fair use route -- fair use has nothing to do with it. The argument that this is no different from lending temporarily to a friend seems to be much more reasonable. Especially since no money is changing hands.

The judge disagreed with that too. Companies have tried and failed to set up a streaming service backed by physical copies and they were struck down so this really didn’t have any chance either.

I don’t understand the reasoning there though. Like, I can get on board with sayibg fair-use is silly, but lending a book that I own —either digitally or physically— should be protected.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#128

Post by wongarsu »

tuckerconnelly wrote: post #24
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…

Do you disagree because of the Sabbath?

Not OP, but I think having one day where nearly everyone (except restaurants, attractions, hospitality and essential services) has off is good for family cohesion. It gives everyone a guaranteed weekly timeslot to spend time together.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#129

Post by wmorgan »

nikau wrote: post #110
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. Exactly, that's only for companies like uber and airbnb who add real value to society, not some losers trying to make books accessible.

I don’t know about Airbnb. But you realize that before Uber existed, people ran businesses which were entirely, “you call us up, we’ll send you a car and take you where you want to go,” (And that driver was an independent contractor)

I really don’t see the angle that Uber was doing something fundamentally new, except to the extent that they dramatically lowered the price and a lot more people used the service.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#130

Post by brewdad »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #12
alexfromapex wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> 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.

A handful of corporations vs the entire population of planet earth, or a nation’s subset, should be pretty obvious where the greater good lies.
Post reply on HN