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

211–220 of 835 posts

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#211

Post by zuminator »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #177
granzymes wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article doesn't seem to understand the issue. Whether a copy of a work is fair use turns on, amongst other things, the effect of the copy on the potential market for the original. The article acknowledges this. Controlled Digital Lending competes directly with the licensing scheme publishers have for library ebooks. The fair use argument was always doomed to fail. The article then completely ignores the copyright…

There may be a question of definition here. Do you mean that they have to lend it, but they cannot give it away?

I think what GP is saying is that when lending (or for that matter giving away) print books, libraries don't copy anything, they just distribute purchased works, which they have a fundamental right to do (in the US). That's different from the IA first making a digital copy and then distributing that copy, which there is no fundamental right to do.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#212

Post by MisterSandman »

pdar4123 wrote: post #205
xvector wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the one use case where the blockchain/web3 is useful. Give me a decentralized library on the blockchain, where no government can take it down by merely discovering the host's identity and location. Invulnerable to rubber-hose attacks and censorship (which IPFS is still vulnerable to.)

Why do u need a blockchain? Why not just torrents for sharing.

Exactly, torrents are already decentralized.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#213

Post by opzz »

pdar4123 wrote: post #205
xvector wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the one use case where the blockchain/web3 is useful. Give me a decentralized library on the blockchain, where no government can take it down by merely discovering the host's identity and location. Invulnerable to rubber-hose attacks and censorship (which IPFS is still vulnerable to.)

Why do u need a blockchain? Why not just torrents for sharing.

why not a blockchain? It's much less likely to go down with network issues because people are financially motivated to run the network.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#214

Post by latency-guy2 »

whatshisface wrote: post #204
latency-guy2 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> America will rule in favour of private property and against the common good every single time Thankfully that's the best outcome. Unless you mean you support eminent domain. I'd pay hell to the country that even plans on using it against me, and I'll follow and protect others who this happens to as well. Anyone who decides they can steal my resources will have to fight for it. You do not own me.

I might not own you, but apparently you don't own your own books as much as you might have thought. ;-)

I don't own a single digital book, nor am I deluded to think that the internet was going to solve the issue of ownership in the first place.

You are free to demand that publishers provide you unlimited access to their servers so you can download your books perpetually. Publishers need not give in to alternative access methods to their material.

If you want to own books, have it actually in your possession, which is not the internet.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#215

Post by jkdufair »

hedora wrote: post #192
allturtles wrote: post #91

A lot of people in these comments still seem confused about what has happened here. This ruling is not about the emergency library at all. It's a ruling that controlled digital lending (one physical copy backing each digital copy lent out) is illegal.

That’s a terrible ruling. The first sale doctrine says the copy of the book you bought is yours. Lending the book is clearly not copying it. So, I guess you just don’t own anything you buy anymore? Like what if I want to lend a tool to someone, and the tool manufacturer wants to rent their tools out? Is that also illegal? What if the tool contains software? What if reasonable use of the tool requires accessing a prin…

I don’t disagree with the ruling. IA is not lending their copy that they purchased. They are lending a copy of their copy. While that copy is lent out, they are still free to, I.e. read the copy in their possession.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#216

Post by dunham »

dmix wrote: post #150
warent wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems horrendous. Don't many community/government libraries do this? Seems like a huge blow to freedom of information and sharing.

Is this just ebook lending? Is that popular among local libraries? I thought Kindle/Nook/Apple books/etc completely dominated that market. Reading PDFs on computers/tablets for long form stuff never made much sense to me. I'm curious if local libraries get much traction from their digital libraries. I could see audiobooks getting locked down being a big hit though. Audible has a monopoly on that harder than ebooks ev…

My ten year old uses "Libby" a lot to borrow books from the local library - at one point they started rate limiting him. He also typically has a dozen physical books checked out at any given time.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#217

Post by RedCondor »

latency-guy2 wrote: post #187
RedCondor wrote: post #20

America will rule in favour of private property and against the common good every single time, unless forced to do otherwise by external circumstances. Famously it only went against segregation because "Racial discrimination furnishes grist for the Communist propaganda mills." (Attorney General James P. McGranery) https://redsails.org/concessions/ Fortunately this means more of an impetus for piracy in the meantime,…

> America will rule in favour of private property and against the common good every single time Thankfully that's the best outcome. Unless you mean you support eminent domain. I'd pay hell to the country that even plans on using it against me, and I'll follow and protect others who this happens to as well. Anyone who decides they can steal my resources will have to fight for it. You do not own me.

In the very near future America as a country will have to fight a lot harder to loot the resources of other nations, so I imagine as resource scarcity encroaches upon everyone's lifestyle you'll probably begin to see yourself less as an independent frontiersman and more as a member of society. But not one moment sooner.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#218

Post by ncallaway »

em-bee wrote: post #159
ncallaway wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

children don't go to school on sunday, having the right to take sunday off instead of some other weekday is a benefit for families.

I feel like this is the best argument for it but… it leaves a lot of holes? What about Saturdays, or other non-school days?

And… just protection for retail workers? Is there a reason it wouldn’t apply to all workers below a certain pay range (or maybe it did, and the “no shopping” rule is just a shorthand?)

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#219

Post by whatshisface »

latency-guy2 wrote: post #214
whatshisface wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I might not own you, but apparently you don't own your own books as much as you might have thought. ;-)

I don't own a single digital book, nor am I deluded to think that the internet was going to solve the issue of ownership in the first place. You are free to demand that publishers provide you unlimited access to their servers so you can download your books perpetually. Publishers need not give in to alternative access methods to their material. If you want to own books, have it actually in your possession, which is n…

This article is about a court ruling restricting what the IA could do with books they physically owned.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#220

Post by friend_and_foe »

xvector wrote: post #194
ZunarJ5 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is the one use case where the blockchain/web3 is useful. Give me a decentralized library on the blockchain, where no government can take it down by merely discovering the host's identity and location. Invulnerable to rubber-hose attacks and censorship (which IPFS is still vulnerable to.)

Blockchains don't really do this well though. A blockchain is useful when you need a publicly accessible, canonical shared record of a consensus, obfuscated or otherwise. They're not for storing arbitrary data. If you want to store arbitrary data, and you want peer to peer decentralized kind of features and you want identities obfuscated, currently you're looking at BitTorrent over Tor. I don't know if i2p or Tor or anyone else is working on any sort of swarm like file sharing internally over those networks, but it needs to be done and these shadow libraries need to begin using it.
Post reply on HN