What were they thinking?! What were they thinking?! What were they thinking?!
Judge decides against Internet Archive
221–230 of 835 posts
Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
“We will appeal.” https://twitter.com/internetarchive/status/16394247772647219...
I said it before on this very forum. Wikipedia does not really need your donations these days. IA just might.
Looks like EFF is providing the lawyers for this case. THEY need your dollars too.
Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive
#223Earlier 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…
What IA is doing is removing the physical copy from circulation, making a digital copy, and lending out the digital copy. I don't see the argument that this is "distribution" any more than regular (obnoxious) ebook lending is.
Laws a bit more open to interpretation and chaining rarely works, it’s humanist, and it’s at its face unreasonable that one physical copy => right to lend out digital cooy.
Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive
#224Earlier 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…
What IA is doing is removing the physical copy from circulation, making a digital copy, and lending out the digital copy. I don't see the argument that this is "distribution" any more than regular (obnoxious) ebook lending is.
If the IA is creating their own digital copies of physical books, it could be argued that that the IA is creating and distributing derivative works. I'm not certain, but my impression is that derivative works have little in the way of legal protection.
Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive
#225A 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.
This sets back archival and human knowledge back 100 years. If you embargo a physical copy, an electronic copy should be lendable.
I would start a webtorrent+ipfs+i2p site in Iceland just to get around this insane perpetual monopoly on difficult-to-find, old shit that doesn't have a market but publishers keep locked away.
Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive
#226A 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…
Replying to your edit: The format shifting argument and first sale doctrine are discussed in the ruling. Notably in the section headed ‘3’ starting on page 28 - but also in other places.
Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please look into responding with empathy and grace instead. You took a chance to educate and threw it away. What would you hope to gain from such an interaction?
Alright then: The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (hereafter "the Compact") would reduce democracy by reducing and eventually destroying the sovereignty of each individual State. The United States of America is exactly what it says on the tin: A Union of States. Each State is equal to all the others, united somewhat loosely as a Federal Republic. With regards to the consequences of the Compact, it would dest…
Again, can you please take the ad hominem out of it? It's getting in the way of having a productive discussion.
> The United States of America is exactly what it says on the tin: A Union of States. Each State is equal to all the others, united somewhat loosely as a Federal Republic.
This is simply counter-exampled with the proportional representation of the US House. If states were equal then population would play no part in representation.
> With regards to the consequences of the Compact, it would destroy the democratic right of the people of each State to decide, for themselves, who will represent their State in the Executive Branch of the Federal government. The President of the United States represents the States in the Union and is elected by the States, the States in turn determine who they elect as President by respectively asking for their people to vote who their State should vote for.
Again untrue. This doesn't reflect reality. People don't behave like that or believe that. Most people are in fact in favor of abolishing the electoral college[1].
> You might ask who in the Executive Branch of government represents the peoples of each State directly, that role falls upon the Governor of each respective State.
I'm not asking that. We're discussing Federal elections and representation.
> The Compact would reduce the voice of the people and the sovereignties[sic] of States by removing their right to decide, for themselves, who to elect for President of the United States. People from one State would be able to overrule the people of another State, and vice versa. You're in California and voted for Bob? Tough shit, someone in North Dakota voted for Alex and your vote quite literally does not matter.
This literally describes how Electoral College operates. It's a well known point of discussion when critiquing the electoral college. Surely, you must be familiar with that line of reasoning.
> Citing and supporting the Compact indicates you have no understanding of who, and more accurately what, the President of the United States represents. It indicates you have no understanding what powers and rights each State and their respective peoples hold. If you are in a larger State, it indicates you have no care for what your fellow Americans and Statesmen think; if you are in a smaller State, it indicates you are fine with forfeiting your right to vote in deference to the nationwide majority.
This confuses a personal subjective experience with the objective truth of reality. You've extrapolated a genuine question and comment into a malevolent and sinister plot. I truly urge you to find the best in people.
> If you sincerely think the Compact would improve democracy in the United States of America, at best you are misguided and were misled, and at worst you are disingenuous with ulterior motives.
Questioning people's character and motives distracts from productive discussion.
Never in my wildest dreams would I imagine meeting someone who had this take. Can you point me in the direction of Constitutional scholars who share the same opinions you do?
I urge you to familiarize yourself with The Federalist Papers : No. 68[2]. It covers the motivations for the construction of the electoral college all which are not reflected in your assessment of it. If you wish to continue belaboring this point, please just quote from No68 where it agrees with you.
1. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/08/05/majority-of...
2. https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-61-70#s-lg-box...
Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Does cohesion of those families matter less?
Is that a real question?
You didn't split out essential services, and it seems dead-obvious to me that shutting those down would cause more harm than good even when you value all families exactly the same. There's no way they're saying the families of essential service providers are less important.
And it seems pretty clear they're grouping those other things in with essential services, which you could disagree with, but is a very different thing from saying those families are less important.
Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
“We will appeal.” https://twitter.com/internetarchive/status/16394247772647219...
I said it before on this very forum. Wikipedia does not really need your donations these days. IA just might.
Unfortunately IA lost all credibility in my eyes, when they decided that one journalist in particular gets to decide that none of their (awful) tweets should be archived[1].
I understand not allowing certain things to be archived, but the tweets of a public person, especially one who works as a news-maker, should certainly be in the allowed list.
E: And just to be clear, this was before said writer set their tweets to private.
---
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20230000000000*/https://twitter....
Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive
#230A 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.
This sets back archival and human knowledge back 100 years. If you embargo a physical copy, an electronic copy should be lendable. I would start a webtorrent+ipfs+i2p site in Iceland just to get around this insane perpetual monopoly on difficult-to-find, old shit that doesn't have a market but publishers keep locked away.
100 years? Seems hyperbolic.
And you don’t need to do anything at all; all of these books have been freely available on IRC for years.