Judge decides against Internet Archive • Hacker News Board

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#251

Post by kelseyfrog » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 3:17 AM UTC

Dalewyn wrote: post #189

brewdad wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NPVIC could be a great advancement for democracy but since the side advantaged by the current system has zero incentive to agree to it, the idea is counterproductive without a mandate requiring the entire country to participate.

>the side advantaged by the current system has zero incentive to agree to it You are absolutely right that the States, particularly the smaller and weaker States, would have zero incentive to agree to surrender their sovereignties in deference to the other States. The United States of America is a Union of States, and the first step to further democracy in this country is respecting the sacred fact that each State an…

>You are absolutely right that the States, particularly the smaller and weaker States, would have zero incentive to agree to surrender their sovereignties in deference to the other States.

Except that they already have. Each of Vermont(3), Delaware(3), Hawaii(4), Rhode Island(4), New Mexico(5), Connecticut(7), and Oregon(8) has already ratified legislation agreeing to the compact. That's seven counter examples.

I'll point out that there are in fact enough states pending ratification that will obsolete the EC should they be confirmed. In a twist of irony, a sacred duty to represent states could be foiled by state legislatures themselves.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#252

Post by ianburrell » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 3:18 AM UTC

Aeolun wrote: post #127

Spivak wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can sell or lend the physical copy you own. You can’t make a copy and then loan that. Copyright is the right to control making copies.

You could sell or lend virtual copy if the platforms supported that. You are allowed to make a copy for backup purposes, and no one will ever know if you use that or even lend it. But if you make business of it, then they will notice and sue you.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#253

Post by benatkin » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 3:20 AM UTC

endisneigh wrote: post #238

benatkin wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unsurprising that not all of HN is pro-fair use. That's how you digitally send a copy of a book. You're saying something similar to "you wouldn't download a car".

I don’t see how you’re refuting their point

> You're saying something similar to "you wouldn't download a car".

It's applying without considering it.

The digital book isn't being kept at the old location because there is no digital book in the physical book.

It's the only way to transfer a single copy of a book without destroying the physical copy.

Judges should consider stuff like this and it's a disappointing ruling.

But go on...

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#254

Post by nulbyte » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 3:21 AM UTC

nikau wrote: post #114

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.

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.

I don't think that answers the question. Suppose I want to go to the movies on my day off. I can't, precisely because everyone else is off, too.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#255

Post by friend_and_foe » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 3:22 AM UTC

I don't understand why users would voluntarily move away from piracy. I prefer "you can't do anything about it" to "please let us." Why the norm, base line expectation of the end user is not identity obfuscation and free access to information without hindrance I just don't get.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#256

Post by benatkin » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 3:23 AM UTC

hker999 wrote: post #244

benatkin wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unsurprising that not all of HN is pro-fair use. That's how you digitally send a copy of a book. You're saying something similar to "you wouldn't download a car".

Yet, we should proscute GPL violations when the original GPL code is untouched.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

In the case of a physical object needing to temporarily go digital, it needs to be sent digitally and the records kept, and of course the physical copy has to be kept.

In the case of the GPL there's no physical copy and thus there's no need to consider how to move from one form to the other.

To require that a physical object never be used digitally is bad for society.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#257

Post by bdowling » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 3:23 AM UTC

Aeolun wrote: post #103

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…

From the article the publishers take issue with only 120 or so books. No idea what kind of effect that will have on the rest of it though.

> the publishers take issue with only 120 or so books

Not quite. The plaintiffs have to name some specific works on which to base the case. The 120 is enough because the statutory damages for just those 120 works could be a staggering amount that would bankrupt IA.

The complaint [0] also asks for an injunction enjoining IA from any further infringement of "any of the respective copyrights owned or exclusively controlled, in whole or in part, by Plaintiffs, whether now in existence or hereinafter created." [0] at 51.

[0] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.53...

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#258

Post by endisneigh » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 3:23 AM UTC

benatkin wrote: post #253

endisneigh wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t see how you’re refuting their point

> You're saying something similar to "you wouldn't download a car". It's applying without considering it. The digital book isn't being kept at the old location because there is no digital book in the physical book. It's the only way to transfer a single copy of a book without destroying the physical copy. Judges should consider stuff like this and it's a disappointing ruling. But go on...

Exactly. And there lies the issue. Internet archive has the book and lends the book simultaneously. Hence why they lost.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#259

Post by benatkin » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 3:24 AM UTC

endisneigh wrote: post #258

benatkin wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're saying something similar to "you wouldn't download a car". It's applying without considering it. The digital book isn't being kept at the old location because there is no digital book in the physical book. It's the only way to transfer a single copy of a book without destroying the physical copy. Judges should consider stuff like this and it's a disappointing ruling. But go on...

Exactly. And there lies the issue. Internet archive has the book and lends the book simultaneously. Hence why they lost.

[dead]

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#260

Post by endisneigh » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 3:25 AM UTC

friend_and_foe wrote: post #255

I don't understand why users would voluntarily move away from piracy. I prefer "you can't do anything about it" to "please let us." Why the norm, base line expectation of the end user is not identity obfuscation and free access to information without hindrance I just don't get.

You could say the same about stealing physical books.