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

311–320 of 835 posts

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#311

Post by wahern »

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…

Libraries are exempted from statutory damages if they had a good faith belief that their usage was Fair Use. The published opinion defers the question of exemption.

Statutory damages are the most significant risk to IA's finances, both in this case but also wrt other potential plaintiffs who might be waiting in the wings. Exemption almost certainly figured into IA's risk assessment when designing and deploying their loan program. The argument for exemption is, naturally, stronger than for Fair Use.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#312

Post by michaelmrose »

PKop wrote: post #307
cat_plus_plus wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite possibly, society doesn't sit still, but it's still an improvement from before in modern constitutional republic context. Beats going to war to change rulers.

>an improvement I'm sure some think it is. I think dictating power based on war ability makes way more sense than everyone having a say simply by virtue of breathing. Egalitarianism is not consistent with nature. But these things go in cycles, the flaws and contradictions will accumulate and the system will collapse eventually, like they all do.

How do you run a society that way? Can I get a bigger house by mulching you in your own garden and telling your family to push on? Do we decide whether you can build an extension on your house by how good a shot the counties men are? Do Walmart and Cosco fight wars over the more desirable lots? This is not a serious suggestion.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#313

Post by encomiast »

agalunar wrote: post #308
encomiast wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Intellectual property is an unnatural, made up construct" So, what laws and constructs of civilized life are not an unnatural made up constructs? You seem to be suggesting there is some natural law that excludes things like intellectual property. Which natural laws, specifically, are you talking about?

If I have a physical object, you can't also have that physical object. That's natural in the sense that it follows from natural law (physics). If I have an idea, or a digital copy of something, you can also use that idea, or also get a digital copy, without depriving me of it. The only reason you can't use my idea or own a digital copy is because society decided that it would punish you for doing so – and that's unna…

Sure, and also I am bigger and stronger than you. Therefore I take your physical object and you can't stop me. That's natural in the sense that it follows from natural law (physics). Natural laws are brutish and don't support the kind of society that most of us want to live in.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#314

Post by cat_plus_plus »

encomiast wrote: post #294
cat_plus_plus wrote: post #285

Intellectual property is an unnatural, made up construct that will one day be seen as ridiculous as absolute monarchy is today. If we are going to allow it and penalize people who are doing natural human things like sharing with friends, there has to be a specific benefit to society in every instance. For example, pay taxes on copyrights and patents, increasing every year to reflect disturbance caused to society.

"Intellectual property is an unnatural, made up construct" So, what laws and constructs of civilized life are not an unnatural made up constructs? You seem to be suggesting there is some natural law that excludes things like intellectual property. Which natural laws, specifically, are you talking about?

If people always beat me up and snatch my stuff the moment I am not looking, that's not very good living. Even if I am wealthy enough to hire guards, they can turn on me at any moment and get all my stuff rather than just what I am willing to pay. So we opt for a peaceful, honest society where people are not allowed to hurt each other, steal or break contracts. On the other hand, if I learn from other people and they learn for me, we all become smarter and more productive.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#315

Post by gaganyaan »

duxup wrote: post #98

I'm bummed IA chose to pick this fight by declaring this magical COVID emergency and lending more digital copies than they owned. The outcome seemed inevitable and IMO IA has been dishonest about what the lawsuit with its own statements. It makes me wonder if there are any adults at the helm at IA and I worry about its future. IA is an amazing resource... I don't understand why they chose this hill to fight on.

What's magical is the thinking involved in copyright, particularly as it involves the digital space.

I 100% guarantee that if a dead tree library xeroxed their books during a national emergency, nobody would be making comments like this. Somehow, because computers are involved, magical thinking gets a pass.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#316

Post by gsk22 »

PKop wrote: post #307
cat_plus_plus wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite possibly, society doesn't sit still, but it's still an improvement from before in modern constitutional republic context. Beats going to war to change rulers.

>an improvement I'm sure some think it is. I think dictating power based on war ability makes way more sense than everyone having a say simply by virtue of breathing. Egalitarianism is not consistent with nature. But these things go in cycles, the flaws and contradictions will accumulate and the system will collapse eventually, like they all do.

> I think dictating power based on war ability makes way more sense than everyone having a say simply by virtue of breathing.

I honestly can't tell if you're trolling. In what world is it better to instead give all the say to one person? Especially a person selected solely by their prowess for violence (or in leading others to violence)?

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#317

Post by wmf »

calgarymicro wrote: post #102
duxup wrote: post #98

I'm bummed IA chose to pick this fight by declaring this magical COVID emergency and lending more digital copies than they owned. The outcome seemed inevitable and IMO IA has been dishonest about what the lawsuit with its own statements. It makes me wonder if there are any adults at the helm at IA and I worry about its future. IA is an amazing resource... I don't understand why they chose this hill to fight on.

I don't think that controlled digital lending in its entirety being ruled illegal was at all inevitable. Sure, take them to task for the 'emergency library', but the scope of this ruling seems unjust.

It's about probabilities. If they had even a 10% chance of bankrupting themselves they probably shouldn't have done it. Even if they eventually win, every dollar spent on lawyers wasn't spent on archiving.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#319

Post by baryphonic »

thebooktocome wrote: post #297
baryphonic wrote: post #287

I saw this coming. A few days ago, I read that IA's lawyers argued fair use in part based on "transforming" the content by making copies at scale. I was surprised & astonished that they'd try such sophistry, since a verbatim copy isn't transformative at all. I felt IA's lawyers were grasping at straws if they were making that fair use argument. Everyone would do better to lobby Congress to change the law to allow for…

> since a verbatim copy isn't transformative at all It's not a verbatim copy; the argument specifically involved converting content from one format (physical book) to another (ebook). > Everyone would do better to lobby Congress Good luck outspending the big publishers. How many people who work for a living does it take to match Disney's capacity to bribe Congresscritters?

> How many people who work for a living does it take to match Disney's capacity to bribe Congresscritters?

Why so cynical? Who's more captured: Congress or the IP Bar?

If everyone commenting and reading about this on HN called their members of Congress within a few hours on Monday afternoon, there would be serious buzz on Capitol Hill. Several hundred to a few thousand people all calling in about a similar issue to members of both parties is noticed.

Remember the "SOPA" thing Big Content tried to ram through a decade ago? It failed because dozens upon dozens of members were spooked.

You know why lobbyists are listened to? They're not "bribing" members of Congress; they are simply presenting an unrebutted story.

EDIT: forgot to address the "transformative" thing.

Format shifting is not transformative, any more than bootlegging a movie in the theater or taking a photo of a copyrighted piece hanging in a gallery are. The meaning of the work is almost certainly identical whether it's on a physical page or on a screen.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#320

Post by agalunar »

encomiast wrote: post #313
agalunar wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I have a physical object, you can't also have that physical object. That's natural in the sense that it follows from natural law (physics). If I have an idea, or a digital copy of something, you can also use that idea, or also get a digital copy, without depriving me of it. The only reason you can't use my idea or own a digital copy is because society decided that it would punish you for doing so – and that's unna…

Sure, and also I am bigger and stronger than you. Therefore I take your physical object and you can't stop me. That's natural in the sense that it follows from natural law (physics). Natural laws are brutish and don't support the kind of society that most of us want to live in.

I'm not entirely sure what point you're making. That's not physical law in the same sense – nothing compels you to take something from me (or prevents you from taking something from me if you're sneaky or strong enough, as you said).

On the other hand, you and I can't both have the same object even if we wanted; it has nothing to do with ability or circumstance.

edit: I should clarify that you and I can share something in the sense that we can freely give it back and forth, but if we have one shovel, we can't both be shovelling at the same time (and can't share it at all if we live far apart). And if we're talking about food, well, we can't both take the same bite of bread.

Post reply on HN