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

331–340 of 835 posts

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#331

Post by travisgriggs »

agalunar wrote: post #320
encomiast wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 somethi…

> nothing compels you to take something from me

What if you’ve hoarded all the food or all the water, and I need it to survive? Would that be compelling?

I’m with the other guy. These distinctions are arbitrary. They may be useful for a society that attempts to maximize “happiness@ (also arbitrary), but it remains that they are not universally obvious.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#332

Post by panic »

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.

Are there any organizations working toward the abolition of intellectual property in the US? I agree with you that it's ridiculous and would love to do something about it.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#333

Post by PKop »

michaelmrose wrote: post #312
PKop wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Perhaps there is a synthesis of the two, where some get more say based on "war ability" (or other such competence) without actually having to engage in micro battles everywhere. Notice I was describing the criteria upon which decision-making and power is apportioned, not necessarily how it happens. There is a long standing tradition of opposition to mass democracy, particularly amongst the founders of my country so I'm in good company there. Ultimately whatever nominal system is in place, a governing elite arises one way or another...so debates about democracy are funny because in many ways power of the masses isn't real [0]. But to the degree democracy becomes "mass" is the degree to which is becomes worse.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35223884

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#334

Post by thrdbndndn »

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?

I agree with you.

We can simply say IP is a concept that we need to bust. And that's fine. No need to invoke weird "reasoning" like that.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#335

Post by thayne »

> Published works do not lose copyright protection after five years

Obviously, the courts have no control over that, but copyright protection definitely lasts way too long. Five years, might be kind too short, at least for some kinds of works, but I think the longer the copyright lasts, the more harm it causes to society and the less benefit it has in protecting the interests of the creator and incentivizing more creation.

> there is a “thriving ebook licensing market for libraries” in which the Publishers earn a fee whenever a library obtains one of their licensed ebooks from an aggregator like OverDrive…. This market generates at least tens of millions of dollars a year for the Publishers…. And IA supplants the Publishers’ place in this market

I'm confused by this argument. If the market is thriving, then IA clearly isn't supplanting it.

> IA argues that its digital lending makes it easier for patrons who live far from physical libraries to access books and that it supports research, scholarship, and cultural participation by making books widely accessible on the Internet. But these alleged benefits cannot outweigh the market harm to the Publishers….

In other words, the court values a company, which already has plenty of money, making more money, more than "patrons who live far from physical libraries" having access to books.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#336

Post by SideQuark »

ipcress_file wrote: post #160
SideQuark wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Listing a place a law was broken to advocate for repeating it is not good advice. The proper metric is to see how many times laws are broken and how often that works out for the lawbreaker. IA is learning the difference, unfortunately.

I didn't advocate for breaking the law. I said I disagreed with the whole thing. I was pointing out that the approach had worked in the past, because the previous poster had argued that "breaking [the law] before it has changed is risky and foolish, and does more harm than good."

The previous poster made a more defensible statement given the totality of outcomes when breaking the law.

If I told someone smoking is bad forr their health, would you follow with "I know a person that smoked till 98" as reasonable advice? This is the same argument.

And in this case, the actions of IA may well end them for all of us. That's not such a good outcome for breaking the law, is it?

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#337

Post by coldtea »

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 that will one day be seen as ridiculous as absolute monarchy is today.

Not so sure about the monarchy thing, nominally yes, but we're certainly moving to renting everything content-related, and even back to political and corporate feudalism in many aspects, we might as well be peasants whose feudal lords own everything...

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#338

Post by pfisch »

thrdbndndn wrote: post #334
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?

I agree with you. We can simply say IP is a concept that we need to bust. And that's fine. No need to invoke weird "reasoning" like that.

I personally like that movies and videogames exist and can be made with large budgets because that generally makes them better.

I don't see how that continues without IP.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#339

Post by Thorrez »

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?

Is there a such thing as morality or ethics? Is there any action that is unethical?

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#340

Post by coldtea »

agalunar wrote: post #320
encomiast wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 somethi…

>I'm not really sure what point you're making. That's not physical law in the same sense – nothing compels you to take something from me

Tons of thing compel someone to get the thing another has - them being hungry, just fancying it, mere greed, etc. All of those are natural feelings. In nature the stronger getting what they wont is the norm. There are no property rights.

>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.

So? Physics is not the basis of law in a society. Just a hard limit of what can be done.

But one can e.g. just kill you by hitting you with a rock, and physics is 100% fine with that, as is biology. Physics doesn't care either way. It's just a bunch of equations that describe how matter interacts, not a legal or moral code, and it doesn't get into the baseline state of animal behavior in nature...

We still have laws against it though.

Post reply on HN