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

341–350 of 835 posts

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#341

Post by thayne »

gsk22 wrote: post #316
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.

> 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)?

> In what world is it better to instead give all the say to one person?

If that one person is wise, virtuous, and really prioritizes the people's best interest, and is willing and capable of delegating and seeking advice from people who understand various domains better than them, and is a good enough judge to choose good people for such delegation and advice, then it could be at least much more efficient than a democracy or republic. Decisions could be made much faster. And such a leader could very well be better at making decisions that are better in the long term, even if they aren't in the short term.

However, how do you find and appoint such a leader? And even if you somehow get such a leader, how do you ensure their successor is just as good? Selecting a leader based on military prowess definitely won't get you such a leader though.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#342

Post by bentley »

blululu wrote: post #241
bentley wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Religion bad, Atheism good In the United States, blue laws have historically been used to oppress religious minorities like Jews and Sabbatarian Christians.

No. Those laws were made to curtail drunkenness and the numerous social woes that come with it. Same reason we passed total prohibition. Those religious minorities were negligible in the times and places where they passed blue laws and the only groups that were negatively associated with alcohol were Christian.

Huh? I described a side effect of these laws—not theoretical, but an actual side effect that happened. You counter by saying… that that wasn’t the intent of the law? Sure, I agree with you: blue laws in the United States were not (usually) put in place with the intent of oppressing seventh‐day Sabbatarians, a relatively insignificant group. But oppression of Sabbatarians is in fact what they led to.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#343

Post by agalunar »

encomiast wrote: post #329
agalunar wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My point is that you are picking and choosing which parts of nature you value. The idea of "having", of ownership, is not natural. Many people like Locke have tried to connect it nature, but with limited success — it's still a human construct. In the natural world ownership is defended purely by force or guile. So you are taking this idea of ownership, protected by human constructs of law, and then adding a caveat th…

I believe I understand what you're saying, but I feel we're talking about different things, so I may have miscommunicated my point. I'm not talking about ownership as recognized or enforced by people (in fact, I never used the word "own" or "ownership"). All I mean is that if something is over here by me, it can't be over there by you, because things can't be in two places at once.

On the other hand, the exact same spatial arrangement can be in two places at once (e.g. the state of bits on a disk, or the idea of a shovel, i.e. the pattern of a shovel as exemplified by two distinct shovels).

All of that's obvious. I think what OP was trying to suggest is:

Despite the obvious difference between physical things and ideas, we often treat them similarly (specifically, we treat ideas like physical objects). And perhaps that would seem a bit strange if we weren't so used to it.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#345

Post by dylan604 »

coldtea wrote: post #337
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...

as it should be peasant. now get back to work!!! /s

with the concept of 1%ers and how imbalanced the wealth distribution is, it doesn't really seem like it's much different than the days of feudal lords. it just seems like we've been tricked into thinking there was a middle class to keep the revolting to a minimum.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#346

Post by katbyte »

Zetice wrote: post #230
sacnoradhq wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

are you not aware of how long copyright lasts now?

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#347

Post by coldtea »

Thorrez wrote: post #339
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?

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

There is, but not one imposed by the laws of physics or some universal given. ]

For example it was moral and ethical (and you were considered a good person regardless of whether you did it) to own slaves when that was the prevalent morality of a societies.

So, there are actions that are unethical based on made up human constructs of morality. Nature and physics doesn't care either way.

Which is the parent's point: what laws and ethical norms aren't "unnatural" and aren't made up? All are. Doesn't mean they are not useful and good for being that.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#348

Post by Zetice »

katbyte wrote: post #346
Zetice wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

are you not aware of how long copyright lasts now?

Yes, are you not aware of how pirating works?

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#349

Post by lenkite »

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…

I guess they should move the site to Russia - better chance of staying alive.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#350

Post by numpad0 »

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?

It’s kind of true that idea of IP is entirely made-up, but it’s also important to recognize that it was made up to support and safeguard author’s living.

IP allows authors to require values of content to be preserved, recognized, and financially rewarded(in one-time or recurring payments).

In the absence of IP, printing companies can take manuscripts and contents to profit off of copies free-for-all style, bankrupting manuscript writers.

However, it was NOT designed to protect interest of multinational megacorporates, causing individual contributors to be ignored and paid for presence in its making than input in the product; such use of IP is basically a polar opposite of its intent.

We should stop allowing corporates to take ownership of IPs.

J.K. Rowling enjoying her life is fine, that is intellectual property as intended. “(C)Disney” or “(C)2023 Electronic Arts. All Rights Reserved.” is not. Those latter cases is how and where IP laws are not working as intended.

Post reply on HN