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

381–390 of 835 posts

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#381

Post by irjustin »

agalunar wrote: post #343
encomiast wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

Agreed that you're talking about physics, but how does that translate into society?

At some point you have to move away from physical requirements. The barter system simply doesn't scale.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#382

Post by encomiast »

vasco wrote: post #376
numpad0 wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, bankrupti…

It was created to allow the United States to make money printing books without paying for them but not allowing other countries to print their books. Later it was expanded to keep poor countries and people from affording medicine. All enforced by threat of economic sanctions with the full backing of the US armed forces. Reading on the history of copyright would be a good start before perpetuating misconceptions.

The idea of copyright predates the United States. The English ‘Statute of Anne’ of 1710 is typically cited as the first modern expression.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#383

Post by bruce511 »

encomiast wrote: post #360
numpad0 wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, bankrupti…

“it was made up to support and safeguard author’s living”. That’s not really true. It least in the US, its stated purpose is to promote the useful arts and sciences. Incentivizing authors is a means to that end. If incentivizing corporations achieves those ends as well, it would seem to be consistent with the original purpose. Of course, there are probably valid arguments that corporate ownership of IP doesn’t always…

"patent trolls" is an unhelpful term because it is in the eye of the beholder.

Was Amazon being a patent troll patenting single-click-to-purchase? Was Apple a troll in patenting Swipe to Unlock? They were using those patents in their products.

On the other hand is the Tolkien Estate patent trolls? They're not producing anything new.)

If I have a dozen patents, and some company wants to buy them from me, is that any different to me selling my company? Surely I can sell my assets?

The root issue are not "patent trolls". Being sued by Amazon is no less disruptive than by Trolls r US.

The root issue is the nature of the patents being issued.

The root of copyright issues are (mostly) not about actual copyright, but the length of copyright.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#384

Post by ChrisKnott »

edgyquant wrote: post #377
pfisch wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There will still be a first to market advantage.

I don't see how that works in a world truly without copyright.

You can't spend hundreds of millions making GTA6 if the first person you sell it to can give away copies.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#385

Post by becquerel »

panic wrote: post #332
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.

Most anarchocommunists are against IP, so the wobblies (IWW) are a good shout.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#386

Post by encomiast »

bruce511 wrote: post #383
encomiast wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“it was made up to support and safeguard author’s living”. That’s not really true. It least in the US, its stated purpose is to promote the useful arts and sciences. Incentivizing authors is a means to that end. If incentivizing corporations achieves those ends as well, it would seem to be consistent with the original purpose. Of course, there are probably valid arguments that corporate ownership of IP doesn’t always…

"patent trolls" is an unhelpful term because it is in the eye of the beholder. Was Amazon being a patent troll patenting single-click-to-purchase? Was Apple a troll in patenting Swipe to Unlock? They were using those patents in their products. On the other hand is the Tolkien Estate patent trolls? They're not producing anything new.) If I have a dozen patents, and some company wants to buy them from me, is that any d…

Fair points.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#387

Post by jenadine »

numpad0 wrote: post #350
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?

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, bankrupti…

Disney and Electronic Arts employs hundreds of thousands of employees that gets to enjoy their salary. They are paid through the IP. How is that not IP working as intended?

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#388

Post by gcanyon »

endisneigh wrote: post #239
musicale wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What’s stopping IA from using the physical book while it is simultaneously lending out a copy? Nothing. Which is why losing was inevitable.

Isn't this answerable by destroying the physical copy? (not saying that IA took this action, just saying that it removes the complaint of dual use)

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#389

Post by ly3xqhl8g9 »

coldtea wrote: post #351
PKop wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It might, as history has cycles. But not because it will be replaced with something "better". Democracy just means everybody has a say on decisions affecting them and the society they are in. If your replacement is closer to "only informed people should have a say", that is even older then democracy, and is much worse in practice.

If we don't replace the current flavour of democracy with something better there won't be much society in a few years (10s, 100s). The next level beyond democracy is tiered, time-limited, and retractable sortism [1]: some kind of a return to roots (Athenian democracy), but with a twist. A quick way to sketch it would look like this:

(i) no functionaries: run all the administrative jobs not in an office by Margaret and John, but in some cluster of computers;

(ii) no political nominations: instead of having elections between Side A vs Side B (vs Side C in non-US countries), all the decision-making positions are up to vote by name and all the candidates are sorted out randomly from the totality of the populace (no candidate can have more than 2 mandates);

(iii) negative vote: all ballots have a special box "No One" invalidating all the candidates (if the majority votes "No One") or reducing the duration of the mandate;

(iv) the duration of the mandate correlated with voter turnout (if 30% of the populace vote, you don't get 100% of the 4-year mandate, you get 1.2 years of mandate);

(v) the vote no longer a fact (you voted for X one time), but a process (you are maintaining your vote for X today also); when a majority of people retract their vote for a certain decision-maker they automatically lose their position of power.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#390

Post by sicariusnoctis »

atomicUpdate wrote: post #358
panic wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Assuming such an organization existed, what would stop someone from using their name, logo, etc. to also promote enhancing IP law and undermine they’re entire message? Presumably they wouldn’t be so hypocritical as to sue you for that, would they?

If IP stops being a thing, we can always invent new laws to replace it such as "impersonation".
Post reply on HN