Fork Everything.
Judge decides against Internet Archive
401–410 of 835 posts
Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive
#402Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
yes - so in the past there were penalty rates like double time to compensate for that.
Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive
#403Yikes. 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…
IA have posted a response, though it doesn't address what will / may happen regards book lending:
https://blog.archive.org/2023/03/25/the-fight-continues/>
Specifically:
"We will be appealing the judgment and encourage everyone to come together as a community to support libraries against this attack by corporate publishers.... We will continue our work as a library. This case does not challenge many of the services we provide with digitized books including interlibrary loan, citation linking, access for the print-disabled, text and data mining, purchasing ebooks, and ongoing donation and preservation of books."
Checking a listing for a specific book ... there's still the option to log in and borrow it as I write this.
Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive
#404Earlier 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…
> If I have a physical object, you can't also have that physical object. The parent was asking which laws are not constructs, and your example I don't think works as an answer to that question. In what sense do you "have" that physical object? For example, what does it mean to say "I have a phone"? "Having" in that sense is a construct, not a natural thing. You might be holding the phone, you might put it down, I mig…
This was imprecise on my part; I apologize. I explained what I meant by "having" in a daughter comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35299668) and made a clarification regarding sharing in another (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35299420).
Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive
#405Earlier 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…
Usually they're called NPEs, non practicing entities and differentiated because their use of patents is to use them to extract tolls rather than to build things.
Which isn't to say that established players don't also use them to create moats around technology of interest, or that the nature of certain patents doesn't lend them to abuse. They could, for example, require that the thing which makes the patent 'novel' also be 'patentable subject matter' for example, rather than letting one patent some novel software running on a non-novel computer and meet the standard one piece at a time.
Also I wasn't aware that Tolkien or his estate had any patents. Copyrights, surely, but patents? That's surprise me.
Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive
#406Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a digital copy for myself "myself" being the operative word here. you can make 100 copies for yourself . what you can't do is make a copy that you give to someone else while simultaneously retaining access to the original (or another copy). the way libraries work is by relinquishing posession, which replication would circumvent.
> what you can't do is make a copy that you give to someone else while simultaneously retaining access to the original (or another copy). I’m pretty sure I can do that. > the way libraries work is by relinquishing posession I almost included that I could shred my copy, keeping only the digital equivalent, and still retain the same rights to the work and lending it. Any individual in IA’s position could do this withou…
> I’m pretty sure I can do that.
Not legally.
> I almost included that I could shred my copy, keeping only the digital equivalent, and still retain the same rights to the work and lending it.
This is the part that is not true. For example, you are free to transcribe a book onto a parchement and read it that way, and store the parchment separately from the book for archival purposes, and keep the parchement even if the original book gets destroyed.
However, this is a limited exception to copyright. You are not in fact allowed, at any point before or after the original copy is destroyed, to lend or re-sell the parchment you created. That parchment will forever be an unauthorized copy, but one that you are allowed to use in certain limited ways.
The only wrinkle is that, at least in the EU, when you acquire an authorized digital copy of a work, you are allowed to lend or sell that copy as long as you don't retain access to it during the lending/after the sale. This is allowed even though technically you are technically creating a new copy of the digital work and destroying your own afterwards, but this is an exception specific to digital realms, it can't be extended to digital copies you make of a phyisical work.
Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive
#407A lot of people in these comments still seem confused about what has happened here. This ruling is not about the emergency library at all. It's a ruling that controlled digital lending (one physical copy backing each digital copy lent out) is illegal.
So what does this mean for my extensive library in Plex of DVDs I own?
It means you are not legally allowed to lend them or sell them, even if you lose the original DVD and even though you did have the right to lend or sell the original DVD.
Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive
#408Initially I'm enraged against the publishers, the judge and the system in general as many of you, but they are not the issue, while I can't talk on behalf of IA, I don't see this as a fight against the publishers, but a fight against broken business models flourishing because and protected by broken laws meant to protect earlier broken business models
The current law is broken, we know that, but most of us don't grasp broken laws as a threat until it is challenged (and we as a society usually lose), and then we expect the judge to "save" us from the broken law instead of holding the legislators accountable
This circuit should be shortened, we need to react better to laws as they are being drafted, not wait out their inevitable harm to society like with DMCA and PATRIOT act
If anything has proven this lately is the Roe v. Wade overturn, we really need to stop relying on courts to "save" us and instead fight for better laws, be more involved in the legislation process and actively propose and push for fixes
Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive
#409I 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.
Because people are not good at using the Internet or technology and just want to click on links.
Libgen is not particularly difficult to navigate, although its bare bones which makes it look intimidating. The real problem is some hosts are clearly trying to get me to download viruses.
Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive
#410Earlier 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 I can. The one you were just holding. You are relying on the meaning of the concept of having or owning, thinking that you don’t have to either define that or rely on a preexisting definition. Whoops.