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

421–430 of 835 posts

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#421

Post by Joeri »

thayne wrote: post #341
gsk22 wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 demo…

Rulers who conquer tend not to be wise or virtuous, because if they were they wouldn’t conquer. I can’t think of an example of a benevolent autocratic ruler that outperformed the average democracy when it came to the well-being of all their subjects (including the conquered). Some rulers can use the spoils of war to bless some of their subjects, but that just shifts wealth around and causes incredible misery for the deprived.

Productivity requires decentralized decision-making. The more centralized the power structure is, the lower the overall productivity of the subject population.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#422

Post by nvader »

Zetice wrote: post #268
nvader wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sherlock Holmes' emotions would like a word. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/oct/07/the-curious-ca...

Are you aware of how that case resolved?

My recollection was that they reached a settlement, but I don't know for how much. https://abbasmedialaw.com/posts/copyright-netflix-reaches-se...

I found this chart interesting, and unexpectedly complicated: https://www.belmont.edu/legal/pdf/Public-Domain-Chart.pdf

Based on that I think a heuristic of 100 years is broadly correct.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#423

Post by detrites »

hedora wrote: post #192
allturtles wrote: post #91

A 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.

That’s a terrible ruling. The first sale doctrine says the copy of the book you bought is yours. Lending the book is clearly not copying it. So, I guess you just don’t own anything you buy anymore? Like what if I want to lend a tool to someone, and the tool manufacturer wants to rent their tools out? Is that also illegal? What if the tool contains software? What if reasonable use of the tool requires accessing a prin…

"Alpaca III, can you write an accurate page-by-page summary of every page of Book-I-Want-To-Read, where each summary's one page long and as faithful to the original pages content and length as possible, fully quoting each page permitted?"

My point being: as technology marches on the ageing concept of "owning" entirely fungible digital material becomes less and less valid. It is already at a stage meaninglessness is flirting with it in a new way daily and that will continue.

Really, we need to let it go.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#424

Post by mushbino »

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.

The golden rule is pretty universal for human.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#425

Post by b800h »

Timwi wrote: post #411
jenadine wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The employees toil to create amazing stuff and receive a pittance compared to what it's worth. Most of the profit goes to execs who have had no hand in creating anything of value.

[flagged]

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#426

Post by nmeagent »

alwayslikethis wrote: post #374
klabb3 wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such an “ackchully” argument from the ruling. It’s not the spirit of the law and the principles behind the idea of free access to information. Instead it’s narrowing in on the specifics of physical lending of books, grasping for analogies to the 20th century, in a world which has transformed and moved on decades ago. But even if all those things weren’t true, or important, it’s profound that there’s enough co…

Make no mistake, the law is specific made to limit free access to information. Originally this was a reasonable concession to encourage creative work, but as the length extended and copyright starts to be controlled by massive corporations, they gradually became a way to protect profits.

Right. IMO copyright in general seriously conflicts with the very concepts of free expression and ownership. As corporations eat the world and are able to push to maximize copyright to protect their profits, our rights of expression and ownership are diminished. Fair use and the first sale doctrine will ultimately be meaninglessly minimized curiosities if we don't fight, tooth and nail, corporate IP holders and the bought state entities that protect them.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#427

Post by pauby »

tenpies wrote: post #229
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said it before on this very forum. Wikipedia does not really need your donations these days. IA just might.

Unfortunately IA lost all credibility in my eyes, when they decided that one journalist in particular gets to decide that none of their (awful) tweets should be archived[1]. I understand not allowing certain things to be archived, but the tweets of a public person, especially one who works as a news-maker, should certainly be in the allowed list. E: And just to be clear, this was before said writer set their tweets t…

What has IA done wrong? You don't provide any references.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#428

Post by wahern »

bdowling wrote: post #257
Aeolun wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article the publishers take issue with only 120 or so books. No idea what kind of effect that will have on the rest of it though.

> the publishers take issue with only 120 or so books Not quite. The plaintiffs have to name some specific works on which to base the case. The 120 is enough because the statutory damages for just those 120 works could be a staggering amount that would bankrupt IA. The complaint [0] also asks for an injunction enjoining IA from any further infringement of "any of the respective copyrights owned or exclusively control…

There's a good chance IA will be exempted from statutory damages. See 17 USC § 504(c)(2),

> The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was: (i) an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her employment who, or such institution, library, or archives itself, which infringed by reproducing the work in copies or phonorecords

The opinion (p46) defers this matter,

> At this point, IA’s statutory remittance argument is premature. IA may renew the argument in connection with the formation of an appropriate judgment.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.53...

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#429

Post by pauby »

gerdesj wrote: post #99
dboreham wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same in England. In Scotland there were no strong laws against Sunday shopping, apparently because nobody thought any shop would even think about opening. So when they did, and everyone went shopping, folks in England complained that they wanted what Scotland had.

Are you sure? It sounds vaguely convincing but unlikely in practice: Scotland - Largely Presbyterian ie rather more Catholic than us southern softies wot do Church of Eng. Your Catholic is rather more concerned about Sabbath behaviour than your Protestant except when they don't. Mind you we have some laughable nonsense available regardless of denomination - for example otters were once classed as fish hereabouts for…

In Central Scotland, during the 70s and 80s, lunch time closing was the norm. Half day Wednesday was also very popular in some trades (butchers, grocers etc.) as it allowed working on a Saturday morning.

Back then, nothing was open on a Sunday.

In some parts of Scotland (the Western Isles for example) doing any work, hanging your washing out, cutting your grass etc. on a Sunday, to be violating the Sabbath. No laws. Just peer pressure from your neighbours. As you'd expect this is stronger in smaller villages than larger towns.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#430

Post by casey2 »

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?

>What laws? All natural rights, life (bodily functions e.g. the right to eat not to have something to eat), speech, association etc. Broadly defined as anything a person can do that doesn't require violence or compulsion.

If someone says something in public then I have the right to say it. A way to get around this is by making every viewing of copyrighted material a private contract. e.g. "You can only own a license for personal use of this movie if pay and agree not to share it." But, if somebody does break that contract and shares the movie publicly, going only by natural rights everyone who watched it would be able to share. Since book publishers didn't like this they lobbied for our current "unnatural" copyright laws.

Why people don't like this now generally falls into three camps with some overlap 1) People who want free books, movies and software. 2) People who want all books, movies and software to be libre. 3) People who don't want the government to create a protected class of license holders, for various reasons (anticommunism, traditionalism etc.)

Post reply on HN