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

431–440 of 835 posts

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#431

Post by piceas »

dmix wrote: post #262
dunham wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My ten year old uses "Libby" a lot to borrow books from the local library - at one point they started rate limiting him. He also typically has a dozen physical books checked out at any given time.

Just curious: What kind of books do they read? On an ipad or something?

For my five year old, we have been rate limited on overdrive reading Pete the Cat and Franklin books. Partly because the selection is woeful (about 20 English books) compared to IA's thousands in that category.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#432

Post by burnished »

ChrisKnott wrote: post #384
edgyquant wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh, were you not alive when Steam started being a thing and piracy sharply reduced? Turns out people like to buy things from people who make things they like.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#433

Post by xvector »

pdar4123 wrote: post #205
xvector wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the one use case where the blockchain/web3 is useful. Give me a decentralized library on the blockchain, where no government can take it down by merely discovering the host's identity and location. Invulnerable to rubber-hose attacks and censorship (which IPFS is still vulnerable to.)

Why do u need a blockchain? Why not just torrents for sharing.

Torrents can't be updated.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#434

Post by xvector »

MisterSandman wrote: post #212
pdar4123 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do u need a blockchain? Why not just torrents for sharing.

Exactly, torrents are already decentralized.

Torrents cannot be updated. Furthermore, torrents are subject to the sites that advertise them getting banned. You will constantly be on the hunt for new trackers.

Blockchain is an obviously superior application here as new books and articles are constantly being released.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#436

Post by xvector »

friend_and_foe wrote: post #220
xvector wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the one use case where the blockchain/web3 is useful. Give me a decentralized library on the blockchain, where no government can take it down by merely discovering the host's identity and location. Invulnerable to rubber-hose attacks and censorship (which IPFS is still vulnerable to.)

Blockchains don't really do this well though. A blockchain is useful when you need a publicly accessible, canonical shared record of a consensus, obfuscated or otherwise. They're not for storing arbitrary data. If you want to store arbitrary data, and you want peer to peer decentralized kind of features and you want identities obfuscated, currently you're looking at BitTorrent over Tor. I don't know if i2p or Tor or…

Blockchains can absolutely be used for storing arbitrary data (see Filecoin.)

Torrents cannot be updated. Whether done over Tor or not, they aren't suitable for this use case, especially as you have to chase down the websites that advertise them, as they constantly get banned.

What you need is a distributed append-only data structure. Blockchains are an example, but not the only way to do this.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#437

Post by sltkr »

ChrisKnott wrote: post #384
edgyquant wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can, but you'd use more DRM and server components. In the extreme your game would be streaming on something like GeForce Now so only paying customers can access it.

To a large extent we also see that today (because let's be honest, current copyright law is not enforced very consistently) and there are still big-budget movies and games being released.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#438

Post by komali2 »

uda wrote: post #408

Initially 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 gras…

What actions can Americans possibly take given the captured two party system and drawing back of voting rights? Not to mention the wildly unrepresentative government, wherein for example more people can vote for Trump in California than Texas in 2020 yet each of those person's votes are functionally meaningless, or, republicans can fail for over two decades to win a popular vote and still elect three presidents in that time. Or the fact that California gets very few senators per person whereas north Dakota gets a much larger power per citizen in the Senate, and the House is similarly unrepresentative.

It seems that working within the system isn't an option for Americans that desire a better world anymore. Perhaps a billionaire has the means to change this within system-allowed parameters such as lobbying and ad buys?

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#439

Post by Thorentis »

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.

I mostly agree with the conclusion, but your premise is shaky. Positive law (as in, laws which are of human creation) are not inherently bad because humans made them. Humans are more than capable of creating good laws which protect the common good against the worst parts of human nature. But they are also capable of creating bad laws.

We have to analyse each law on its own merit.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#440

Post by jazzyjackson »

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.

start a company why don't you, being an exec sounds simple enough
Post reply on HN