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

481–490 of 835 posts

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#481

Post by andsoitis »

dogcomplex wrote: post #472
komali2 wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Entirely open (at best) question, which no smug hacker news commenter is going to answer. What does one do? (My current longshot hope? Digital democracy, on the backs of open source production economies running on the latest AI for highly-accessible/affordable data processing / labor. If we just start making online group decisions and scale it up, that's a power bloc that can run its own parties and strongarm existin…

> Digital democracy, on the backs of open source production economies running on the latest AI for highly-accessible/affordable data processing / labor.

Politics is the set of activities associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations among individuals.

Throwing technology at these human affairs isn’t an answer.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#482

Post by forgotusername6 »

politelemon wrote: post #461
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…

> and then we expect the judge to "save" us from the broken law instead of holding the legislators accountable Why can't it be both? All this does is keep us busy looking where the 'root cause' is and never actually solve anything because the mechanisms to fix those things don't exist... all the while others reap its benefits.

Judges are there to enforce the law, not to make it. You can't hope that the judge takes your side because then the judge could just as easily take the other side. There is of course an element of interpretation which the judges can use to decide in different directions over the same thing, but that again is an example of a broken law.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#483

Post by Mindwipe »

unopened wrote: post #185
granzymes wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article doesn't seem to understand the issue. Whether a copy of a work is fair use turns on, amongst other things, the effect of the copy on the potential market for the original. The article acknowledges this. Controlled Digital Lending competes directly with the licensing scheme publishers have for library ebooks. The fair use argument was always doomed to fail. The article then completely ignores the copyright…

The market considerations for fair use concern the market for the work of authorship as a whole, not a specific format of it. I'm not convinced fair use is the strongest argument in IA's case. But the idea that lending ebook copies can't be fair use simply because it competes with publishers' ebook licensing schemes seems like a misreading of how fair use is typically applied. Of course other fair use considerations…

It's only one of the tests, but in legal terms and precident it is a very strong one that HN frequently underestimates.

It's not impossible for a case to win when competing against a licensing scheme, but it is very, very, very hard.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#484

Post by criddell »

komali2 wrote: post #438
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 th…

A decade ago, activists made a difference protesting SOPA and PIPA.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#485

Post by goodlinks »

jb1991 wrote: post #470
goodlinks wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you read the ragged trousered phillanthropists?

No I haven’t, but if you’re suggesting that these so-called unnatural constructs can be damaging to the world, that is certainly true, but the flipside is that they also lead to great progress.

Imho Its a really good book, i think the first novel written by a non-noble, or something like that.

Its over 100 years old but still very relevant today. Understanding how things have not changed in that time was powerful in helping me form opinions on what should change.

Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ragged-Trousered_Philant...

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#486

Post by FredPret »

goodlinks wrote: post #450
FredPret wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other made-up constructs include human rights and democracy. Your argument does not make sense.

Human rights and democracy are nothing like IP. Dont be shitty to people and listen to their voice are thing that any group of children playing may come up with them selves. Those same children will copy each other and build on ideas each other have. Thi child who demands no one can play a game or any derivative because they came up with it first, well, they are just not very nice.

Ironically, if we built a lord-of-the-flies society (based on child "morality") we'll have an arbitrary concentration of power that'll make our IP rules look like a picnic.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#487

Post by jzb »

prox wrote: post #469
komali2 wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Getting involved, grass roots style. The feeling of powerlessness is exactly the way you become inert to do anything. “What can I do.” Politics work from the local to the national, so getting involved locally is a good thing, or organizations that work to promote the ideals you want to see in the world.

Getting involved locally is a very non-specific guidance. Part of the problem with “local involvement” is that a lot of folks are in very very gerrymandered areas. Either you’re hopelessly outvoted or preaching to the choir when trying to affect local politics.

But also, I think we are well past affecting change through voting and so forth. Not that you shouldn’t vote. But if we want to see actual change in the United States, we need to start taking some cues from the French and other countries where they go on strike aggressively until they get what they want.

As long as we keep getting fucked and showing up for work anyway the powers that be are just going to keep fucking us.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#488

Post by Mindwipe »

PinkRidingHood wrote: post #465
tsimionescu wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 th…

Does that mean I can take the book, copy it, then resell it, keeping the copy?

Obviously there are lots of jurisdictions and you have to hit a broad brush with answers, but generally, no. Your reproduction is only considered to be reasonable by law while you retain the original.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#489

Post by Mindwipe »

jhbadger wrote: post #156
dmix wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this just ebook lending? Is that popular among local libraries? I thought Kindle/Nook/Apple books/etc completely dominated that market. Reading PDFs on computers/tablets for long form stuff never made much sense to me. I'm curious if local libraries get much traction from their digital libraries. I could see audiobooks getting locked down being a big hit though. Audible has a monopoly on that harder than ebooks ev…

It's very popular among local libraries (at least in the US and UK) -- Libby/Overdrive being the main player, followed by Hoopla.

It is worth noting that Libraries in the UK have to pay authors/publishers to loan out books on a royalty basis with the Public Lending Right payment of course. Even physical books.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#490

Post by bachmeier »

forgotusername6 wrote: post #482
politelemon wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and then we expect the judge to "save" us from the broken law instead of holding the legislators accountable Why can't it be both? All this does is keep us busy looking where the 'root cause' is and never actually solve anything because the mechanisms to fix those things don't exist... all the while others reap its benefits.

Judges are there to enforce the law, not to make it. You can't hope that the judge takes your side because then the judge could just as easily take the other side. There is of course an element of interpretation which the judges can use to decide in different directions over the same thing, but that again is an example of a broken law.

> Judges are there to enforce the law, not to make it.

That's not the right characterization of the argument. Judges are there to tell legislators that they can't make certain laws. The abortion dispute is not about judges making abortion legal, it's about judges telling politicians that they cannot make abortion illegal. Without that, politicians would literally have the ability to do anything they want.

Post reply on HN