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

501–510 of 835 posts

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#501

Post by dgacmu »

jodrellblank wrote: post #81
dgacmu wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everyone cares about working Sunday. Why is it Sunday? Why not Saturday? Right - one set of religious beliefs that aren't universal. Why should the state be mandating this? Isn't it better to use state power to prevent employers from being able to coerce employees into working excessively or being unable to negotiate the days off that are important to them?

> " Why should the state be mandating this? Isn't it better to use state power to prevent employers from being able to coerce employees into working " Remember when Arkansas rolled back some child labour laws? Hopefully you do, it was last week[1]. The reason why not "just do something good for workers instead" is because companies want cheaper employees with fewer options to leave, not better protections for workers…

The post I was replying to specifically indicated "Sunday".

I didn't say religion bad. I said that Sunday was chosen because of it's alignment with many Christian religions, and this is true: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law

There are many other religions that do _not_ have Sunday as a day of rest; other abrahamic religions choose Friday (Islam) or Saturday (Judaism, 7th day Adventist). Non-abrahamic religions and atheists feature further diversity.

Consider:

> California twice passed Sunday closing laws, in 1858 and in 1861. The first was found unconstitutional just five months after it was enacted. It was used to convict and imprison a Jewish clothing merchant who closed his business on Saturday, and opened it on Sunday.

( https://historycollection.com/the-random-history-of-blue-law... )

One could simply mandate that businesses offer employees one or more consistent day of rest instead of having the state pick religious winners and losers.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#502

Post by endisneigh »

gcanyon wrote: post #388
endisneigh wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

No, because if they destroyed the original then they would have no way of saying they have the original and that’s what’s being lent.

Then truly they would be lending only a copy, which was never legal to begin with.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#503

Post by frankfrankfrank »

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…

I agree with you until you parroted the propaganda trope about Roe v Wade. Roe has always been known as “bad law” even though it was never law, only illegitimate judicial dictate. It’s always been known as one of the worst rulings in American history.

It’s unfortunate that you would demonstrate such logically compromise in such a blatant manner, ironically, in a post about “bad law”. Ironically, overturning Roe specifically was good law, in that it followed the law the ruling was a blatant violation of.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#504

Post by klibertp »

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.

> Dont be shitty to people and listen to their voice are thing that any group of children playing may come up with them selves.

Not my experience at all. There's always a leader, and there's always a bully, and - if you're lucky - they are not the same kid. If you're unlucky, the whole group is a shitshow of gruesome sadism and "playing" that can lead to serious injury and death.

I mean, that's obviously anecdotal, but if children were so rational to invent things like human rights, why would we need caretakers and teachers?

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#506

Post by samsonasu »

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #371

But I can borrow ebooks from other public libraries. Is there something specific about IA or is this ruling making the concept of epub borrowing a copyright infringement (in the US)?

Public libraries pay a different, greater license fee for ebooks they can lend vs physical books . The licenses also come with restrictions about number of lends, time limits, etc.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenduffer/2019/01/30/librarie...

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#508

Post by psnehanshu »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #494
psnehanshu wrote: post #435

Can someone explain me like I am 5? What is digital lending? And please don't ask me to search Google, I am lazy.

IA bought a book, scanned it, then lent out the scanned copy rather than the physical book.

For free or for a fee?

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#509

Post by frankfrankfrank »

bachmeier wrote: post #490
forgotusername6 wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I find it both shocking and terrifying that people lack the most fundamental understanding of how a properly separated government system would work, let alone why it should function that way.

It should concern everyone that these types of top down authoritarian mentalities are more prevalent as people without a tradition or culture based in western philosophy that has led to what used to be a clear separation of powers, become more prominent even all over the western/European based world.

It will not end well for most of humanity, even in this community, regardless if how much we believe ourselves to be doing good here, or at least not even considering the destabilizing consequences of what we do here.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#510

Post by goodlinks »

klibertp wrote: post #504
goodlinks wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Dont be shitty to people and listen to their voice are thing that any group of children playing may come up with them selves. Not my experience at all. There's always a leader, and there's always a bully, and - if you're lucky - they are not the same kid. If you're unlucky, the whole group is a shitshow of gruesome sadism and "playing" that can lead to serious injury and death. I mean, that's obviously anecdotal, b…

I didnt say children were perfect or formed model societies, i said IP was nothing like human rights or democracy.

When you experienced bullies etc. did you not have someone you could talk to that would agree the person was being shitty?

the idea that you can own an idea is not something that has an obvious link to basic issues that arise from existance of people, humam rights and democracy are.

Just because some people are shitty doesnt mean we should lower the bar.

There are some reasons for IP but they should not derive from owning an idea.

Post reply on HN