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

541–550 of 835 posts

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#541

Post by iudqnolq »

kybernetikos wrote: post #466
iudqnolq wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...and then the court threw out the settlement as unfair, and then the court ruled in Google's favor. But the court noted that Google was right on the edge of fair use. Google notably prevented the previews from being usable as a replacement for an original purchase by only displaying 1/8 of a page snippets, blacklisting 1 snippet per page, blacklisting every tenth page completely, and blacklisting works where a sing…

I still feel like if I'd done something similar as an individual I would not have got away with it. Say I downloaded z-library and wrote a search system that only showed me snippets (for searching). How likely do you think courts would find in my favour?

Yes, the court also found that their collaboration with libraries to legally scan the books mattered.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#542

Post by misnome »

Aeolun wrote: post #139
sourcecodeplz wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Locked inside with "nothing" to do, one guy probably got high and had this "revelation" that would "help" everyone else locked inside /s. It's sad because it has muddied the image of IA and it made them look like rebels when in reality they were doing just fine flying (somewhat) under the radar. I've also read some comments here from people saying they would possibly stop donating to the IA because of this. Because o…

> I've also read some comments here from people saying they would possibly stop donating to the IA because of this. Why? It’s not like this really makes a difference to the other 100 different things they’re doing.

Because IA is causing a risk that the donations aren’t paying for that, but could end up right in the publishers pockets, and shutting down those 100 other projects.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#543

Post by [deleted] »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #456
agalunar wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe I understand what you're saying, but I feel we're talking about different things, so I may have miscommunicated my point. I'm not talking about ownership as recognized or enforced by people (in fact, I never used the word "own" or "ownership"). All I mean is that if something is over here by me, it can't be over there by you, because things can't be in two places at once. On the other hand, the exact same s…

>Despite the obvious difference between physical things and ideas, we often treat them similarly (specifically, we treat ideas like physical objects). And perhaps that would seem a bit strange if we weren't so used to it. ok but they way that we treat them the same are both constructs, we don't treat them the same in that if A has the idea you can't have it (in the same way that if A takes the bite of bread you canno…

[deleted]

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#544

Post by berniedurfee »

agalunar wrote: post #308
encomiast wrote: post #294

Earlier 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…

But you’re depriving the person that originally created the original digital something of the proceeds from their hard work.

I don’t think we can have a conversation about free distribution of IP without considering the original creator.

The creator depends on getting remunerated for each copy of their work. How are they to live?

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#545

Post by narwally »

rcoveson wrote: post #396
pfisch wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally like that movies and videogames exist and can be made with large budgets because that generally makes them better. I don't see how that continues without IP.

You have no idea how good the Avengers movies are in the timeline where the US issues Internet bans for piracy and does a comprehensive job of protecting the rights of creators in other countries as well. Our IP situation is anarchy compared to theirs, and our comic book movies are embarrasments. In that timeline there's a comment chain: >> So this dev lost his job because he couldn't work during covid after getting…

More Lord of the Flies than Anarchy. There's definitely hierarchy in our system.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#546

Post by yadingus »

pfisch wrote: post #338
thrdbndndn wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. We can simply say IP is a concept that we need to bust. And that's fine. No need to invoke weird "reasoning" like that.

I personally like that movies and videogames exist and can be made with large budgets because that generally makes them better. I don't see how that continues without IP.

> that generally makes them better.

This is a very questionable statement.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#547

Post by Dylan16807 »

bruce511 wrote: post #383
encomiast wrote: post #360

Earlier 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…

> The root of copyright issues are (mostly) not about actual copyright, but the length of copyright.

The other issues are getting worse over time. Lack of first sale doctrine. DRM preventing fair use. That Aereo thing where you're not allowed to rent a preconfigured antenna and recorder from someone else.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#548

Post by pbhjpbhj »

bruce511 wrote: post #383
encomiast wrote: post #360

Earlier 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…

>Was Amazon being a patent troll patenting single-click-to-purchase? //

Just on that example. I think Amazon were fine to get a monopoly (in USA) on commercial implementation of one-click. But realistically it's worth a couple of years at most of monopoly for something which arises naturally out of the progress of the web, which Amazon rode the wave of (and contributed to). Locking that up for 20 years doesn't serve society; it's clearly anti-democratic [ie against the best interests of society as a whole] to have that extended term for business methods/software.

In this case it's trivial to work around, but that's not true of all 'small idea' patents.

This is if course my personal opinion, unrelated to my employment.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#549

Post by muyuu »

agalunar wrote: post #308
encomiast wrote: post #294

Earlier 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…

> f 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).

the unnatural, made up construct is that your property is recognised and respected by law, so that you don't have to physically defend it and potentially lose it to someone or some group stronger, perhaps more violent, than yourself

if you only recognise physical ownership, you only own objects as long as you can physically protect them yourself and you explicitly deny any further rights not to have them robbed, as that is also an "unnatural, made up construct" - you were not robbed, there is a just different physical ownership going on now

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#550

Post by Jochim »

dragonwriter wrote: post #446
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 Property is an unnatural, made up construct. > that will one day be seen as ridiculous as absolute monarchy is today. Maybe, by just asserting untestable claims about future opinions isn’t an argument. > 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 i…

> I’d rather have both have short, free terms with copyright extendable by a tax,

Why allow extension at all?

The initial term serves as a societal "thank you for that cool idea". I'm not sure I agree that financial success should mean society continues to award you exclusive rights to the idea.

Applying modern intellectual property law to "base" inventions illustrates how ridiculous it is. Should we be paying a tithe to the descendants of the person that built the first wheel? Would humanity have been better off if it had prevented anyone other than that individual from building wheels without their express permission? The answer is clearly no. That individual benefited personally from their invention and from the improvements to efficiency in the rest of their society. Restricting that would only have served to impede further innovation, prosperity, and quality of life.

Post reply on HN