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

561–570 of 835 posts

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#561

Post by meany »

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.

But the judges should only overrule legislators when their laws violated higher level legislative authority or constitutions, right? Do you think a judge should be able to legislate what the law is independent of elected officials? Why would you trust them, especially since they are appointed by politicians or elected themselves?

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#563

Post by realusername »

berniedurfee wrote: post #539
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.

But doesn’t that conflict with the practicalities of economics? If everyone freely creates copies of what I produce, because they can, I can’t go buy things that can’t be easily replicated, like food or shelter. If IP is free for everyone, what do we do with all the people who need to live solely by producing IP?

Maybe there's a middle-ground between zero IP and the near perpetual IP we have right now.

Additionally, we must keep in mind in those debates that piracy causing loss of revenue has never been proven and is an urban legend.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#564

Post by shigawire »

andsoitis wrote: post #481
dogcomplex wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not the sole answer but it does enable different ideas that weren't possible at scale without technology.

Something like liquid democracy.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#565

Post by Semaphor »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #551
Dylan16807 wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yes, very few works need more than the original 7 years in order for them to get a sufficient return to make them economically viable.

I wonder if that applies to novels that don’t become bestsellers? A book that simply does okay. People buy it, never a ton of them, but always a few, every few days, for a long time. No idea what the answer is, just something that popped into my head.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#566

Post by meany »

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…

The slowness and lethargy of the system is by design. For instance, The constitution is really hard to change to prevent tyranny. Checks and balances against power protect all our rights. There is no garauntee that the people in power will choose your path forward. There is also no garauntee that the majority view is yours. Hitler for example was elected. The system was setup to ensure for hundreds of years at the price of short term inefficiency. Read the history of an imploding republic - France, Rome, Weimar - and you will see similar pushes to speed reform for the masses that ended in tyranny. Reading the federalist papers will give good perspective on the rationale for these things. One may disagree with the conclusions, but the concerns and rationales are reasonable

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#567

Post by rocqua »

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.

There is a specific benefit to society. It allows artists to live of creating works meant for wide consumption. It means artists aren't limited to those who cater to the rich and those who are rich themselves.

Not that I support current copyright law, but I do see that it brings some good. That good just doesn't outweigh the bad.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#568

Post by denton-scratch »

benatkin wrote: post #233
jkdufair wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t disagree with the ruling. IA is not lending their copy that they purchased. They are lending a copy of their copy. While that copy is lent out, they are still free to, I.e. read the copy in their possession.

Unsurprising that not all of HN is pro-fair use. That's how you digitally send a copy of a book. You're saying something similar to "you wouldn't download a car".

> Unsurprising that not all of HN is pro-fair use.

Isn't "fair use" restricted to (a) short portions of a work, (b) used for specific purposes, such as education or criticism?

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#569

Post by cduzz »

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.

You certainly can if you're in east texas!
Post reply on HN