Judge decides against Internet Archive • Hacker News Board

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#611

Post by alistairSH » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 2:24 PM UTC

NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #608

hyperman1 wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an non-USA inhabitant, one thing I see is that you have a lot more voting chances than most countries. I heard e.g. you can vote for officials like sheriffs and stuff. So don't only vote for a president, vote for everything you can. Become member of both parties, and vote for presidential candidates at both sides. I think after that, you shouldn't be afraid to 'throw your vote away'. Gerrymandering and other stuff…

> Become member of both parties, and vote for presidential candidates at both sides. That's not permitted in any state which I know. I am a registered voter in "NO PARTY", which gives me the option to request a ballot from any party in a primary and vote within that party. Any registered voter can vote any candidate or issue in general elections. I think what would improve our abysmal two-party system would be runner…

The likely best solution to the 2-party system is a change to balloting from single-choice to something like approval voting (check any number of candidates you could live with) or ranked-choice/instant run-off (number candidates by preference).

If I were king, I’d do away with party primaries completely. Run a jungle primary with all candidates on a single ballot. Ranked choice to pick the top 4-5 for the general. Then ranked choice in the general to select the winner. Something like that.

I’d also ditch the EC for direct election of the president. And legislate the size of a House district be derived from the smallest state population. This adds hundreds of members to the House, and brings voting parity back to CA and TX (who currently have districts substantially larger than Wyoming’s single seat.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#612

Post by bryanrasmussen » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 2:24 PM UTC

philipps wrote: post #521

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a general rule we don't enforce copyright at the point of having an idea, but rather at the point of putting that idea into some sort of medium that can be transmitted to others, and then we enforce copyright at the transmission point. The transmission has concrete, albeit somewhat mutable scarcity.

The characterization that IP law is only intended to spur creative activity is incorrect. It was designed to balance the interests of the creator with those of society. And that balance is off, IP regulation has become a tool for rent seeking.

>The characterization that IP law is only intended to spur creative activity is incorrect. It was designed to balance the interests of the creator with those of society.

I will just note that characterization is a very American one, and that different cultures have different characterizations.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#613

Post by GuB-42 » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 2:26 PM UTC

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…

Judges here to apply the law made by the legislators. That's the basis of the separation of powers. If it wasn't the case we wouldn't have a legislation in the first place turning judges into oligarchs.

The way people are supposed to support better laws is by electing better legislators. Easier said than done I admit, but I think that's better than giving judges power beyond their role.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#614

Post by dahart » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 2:26 PM UTC

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…

> The current law is broken

I think many agree that copyright needs to be shortened, but what does “broken” mean, exactly?

I have good feelings for the Internet Archive, but in this case it’s about a handful of books that are being copied and distributed a mere 5 years after initial publication, which I think a lot of people who want copyright shortened would still agree is quite a bit too short. Books frequently get popular long after initial publication, they’re not anything like blockbuster movies that make most of their income in a few weeks (which used to be true before streaming but might not even be true anymore).

Keep in mind that this isn’t about the Internet Archive specifically. If the court ruled it’s okay for them to copy and rent books, then anyone can copy and rent books, it undermines the entire market for books (and also web sites and images and other media, because this is the Internet Archive). Think about what it means for the company you work for, or the creative works you or your artist friends create, if people can copy their things legally and take away their revenue streams after only 5 years.

I wonder why the Internet Archive doesn’t keep things unpublished on their site until it’s not generally available online, this would keep them clear of the most obvious copyright violations.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#615

Post by sacrosancty » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 2:27 PM UTC

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.

[dead]

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#616

Post by cbozeman » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 2:29 PM UTC

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…

[flagged]

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#617

Post by wwweston » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 2:31 PM UTC

agalunar wrote: post #538

cxr wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The creative effort comprising time and attention that goes into bringing a work into existence is rivalrous. That's what IP law aims to protect/reward. People can insist on pretending not to understand this every time the argument comes up, but it's at their own peril; the world is not going to undergo IP reform as a result of anyone misconstruing or misrepresenting the issue as if it's really about whether or not p…

Speaking as to my own opinion now: I'm skeptical that "encouraging creators by offering protections" is much more than a rationalization. (And I'm not sure whether it's historically accurate, although that's beside the point.) It doesn't seem like the concept of intellectual property and its protection under the law have been effective at encouraging people to create things; they seem to be more effective at encourag…

“Incentives don’t matter” is usually a bad take.

The idea that patronage isn’t dominant because… it can’t compete with copyright? is a not-even-wrong take.

And there’s an astounding burst of human creativity in the last 300 years. There are several factors you can attribute that to but the correlation with ip laws means you’re not going to have evidence that they inhibit rather than incentivize progress in the useful arts and sciences.

If there’s any empty rationalization in play, it’s yours.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#618

Post by sacrosancty » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 2:32 PM UTC

dylan604 wrote: post #345

coldtea wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Intellectual property is an unnatural, made up construct that will one day be seen as ridiculous as absolute monarchy is today. Not so sure about the monarchy thing, nominally yes, but we're certainly moving to renting everything content-related, and even back to political and corporate feudalism in many aspects, we might as well be peasants whose feudal lords own everything...

as it should be peasant. now get back to work!!! /s with the concept of 1%ers and how imbalanced the wealth distribution is, it doesn't really seem like it's much different than the days of feudal lords. it just seems like we've been tricked into thinking there was a middle class to keep the revolting to a minimum.

[dead]

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#619

Post by pontifier » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 2:33 PM UTC

I'm a little bit worried about how this might affect Murfie.

I've been an advocate for years for a model where people own physical media, and have access to the media they own in any way they see fit.

The way this ruling is structured, it paves the way to make even ripping your own CDs to your MP3 player illegal. As common as it is, this right has never actually been tested in court.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#620

Post by LilyFrenchPants » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 2:37 PM UTC

cbozeman wrote: post #616

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…

[flagged]

[flagged]