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

631–640 of 835 posts

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#631

Post by MrVandemar »

giantrobot wrote: post #375
hackernewds wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happened to Google Books? I would argue the artist still deserves to retain value, regardless of the size of it unless they give it up. If it expires, sure it's public domain.

If artists deserve money every time you read a book then your plumber should get paid every time you take a shit. Copyrights have been abused to the point of absurdity. They should last no longer than patents. A writer/artist/whatever can make some money off a work for two decades and then their work goes to the society that enabled its creation.

> A writer/artist/whatever can make some money off a work for two decades and then their work goes to the society that enabled its creation.

-- Signed, Not an Artist.

(Most artists are paid an absolute pittance for their work. Most work at least one other job. Almost none make even a basic income. I feel artists should have the benefit of the income from their work for their natural life, unless they waive their rights. That said, companies have sorely abused and influenced copyright law to the point that the advantage is highly asymmetric in their favour and that certainly needs to be addressed).

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#632

Post by dctoedt »

Xeoncross wrote: post #624
LilyFrenchPants wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You can do whatever you would like with your uterus (or any other body part), just please don't kill anyone in the process.

> just please don't kill anyone in the process.

Ah, there's the rub: How to define "anyone."

(In my 1960s Catholic family, my parents encouraged us four kids to discuss issues of the day at the dinner table. One night the discussion was about abortion, and specifically, when does a fetus become human. My dad joked that he often wondered whether fetuses didn't become human until they could cut their own meat ....)

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#633

Post by wl »

Algemarin wrote: post #106
crazygringo wrote: post #80

Yikes. I borrow books constantly from the IA that are hard/impossible to find elsewhere because they've gone out of print. A lot of academic-ish non-fiction from the 1960s-1980s, stuff you can only otherwise get through inter-library loan that takes weeks rather than seconds. Any idea if this means IA has to shut down lending by when? Tomorrow? Next month? Any chances for appeal here? Or any chance they relocate the…

> I borrow books constantly from the IA that are hard/impossible to find elsewhere because they've gone out of print. A lot of academic-ish non-fiction from the 1960s-1980s, stuff you can only otherwise get through inter-library loan that takes weeks rather than seconds. Try Library Genesis: https://libgen.is/

LibGen's selection of these kinds of books is nowhere near that of the Internet Archive.

I guess I'm going to have A LOT more interlibrary loans in my future.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#634

Post by scoot »

libraryatnight wrote: post #82
scoot wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Didn’t realize you were low on bread and forgot to get it Saturday oh well kids are not getting a sandwich in their lunches for Monday morning school. Probably not the best example, because it's not like a sandwich is the only lunch option (the lazy one for sure), but I take your point. Migraine and no painkillers, period and no pads, sex and no condom, alcoholic and no alcohol (with risk of lethal DTs)? Too bad...

The logic you use to dismiss the sandwich example extrapolates to your own examples. "Shut off the lights and go to bed or go to the ER" "Stuff a cloth in your underwear" "Don't have sex" "Don't you have any sterno or mouthwash?!" Why even do this to someone if you understood their meaning and more or less agree?

So your argument is that no shopping is an inconvenience, not an imposition? I ask because you did the same thing you're arguing against, and yet failed to provide any counter examples.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#635

Post by kortex »

starkd wrote: post #621
cbozeman wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It also can be argued that overturning Woe v. Wade was good, because it put it into the hands of legislators. It was shitty law because it instituted a right where none was. Thus, it kept legislators from legislating on an evolving issue.

There are many who argue that no specific law is necessary, that the Constitution gives the right of privacy and bodily autonomy, and that Roe v Wade correctly asserts that constitutional right.

Do you need a specific law protecting the right to throw a barbecue, own a dog, or read books on dangerous topics? No, because the Constitution is a framework which broadly allows actions by people, and carves out specific things that the government has control over.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#636

Post by djha-skin »

Something developers don't seem to understand about the media business is just how much they care about copyright law.

One huge thing that was drilled into my skull working for SlingTV: a work comprises the actual data and the medium to which it is affixed. When 11 million people used our DVRs to record the super bowl, we had to store 11 million copies on disc. Of the same exact footage. That we ourselves originally broadcast to them. Our lawyers told us not even to try messing with this. Don't try to share copies they said, we'll get sued off of our faces.

So I'm not surprised that a judge ruled this way when looking at the facts. From a media person's perspective, digitally copying the work that was in print is making a second copy. Whether or not you think this is dumb, it's the reality under which we work. I've learned to be very careful about things like this.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#638

Post by komali2 »

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…

I agree with many that the most effective method will be some combination of empowering communities and destruction of property.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#639

Post by komali2 »

maxwell wrote: post #575
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…

Odd to open asking what actions Americans can take, and then closing with a bizarre appeal to a noble wealth hoarder. What can we do? Uncap the House. Repeal the Reapportionment Act of 1929. The billionaires easily bribe 435 reps, several thousand would be harder. And in line with historical representation. https://www.reddit.com/r/uncapthehouse

The bizarre appeal was poorly communicated sarcasm.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#640

Post by dahart »

alwayslikethis wrote: post #374
klabb3 wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such an “ackchully” argument from the ruling. It’s not the spirit of the law and the principles behind the idea of free access to information. Instead it’s narrowing in on the specifics of physical lending of books, grasping for analogies to the 20th century, in a world which has transformed and moved on decades ago. But even if all those things weren’t true, or important, it’s profound that there’s enough co…

Make no mistake, the law is specific made to limit free access to information. Originally this was a reasonable concession to encourage creative work, but as the length extended and copyright starts to be controlled by massive corporations, they gradually became a way to protect profits.

> they gradually became a way to protect profits.

It was always from the very beginning a way to protect profits, that was the primary intent of copyright law, to give the creator of a work the exclusive right to make the money from the work before others are allowed to take the content and sell it for their own profit. Yes the length has become crazy long, and yes the law limits free (as in beer) access to information, but that hasn’t changed the reason for it’s being at all. It’s not really a “concession” either, more like it was intentionally balanced to provide enough time for people to make profits (which is what economically encourages creative work), while being short enough to allow works to reach the public over time.

Post reply on HN