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

641–650 of 835 posts

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#641

Post by retrocryptid »

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.

Absolutely. Marbury v. Madison didn't happen.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#642

Post by hedora »

bradrn wrote: post #305
jrmg wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Replying to your edit: The format shifting argument and first sale doctrine are discussed in the ruling. Notably in the section headed ‘3’ starting on page 28 - but also in other places.

This is interesting, from that section: Nor does IA’s promise not to lend simultaneously its lawfully acquired print copies and its unauthorized reproductions help its case. As an initial matter, IA has not kept its promise. Although the Open Library’s print copies of the Works in Suit are non-circulating, IA concedes that it has no way of verifying whether Partner Libraries remove their physical copies from circulat…

Oh, then this case was found on the facts. (They are doing a thing that pretty clearly violates fair use.)

I like the IA, but I’m happy this was the screw up. It should greatly weaken the precedent this ruling creates.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#643

Post by youainti »

alistairSH wrote: post #611
NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. T…

The "jungle" primary you speak of is in use in Washington state.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#644

Post by retrocryptid »

eggburger wrote: post #524
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…

Who gave them the right to say it was legal or illegal in the first place? People in here pretending one party is better than the other because they give you back fundamental human rights they have no business controlling the legality of to begin with.

The constitution.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#645

Post by mymythisisthis »

generj wrote: post #574
scythe wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most obvious distinction between intellectual property and ordinary property is their history. Ownership of things has existed for longer than reliable records are available. Copyright and patents, by contrast, were created during the late Renaissance in response to the particular economic circumstances of the time. They have since become the tools of entrenched interests who would rather suggest that things have…

I’d argue intellectual property existed earlier than that, as soon as states (or guilds) considered certain techniques and skills exclusive to them. Off the top of my mind, with a solely European view the Venetians moved glass production to Murano in the 13th century at least partially to make a monopoly on luxury glass. World History was awhile ago but other restrictions on technology transfer existed by at least 80…

Guilds would get the right to do something by the government, to the exclusion of others. Such as the haberdasher guild, that had the right to sew and no one else could sew commercially.

Patent was invented to break the guilds. A guild member could reveal a technology publicly, and get a 10 year right to use it. This was to make progress go faster, as guilds kept technology secret.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#647

Post by dahart »

endisneigh wrote: post #258
benatkin wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're saying something similar to "you wouldn't download a car". It's applying without considering it. The digital book isn't being kept at the old location because there is no digital book in the physical book. It's the only way to transfer a single copy of a book without destroying the physical copy. Judges should consider stuff like this and it's a disappointing ruling. But go on...

Exactly. And there lies the issue. Internet archive has the book and lends the book simultaneously. Hence why they lost.

No, that’s not why they lost. The reason is because they effectively lend it to many people simultaneously, and implement no controls on getting it “returned” (deleted) by the people they lent it to, while even being aware that some of them don’t “return” it.

The technicality that they keep a copy of the book while it’s being lent isn’t really at issue here at all. It’s not because there are two copies, it’s because there are three or more copies, given to two or more parties at the same time. It has become “distribution” in the eyes of copyright law, beyond the lending analogy.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#648

Post by retrocryptid »

Probably worth it to give this a scan before commenting on what the judiciary is supposed to do (or is allowed to do):

https://www.loc.gov/item/90898138/

And I was surprised to find the Wikipedia section on Judicial Review was pretty reasonable:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_S...

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#650

Post by acomjean »

ratboy666 wrote: post #623
bachmeier wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Judges do NOT legislate from the bench! That is incredibly anti-democratic, and a collapse of our system. Judges do NOT tell politicians that they cannot make abortion illegal. That right, and yes, it IS a right, is reserved to the electorate. Who gets their will expressed through politicians. Judges judge against the body of legislation (and common law). And, yes politicians LITERALLY have the ability to do anything…

We have rights as individuals, which can’t be infringed by laws. The courts are there to prevent those laws. It’s what abortion and 2nd amendment lawsuits are all about.

These right declarations aren’t super clear so the political leanings of the court weight heavily.

Post reply on HN