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

681–690 of 835 posts

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#681

Post by granzymes »

jhanschoo wrote: post #445
blincoln wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe that libraries should be barred from archiving material to microfiche? How is that significantly different from format-shifting a book to electronic form, as long as they use DRM to limiy concurrent viewing?

I suppose the difference is that publishers aren't suing such libraries and such archival isn't accessible enough to harm publishers' markets.

The second point is crucial. The microfiche copies of e.g. newspapers do not compete with the originals.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#682

Post by gcanyon »

yencabulator wrote: post #678
endisneigh wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because if they destroyed the original then they would have no way of saying they have the original and that’s what’s being lent. Then truly they would be lending only a copy, which was never legal to begin with.

In the industry the title page is often considered to be proof of ownership. E.g. when a book doesn't sell, and book stores want it off the shelves, they may be asked to destroy the books except return the title pages to the publisher, as proof.

Yep, waaaay back when I worked part time in a book store. I've stripped paperbacks.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#683

Post by beej71 »

thebooktocome wrote: post #300
LeoPanthera wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does suck, but it was self-inflicted. I love the IA, I've even done volunteer work for the Physical Archive, but the "emergency library" was mad. I can't imagine how they justified it.

The National Emergency Library is barely relevant to the current ruling, which is primarily about Controlled Digital Lending.

But it sure sounds like NEL was a trigger.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#684

Post by gcanyon »

endisneigh wrote: post #502
gcanyon wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this answerable by destroying the physical copy? (not saying that IA took this action, just saying that it removes the complaint of dual use)

No, because if they destroyed the original then they would have no way of saying they have the original and that’s what’s being lent. Then truly they would be lending only a copy, which was never legal to begin with.

It would be trivial to document the ownership/destruction of the original. Video the process?

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#685

Post by gcanyon »

cowsandmilk wrote: post #586
gcanyon wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strange that this isn't easily dealt with by: 1. IA actually buying a physical copy (or as many copies as they plan on simultaneously making available to borrowers) of the book. 2. After scanning the physical copy, destroying it, and documenting same. Then as long as they guarantee that they only loan out as many copies as they physically had (before destroying them) there's no question of simultaneous usage.

The Internet Archive freely admitted in the case that the physical copies owned by partner libraries were not destroyed.

Yeah, I get that they may not have done this -- that's why I suggested it could be "easily dealt with" by doing this.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#686

Post by thebooktocome »

dahart wrote: post #614
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…

Is there really no middle ground between “five years after publication” and “seventy years after the last author’s death”?

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#687

Post by SamoyedFurFluff »

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…

I bet in your county it would take the dedicated organization of maybe 10-25 people to tilt who is out on the ballot in your local government. (If your county is much larger, you may need 50 or so.) register for a minor party and then only nominate members of that minor party that fit your views. A friend of mine in his smaller town was able to, with his local family, put on only democratic candidates under Republican nominations because his family had minor party share.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#688

Post by SamoyedFurFluff »

coldtea wrote: post #415
edgyquant wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was accepted as an economic reality but it was never considered moral or ethical to own slaves any more than it’s considered ethical to own a tool shed today.

Of course it was absolutely considered moral and ethical. There are tons of old articles, books, and treteases on the matter, describing it as perfectly moral and ethical, and how its beneficial to the slaves, who lack agency, are animal like, and are offered "useful work" from their masters who know better, how they are beastly and need the whip to get sense into them, and so on. That's of course, on top of the fact…

It was also considered a mental illness for a black person to want to be free. The healthy position of a black person was being enslaved, and a black person attempting to become free was considered sick and needing psychiatric treatment!

(Am agreeing point that, unfortunately, slave holding was considered morally good once upon a time… a biological fact, even!)

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#689

Post by Dylan16807 »

Dalewyn wrote: post #605
Dylan16807 wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's giving everyone in the country the same amount of voting power. That's not defying the will of anyone. Stop focusing in on exactly how individual electors would supposedly defy things, because the point of the compact is to make electors irrelevant, and the overall outcome follows people's will perfectly fine. Consider this: If states traded pairs of electors with each other your logic would call that defying th…

You are neglecting to understand that the States are separate from each other, with a right to decide their affairs themselves. The nationwide popular vote is meaningless because the United States of America does not operate on nationwide popular votes, it operates on Statewide Popular Votes which are represented at the Federal level of politics by the States' respective Governors, Congressmen, and Electors. Consider…

> The Compact argues for the people of one State dictating the decision of the people of another State

So would my theoretical where states trade electors. So that's not enough to show that democracy has been damaged.

The process as a whole would still be democratic. The result as a whole would be based on everyone's vote with even more equality than usual.

Looking at individual electors to make an objection is not going to give you the right answer.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#690

Post by raynr »

mysterypie wrote: post #663
djha-skin wrote: post #636

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…

> we had to store 11 million copies on disc The reason you were allowed to store 11 million copies is because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled[1] in 1984 that you were permitted to make copies of TV shows to watch later on your VCR. And this was reputedly because some of the supreme court judges had VCRs — which had been spreading lightning fast at the time — and understood the concept and wanted to find or create a lega…

To be more specific, the Betamax case is the reason a specific person can store a copy of a TV recording that they made, for timeshifting purposes, because SCOTUS held that that person's use of the recorded TV content, in that circumstance, was fair dealing with respect to the recorded TV content. And that's it.

If you provide a recording service, you had better be as close as you possibly can to that fact matrix. Any hint that it's you, and not your users, who are doing the copying, would attract the wolves.

Also, this focus on who is doing the copying has been looked at enough in different jurisdictions around the world that it's probably not worth the risk testing it. Germany (Save.TV, Shift.TV), Japan (Rokuraku II), Australia (Optus TV Now). Don't quote me on these, this is off the cuff.

Post reply on HN