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

741–750 of 835 posts

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#741

Post by salawat »

thebradbain wrote: post #728
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.

To get pedantic, the executive is there to enforce (and decide how to enforce) the law. The judicial is there to decide if a given law should be enforced (and if a given enforcement method is valid) This is why I’m not a big fan of originalism: that is almost always a subjective decision. Otherwise we would just have a legislative and an executive.

Nitpick: >To get pedantic, the executive is there to enforce (and decide how to enforce) the law.

The Executive is there to implement an enforcement mechanism, even if the decision os to implement a null mechanism.

The executive cannot (or normatively should not ex nihilo) just materialize enforcement infrastructure without Congressional approval. The existence of Administrative law, however, rather shopts down the original intent of the Founders in terms of Governmental architecture.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#742

Post by Dylan16807 »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #736
Dylan16807 wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When/where was it 7?

IIRC under the Statute of Anne, it was 7 (plus 7 if you paid again). It seems like a good balance between private monopoly and public interest for the shirts of artistic works copyright protects.

Statue of Anne was 14+14. I'm not sure exactly if/how payment worked.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#743

Post by endisneigh »

dahart wrote: post #711
endisneigh wrote: post #660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

my point is that even if they did try, the outcome would've been the same and CDL was doomed from the beginning. their inane emergency CDL plan simply accelerated this outcome

Maybe, but that’s speculation, and others have won fair use claims. The decision in this case explicitly cited the defendant’s lack of effort to control their loaned copies while being aware of infringement.

who is doing anything even remotely similar that won fair use claims?

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#744

Post by frollo »

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?

The whole Reinassence happened without copyright law and they did just fine.

In fact, a lot of masterpieces we have from that period would have been illegal under current IP law because they were the result of a lot of iteration on the same concepts by different artists.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#745

Post by salawat »

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…

>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.

Executive election and apportionment of electoral votes are specifically a matter for States to determine the implementation details of. Therefore, any complaints on that front are entirely California's problem.

> or, republicans can fail for over two decades and still elect three presidents in that time

...The Chief Executive is determined in a two-fold election pipeline. A popular vote to elect State electors to cast votes for the President The number of electoral votes is set by a Constitutionally defined function that strikes a balance to ensure the most populous states can't steamroll the less populous. The means of choosing who the electors are are up to the States. Original intrnt was that Electors were unaccountable to anyone, as the Founders wanted a specific check on demagoguery, as they greatly feared the charismatic charlatan who could work a crowd, and believed a second smaller unaccountable party of voters would either eventually reconfirm the majority if it was a genuinely uncontroversial decision, or conscientiously object if they could not in good conscience believe it was in the best interests of the nation to cast that vote. The Founders believed a person was virtuous. People were easily led and prone to being swindled by a charismatic speaker.

The popular vote literally was antithetical to what the Founders set put to do. It was specifically not the system they wanted to get anywhere near.

>Or the fact that California gets very few senators per person whereas north Dakota gets a much larger power per citizen in the Senate,

This is by design. The Senate represents the States. Not the People directly. Each state gets two Senators, no matter how big, no matter how populace. Only the House Scales as a function of Population. The Senate is specifically a check on the House. It was recognized that the House would be the Heart/Vehicle of the People's passions. The Senate was intended to be a smaller, more rational filter to keep the House checked as Reason is the check on Passion.

Again. Working as designed/Civics 101.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#746

Post by dmonitor »

Zetice wrote: post #701
tsimionescu wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means you are not legally allowed to lend them or sell them, even if you lose the original DVD and even though you did have the right to lend or sell the original DVD.

It seems like I might not have legally been allowed to make a copy of the DVD in the first place too...

you can make a personal backup, but once you hand it to someone else it is no longer personal

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#747

Post by Zetice »

dmonitor wrote: post #746
Zetice wrote: post #701

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like I might not have legally been allowed to make a copy of the DVD in the first place too...

you can make a personal backup, but once you hand it to someone else it is no longer personal

Can you? The ruling seems to rake issue with the digitalization itself.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#748

Post by dahart »

endisneigh wrote: post #743
dahart wrote: post #711

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, but that’s speculation, and others have won fair use claims. The decision in this case explicitly cited the defendant’s lack of effort to control their loaned copies while being aware of infringement.

who is doing anything even remotely similar that won fair use claims?

I didn’t claim similar, and it seems like we’re losing the point here. Mine is that your claim at the top, that the problem had to do with having two copies, actually has nothing to do with why they lost. The problem, as the judge described, is that they didn’t put the “C” in CDL, and looked the other way when then knew it was missing, and then tried to claim fair use for something that clearly isn’t fair use. They didn’t lose because the judge is being pedantic about how many copies there are, they lost because they’re actually squarely violating existing copyright law.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#749

Post by Dylan16807 »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #718
Dylan16807 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that a real question? You didn't split out essential services, and it seems dead-obvious to me that shutting those down would cause more harm than good even when you value all families exactly the same. There's no way they're saying the families of essential service providers are less important. And it seems pretty clear they're grouping those other things in with essential services, which you could disagree with,…

I am genuinely curious how a person reconciles two seemingly opposing views: "It gives everyone a guaranteed weekly timeslot to spend time together." where everyone is everyone except: "except restaurants, attractions, hospitality and essential services". I could easily give in on essential services, because a lot will ride on how broadly they are defined, but if the goal is 'family cohesion' building for everyone th…

> For the record, the line listed by parent is not unreasonable, but can you give me an argument as to why it is not amazingly selfish way of looking at society ( Sunday for me, but not for thee ).

Sure, that's easy enough. Even if some people can't participate, it's a big benefit to have most people share a day, and everyone that's taking those sunday work slots should be getting paid significantly extra and also probably on rotation. And the other poster might be in one of those businesses.

If someone in a restaurant/attraction/hospitality business has less leisure time, you could improve that by valuing Sunday higher. Let them trade two Sundays in a month for 3-4 non-Sundays.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#750

Post by mr_woozy »

sacnoradhq wrote: post #225
allturtles wrote: post #91

A lot of people in these comments still seem confused about what has happened here. This ruling is not about the emergency library at all. It's a ruling that controlled digital lending (one physical copy backing each digital copy lent out) is illegal.

This sets back archival and human knowledge back 100 years. If you embargo a physical copy, an electronic copy should be lendable. I would start a webtorrent+ipfs+i2p site in Iceland just to get around this insane perpetual monopoly on difficult-to-find, old shit that doesn't have a market but publishers keep locked away.

[dead]
Post reply on HN