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

751–760 of 835 posts

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#751

Post by mr_woozy »

encryptluks2 wrote: post #166
bdowling wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Don't many community/government libraries do this? Those books are licensed to the libraries by the publishers. The introduction of the opinion here explains how it works: > This dispute concerns the way libraries lend ebooks. Public and academic libraries in the United States spend billions of dollars each year obtaining print books and ebooks for their patrons to borrow for free. Pls.’ 56.1 ¶ 113. Libraries usual…

So then IA just needs to have a free membership and implement the most basic DRM.

[dead]

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#752

Post by boomboomsubban »

criddell wrote: post #516
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said it before on this very forum. Wikipedia does not really need your donations these days. IA just might.

If the IA loses all appeals and the lending library is totally destroyed, is there a firewall between that and the entity that is archiving the internet, or does the whole thing live and die together?

Some people fear that there will be fines that bankrupt the IA, but there's nothing inherent in this ruling that would impact the rest of the archive.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#753

Post by Dalewyn »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #676
Dalewyn wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What are you thoughts on the idea of disproportionate voter power as described here? https://medium.com/practical-coding/whats-my-vote-worth-3ca2...

It is a politically convenient misrepresentation stemming from a lack of understanding regarding how the United States is structured politically.

First and foremost, the Electoral College (and Congress, whose numbers are the basis for the College's numbers) are determined by a popular vote within the respective States. The ballots in a presidential election are asking the voters "Which candidate should your State vote for?".

This means California determines by popular vote who to vote for President, likewise Wyoming. The State tallies their votes, and the State then decides according to the results who to vote for President. If the voters in California voted for Bob, California will vote for Bob in the Electoral College; if the voters in Wyoming voted for Dave, Wyoming will vote for Dave in the Electoral College.

We should also note that Nebraska and Maine both allot their Electors proportionally according to vote results, unlike all other States where the winner of the State gets all Electors.

I reiterate for emphasis: The basis for the Electoral College (and Congress) is a popular vote within the respective States.

As regards the "disproportionate voter power" itself, the Electoral College's roster of 538 Electors is derived from the following numbers in Congress:

* 435 House Representatives.

* 100 Senators.

* Equivalents of 2 "Senators" and 1 "House Representative" for the District of Columbia.

All States are guaranteed a minimum of 1 House Representative, with more allotted according to population as determined by the Census. All States are guaranteed 2 Senators. The District of Columbia has no representation in Congress (D.C. is not a State!) but is represented in the Electoral College with representation equivalent to the smallest State in the Union.

The "disproportion" comes from all States being guaranteed at least 1 House Representative and 2 Senators (this is where "all States have at least 3 Electors" comes from), and this is necessary in order to make sure that all States are represented no matter how small they are.

The ability of smaller States banding together to override a larger State is the system working as intended, it is a safeguard against a tyranny of the masses. The United State is a Union of States, not a Union of Peoples.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#754

Post by vuciv1 »

This ruling against the Internet Archive really rubs me the wrong way. IA has been a godsend for countless students, researchers, and knowledge enthusiasts across the globe. Sure, they might've pushed the boundaries of fair use, but isn't that how progress and innovation happen?

It's disheartening to see that the court sided with big publishers, who are already raking in considerable profits, instead of considering the broader implications of IA's mission to democratize access to knowledge. In a world where information is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, IA is one of the few bastions of hope for more equitable access to books and resources.

I worry about the chilling effect this decision could have on other projects aiming to push the envelope in terms of digital content distribution. Are we just going to hand over our collective knowledge to the highest bidder?

I get the need to protect copyright holders, but this ruling feels like a step back for the open access movement and the democratization of knowledge. We need more innovative solutions to bridge the digital divide, not less.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#755

Post by jkdufair »

yencabulator wrote: post #661
jkdufair wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t disagree with the ruling. IA is not lending their copy that they purchased. They are lending a copy of their copy. While that copy is lent out, they are still free to, I.e. read the copy in their possession.

You cannot even read an ebook without copying it from storage to RAM, to CPU cache, to video RAM, and so on; by your thinking, all owners of ebooks commit multiple instances of copyright infringement every time they read an ebook.

Making a copy in RAM, cache etc does not involve distributing it to other people.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#756

Post by jkdufair »

detrites wrote: post #423
hedora wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a terrible ruling. The first sale doctrine says the copy of the book you bought is yours. Lending the book is clearly not copying it. So, I guess you just don’t own anything you buy anymore? Like what if I want to lend a tool to someone, and the tool manufacturer wants to rent their tools out? Is that also illegal? What if the tool contains software? What if reasonable use of the tool requires accessing a prin…

"Alpaca III, can you write an accurate page-by-page summary of every page of Book-I-Want-To-Read, where each summary's one page long and as faithful to the original pages content and length as possible, fully quoting each page permitted?" My point being: as technology marches on the ageing concept of "owning" entirely fungible digital material becomes less and less valid. It is already at a stage meaninglessness is f…

Whether or not someone is allowed to distribute creative works without the permission of the author, the point of copyright, is and will contribute to be independent of the technology used to do the distribution.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#757

Post by gaganyaan »

misnome wrote: post #535
gaganyaan wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's magical is the thinking involved in copyright, particularly as it involves the digital space. I 100% guarantee that if a dead tree library xeroxed their books during a national emergency, nobody would be making comments like this. Somehow, because computers are involved, magical thinking gets a pass.

It’s not magical thinking if the law agrees.

Try giving some thought to the consequences of your line of thought if applied before 1865 in the US and I hope you'll understand exactly how specious it is.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#759

Post by gaganyaan »

misnome wrote: post #540
gaganyaan wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're part of the problem, and your view is a relic of the past. I'm glad that dinosaurs are quickly becoming curios for museums.

Exactly, authors should be glad to be paid $7.99 - once - every time they write a book, and be happy about it. Anything further is just proof of their obsolesence.

I would like to watch a Star Trek episode featuring you as the misguided extremist trying to destroy replicators because they put cooks out of jobs. Give it a few years and I'll be able to prompt GPT-9 for exactly that.

At any rate, the future is here. You're free to stick your head in the sand if you wish, but most of us think it's a lot of work to do all that digging, and frankly a little silly.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#760

Post by xvector »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #447
xvector wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Torrents cannot be updated. Furthermore, torrents are subject to the sites that advertise them getting banned. You will constantly be on the hunt for new trackers. Blockchain is an obviously superior application here as new books and articles are constantly being released.

Why would I need to update my books and pdfs? How difficult is it to follow a publishers RSS feed and download new editions and new uploads? I cannot picture why blockchain seems like a value ad here, there's way easier ways to synchronize collections of data, no global consensus necessary

What happens when the RSS feed domain is taken down? What happens when the torrent runs out of seeders?

It's not the books and PDFs that are being updated, it's the collection that needs to be updated.

A blockchain is far easier to manage and far more censorship resistant.

Post reply on HN