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

781–790 of 835 posts

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#781

Post by dunham »

dmix wrote: post #262
dunham wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My ten year old uses "Libby" a lot to borrow books from the local library - at one point they started rate limiting him. He also typically has a dozen physical books checked out at any given time.

Just curious: What kind of books do they read? On an ipad or something?

Yeah, on an iPad. He reads a variety of stuff, but he tells me it's been pokemon themed manga recently. We limit screen time, so he mostly reads print books, but he'll get an hour of bonus libby time in the mornings on school holidays. His fun screen time, 30 min weekdays, 1.5 weekends is typically minecraft or pokemon games.

I also occasionally let him have a little bit of Libby or scratch time (which I deem "educational") before going to school or before bed. (Everything is contingent on behavior.)

Aside from minecraft/pokemon stuff, he typically reads a mix of kids graphic novels and books. Including Tristan Strong, Artimis Fowl, Wings of Fire, Dogman. He's also read Harry Potter, some Terry Pratchett, and Tolkien. He first read the Lord of the Rings in the summer between first and second grade, which blew my mind (it was middle or high school or me). So I don't really worry about stuff like the ratio of graphic novels to textual books.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#782

Post by JumpCrisscross »

brewdad wrote: post #130
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> system shouldn't require lobbying to get results that benefit the greater good It does when there is disagreement over what constitutes the greater good.

A handful of corporations vs the entire population of planet earth, or a nation’s subset, should be pretty obvious where the greater good lies.

> should be pretty obvious where the greater good lies

Is this facetious? What constitutes the greater good is the entire point of government. Many things you think are obvious are lines another would die to prevent--this is the basis of civics.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#783

Post by l8rlump »

MrVandemar wrote: post #630
saint_fiasco wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused. You act hostile yet you seem to agree with the original comment. The reason Row v Wade was overturned is that the judges don't want to have to decide if abortion is legal or not. They want legislators to be responsible for that. You, the judges, and the parent comment are all in agreement here.

> The reason Row v Wade was overturned is that the judges don't want to have to decide if abortion is legal or not. No. The reason Roe v Wade was overturned is because conservative middle-aged/old white-guys with money are not happy about people, and by people I mean women , having reproductive choice. It's one of the areas that fundamental islam and conservative "Christians" have significant overlap, and that's not…

Yeah, we can’t have major world religions agreeing about stuff. Especially stuff you don’t agree with ;)

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#784

Post by Timwi »

apologia wrote: post #531
Timwi wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will continue without IP once people realize that the creative arts benefit from people doing it for the love of the art, as opposed to doing it out of a fear of starvation. People should get paid to create things, and get paid what the work is worth. Right now, people get paid a small fraction of what it's worth, while the bigger fraction goes to execs who have had no hand in creating anything of value. And those…

> People should get paid to create things, and get paid what the work is worth. This is literally how it works today though. No one is intentionally paying employees more than they have to, and if they pay less than they have to, they lose employees. Basically this is just an anticapitalist rant. Not useful even if one agrees with the premise .

> This is literally how it works today though.

If it did, then by definition, companies wouldn't be making profit for the shareholders.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#785

Post by harshreality »

gcanyon wrote: post #392
bradrn wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

IA doesn't want to destroy its own books, because it warehouses them in climate-controlled spaces so that it can re-scan them with improved technology in the future. That should hardly preclude (controlled) lending of scans of its own physical books that nobody is using, even under current draconian copyright law.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#786

Post by therealdrag0 »

cmiles74 wrote: post #40
bawolff wrote: post #9

Wow, reading the article this seems like a clear cut case. Did IA really think they could win this? Edit: reading other sources, it seems like the crux of the idea is they would only lend out books where they had the same number of physical copies. I can see the reasoning for that, but it seems hard for fair use to get you there.

During the pandemic, libraries closed and weren't lending out physical books at all. Did the emergency policy lend more digital books than the number of physical books locked in libraries? We'll probably never know, but I think that was the logic. The scanned books are not so much fun to read, it is definitely less ergonomic than a Kindle. I would expect those using the program likely needed it.

Libraries negotiate ebook rates with publishers. I don’t see why there would be any correlation with physical copies.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#787

Post by smokeypanda »

OJFord wrote: post #527
saint_fiasco wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused. You act hostile yet you seem to agree with the original comment. The reason Row v Wade was overturned is that the judges don't want to have to decide if abortion is legal or not. They want legislators to be responsible for that. You, the judges, and the parent comment are all in agreement here.

I have no idea what Roe v Wade is about (I'm not American or in the US), but I like GP read the parent comment to theirs as meaning 'these jokers overturned it, that is bad, we cannot rely on them'. Re-reading after seeing your own comment, it is ambiguous really, you could read it either way, but you're probably right (having the context of what it's about) and GP just mistook the meaning as I did. > If anything has…

Your first reading was correct. The ambiguity is whether the comment was referring 'we'(author is part of referenced group), or 'them'(author is describing disgruntled group), possessing the viewpoint that the overturning was bad.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#788

Post by xvector »

friend_and_foe wrote: post #773
xvector wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blockchains can absolutely be used for storing arbitrary data (see Filecoin.) Torrents cannot be updated. Whether done over Tor or not, they aren't suitable for this use case, especially as you have to chase down the websites that advertise them, as they constantly get banned. What you need is a distributed append-only data structure. Blockchains are an example, but not the only way to do this.

Filecoin doesn't store data on the blockchain. Filecoin is a blockchain payment network for a monetized IPFS storage network. The two were developed in concert, IPFS was built for filecoin. IPFS is more popular on it's own than with filecoin I'll point out, off topic. But you can use blockchains for arbitrary data, there's nothing preventing you from doing it. It's just a bad idea, everyone has to have every copy of…

Thanks for the background on Filecoin.

> It's just a bad idea, everyone has to have every copy of everything anyone might want.

Do keep in mind that pruned nodes are a thing.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#789

Post by derkades »

denton-scratch wrote: post #568
benatkin wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unsurprising that not all of HN is pro-fair use. That's how you digitally send a copy of a book. You're saying something similar to "you wouldn't download a car".

> Unsurprising that not all of HN is pro-fair use. Isn't "fair use" restricted to (a) short portions of a work, (b) used for specific purposes, such as education or criticism?

The entire article is about fair use and how what IA is doing is not fair use. I would like the IA to exist, but I agree with the ruling that their fair use argument is nonsense. It's not a derivative work.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#790

Post by benj111 »

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…

>Books frequently get popular long after initial publication.

Is that relevant?

To me copyright is there to encourage the creation of new works. I doubt any publisher takes into account book sales more than 5 years out when deciding whether to publish a new book.

I have artist friends. Current copyright acts as more of an inhibitor than enabler of their creativity.

Post reply on HN