Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anna's Archive Faces Millions in Damages and a Permanent Injunction

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 212 posts

Re: Anna's Archive Faces Millions in Damages and a Permanent Injunction

#161

Post by jerojero »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #111
kragen wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

as hug correctly points out, you have accidentally made a circular argument; without the regulatory regime, the thing that 'ip theft' deprives the owner of doesn't exist in the first place so the role of government is quite different in the two cases: it creates 'intellectual property', in the sense of 'what the owner is deprived of by so-called ip theft', while physical property exists in its own right if we instead…

Physical property rights, which I strongly support, are not a law of nature. lions and tigers dont have property rights. They are a concept, but one is no more natural than another. matter exists, knowledge exists. exclusive monopoly to one or the other is no different. RE Cars: I think the analogy is apt, but you you ignore the time an effort that goes into creating one. Who would build or buy a car if someone could…

People have been writing books and creating art before intellectual property rights were enforced or even existed.

The highest selling book in the world, the bible, is free of copyright.

What incentive does an author have to write a book if they can't benefit from intellectual property? Perhaps self expression?

Re: Anna's Archive Faces Millions in Damages and a Permanent Injunction

#162

Post by jerojero »

helloworld42024 wrote: post #2

At this point, we need a service that "offers" an 8-bay (with 12TB? 14TB? drives) full with the whole ~80TB Anna's Archive. It's essentially all of human knowledge and to be frank it belongs to no one - rather...everyone. People can store this at their house, keep it offline. Just to have these seeds of knowledge everywhere. ...I suppose LLM's trained on this data, essentially their model weights and tokenization are…

People didn't want to buy apples new headset because it was too expensive at 3500 dollars.

You think anyone would spend 3000 dollars on such a thing? I doubt it.

Re: Anna's Archive Faces Millions in Damages and a Permanent Injunction

#163

Post by kragen »

tivert wrote: post #112
chongli wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does a company like NVIDIA operate without IP law? They are fabless. Everything they produce is digital, either in the form of software or in the form of chip designs. As far as I can tell, without protection from IP law (patents, copyrights, trade secrets) NVIDIA could not function as a company. They would have no means whatsoever at preventing a fab like TSMC from manufacturing clones of their devices and selli…

> How does a company like NVIDIA operate without IP law? Don't bother us with such complexities. We developed our ideas about IP after being outraged by attempts to stop our piracy of music and movies, and carefully reviewing lists of all the cons of IP (after completely ignoring and throwing out the list of the pros). The only righteous path is for the law to be reform to reflect our views.

maybe you should listen to people like me who do think about such complexities then

Re: Anna's Archive Faces Millions in Damages and a Permanent Injunction

#164

Post by qingcharles »

squigz wrote: post #120
qingcharles wrote: post #114

RECAP link to the PACER docket copy: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68157923/oclc-online-co...

The "evidence" they present for naming that woman as the operator of Anna's Archive seems... flimsy.

Yeah, I dug into it, seems like they fucked up and just caused her tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees she may never recover.

OTOH maybe it is her and she's accidentally done a Ross Ulbricht?

(Also, I note Google lists Ulbricht as an "American enterpriser", whatever that is lol)

Re: Anna's Archive Faces Millions in Damages and a Permanent Injunction

#165

Post by kragen »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #111
kragen wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

as hug correctly points out, you have accidentally made a circular argument; without the regulatory regime, the thing that 'ip theft' deprives the owner of doesn't exist in the first place so the role of government is quite different in the two cases: it creates 'intellectual property', in the sense of 'what the owner is deprived of by so-called ip theft', while physical property exists in its own right if we instead…

Physical property rights, which I strongly support, are not a law of nature. lions and tigers dont have property rights. They are a concept, but one is no more natural than another. matter exists, knowledge exists. exclusive monopoly to one or the other is no different. RE Cars: I think the analogy is apt, but you you ignore the time an effort that goes into creating one. Who would build or buy a car if someone could…

> you ignore the time [and] effort that goes into creating [a car]

given that about 150 words of my comment, more than a third of the total, was about this and its analogues in the world of intellectual work, i can only conclude that you didn't even spend the minute and a half required to read my comment, much less take the time to understand the ideas i was expressing. consequently there is no point in replying further to you

Re: Anna's Archive Faces Millions in Damages and a Permanent Injunction

#166

Post by computerfriend »

richie_adler wrote: post #157
computerfriend wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One loss is another's gain.

The numerous countries submerged in misery due to US intervention certainly would welcome a lessening of its power.

I don't know about "submerged in misery" but yes, of course countries that perceive themselves oppressed by the US would welcome its decline, obviously.

Re: Anna's Archive Faces Millions in Damages and a Permanent Injunction

#167

Post by computerfriend »

kragen wrote: post #151
computerfriend wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In sentences like "The last thing the US wants to see is for China to close the technology gap on this stuff", China is referring to the PRC. In sentences like "you may not be aware of this, but tsmc is a chinese company", China is referring to Taiwan. It is disingenuous to conflate these.

conflating them has been the official policy of both prc and taiwan since the prc was founded, as well as of the un, and it shows little sign of changing. in day-to-day life, there is an enormous flow of money, technical information, hardware, and skilled workers back and forth between taipei and shenzhen. taipei is a 20-minute flight away from fuzhou. the idea of maintaining a 'technology gap' between the prc and th…

Being ambiguous as to what "China" means is both vitally important for international relations and also generally unhelpful for the purpose of clear communication. Corporate (and other) espionage notwithstanding.

Re: Anna's Archive Faces Millions in Damages and a Permanent Injunction

#168

Post by freejazz »

jerojero wrote: post #160
freejazz wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patents already have a limited term, why would we want this in a policy?

Current term is something like 70 years after the death of the author. It's simply too long for a world that moves this fast.

You are thinking about copyright, which the fact that you can't discern between the two should probably be a sign to bow out of dictating IP policy.

Re: Anna's Archive Faces Millions in Damages and a Permanent Injunction

#169

Post by freejazz »

jacobr1 wrote: post #159
freejazz wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patents already have a limited term, why would we want this in a policy?

The term is too long. This changes it from a fixed term, to a use-it-or-lose-it oriented policy.

Patent term is 20 years from the date of filing, and doesn't begin to run until the patent issues, which is usually years after it was filed. It's incomprehensible to me how you can seriously argue that the US patent term is too long but then should be replaced with a system that allows for an indefinite term.

Do you know what a trade secret is? Trade secret already has an indefinite term. There's no reason why patent terms should be indefinite, it's antagonistic the concept of disclosure that is required to obtain a patent in the first place.

Re: Anna's Archive Faces Millions in Damages and a Permanent Injunction

#170

Post by freejazz »

snvzz wrote: post #85
rvense wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright should expire after like 15 years. Academic publishers should not exist, research - especially publically funded research - should just go straight to the public domain.

5 year, renewable twice to a maximum of 15 years, by registering and paying a nominal renewal fee (let's say $200), which is multiplied on the second renewal (let's say 3x or $600).

So after 15 years, I can start selling other people's movies and books? That seems odd.
Post reply on HN