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

The Internet Archive has lost its appeal in Hachette vs. Internet Archive

storage.courtlistener.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

741–750 of 848 posts

Re: The Internet Archive has lost its appeal in Hachette vs. Internet Archive

#741

Post by dpedu »

Aachen wrote: post #723
dpedu wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An odd position to take seeing that the same article mentions the IA refusing to take down "terrorist content." "Terrorist content" is certainly worse than piracy or people being dicks online and obviously presents an greater threat to life.

I must admit that I don't know much about terroristic content. I've heard what harassment does to individuals even when it's not paired with entire groups of people interested in using the available information to seek you out (that's what this Farm site desceiption sounds like). The chance of being impacted by terrorism on the other hand are astronomically small and, the more attention we give it, the better it work…

I'm sorry but the number of people directly affected by terrorism and the followers of terrorism is of orders of magnitude higher than those affected by the dicks on Kiwi farms and their followers. Even if I count only those literally killed by terrorism. Thus the chances of such as well.

Re: The Internet Archive has lost its appeal in Hachette vs. Internet Archive

#742

Post by IshKebab »

jandrese wrote: post #45

Very much not a surprise. I think the Internet Archive is providing an invaluable service to humanity in preserving works that would otherwise be lost to time. it is one of the crown jewels of the Internet, doing a job that nobody else is willing to do. But at the same time I know the courts side with publishers pretty much every time and copyright law being such as it is they're totally screwed. The only real questi…

> But at the same time I know the courts side with publishers pretty much every time and copyright law being such as it is they're totally screwed.

I mean... they did just scan a load of in-copyright books and then let anyone download them with no restrictions. What did they think was going to happen?

I think you have to be particularly extreme and naive to think that would have been ok, legally or morally.

Re: The Internet Archive has lost its appeal in Hachette vs. Internet Archive

#743

Post by CrazyStat »

ndriscoll wrote: post #615
CrazyStat wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely will not support archive.is/archive.today given the shenanigans they’ve pulled with cloudflare dns [1]. > Archive.is’s authoritative DNS servers return bad results to 1.1.1.1 when we query them. I’ve proposed we just fix it on our end but our team, quite rightly, said that too would violate the integrity of DNS and the privacy and security promises we made to our users when we launched the service. > The…

That does sort of sound like Cloudflare is pulling the shenanigans. It's awfully convenient for a CDN company (the same company that MITMs half the web) to cite privacy concerns to not pass through data to enable better request routing. In almost all cases the DNS lookup precedes a connection from the client anyway.

EDNS subnet/ECS is an optional DNS extension. DNS requests have no obligation to provide it. archive.is's behavior is in violation of RFC 7871 [1]:

> Note again that a query MUST NOT be refused solely because it provides 0 address bits.

The shenanigans are absolutely on archive.is's side here.

[1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7871#section-7.5

Re: The Internet Archive has lost its appeal in Hachette vs. Internet Archive

#744

Post by vel0city »

kmeisthax wrote: post #736
vel0city wrote: post #700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It exists because you have an ownership interest in that copy of the book and copyright law has to respect your physical ownership of that property. Right, copyright law needs to respect your ownership of that physical property. That bound collection of paper. That stamped piece of vinyl. That reel of magnetic tape. That plastic disc. The copyright protects the ideas and creative stuff on that medium, but not the a…

Speaking purely in the realm of Law, and what arguments will get past a court, "buying" a digitally distributed work does not confer any ownership. At the bare minimum, what is actually being purchased when you buy a digitally distributed work is a combination of a license and a service. They transmit the work to you, and you have a license to copy that transmission and store it indefinitely, for your own use. There…

I agree with pretty much everything you said here. However, I'm kind of hoping my comment would draw out more on this idea.

> Speaking purely in the realm of Law

Let's argue this from the basis of expanding the ideas of copyright to something newer and better for this digital age. As mentioned, these days we're really just buying licenses. How do we better define property rights with this new(ish) concept of ownership to help individuals continue to have useful rights while not just suggesting copyright overall is now meaningless and creators no longer have any protections? Do we codify some basic rights of ownership around what a license is, what it means, and how one transfers ownership of it?

Re: The Internet Archive has lost its appeal in Hachette vs. Internet Archive

#745

Post by mezzie2 »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #735
mezzie2 wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yeah that’s totally fine. The metaphor of an ebook library is bad and illogical. E-book lending is pretty much the only accessible option for people with sensory impairments. I think they're a larger portion of the population than writers, so why do writers' monetary interests overwrite accessibility concerns? Plenty of books aren't available in large print or audio versions; e-books are a great way for us to read…

People with sensory impairments can buy e-books. Why would their accessibility concerns grant them free access to the fruits of someone else's labor? If you really, really want just pirate it. It's economically equivalent.

So people with perfect vision and hearing should be able to check out materials from a library and people with impairments shouldn't? That's also against the law.

So you're against the existence of libraries at all? Since they provide free access to the fruits of someone else's labor? That is at least an honest position. I won't pretend to have any respect for it, but at least it's consistent.

Re: The Internet Archive has lost its appeal in Hachette vs. Internet Archive

#746

Post by dredmorbius »

TMWNN wrote: post #146
skyyler wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you imagine, if public libraries weren't already a thing, convincing some Americans to build one in 2024?

The First Sale doctrine long precedes public libraries.

The First Sale doctrine was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1908 case Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobbs-Merrill_Co._v._Straus>

The first US Public Library dates to 1848 (Boston).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Public_Library>

The first public libraries ever dates to at least the 4th century BCE, with one known instance begun by Clearchus in Heraclea, on what is now the Black Sea coast of Turkey.

https://research-bulletin.chs.harvard.edu/2017/09/11/clearch...>

More recently, and post-classical / Roman times, there is still the 1447 example of the Malatestiana Library.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malatestiana_Library>

Public libraries significantly pre-date the First Sale doctrine by several measures.

Re: The Internet Archive has lost its appeal in Hachette vs. Internet Archive

#747

Post by esgfvswegq3ewgy »

trinsic2 wrote: post #717
lolinder wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As has been mentioned elsewhere, losing an appeal at this level sets precedent that does damage to the free flow of information. The best thing that the IA could have done to advance freedom would have been to bail as soon as it was apparent they had no chance to win (which was before the lawsuit was even filed). That's not just a narrative that serves the establishment, it's a fact of life. We don't get anywhere tow…

Maybe. But this situation points to much larger problem, in my view. That people are starting to become accustom to common people rights erosion. Rights holders should not being wielding this kind of power against the public, at the end of the day they are still accountable to the public good, end of story.

[dead]

Re: The Internet Archive has lost its appeal in Hachette vs. Internet Archive

#748

Post by Dalewyn »

jrflowers wrote: post #710
Dalewyn wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here you go, 500GB of warez in just one link: https://archive.org/details/pcgames-jp But wait, there's more!: https://archive.org/details/pcgames-jp-part2 And more!: https://archive.org/details/pcgames-jp-part3 and https://archive.org/details/pcgames-jp-part4 2TB of warez in just four links. But that was way too easy, I just listed 2TB of mostly Japanese eroge. What about more mainstream stuff? Presenting the PS1 rel…

Have you verified or reported _ANY_ of the links you’ve posted here as proof of “hosting warez with wanton abandon”? It is clear that you have some sort of motivation and knowledge about how to navigate the IA to find what you believe to be infringing content — why are you using it to post links to it on this website rather than reporting it? The only thing that you have proven is that the IA accepts user uploads. Th…

[flagged]

Re: The Internet Archive has lost its appeal in Hachette vs. Internet Archive

#749

Post by greyface- »

CrazyStat wrote: post #743
ndriscoll wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That does sort of sound like Cloudflare is pulling the shenanigans. It's awfully convenient for a CDN company (the same company that MITMs half the web) to cite privacy concerns to not pass through data to enable better request routing. In almost all cases the DNS lookup precedes a connection from the client anyway.

EDNS subnet/ECS is an optional DNS extension. DNS requests have no obligation to provide it. archive.is's behavior is in violation of RFC 7871 [1]: > Note again that a query MUST NOT be refused solely because it provides 0 address bits. The shenanigans are absolutely on archive.is's side here. [1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7871#section-7.5

When the RFC refers to a query being refused, it's talking about a response with rcode=REFUSED. Archive.is is responding with rcode=NOERROR and bogus RR data. Shenanigans? Yes. RFC violation? No.

Re: The Internet Archive has lost its appeal in Hachette vs. Internet Archive

#750

Post by TMWNN »

dredmorbius wrote: post #746
TMWNN wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The First Sale doctrine long precedes public libraries.

The First Sale doctrine was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1908 case Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobbs-Merrill_Co._v._Straus > The first US Public Library dates to 1848 (Boston). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Public_Library > The first public libraries ever dates to at least the 4th century BCE, with one known instance begun by Clearchus in Heraclea, on what is now…

Thank you for the correction. I'd thought/assumed that first sale doctrine is something that came down from English common law.

I wonder if the absence of such is why authors in Canada are entitled to royalties from public libraries?

Post reply on HN