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

Activists rally to save Internet Archive as lawsuit threatens site

decrypt.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 409 posts

Re: Activists rally to save Internet Archive as lawsuit threatens site

#341

Post by Dylan16807 »

lordlimecat wrote: post #252
Shivetya wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That won't fly because it is just as easy to lay claim that ignoring copyright is against the public because it devalues private property rights of which the creator did not assign to the IA.

The argument being put forward here is as if IA just broken into peoples houses and redistributed 3m masks, and tried to justify it because they're doing good.

I agree! Many people are grossly exaggerating the harm so that they can scoff at the justification of "doing good".

Re: Activists rally to save Internet Archive as lawsuit threatens site

#342

Post by Dylan16807 »

bart_spoon wrote: post #165
dh-g wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

untrue, you would also have to think that noone went out after reading what they received for free and bought supplemental material from the author. Also it would a balance of what was free / what was purchased that would determine the net impact.

There's a whole list of assumptions you are making though that likely don't apply. 1. There actually is other material available from the author to buy. If there isn't, it's simply a loss. 2. If there is other material by the author, you have to assume the reader was not going to read any of the author's material without having access to the free book first. 2. If additional material exists, and the person would have…

No, not 'clearly'. Get some evidence.

Re: Activists rally to save Internet Archive as lawsuit threatens site

#343

Post by rodiger »

mcguire wrote: post #257

" Many open-Internet activists have been discussing how to back up the archive and make it more resilient for years. The temptation would be to employ a distributed system, such as a blockchain, that would be censorship-resistant and couldn’t be legally shut down. " A blockchain? Oy, vey.

Enjoy the multi-petabyte full node :)

Re: Activists rally to save Internet Archive as lawsuit threatens site

#344

Post by CamperBob2 »

mattl wrote: post #293
mcguire wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scanning and providing access to digital copies of books was the dumb move---without that, they would not have attracted the enmity of publishers. The fastest and most successful way to avoid the destruction of an organization is always to concede to the wishes of its enemies. Preemptively, if possible.

Have you seen the ebooks they’re lending out? They’re a DRM encumbered pile of JPEGs. The ebooks available at a local library via OverDrive are Kindle ebooks with all the searching and bookmarking enabled.

The ones I've seen could be downloaded as ordinary .PDFs if you select that option in the menu.

I've contributed heavily to IA in the past and would never stick up for traditional publishing in a fight like this one. But turning themselves into a modern-day Pirate Bay was a suicidal tactic on their part. I can only hope they're playing some kind of long game that outsiders can't yet appreciate.

Re: Activists rally to save Internet Archive as lawsuit threatens site

#345

Post by walrus01 »

Maxious wrote: post #4
csense wrote: post #3

Is there any easy way to download large chunks of the Internet Archive? Maybe IPFS mirror?

"Let's Say You Wanted to Back Up The Internet Archive" by Jason Scott https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/h02jl4/lets_sa...

On the scale of what a bored multi-billionaire tech philanthropist could choose to fund on a whim, 50PB of storage is a tiny amount. People spend far more than that on their second yacht.

As an extremely rough calculation, I've seen figures that it would be about 1.2 million dollars of hard drives. Built into 4U size, 36-drive servers with RAIDZ2 arrays, it could be $8 to $10 million of hardware. And then you need a place to put it and keep it powered up and running, let's say that's a million dollars a year for datacenter space.

That's a tiny amount of money compared to some of the other nonprofit initiatives various billionaires have funded.

Re: Activists rally to save Internet Archive as lawsuit threatens site

#346

Post by waheoo »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #220
waheoo wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last i checked rosa parks did something illegal too. Not all laws need to be followed. And just because some people will beleive anything doesnt make this belief any less relevant or important.

You may feel that the dismantling of copyright is an issue on par with civil rights. However, that sentiment is rare, and isn't supported by any plain reading of the constitution, unlike racial equality. IA's not going to be setting any precedents in the defense of the lawsuit. They are going to be handed a swift, expensive, and one-sided defeat.

The sentiment that blacks are equal was rare once too.

I find your understanding of this rather contrived given that your constitution has nothing to do with me.

Your ip laws on the other hand, well, they stretch far and wide around countries that would rather have nothing to do with you.

I would prefer, if youre going to refute my claims, you at least acknowledge them.

Like, the fact ip law had a net benefit to society when they were conceived. But have since been twisted and applied dishonestly.

Can anyone tell me what the real damage would be if we limited copyright terms to one year? And what would be the real benefit to society at large to freely access information?

Re: Activists rally to save Internet Archive as lawsuit threatens site

#347

Post by waheoo »

mburns wrote: post #205
sukilot wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, she didn't! Rosa Parks launched a boycott to protest a bus system that was so racist that even the horrific Jim Crow laws weren't enough for bus drivers who kicked off black people (and police officers who arrested them) who had a legal right to their seats. Other protests broke the law with sit-ins.

Rosa Parks was arrested and convicted for breaking a city law.

Dont bother, these people have no intention of coming back and changing their minds. They made them up long ago.

Re: Activists rally to save Internet Archive as lawsuit threatens site

#348

Post by nybble41 »

manigandham wrote: post #238
coldpie wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the stupid crap we've been dealing with for the past 20 years. Stupid DRM; HDCP compatibility issues; YouTube copyright strikes; this lawsuit which threatens to kill a valuable resource; $222,000 penalties against an individual for pirating 24 songs; large companies locking our shared culture away for centuries. It's trivial to think of more examples of the harmful effects of copyright. It's all caused by an old…

How is this any different than the protections for other products that you have to buy? The whole point is you need to pay for it, and the producer needs to ensure you actually did so. I understand the technical issues with DRM which can have a poor UX sometimes, but for the most part it's only a problem if you didn't actually pay for the content. The rise of Netflix and streaming services show that it's working fine…

> I understand the technical issues with DRM which can have a poor UX sometimes, but for the most part it's only a problem if you didn't actually pay for the content.

Actually, most of the UX problems only show up if you did pay. The people who download the content for free get the better product: an unrestricted file that they can use pretty much anywhere. Subscribers taking the legal route are stuck dealing with a bunch of different services, each with its own special blend of UX issues on top of the poor UX from the fragmentation itself.

> Your arguments seem to be based on the assumption that content should be free.

Not content should be free per se but rather content should be freely redistributed. Many people producing new content will still want to be paid for their work, and that's fine. They just need to ensure that they get paid before the content is out in public where anyone can copy it, since they will no longer have a legal monopoly on distribution after that point.

Patreon, Kickstarter, and others offer one model for funding the production of creative works for public distribution. Others would include sponsorship and donations. Open source development is another option which can be applied to more than just software—just look at the various Blender open movie projects[1], all of which are distributed to the public for free and were funded with a combination of donations, sponsorship, and volunteer contributions.

[1] https://www.blender.org/about/projects/

Re: Activists rally to save Internet Archive as lawsuit threatens site

#349

Post by xhkkffbf »

intopieces wrote: post #262
xhkkffbf wrote: post #254

To appease publishers? How about so they can do right by the many authors out there who are still able to sell books through Powell's, Amazon or other local book sellers?

When America fixes copyright to be life of the author only, I will agree with your concerns.

Why treat authors differently than any other laborer? Does the ownership value in a house disappear when the carpenter dies? What about in car?

Art takes work. It makes sense to give the artist something concrete that can be sold so the artist has a chance of earning a living. If that right is passed down to the kids, at least the artist has something to pass along, just like other laborers.

Re: Activists rally to save Internet Archive as lawsuit threatens site

#350

Post by TaylorAlexander »

behringer wrote: post #326
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I really take issue with the idea that IP is "other people's stuff". I might say they were giving away copies of data that the government had granted others a monopoly on. I am being intentionally pedantic because copyright is much more harmful than people give it credit for. The internet archive is desperately trying to give people free books and others are trying to stop them.

I'm sure if you wrote a book you would be a bit annoyed.

I have published a small book which I licensed CC0 and put a free copy online. I have also been designing a robot for the last two and a half years and I have licensed the entire thing as CC0 so anyone can benefit from it. I also regularly publish youtube videos which I license CC0, and in fact all of the writing on my personal website is also licensed CC0. Even at my workplace I am leading the push to become a non-profit so we can raise money via donations and make our product open source (with a CC0 license).

So no, I would not be annoyed. Intellectual property restrictions increase the cost of everything and stand in the way of providing a better world for all.

Post reply on HN