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

351–360 of 835 posts

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#351

Post by coldtea »

PKop wrote: post #288
cat_plus_plus wrote: post #285

Intellectual property is an unnatural, made up construct that will one day be seen as ridiculous as absolute monarchy is today. If we are going to allow it and penalize people who are doing natural human things like sharing with friends, there has to be a specific benefit to society in every instance. For example, pay taxes on copyrights and patents, increasing every year to reflect disturbance caused to society.

Democracy will one day be seen as ridiculous as absolute monarchy is today.

It might, as history has cycles.

But not because it will be replaced with something "better". Democracy just means everybody has a say on decisions affecting them and the society they are in.

If your replacement is closer to "only informed people should have a say", that is even older then democracy, and is much worse in practice.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#352

Post by andrewguenther »

cat_plus_plus wrote: post #285

Intellectual property is an unnatural, made up construct that will one day be seen as ridiculous as absolute monarchy is today. If we are going to allow it and penalize people who are doing natural human things like sharing with friends, there has to be a specific benefit to society in every instance. For example, pay taxes on copyrights and patents, increasing every year to reflect disturbance caused to society.

Are you equating what the IA did here to "sharing with friends"?

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#353

Post by coldtea »

thayne wrote: post #341
gsk22 wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think dictating power based on war ability makes way more sense than everyone having a say simply by virtue of breathing. I honestly can't tell if you're trolling. In what world is it better to instead give all the say to one person? Especially a person selected solely by their prowess for violence (or in leading others to violence)?

> In what world is it better to instead give all the say to one person? If that one person is wise, virtuous, and really prioritizes the people's best interest, and is willing and capable of delegating and seeking advice from people who understand various domains better than them, and is a good enough judge to choose good people for such delegation and advice, then it could be at least much more efficient than a demo…

>If that one person is wise, virtuous, and really prioritizes the people's best interest, and is willing and capable of delegating and seeking advice from people who understand various domains better than them, and is a good enough judge to choose good people for such delegation and advice, then it could be at least much more efficient than a democracy or republic.

First, that's a big if. Second, it's the old pipe-dream that there are decisions that are on "best interest" for everybody, that can just be based on "domain knowledge", and not competing interests to be heard and balanced.

>Decisions could be made much faster.

That persons decisions. Not the ones people want. Basically you're described an infantilized population and a parent/nanny that knows what's best for them.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#354

Post by robobro »

anikan_vader wrote: post #323
agalunar wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not entirely sure what point you're making. That's not physical law in the same sense – nothing compels you to take something from me (or prevents you from taking something from me if you're sneaky or strong enough, as you said). On the other hand, you and I can't both have the same object even if we wanted; it has nothing to do with ability or circumstance. edit: I should clarify that you and I can share somethi…

Well, collective ownership and communal property are arguably just as “natural” as private property.

Rather than "private property" do you mean "personal property" ?

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#355

Post by [deleted] »

travisgriggs wrote: post #331
agalunar wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not entirely sure what point you're making. That's not physical law in the same sense – nothing compels you to take something from me (or prevents you from taking something from me if you're sneaky or strong enough, as you said). On the other hand, you and I can't both have the same object even if we wanted; it has nothing to do with ability or circumstance. edit: I should clarify that you and I can share somethi…

> nothing compels you to take something from me What if you’ve hoarded all the food or all the water, and I need it to survive? Would that be compelling? I’m with the other guy. These distinctions are arbitrary. They may be useful for a society that attempts to maximize “happiness@ (also arbitrary), but it remains that they are not universally obvious.

[deleted]

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#356

Post by anticensor »

crazygringo wrote: post #247
allturtles wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, IA has followed a similar tragic arc as Google Books, another martyr to the dream of a truly 21st century library. What's most tragic about it to me is that that vast majority of works affected are "zombie" copyright works that have no actual commercial value. Someone, somewhere holds the copyright, but no one has sold a copy in years or decades. For the sake of protecting the tiny sliver of commercially valuabl…

Seriously. Has there been any kind of movement towards a law that would automatically put zombie works into the public domain? It really doesn't seem unreasonable that if a book, film, recording, or video game hasn't been generally available for sale over the past 5 or 10 years it becomes public domain. Use it or lose it, in other words. Although it might really only apply to past works. Because while physical books…

But then they would make such works paying public domain (the type of public domain that you have to pay royalties to the state) rather than FFA public domain.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#357

Post by fhsm »

agalunar wrote: post #343
encomiast wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that you are picking and choosing which parts of nature you value. The idea of "having", of ownership, is not natural. Many people like Locke have tried to connect it nature, but with limited success — it's still a human construct. In the natural world ownership is defended purely by force or guile. So you are taking this idea of ownership, protected by human constructs of law, and then adding a caveat th…

I believe I understand what you're saying, but I feel we're talking about different things, so I may have miscommunicated my point. I'm not talking about ownership as recognized or enforced by people (in fact, I never used the word "own" or "ownership"). All I mean is that if something is over here by me, it can't be over there by you, because things can't be in two places at once. On the other hand, the exact same s…

I am similar unclear on where this supposed bright line sites but to try and steal man your argument a bit is it possible you looking for the distinction between excludable and rivalrous goods?

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#358

Post by atomicUpdate »

panic wrote: post #332
cat_plus_plus wrote: post #285

Intellectual property is an unnatural, made up construct that will one day be seen as ridiculous as absolute monarchy is today. If we are going to allow it and penalize people who are doing natural human things like sharing with friends, there has to be a specific benefit to society in every instance. For example, pay taxes on copyrights and patents, increasing every year to reflect disturbance caused to society.

Are there any organizations working toward the abolition of intellectual property in the US? I agree with you that it's ridiculous and would love to do something about it.

Assuming such an organization existed, what would stop someone from using their name, logo, etc. to also promote enhancing IP law and undermine they’re entire message? Presumably they wouldn’t be so hypocritical as to sue you for that, would they?

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#359

Post by JumpCrisscross »

agalunar wrote: post #308
encomiast wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Intellectual property is an unnatural, made up construct" So, what laws and constructs of civilized life are not an unnatural made up constructs? You seem to be suggesting there is some natural law that excludes things like intellectual property. Which natural laws, specifically, are you talking about?

If I have a physical object, you can't also have that physical object. That's natural in the sense that it follows from natural law (physics). If I have an idea, or a digital copy of something, you can also use that idea, or also get a digital copy, without depriving me of it. The only reason you can't use my idea or own a digital copy is because society decided that it would punish you for doing so – and that's unna…

> If I have a physical object, you can't also have that physical object

Depending on the definition of having, which goes begs the question.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#360

Post by encomiast »

numpad0 wrote: post #350
encomiast wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Intellectual property is an unnatural, made up construct" So, what laws and constructs of civilized life are not an unnatural made up constructs? You seem to be suggesting there is some natural law that excludes things like intellectual property. Which natural laws, specifically, are you talking about?

It’s kind of true that idea of IP is entirely made-up, but it’s also important to recognize that it was made up to support and safeguard author’s living . IP allows authors to require values of content to be preserved, recognized, and financially rewarded(in one-time or recurring payments). In the absence of IP, printing companies can take manuscripts and contents to profit off of copies free-for-all style, bankrupti…

“it was made up to support and safeguard author’s living”. That’s not really true. It least in the US, its stated purpose is to promote the useful arts and sciences. Incentivizing authors is a means to that end. If incentivizing corporations achieves those ends as well, it would seem to be consistent with the original purpose. Of course, there are probably valid arguments that corporate ownership of IP doesn’t always promote the useful arts and sciences (for example patent trolls).
Post reply on HN