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

391–400 of 835 posts

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#391

Post by jb1991 »

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.

Money is also an unnatural construct, most of civilization has succeeded and advanced due to abstract constructs, and this is one of mankind’s strengths. Learn more about this in the book Sapiens.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#392

Post by gcanyon »

bradrn wrote: post #305
jrmg wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Replying to your edit: The format shifting argument and first sale doctrine are discussed in the ruling. Notably in the section headed ‘3’ starting on page 28 - but also in other places.

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.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#393

Post by FredPret »

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.

Other made-up constructs include human rights and democracy. Your argument does not make sense.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#394

Post by Winsaucerer »

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.

The parent was asking which laws are not constructs, and your example I don't think works as an answer to that question. In what sense do you "have" that physical object? For example, what does it mean to say "I have a phone"? "Having" in that sense is a construct, not a natural thing. You might be holding the phone, you might put it down, I might hold it while you are holding it, I might pick it up when you put it down, I might look at it while you aren't, etc. But there's nothing in any of those real natural world descriptions that correspond to having, until you start to include our social constructs around possession.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#395

Post by pookeh »

Winsaucerer wrote: post #394
agalunar wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. The parent was asking which laws are not constructs, and your example I don't think works as an answer to that question. In what sense do you "have" that physical object? For example, what does it mean to say "I have a phone"? "Having" in that sense is a construct, not a natural thing. You might be holding the phone, you might put it down, I mig…

He means owning the phone.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#396

Post by rcoveson »

pfisch wrote: post #338
thrdbndndn wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. We can simply say IP is a concept that we need to bust. And that's fine. No need to invoke weird "reasoning" like that.

I personally like that movies and videogames exist and can be made with large budgets because that generally makes them better. I don't see how that continues without IP.

You have no idea how good the Avengers movies are in the timeline where the US issues Internet bans for piracy and does a comprehensive job of protecting the rights of creators in other countries as well. Our IP situation is anarchy compared to theirs, and our comic book movies are embarrasments.

In that timeline there's a comment chain:

>> So this dev lost his job because he couldn't work during covid after getting Internet banned for pirating some movie. Doesn't that seem excessive?

> Okay, yes, maybe a little. But let me ask you this: How could Disney-XBox Studios have afforded the $2.3T Iron Man vs. Master Chief sequel if they weren't able to protect their investment? I just don't see how that movie gets made without strong IP law.

The Benedict Cumberbatch from their side could probably transport you over, if you want. They're pretty accepting of immigrants, as long as you're willing to get The Implant.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#397

Post by leobg »

enriquto wrote: post #368

The culprits of this travesty must be named and shamed: Suing publishers: Hachette, HarperCollins, Penguin Random House, and Wiley. Judge: John G. Koeltl. Don't care about the judge, but there should be a massive campaign to boycott these four publishers to oblivion. What's the most harmful thing that we can do to them?

Pirate the hell out of their stuff, I guess. After all, can’t borrow anymore, can we? :)

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#398

Post by dheera »

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.

I fully agree with this. Information is just entropy, and isn't possible to own.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#399

Post by tsimionescu »

eyelidlessness wrote: post #209
sparky_z wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can lend the book, they just can't make a copy of it and lend the copy instead.

Which might be legally sound (so says this court, we will presumably hear from others), but it’s logically balderdash. The copyright applies to the “intellectual property” content of the book, not its paper and binding. (I’m sure there are some esoteric exceptions to this because artists gonna art, but I feel confident that I’m representing the vast general case correctly.) If I rightly own a copy of a book, I don’t…

I believe this court ruling suggests that, while you are free to make a copy for yourself of a work you legally acquired, and you are free to lend or re-sell the original work you acquired, you are not free to lend or re-sell the copy you made, even if the original doesn't exist anymore.

Basically, the only thing you are legally allowed to sell is the exact copy you bought of a physical representation of a work, assuming it was created by an authorized entity. You do not legally own an abstract copy of the idealized work, you own a physical object which happens to represent a copy of that work.

Note that this is in fact very much how most people would think of copyright. If I buy a book and someone steals it from me, or it is there in my house and it burns down, I don't have some right to now obtain another physical representation of that novel free of charge, or to obtain a copy made by a friend with a xerox. My sole right was to that one physical copy I bought, and that no longer exists.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#400

Post by EchoReflection »

this is very disturbing, but definitely not unexpected. surprised it took this long, actually. fortunately i think it will still be a long-ish time before the thought-police can take down all the parts of the internet that clash with the "sensibilities" of the scrooge-like, pro-paywall, pro-restriction curmudgeons in their ivory towers.

https://www.alltechbuzz.net/best-internet-archive-wayback-ma...

https://www.guru99.com/best-internet-archive-wayback-machine...

https://startupstash.com/internet-archive-alternatives/

https://www.topbestalternatives.com/internet-archive/

https://alternativeto.net/software/internet-archive/

https://rigorousthemes.com/blog/best-archive-is-alternatives...

i realize the last link is "alternatives to 'archive.is' " and not "alternatives to 'archive.org'/the wayback machine", but it's still pertinent/in the same ideological arena (obviously).

As MLK Jr said* "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

Apparently Dr. King adapted that line from Unitarian minister Theodore Parker:https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/11/15/arc-of-universe/#:~....

i've archived this* page (this ycombinator page) at: https://archive.vn/AZNoN

Post reply on HN