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

441–450 of 835 posts

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#441

Post by uxcolumbo »

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…

How do we ensure that creators are well compensated for their creations that are enjoyed by thousands or millions of people, so they can continue creating without ending up having to flip burgers and not creating at all?

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#442

Post by danShumway »

encomiast wrote: post #329
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…

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…

Okay. If all ownership is arbitrary, then definitely we can limit IP when its not benefiting society. IP is arbitrary and made up, just like everything else.

Calling out all property ownership as arbitrary doesn't mean IP suddenly deserves more protection. If anything, it gives more permission to be skeptical about its value to society. An IP law that prevents digital libraries isn't an outcome we desire, so... case closed, let's change the law.

You're arguing about whether natural rights exist, but regardless of whether or not there is such a thing as a natural right -- intellectual property is not a natural right. And getting rid of the entire category of natural rights just makes IP even more obviously not a natural right. It's not something that people are universally entitled to regardless of the social impact.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#443

Post by ajdegol »

komali2 wrote: post #438
uda wrote: post #408

Initially I'm enraged against the publishers, the judge and the system in general as many of you, but they are not the issue, while I can't talk on behalf of IA, I don't see this as a fight against the publishers, but a fight against broken business models flourishing because and protected by broken laws meant to protect earlier broken business models The current law is broken, we know that, but most of us don't gras…

What actions can Americans possibly take given the captured two party system and drawing back of voting rights? Not to mention the wildly unrepresentative government, wherein for example more people can vote for Trump in California than Texas in 2020 yet each of those person's votes are functionally meaningless, or, republicans can fail for over two decades to win a popular vote and still elect three presidents in th…

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Perhaps have chatgpt search through drafted laws to identify inconsistencies, curtails to liberty, and evidence of self-interest…

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#444

Post by komali2 »

mushbino wrote: post #424
encomiast wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, and also I am bigger and stronger than you. Therefore I take your physical object and you can't stop me. That's natural in the sense that it follows from natural law (physics). Natural laws are brutish and don't support the kind of society that most of us want to live in.

The golden rule is pretty universal for human.

The golden rule fails as soon as you introduce someone of one culture to another.

Example: my friends and I have a massively western-masculine internal culture. At parties people would ask if we were "ok" because a minute earlier we'd have been shouting at each other how smooth brained and stupid each other was. Of course we'd be fine, that's how we talk to each other. We'd get frustrated if someone tried to talk through implication - one time I asked my friend to put his seatbelt on and he said "wtf just tell me to put my fucking seat belt on don't be all soft about it."

But if we turned that culture on someone else we'd be the most horrible of bullies. Not everyone wants to be "talked to straight" like that, and that's fine.

I'd get mad if someone let me walk around with a booger on my face. "do unto me" is to say to me "lol saving that for later?", But to someone else a much more polite method is probably desirable.

"Do unto me" might mean literally not talking to or approaching someone. It might mean feeling spurned or like someone thinks you're disgusting if a hug or handshake is avoided.

Do unto me is far too simple a rule. We need more communication involved.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#445

Post by jhanschoo »

blincoln wrote: post #325
granzymes wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article doesn't seem to understand the issue. Whether a copy of a work is fair use turns on, amongst other things, the effect of the copy on the potential market for the original. The article acknowledges this. Controlled Digital Lending competes directly with the licensing scheme publishers have for library ebooks. The fair use argument was always doomed to fail. The article then completely ignores the copyright…

Do you believe that libraries should be barred from archiving material to microfiche? How is that significantly different from format-shifting a book to electronic form, as long as they use DRM to limiy concurrent viewing?

I suppose the difference is that publishers aren't suing such libraries and such archival isn't accessible enough to harm publishers' markets.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#446

Post by dragonwriter »

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.

> Intellectual property is an unnatural, made up construct

Property is an unnatural, made up construct.

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

Maybe, by just asserting untestable claims about future opinions isn’t an argument.

> 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.

That’s a valid preference. I disagree, I think that a system of property law which provides net benefit in aggregate is adequate, requiring each individual exercise of property rights to be a net benefit in specific is too much overhead.

> For example, pay taxes on copyrights and patents, increasing every year to reflect disturbance caused to society.

I’d rather have both have short, free terms with copyright extendable by a tax, unless you are going to have a more general property tax than just on patents. But note that taxing property isn’t a sign that it is particularly “made up”, real property and some items of tangible personal property also have property taxes.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#447

Post by jazzyjackson »

xvector wrote: post #434
MisterSandman wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, torrents are already decentralized.

Torrents cannot be updated. Furthermore, torrents are subject to the sites that advertise them getting banned. You will constantly be on the hunt for new trackers. Blockchain is an obviously superior application here as new books and articles are constantly being released.

Why would I need to update my books and pdfs? How difficult is it to follow a publishers RSS feed and download new editions and new uploads?

I cannot picture why blockchain seems like a value ad here, there's way easier ways to synchronize collections of data, no global consensus necessary

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#448

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#449

Post by readbeard »

If we work together, I think it would be realistic for us to attain a rollback of most recent one or two copyright term extensions by following a two-pronged strategy:

(1) Show politicians on the left how copyright term extensions have largely amounted to a transfer of wealth from the public to large corporations, and

(2) Show politicians on the right how rolling back to an earlier version of copyright would reduce the interference of the government in the lives of its citizens and return to a vision for IP that better adheres to that presented by the Constitution and defended by its framers, while leading to a more vibrant and competitive market for new works.

Meanwhile, both groups should be assured that a release of many classic works into the public domain would be popular among the vast majority of their constituents.

Who's in?

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#450

Post by goodlinks »

FredPret wrote: post #393
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.

Human rights and democracy are nothing like IP.

Dont be shitty to people and listen to their voice are thing that any group of children playing may come up with them selves.

Those same children will copy each other and build on ideas each other have.

Thi child who demands no one can play a game or any derivative because they came up with it first, well, they are just not very nice.

Post reply on HN