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

Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 470 posts

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#451

Post by senko »

lamonade wrote: post #440
senko wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there’s no copyright, there’s no closed source. You get their code, decompile/disassemble and reuse as you see fit. You might argue that doesn't help much if they never distribute that code (only runs on their servers). Here’s the inconvenient truth: GPL already allows that. Anyone can take a GPL codebase, do any modifications they want, run it forever, and never contribute back. You’d need AGPL to forbid that. GP…

Here’s the convenient truth: GPL doesnt allow distributing the binary without distributing the code. Next one?

Awesome. If you think that is stopping anyone, here's a challenge for you:

GNU Bash is GPL. You can run Bash (and many other Linux commands) in Windows through Windows Subsystem for Linux. In fact, WSL is a nice example of Microsoft doing embrace & extend.

The challenge: find the Microsoft's published code for Bash.

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#452

Post by kube-system »

senko wrote: post #450
kube-system wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lack of copyright does not mean secrets cannot exist. In fact, it would heavily incentivize it. > Anyone can take a GPL codebase, do any modifications they want, run it forever, and never contribute back. Only privately or over a network, but it prohibits distribution of binaries without source. This is the primary reason the GPL exists.

And how does that exactly stop Amazon, Google or Microsoft (heh) from running GPLd software in their data centers and raking in money for hosting products built by poor open source devs? I'm not worried about Microsoft recompiling bash and redistributing it. Is that a realistic problem for you?

It doesn't, neither the GPL nor any mainstream license prohibit commercial hosting... not even AGPL. Nobody said it did.

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#453

Post by kube-system »

senko wrote: post #451
lamonade wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here’s the convenient truth: GPL doesnt allow distributing the binary without distributing the code. Next one?

Awesome. If you think that is stopping anyone, here's a challenge for you: GNU Bash is GPL. You can run Bash (and many other Linux commands) in Windows through Windows Subsystem for Linux. In fact, WSL is a nice example of Microsoft doing embrace & extend. The challenge: find the Microsoft's published code for Bash.

WSL does not include bash. When you use bash from within WSL, it is using the version of bash that was included in the upstream distribution of linux you have installed. If you are using a Debian based image, to get the source code run the following:

    apt-get source bash
You can also reference the website of the distribution you have chosen to install, e.g. https://packages.ubuntu.com/noble/bash

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#454

Post by senko »

kube-system wrote: post #453
senko wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Awesome. If you think that is stopping anyone, here's a challenge for you: GNU Bash is GPL. You can run Bash (and many other Linux commands) in Windows through Windows Subsystem for Linux. In fact, WSL is a nice example of Microsoft doing embrace & extend. The challenge: find the Microsoft's published code for Bash.

WSL does not include bash. When you use bash from within WSL, it is using the version of bash that was included in the upstream distribution of linux you have installed. If you are using a Debian based image, to get the source code run the following: apt-get source bash You can also reference the website of the distribution you have chosen to install, e.g. https://packages.ubuntu.com/noble/bash

My point exactly (notice I didn't say MS distributes bash - it doesn't, as you pointed out).

Bash being GPL doesn't stop MS from benefiting from it by providing it to WSL users which make WSL more valuable for them. It also (as we talked in the other comment) doesn't prevent Amazon from running a database and charging people for it.

So what's this great advantage of GPL that it would make it worthwhile to keep the entire copyright system just so we could still have GPL?

If you dig around in its origin, GPL was concieved as a tool to "fight system from within system". If there's no system, you don't have to fight the system.

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#455

Post by kube-system »

senko wrote: post #454
kube-system wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WSL does not include bash. When you use bash from within WSL, it is using the version of bash that was included in the upstream distribution of linux you have installed. If you are using a Debian based image, to get the source code run the following: apt-get source bash You can also reference the website of the distribution you have chosen to install, e.g. https://packages.ubuntu.com/noble/bash

My point exactly (notice I didn't say MS distributes bash - it doesn't, as you pointed out). Bash being GPL doesn't stop MS from benefiting from it by providing it to WSL users which make WSL more valuable for them. It also (as we talked in the other comment) doesn't prevent Amazon from running a database and charging people for it. So what's this great advantage of GPL that it would make it worthwhile to keep the en…

> notice I didn't say MS distributes bash

Then why did you ask for something if you knew it didn't exist???

Overall I think you are mistaken about the purpose of the GPL. It does not, nor has it ever intended to prohibit commercial activities. RMS and FSF have been pretty clear about this for many decades. And in fact, they are against the idea of licenses that prohibit commercial use.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

The point of GPL is to enforce a specific worldview of developer freedoms through the application of copyleft.

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#456

Post by senko »

kube-system wrote: post #455
senko wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point exactly (notice I didn't say MS distributes bash - it doesn't, as you pointed out). Bash being GPL doesn't stop MS from benefiting from it by providing it to WSL users which make WSL more valuable for them. It also (as we talked in the other comment) doesn't prevent Amazon from running a database and charging people for it. So what's this great advantage of GPL that it would make it worthwhile to keep the en…

> notice I didn't say MS distributes bash Then why did you ask for something if you knew it didn't exist??? Overall I think you are mistaken about the purpose of the GPL. It does not, nor has it ever intended to prohibit commercial activities. RMS and FSF have been pretty clear about this for many decades. And in fact, they are against the idea of licenses that prohibit commercial use. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/…

I'm trying to understand the actual harm you think would come to free software if in fact there were no copyright, hence no GPL.

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#457

Post by kube-system »

senko wrote: post #456
kube-system wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> notice I didn't say MS distributes bash Then why did you ask for something if you knew it didn't exist??? Overall I think you are mistaken about the purpose of the GPL. It does not, nor has it ever intended to prohibit commercial activities. RMS and FSF have been pretty clear about this for many decades. And in fact, they are against the idea of licenses that prohibit commercial use. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/…

I'm trying to understand the actual harm you think would come to free software if in fact there were no copyright, hence no GPL.

The reason that large successful projects like Linux are so capable is not because it has a price tag of zero (and it often does not), but because of the feedback loop created by the viral-nature of the software license.

The vast majority of Linux is not a volunteer project -- but software developed by commercial software engineers who are being paid by a company to write software. Before copyleft, the idea that they would voluntarily share source code was laughable. The only reason they do is because they are legally required to do so.

This viral nature of copyleft creates a positive feedback loop:

1. Company uses software because it is free and solves a problem

2. they need a modification so they make it

3. they contribute back to the project because it is required by the copyright license

4. the project becomes more valuable at solving more problems that other companies have

5. Go to step 1

Breaking this feedback loop would put companies back to their natural state of not sharing. The result is that the software landscape would start to look a lot like the 80s and 90s again.

Without copyright, copyleft would not exist. And without copyleft, Linux would have been a hobby OS that died out in the early 90s. We'd be using things like Windows Server, Unix, etc. And to protect their business in the absence of copyright, they'd have heavy DRM schemes, obfuscation, cryptographic licensing, etc.

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#458

Post by squigz »

codethief wrote: post #443
zzrrt wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This implies the only content with moral worth are those that teach knowledge or skills, and presumably only the kinds that are worthy for productivity and advancement or something. But one person's "just an entertaining story or just a silly hobby" is another's life-changing or mind-opening allegory, or therapeutic pursuit with little immediate "practical" value. I can sort of see the original point; this appears to…

> This implies the only content with moral worth are those that teach knowledge or skills This is not what OP said. He was talking about the "moral goodness of providing access to X, despite it being illlegal. He never said anything about the moral worth of X itself, let alone that Y had no moral worth. > AA is providing a valuable service to tons of people who don't have access to these books otherwise. There's a st…

Don't many public libraries have other things other than printed books, including music?

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#459

Post by chris_wot »

nathanmills wrote: post #346
chris_wot wrote: post #309

I keep saying this (and I keep getting voted to oblivion) but we really need an alternative to DNS.

Then go ahead and use one. Of course, most projects in this regard try to tackle multiple things (e.g. Tor), including DNS, but there are projects like OpenNIC that take on DNS alone if you prefer. As usual, the mass majority won't adopt these, but they are ready to use for anyone who wants them.

I'll be honest - I've never heard of this! Thanks for the info.

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#460

Post by saligne »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #393
duxup wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of internet archive’s emergency library that they felt magically didn’t have to follow the law because of COVID. Some folks out there seem to have their otherwise good intentions sort of trend into self destructive waters.

Anna's Archive pretty explicitly doesn't give a shit about the law.

Except they do and posted this weird (and racist) national security narrative about llms and copyright reform

https://annas-archive.gl/blog/ai-copyright.html

Post reply on HN