Internet Archive forced to remove 500k books after publishers' court win • Hacker News Board

Re: Internet Archive forced to remove 500k books after publishers' court win

#501

Post by paulcole » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 7:48 PM UTC

franga2000 wrote: post #496

paulcole wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would you have the same problem if they bought ebooks in MOBI, converted them and then lent out EPUB versions. Yes. > Why shouldn't they be allowed to do this They bought a paper book, not the right to lend out an ebook.

The contents is the thing that deserves protection, not every individual instance of a medium it's stored on. If I buy a music CD, I paid for one license to play that album plus some plastic and distribution fees. If I make a copy to play because I don't want to damage the original, if I then lend that copy to my friend, if I rip it to mp3 because nothing plays CDs anymore - in all those cases, only one copy is being…

> if I rip it to mp3 because nothing plays CDs anymore - in all those cases, only one copy is being used so my one "license to play" should suffice.

Sure, I disagree but whatever. Your license to play in this case shouldn’t extend to lending those MP3s that can easily be copied by as many people as you can “lend” those MP3s to.

> The contents is the thing that deserves protection

Also I disagree with this. The content doesn’t “deserve” to be protected.

Re: Internet Archive forced to remove 500k books after publishers' court win

#502

Post by johnnyanmac » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 7:52 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #484

johnnyanmac wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the thing, though. IBM faded into... A 62B earnings call for 2023. I sure wish that's how I could fade if I sold out. Not being in the limelight doesn't mean these old juggernaut aren't still making more money than some small countries. Very few companies that you feel are "dead" are truly in dire straits financially. They've mad their money and still make a non-negligible amount today in the background

Intel has also faded away. As did Sears, Kodak, Xerox, GE, even Walmart was eclipsed by Amazon. Disney has lost its footing. AT&T. Novell. Cisco. Kmart. RCA. Capitalism has been in the US for what, 250 years? You'd think the theory that capitalist businesses grow to take over the world would have been repeatedly verified by now.

You're not getting it are you? Do what I did with Nvidia and see how much money 80% of those companies are making.

>You'd think the theory that capitalist businesses grow to take over the world would have been repeatedly verified by now.

It's not about taking over the world. Ceos aren't twirling their mustaches with a bowler hat. It's about what it's been about for all of humanity: making sure to keep some other part of humanity down so they don't get power.

America's only had one civil war and it was purely to make sure they can keep telling black people what to do, without proper compensation. That's how important that control is to them. Businesses can die and restart, but they cannot get back lost power that way.

Re: Internet Archive forced to remove 500k books after publishers' court win

#503

Post by anigbrowl » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 7:56 PM UTC

talldatethrow wrote: post #259

anigbrowl wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of hectoring discourse is aggressive and rude. You can do better. Authors that get paid can certainly leave the assets they received to their families. They could also transfer ownership of unpublished intangible assets. More than that sucks the general public into a quasi-contractual relationship with a posthumous person; I disclaim fiscal obligations of strangers toward ghosts.

People don't just write books to profit while they are alive. They write books so their families have something to pay the bills once they die as well. Books are hard enough to write and sell successfully. The few that make it are special for the families of the writers, and you want to take them. You're free to give away your work. Stop telling others what to do with their work and that you want to take it because t…

Design patents have a 15 year life. I'm a great lover of books and arts in general, but I'm not clear on why ownership rights in some creative endeavors should be massively privileged over others. Can the families of authors not write books of their own, or engage in other economic activity?

What about the families of people who toil over creative work and don't hit the jackpot? There are many fine writers/artists who never gain more than a niche audience while garbage sells big. Go to a bookstore and look at the history section, pseudo-historians like Bill O'Reilly are given more shelf space than serious historians. To be frank I almost exclusively buy from used book stores for the last decade because nonfiction offerings in chain/non-specialist bookstores are so bad. Vendors of used books tend to select for quality rather than popularity.

Re: Internet Archive forced to remove 500k books after publishers' court win

#504

Post by WalterBright » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 7:57 PM UTC

SequoiaHope wrote: post #397

mandmandam wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does this account keep managing to make every thread on HN into 'communism bad' without getting flagged? Tell me your secrets Walter.

As an anarcho communist and prolific HN commenter I sigh every time I see his name. Sadly he doesn’t actually understand communism and seems to be stuck in 1980’s anti communist propaganda. For example the sibling comment to this one where he conflates collectivism with being “anti freedom” (lol). At least he’s getting the downvotes he deserves in this thread.

> Sadly he doesn’t actually understand communism

Maybe you can cite examples of it working?

It's legal to start a commune in the US. Why not give it a try? Report back to us how it goes!

> conflates collectivism with being “anti freedom” (lol)

I do, because collectivism means you do not own the fruits of your labor. I bet you'd be outraged if I helped myself to some of your stuff that I decided you didn't need.

Re: Internet Archive forced to remove 500k books after publishers' court win

#505

Post by johnnyanmac » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 8:00 PM UTC

joquarky wrote: post #468

johnnyanmac wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Information is not rivalrous in that way: an additional person having it doesn't take it away from anyone else. Not literally, but in every other sense, yes. It does. You make a great idea, and someone with more money, time, and resources will mass produce your product. They become ubiquitous with the product and the creator is now disincentized from sharing more potentially great ideas.We use copyright to make sure…

> the creator is now disincentized How can we be sure of this? Some artists create art for fame, or just to be in that zen-like zone of consciousness that happens with making art Also, why is the current model assumed to be the best, when it is based on a lot of outdated assumptions (e.g., physical copies)?

>How can we be sure of this?

It's theft. How many people, no matter how altruistic, will feel truly zen seeing their own idea copied by people who care nothing about thw craft making money, exploiting other labor, and otherwise making the world a worse place?

I argue less than the amount that at least want a steady living at the bare minimum. Something many struggle to achieve.

>why is the current model assumed to be the best, when it is based on a lot of outdated assumptions (e.g., physical copies)?

Because I've heard no better alternatives?

We don't need to throw the baby out with that bathwater. In increasing orderof viability: Implement UBI so artists don't starve guarantee an easy trial for proper compensation (which may still be pennies for thieves) if/when their art is stolen and makes hand over fist in money, or reduce the current time of exclusivity. The concept of keeping some time to benefit from your ideas exclusively isn't a flawed one, it just needs tweaks to the idea, or a fundamental shift in how humans survive in the modern world.

Re: Internet Archive forced to remove 500k books after publishers' court win

#506

Post by WalterBright » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 8:03 PM UTC

SequoiaHope wrote: post #397

mandmandam wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does this account keep managing to make every thread on HN into 'communism bad' without getting flagged? Tell me your secrets Walter.

As an anarcho communist and prolific HN commenter I sigh every time I see his name. Sadly he doesn’t actually understand communism and seems to be stuck in 1980’s anti communist propaganda. For example the sibling comment to this one where he conflates collectivism with being “anti freedom” (lol). At least he’s getting the downvotes he deserves in this thread.

> At least he’s getting the downvotes he deserves in this thread.

Feel free to downvote me all you like, Taylor!

Re: Internet Archive forced to remove 500k books after publishers' court win

#507

Post by johnnyanmac » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 8:08 PM UTC

persnickety wrote: post #472

johnnyanmac wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why should we turn information into a "product", introducing scarcity where none is required Because expert information comes from experts who are paid a lot to do stuff not involving the authoring of their ideas. And we need to incentivize them to get said valuable information. How many people here have some novel expertise in their fields? How many would help produce technical articles pro Bono? Or for pay but end…

> we need to incentivize them to get said valuable information. Why should that incentive take form of making information a product? "just provide knowledge out of thr good of your heart" is a gross misrepresentation of what the person before said, and you even quote the passage indicating as much. It seems like you're trying to portray the problem as a dichotomy: "product" vs "goodness of heart". That other ways pos…

>It seems like you're trying to portray the problem as a dichotomy: "product" vs "goodness of heart". That other ways pose problems doesn't mean much. The current side of the false dichotomy causes problems as in the OP.

Their suggestions last people who "just want to deny it happens" and their solution is to just let the government pay for it (spoilers: it's allready subsidized), so I don't exactly understand why you think I'm establishing a dictonimy.

Yes. People are unironically arguing to simply abolish copyright. It's an extreme solution and I disagree. I haven't heard many good moderate solutions out there because people are so pro-piracy that I'm inclined to think they don't care about the people behind novel ideas, just benefiting off their work. You get tit for tat with that sort of thinking.

I have moderate ideas, but as I've learned moderate tales fade to the extremities if you aren't even slightly aligned. We're very disaligned here, so the starting step to to show why that extreme take is bad and work from there.

Now that I never said the current system is fine. Because that's not my argument, nor the one the other extreme take needs to hear. But if that's all you got from my chain I suppose I need to do the same thing with you.

Why did you react to "but people need to survive" with "well it NEEDS to be a product"? Compensation comes in many ways, and I was simply saying that the government has historically been horrible at compensating most parts of any industry. What makes this time with books different?

Re: Internet Archive forced to remove 500k books after publishers' court win

#508

Post by johnnyanmac » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 8:11 PM UTC

joquarky wrote: post #476

johnnyanmac wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A book is knowledge, knowledge can 100% be a family businesss to be continued. I don't see it as any different from a family restaurant protecting their recipes in an otherwise cutthroat industry. The terms is too long as is, but I see no reason to not have any posthumous transfer period so the family can figure out what they want to do with their knowledge.

Family recipes are kept secret. If you don't want to share your knowledge, the solution is simple. Once you've put it out there, it becomes a tiny piece of human culture that can be referenced and discussed, and ultimately reproduced. Just because an artist releases a work to the world, doesn't mean they have any natural rights to own what the culture does with it.

People have a secret but still share it while withholding some knowledge. They risk someone reverse engineering it, but it's still being monetized.

Whats the difference here? Have idea, share some of it, monetize it from peope who want to use it, later on it's a free for all or enough knowledge comes to easily reverse engineer it anyway.

^Just because an artist releases a work to the world, doesn't mean they have any natural rights to own what the culture does with it.

No natural right, no. But humans are greedy, tragedy of the commons, etc. So governments made copyright to protect those artists.

It's been, as usual, perverted by the people who least need that protection, but the idea is still sound. In a world of greed, give the creators time to be greedy so they can make a living off their own work. Then later on its a free for all.

Re: Internet Archive forced to remove 500k books after publishers' court win

#509

Post by 1oooqooq » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 8:26 PM UTC

johnnyanmac wrote: post #352

1oooqooq wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

except it is. try to upload to YouTube your birthday party with a barely audible pop music playing in the background. now which argument can't be taken seriously? granted, it's not jail. but being removed from the monopoly forum for internet videos could be worse than jail if you're business depends on that.

>granted, it's not jail. That's a pretty important distinction. >being removed from the monopoly forum for internet videos could be worse than jail if you're business depends on that. If your business relies on thst then strike up a deal. That's what copyright should be doing. The situation is still stupid, yes. But the core issue of people profiting off of material they dont own is still something we want to protect…

strike a deal with publisher for every incidental background music barely noticeable one your videos?

Re: Internet Archive forced to remove 500k books after publishers' court win

#510

Post by johnnyanmac » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 8:32 PM UTC

1oooqooq wrote: post #509

johnnyanmac wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>granted, it's not jail. That's a pretty important distinction. >being removed from the monopoly forum for internet videos could be worse than jail if you're business depends on that. If your business relies on thst then strike up a deal. That's what copyright should be doing. The situation is still stupid, yes. But the core issue of people profiting off of material they dont own is still something we want to protect…

strike a deal with publisher for every incidental background music barely noticeable one your videos?

Ideally, make your own music. Or use people's music who wants to share, they get popular and rise as a competitor and it shows that maybe going after minor background noise wasn't such a good idea.

But back in reality, you just don't monetize the content. Publishers don't really care about some unlisted kid's party with 50 views and monetization off. The YouTube stuff is draconian but not that asinine.