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

521–530 of 835 posts

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#521

Post by philipps »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #460
eyelidlessness wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just reading through, the distinction seems pretty obvious to me. It doesn’t reinforce several of my ideological perspectives, even contradicts some, but the distinction is plain as day. Physical things are subject to the laws of physics (can’t be in two places at once), idea “things” are much more ephemeral and thus much less restricted by those same rules (an idea can propagate basically infinitely and be “had” by…

As a general rule we don't enforce copyright at the point of having an idea, but rather at the point of putting that idea into some sort of medium that can be transmitted to others, and then we enforce copyright at the transmission point. The transmission has concrete, albeit somewhat mutable scarcity.

The characterization that IP law is only intended to spur creative activity is incorrect. It was designed to balance the interests of the creator with those of society. And that balance is off, IP regulation has become a tool for rent seeking.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#523

Post by dns_snek »

ChrisKnott wrote: post #384
edgyquant wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There will still be a first to market advantage.

I don't see how that works in a world truly without copyright. You can't spend hundreds of millions making GTA6 if the first person you sell it to can give away copies.

Copies of GTA 6 won't work online, which is what the vast majority of people are likely going to be buying it for. Lack of copyright also doesn't mean lack of sales. GTA 5 was a huge commercial success despite being cracked in days.

I pay for Tidal and buy 99% of my games despite having access to safe private trackers. On the other hand I pirate 100% of my TV and movies. Make of that what you will but for me it's always a service issue (or lack thereof).

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#524

Post by eggburger »

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…

Who gave them the right to say it was legal or illegal in the first place? People in here pretending one party is better than the other because they give you back fundamental human rights they have no business controlling the legality of to begin with.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#525

Post by endisneigh »

whatshisface wrote: post #219
latency-guy2 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't own a single digital book, nor am I deluded to think that the internet was going to solve the issue of ownership in the first place. You are free to demand that publishers provide you unlimited access to their servers so you can download your books perpetually. Publishers need not give in to alternative access methods to their material. If you want to own books, have it actually in your possession, which is n…

This article is about a court ruling restricting what the IA could do with books they physically owned.

You misunderstand it if that’s your conclusion

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#526

Post by blurbleblurble »

komali2 wrote: post #444
mushbino wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thr…

You're taking it very literal here, from my perspective it doesn't mean "literally treat others according to your preferences", it means "treat others with the same kind of consideration you'd offer yourself". It's like: wouldn't you want people to treat as best they can you in a way that aligns with your needs and values? So treat them in a way that aligns with their needs and values. I think it also implies that people would have respect and care for themselves, but that's not always the case in reality.

It's really like the semantics of "walk this way".

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#527

Post by OJFord »

saint_fiasco wrote: post #520
frankfrankfrank wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you until you parroted the propaganda trope about Roe v Wade. Roe has always been known as “bad law” even though it was never law, only illegitimate judicial dictate. It’s always been known as one of the worst rulings in American history. It’s unfortunate that you would demonstrate such logically compromise in such a blatant manner, ironically, in a post about “bad law”. Ironically, overturning Roe speci…

I'm confused. You act hostile yet you seem to agree with the original comment. The reason Row v Wade was overturned is that the judges don't want to have to decide if abortion is legal or not. They want legislators to be responsible for that. You, the judges, and the parent comment are all in agreement here.

I have no idea what Roe v Wade is about (I'm not American or in the US), but I like GP read the parent comment to theirs as meaning 'these jokers overturned it, that is bad, we cannot rely on them'. Re-reading after seeing your own comment, it is ambiguous really, you could read it either way, but you're probably right (having the context of what it's about) and GP just mistook the meaning as I did.

> If anything has proven this [that 'we need to react better to laws as they are being drafted, not wait out their inevitable harm to society'] lately is the Roe v. Wade overturn, we really need to stop relying on courts to "save" us and instead fight for better laws [...]

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#528

Post by guerrilla »

boredhedgehog wrote: post #413
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.

Absolute monarchy doesn't work at all as an example of a thoroughly discredited intellectual concept. It's the political reality in various countries across the globe right now and frequently polls highly in all others. The word "king" has been dropped and replaced by "president" or "strong leader", but the concept is the same. And I think that's an important development to keep in mind when arguing against something…

Being political reality doesn't save something from being intellectually discredited. The fact that people need propaganda such as "president" as you mention supports that, because the very idea of monarchy and aristocracy are impossible to sell these days. These systems can only survive through lies and confusion or brute force and neither has anything to with having any intellectual credibility.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#529

Post by punnerud »

politelemon wrote: post #461
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…

> and then we expect the judge to "save" us from the broken law instead of holding the legislators accountable Why can't it be both? All this does is keep us busy looking where the 'root cause' is and never actually solve anything because the mechanisms to fix those things don't exist... all the while others reap its benefits.

Could the law be nullified? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitu...

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#530

Post by misnome »

RedCondor wrote: post #62
Thorentis wrote: post #2

I think most people here saw this coming. Unfortunately this isn't a question of whether the law is good, it's a question of whether IA broke the current laws we have. IA can and should lobby for copyright law to change. But breaking it before it has changed is risky and foolish, and does more harm than good.

It's a little amusing to compare the reactions here to Internet Archive breaking the law ("The law is the law…") to Uber/AirBnB breaking the law ("Newcomers challenging the system! Ambitious, bold disruption!").

I constantly see people still complaining about what Uber and AirBnB do/did. And, likewise, there are plenty of comments here saying the same positive things about IA.

Are you just choosing to ignore those comments?

Post reply on HN