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

571–580 of 835 posts

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#571

Post by Dylan16807 »

Dalewyn wrote: post #365
kelseyfrog wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, can you please take the ad hominem out of it? It's getting in the way of having a productive discussion. > The United States of America is exactly what it says on the tin: A Union of States. Each State is equal to all the others, united somewhat loosely as a Federal Republic. This is simply counter-exampled with the proportional representation of the US House. If states were equal then population would play no…

>This is simply counter-exampled with the proportional representation of the US House. If states were equal then population would play no part in representation. This is a compromise because not all States have the same population (obviously). The Senate, where all States have equal representation, decides matters which are considered de facto of higher importance such as government appointments and diplomatic matter…

It's giving everyone in the country the same amount of voting power. That's not defying the will of anyone.

Stop focusing in on exactly how individual electors would supposedly defy things, because the point of the compact is to make electors irrelevant, and the overall outcome follows people's will perfectly fine.

Consider this: If states traded pairs of electors with each other your logic would call that defying the will of the people, even though it would change nothing about the outcome. Because now they're not voting directly based on what their state said. Your logic is wrong.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#572

Post by Matl »

denton-scratch wrote: post #556
komali2 wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> yet each of those person's votes are functionally meaningless Not sure what a "functionally meaningless vote" is; is that simply a vote cast for the losing side? If something is to be decided by a vote, then one side of the argument is going to lose, otherwise you don't need a vote.

I'd guess you took what OP meant a bit too literally, I'd say that there's so many things to change, campaign for, convince that even if you say convince enough people to vote to change this law, there's already another rolling your 'win' back being prepared, backed by interest groups with much deeper pockets.

So in the end your individual vote does little, because real power is at the hands of much better resourced interests.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#573

Post by Matl »

criddell wrote: post #484
komali2 wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A decade ago, activists made a difference protesting SOPA and PIPA.

Or Google did.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#574

Post by generj »

scythe wrote: post #372
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?

The most obvious distinction between intellectual property and ordinary property is their history. Ownership of things has existed for longer than reliable records are available. Copyright and patents, by contrast, were created during the late Renaissance in response to the particular economic circumstances of the time. They have since become the tools of entrenched interests who would rather suggest that things have…

I’d argue intellectual property existed earlier than that, as soon as states (or guilds) considered certain techniques and skills exclusive to them.

Off the top of my mind, with a solely European view the Venetians moved glass production to Murano in the 13th century at least partially to make a monopoly on luxury glass. World History was awhile ago but other restrictions on technology transfer existed by at least 800 CE and probably in a limited sense well before 1000 BCE.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#575

Post by maxwell »

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…

Odd to open asking what actions Americans can take, and then closing with a bizarre appeal to a noble wealth hoarder.

What can we do? Uncap the House. Repeal the Reapportionment Act of 1929. The billionaires easily bribe 435 reps, several thousand would be harder. And in line with historical representation.

https://www.reddit.com/r/uncapthehouse

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#576

Post by rhino369 »

Aeolun wrote: post #127
Spivak wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The judge disagreed with that too. Companies have tried and failed to set up a streaming service backed by physical copies and they were struck down so this really didn’t have any chance either.

I don’t understand the reasoning there though. Like, I can get on board with sayibg fair-use is silly, but lending a book that I own —either digitally or physically— should be protected.

It’s a subtle distinction but when you lend a physical book no copy is made.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#577

Post by submeta »

encomiast wrote: post #294
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" 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?

Physical objects cannot be shared. I can’t create a copy of my car. But ideas can and will be shared. Our societies try to criminalise it. That’s not right. It does not help humanity in making advances.

Imagine a world where every human has access to all ideas, papers, books, thoughts. That’ll empower every human being who has access to it.

We need to find other ways to compensate authors and creators.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#578

Post by goto11 »

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

Ownership of land is an unnatural, made up construct. In contrast to intellectual creations, land is limited. Therefore, granting ownership of land to a person is literally robbing other people of this land.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#579

Post by rhino369 »

dns_snek wrote: post #523
ChrisKnott wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 alw…

Without copyright, it wouldn’t just be pirates on shady websites distributing GTA5. It would be ripped and sold at Walmart and on Steam by anyone.

Why would anyone pay for HBO when Netflix could just put up The Last of Us without paying a cent.

Why would AMC theaters pay Disney for Avengers 5 when they can just pay some Disney employee to send them a copy for free?

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#580

Post by magicalist »

colonwqbang wrote: post #495
politelemon wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

A system where judges ignore the law and just rule based on their general gut feeling, is much worse.

This was a fair use case. The judge ruling on a question of law is exactly how it works.
Post reply on HN