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

If we lose the Internet Archive, we’re screwed

sbstatesman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 614 posts

Re: If we lose the Internet Archive, we’re screwed

#591

Post by ShamelessC »

jurynulifcation wrote: post #514
ShamelessC wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just misinformed and outdated, but people here seem to have think _very_ highly of their own intelligence - often being dismissive of frankly incredible ideas because “why didn’t they just…” I’ve never been less impressed with the supposed elite class of Ivy League “hackers” than when I’m on this site. Get over yourself. You didn’t just solve AI with your “recursive LLM”. No one with ADHD is going to benefit from…

I'm entirely out of the loop with the LessWrong crowd. Could you explain what you mean by your comment? I saw the interview between Friedman and Yudlowski and was less than impressed.

Uh, well I will admit to some ignorance there as well. Mostly it just seems like alignment researchers in general read a bunch of Asimov books and thought - “I know! I’ll invent the laws of robotics and be firmly established in the history books, ignored by the mainstream scientists of the times who were too shortsighted to understand my 12-dimensional thought experiments”.

That’s not to undermine the role of the thought experiment, more to suggest that they are more concerned about “peak rationality” than they are about having a useful discourse with other researchers in the field.

I’ve seen others suggest it mildly resembles a cult. It is also apparently strongly associated with the “effective altruism” movement and so clearly caters to the ultra wealthy.

Re: If we lose the Internet Archive, we’re screwed

#592

Post by pacerier »

kemitchell wrote: post #215
thaumaturgy wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep seeing this really bad take repeated on this site in the absence of more nuanced, informed legal opinions. Whether CDL is legal under Fair Use or not was/is legally unresolved. Whether it's legally permissible to copy a printed material and distribute that copy as though it were the printed material was/is unresolved. Lots of organizations have been skating along under one interpretation of Fair Use as a worka…

> Whether it's legally permissible to copy a printed material and distribute that copy as though it were the printed material was/is unresolved. That's what IA wants to believe. But it's just not the case that legal points aren't "resolved" or "tested" unless exactly the same situation shows up in court and gets ruled on. The law works in large part by analogy. Strong enough analogies can be predicted. Here's from th…

Judgements are no longer binding as soon as the market has changed (radically), no?

Also, it seems like IA's purpose is different.

Re: If we lose the Internet Archive, we’re screwed

#593

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

luckylion wrote: post #472
nuodag wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am so sick and tired of the copyright laws that play counter to productive creation and stymying efforts to preserve anything. If you think about how cruel it is to make illegal the way human culture has worked for millenia, to listen to the storys you hear, retell them, remix them and make them your own in a new context. That is against the law now.

No it's not. Go ahead, tell your friends the book you recently read. As a matter of fact, go ahead, read that book to your friends. Perfectly legal. Oh, you want to "retell" it and make money off of it? Yeah, that's something else.

So, you're telling me that Disney send the vast majority of their profits to the descendants of the Grimm brothers?

Re: If we lose the Internet Archive, we’re screwed

#594

Post by [deleted] »

modriano wrote: post #586
Kim_Bruning wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So many assumptions in that question! I think the site rules do imply you're not supposed to go for the straw man argument that ends a debate, but rather for the steel-man argument that stimulates further curious conversation. So let's go for that then... : People often build on each other's work. Can you imagine situations where people can take inspiration from each other a whole lot earlier, or are allowed to borro…

People can't copyright a style or a vibe or inspiration, so it's not steelmanning to jump from * "Can you point to examples of any small creators who would be better off if they had no legal copyright over their works?" to * "People often build on each other's work. Can you imagine situations where people can take inspiration from each other a whole lot earlier, or are allowed to borrow ideas sooner and more often?",…

[deleted]

Re: If we lose the Internet Archive, we’re screwed

#595

Post by xhkkffbf »

boucher wrote: post #228
xhkkffbf wrote: post #20

I agree. And I told my friends at the IA from the beginning that their plan was very, very foolish. People can look the other way at copyright infringement of web sites when it's just used for archival work. But when you're directly destroying an artist's livelihood by undercutting their income stream, well, you shouldn't be surprised if they'll be upset.

Are they really "directly destroying" anyone's livelihood? Are authors actually upset? [1][2] [1] https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/author-coalition-bl... [2] https://www.authorsalliance.org/2021/08/17/library-lending-a...

I am. I'm an author.

And you're a fool if you think that free copies at the IA don't cut into sales. Oh sure, some percentage of the people wouldn't have picked up a copy in the first place if they had to pay, but there's going to be some that skipped paying. It's the author and publisher's decision to give things away for free. Not anyone else's.

Here's a challenge to you: tell your boss that you think your company should let a free version of your service be available online. A free version with no restrictions. Now, perhaps you work at a fully open source company and your boss would say, "Great." But you probably don't because those are going out of business. How's MariaDB working out these days?

Re: If we lose the Internet Archive, we’re screwed

#596

Post by kemitchell »

pacerier wrote: post #592
kemitchell wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whether it's legally permissible to copy a printed material and distribute that copy as though it were the printed material was/is unresolved. That's what IA wants to believe. But it's just not the case that legal points aren't "resolved" or "tested" unless exactly the same situation shows up in court and gets ruled on. The law works in large part by analogy. Strong enough analogies can be predicted. Here's from th…

Judgements are no longer binding as soon as the market has changed (radically), no? Also, it seems like IA's purpose is different.

> Judgements are no longer binding as soon as the market has changed (radically), no?

No. That is not how law works in the United States.

If you'd like to learn more, try "Common Law" and "Stare Decisis" on Wikipedia.

Re: If we lose the Internet Archive, we’re screwed

#598

Post by pacerier »

kemitchell wrote: post #596
pacerier wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Judgements are no longer binding as soon as the market has changed (radically), no? Also, it seems like IA's purpose is different.

> Judgements are no longer binding as soon as the market has changed (radically), no? No. That is not how law works in the United States. If you'd like to learn more, try "Common Law" and "Stare Decisis" on Wikipedia.

"""or premised upon, certain factual scenarios, and not applied to the subsequent case because of the absence or material difference in the latter's facts"""..?

Re: If we lose the Internet Archive, we’re screwed

#599

Post by midoridensha »

midoridensha wrote: post #556
legitimayzer wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

really good cultural artifacts are not created by people trying to make money. when cultural creations are prompted by a profit motive, we get "masterpieces" like the rings of power.

Oh please, lots of great cultural creations had a profit motive. You think "Blade Runner" was made without any desire for profit? Or "2001: A Space Odyssey"? Or Peter Jackson's LotR movies? Those were enormously profitable. And Rings of Power was not that bad. It's not as great as the LotR movies, sure, but it's better than the Hobbit movies. (But not as good as some of the Hobbit fan edits.) And it's a LOT better th…

Minor correction: "The Ark" is a SyFy/Peacock show, not Netflix. My apologies to Netflix for naming them as having made what's probably the worst sci-fi show ever.

Interestingly, I found the show that "The Ark" is loosely based on, a 70s show called "The Starlost". It's available on YouTube for free. Anyway, it was widely panned too, even named on someone's "worst sci-fi shows of all time" list. I've only seen one episode but it's already notably better than "The Ark" despite being 50 years old now (and not because "The Starlost" is great either).

Re: If we lose the Internet Archive, we’re screwed

#600

Post by account42 »

modriano wrote: post #360
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I think copyright itself is a completely unnecessary concept in the information age. The original idea was to promote creative works by authors by providing a limited term right to be the sole publisher of a work. This was important in the days where it actually cost money to publish and distribute things, as it ensured you wouldn't eat the cost of that only to have someone else make all the money by doin…

Creators still need to eat, even if publishing and distribution costs have dropped to nearly nothing.

Protecting specific jobs at the expense of society at large is just socialism with extra steps. Might as well admit that that's what you are doing and feed people directly without neutering our ability to share and advance our culture.
Post reply on HN