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

601–610 of 835 posts

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#601

Post by concordDance »

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?

It's a scale. Laws against murder and theft of food are highly natural (e.g. most social cooperative animals will have something like it), zoning laws are more unnatural.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#602

Post by drawkbox »

Luckily libraries existed before copyright / IP was too top heavy otherwise they wouldn't exist. This content and products are part of culture. An online library should be allowed to exist. You can go to public libraries and in many they have ebook checkout systems. Why not Internet Archive, one of the most valuable online resources next to Wikipedia and data sources.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#603

Post by Mezzie »

Mindwipe wrote: post #488
PinkRidingHood wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that mean I can take the book, copy it, then resell it, keeping the copy?

Obviously there are lots of jurisdictions and you have to hit a broad brush with answers, but generally, no. Your reproduction is only considered to be reasonable by law while you retain the original.

Now I'm wondering how this would apply in situations where the person doesn't know if they have the original or not.

Inspired by the fact that my emulation of Link's Awakening to play on a screen I could see is technically legal since we had a cartridge stuffed away in a drawer. But for 10-15 years that cartridge lived in a limbo land of 'we used to have that, it might still be around somewhere...'

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#604

Post by patrick451 »

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…

Aside from the two party system, this is all working exactly as designed.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#605

Post by Dalewyn »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #571
Dalewyn wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 th…

You are neglecting to understand that the States are separate from each other, with a right to decide their affairs themselves. The nationwide popular vote is meaningless because the United States of America does not operate on nationwide popular votes, it operates on Statewide Popular Votes which are represented at the Federal level of politics by the States' respective Governors, Congressmen, and Electors.

Consider another example of Federal matters being decided by votes by the States: Constitutional amendments. Amendments require ratification from 2/3rds of all the States to become part of the Constitution, not 2/3rds of the nationwide popular vote.

The Compact argues for the people of one State dictating the decision of the people of another State, in this case the question of who shall become President of the United States of America. Destroying State rights like that is not how you improve democracy.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#606

Post by hgsgm »

calgarymicro wrote: post #102
duxup wrote: post #98

I'm bummed IA chose to pick this fight by declaring this magical COVID emergency and lending more digital copies than they owned. The outcome seemed inevitable and IMO IA has been dishonest about what the lawsuit with its own statements. It makes me wonder if there are any adults at the helm at IA and I worry about its future. IA is an amazing resource... I don't understand why they chose this hill to fight on.

I don't think that controlled digital lending in its entirety being ruled illegal was at all inevitable. Sure, take them to task for the 'emergency library', but the scope of this ruling seems unjust.

The ruling gave 4 obvious rebuttals to their claims.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#607

Post by ghaff »

mdp2021 wrote: post #597
bdw5204 wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the Internet Archive's digitizing and distribution of old books is fair use then so is a video game ROM site that distributes digital images of pre-PS360 era games that are no longer available to purchase legally. except at exorbitant rates on eBay. And there's also a strong case for the original Napster being fair use if IA is. I don't think there was ever any serious doubt that the Internet Archive would lose th…

> If ... digitizing and distribution of old ... is fair use It's a library. A library does that.

Libraries and archives have very little in the way of special rights when it comes to digital distribution of copyrighted works even if they have certain backup/preservation rights.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#608

Post by NoZebra120vClip »

hyperman1 wrote: post #596
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…

As an non-USA inhabitant, one thing I see is that you have a lot more voting chances than most countries. I heard e.g. you can vote for officials like sheriffs and stuff. So don't only vote for a president, vote for everything you can. Become member of both parties, and vote for presidential candidates at both sides. I think after that, you shouldn't be afraid to 'throw your vote away'. Gerrymandering and other stuff…

> Become member of both parties, and vote for presidential candidates at both sides.

That's not permitted in any state which I know.

I am a registered voter in "NO PARTY", which gives me the option to request a ballot from any party in a primary and vote within that party.

Any registered voter can vote any candidate or issue in general elections. I think what would improve our abysmal two-party system would be runner-up benefits, and coalitions, rather than winner-takes-all.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#609

Post by alistairSH »

hyperman1 wrote: post #596
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…

As an non-USA inhabitant, one thing I see is that you have a lot more voting chances than most countries. I heard e.g. you can vote for officials like sheriffs and stuff. So don't only vote for a president, vote for everything you can. Become member of both parties, and vote for presidential candidates at both sides. I think after that, you shouldn't be afraid to 'throw your vote away'. Gerrymandering and other stuff…

Become member of both parties, and vote for presidential candidates at both sides.

This usually isn’t allowed. At least in my precinct (in an open primary state), both primaries are on the same day, in the same location, and you select which party’s ballot you want when you arrive. Anybody can vote, you don’t have to be a party member.

Some states have closed primaries, where only party members can vote. Usually you declare party membership in advance. Not sure how these states prevent people from joining both - I suspect there is a state register of party affiliation.

As the parent post alluded to, the US is at a bit of a crossroads. The protections built into the political system that were added to protect minority political groups from the tyranny of the majority has been turned on it’s ear over the last several decades and we’re now stuck with an ever-decreasing population of angry christo-fascists making decisions against the will of the vast majority of the nation.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#610

Post by the_only_law »

hyperman1 wrote: post #596
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…

As an non-USA inhabitant, one thing I see is that you have a lot more voting chances than most countries. I heard e.g. you can vote for officials like sheriffs and stuff. So don't only vote for a president, vote for everything you can. Become member of both parties, and vote for presidential candidates at both sides. I think after that, you shouldn't be afraid to 'throw your vote away'. Gerrymandering and other stuff…

I’d wager it’d be even more useless for me to vote for sheriff than president. The sheriff where I live is a populist figure who’s continuously re-elected in power for nearly 20 years at this point. He’s probably going to re-elected till he dies since he has that “celebrity” mentality Americans love.
Post reply on HN