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

801–810 of 835 posts

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#801

Post by ouraf »

I hate to be devil's advocate, but archive.org has a problem with curation of their free library. Some stuff there breaks some terms of service of the original owners, like the leaked PS2 SDK https://archive.org/details/ps2_sdks, old and irrelevant as it may be today. Or cracked games that are still availiable online https://archive.org/details/gtasa210apk

I wish them to stay providing service, but maybe a quick checkup about "why is this stored here" or "isn't any other site more capable or well equipped to store and defend the right to access this content" would help giving it more of a defense against copyright holders

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#802

Post by EricE »

krapp wrote: post #709
orangepurple wrote: post #702

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You assume "rights" exist in a vacuum. The so called "rights" given to "the people" are clearly defined in the constitution and the bill of rights. Judges compare laws to those documents for conflicts, and err on the side of the constitution and the bill of rights. They do not make rights up as they please.

> The so called "rights" given to "the people" are clearly defined in the constitution and the bill of rights. 9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or t…

>The Constitution does not define rights, rather it defines the limits of the government's power to abridge those rights.

It's frightening that so few seem to really get this.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#803

Post by jwestbury »

dahart wrote: post #614
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…

> The current law is broken I think many agree that copyright needs to be shortened, but what does “broken” mean, exactly? I have good feelings for the Internet Archive, but in this case it’s about a handful of books that are being copied and distributed a mere 5 years after initial publication, which I think a lot of people who want copyright shortened would still agree is quite a bit too short. Books frequently get…

What differentiates libraries from the IA in this context, though?

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#804

Post by readbeard »

zarzavat wrote: post #479
readbeard wrote: post #449

If we work together, I think it would be realistic for us to attain a rollback of most recent one or two copyright term extensions by following a two-pronged strategy: (1) Show politicians on the left how copyright term extensions have largely amounted to a transfer of wealth from the public to large corporations, and (2) Show politicians on the right how rolling back to an earlier version of copyright would reduce t…

Politicians in the US are corrupt. You need a rich person who cares about your cause to bribe them more than the rich businesses with copyrights are currently bribing them. Then the law will be changed.

I disagree. While a rich person's backing would certainly be helpful, I think convincing a couple of politicians with platforms and some clout on each side that spearheading a joint IP reform effort would benefit their political careers would be adequate to get the ball rolling.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#805

Post by account42 »

retrocryptid wrote: post #644
eggburger wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The constitution.

This is the correct answer but it is worth pointing out copyright being spelled out specifically in the first amendment recognizes that this is something that he government would normally not have authority to enact because it goes against more fundamental rights. The first amendment also restricts the authority of the government when it comes to copyright by requiring it to be done "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" and for the aritificial monoboly to be "for limited Times". It isn't clear that the current implementation of copyright still falls within either of these limitations.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#806

Post by account42 »

MrVandemar wrote: post #630
saint_fiasco wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The reason Row v Wade was overturned is that the judges don't want to have to decide if abortion is legal or not. No. The reason Roe v Wade was overturned is because conservative middle-aged/old white-guys with money are not happy about people, and by people I mean women , having reproductive choice. It's one of the areas that fundamental islam and conservative "Christians" have significant overlap, and that's not…

> white-guys

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#807

Post by [deleted] »

zestyping wrote: post #737
readbeard wrote: post #449

If we work together, I think it would be realistic for us to attain a rollback of most recent one or two copyright term extensions by following a two-pronged strategy: (1) Show politicians on the left how copyright term extensions have largely amounted to a transfer of wealth from the public to large corporations, and (2) Show politicians on the right how rolling back to an earlier version of copyright would reduce t…

Both of your arguments have merit, and would be convincing if politicians on both sides were driven by logic. Sadly, I'm doubtful that many politicians on the left still have the integrity or power to act against copyright empires. It's even more obvious that politicians on the right no longer care about limited government. They are currently trying to ban books.

[deleted]

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#808

Post by account42 »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #548
bruce511 wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"patent trolls" is an unhelpful term because it is in the eye of the beholder. Was Amazon being a patent troll patenting single-click-to-purchase? Was Apple a troll in patenting Swipe to Unlock? They were using those patents in their products. On the other hand is the Tolkien Estate patent trolls? They're not producing anything new.) If I have a dozen patents, and some company wants to buy them from me, is that any d…

>Was Amazon being a patent troll patenting single-click-to-purchase? // Just on that example. I think Amazon were fine to get a monopoly (in USA) on commercial implementation of one-click. But realistically it's worth a couple of years at most of monopoly for something which arises naturally out of the progress of the web, which Amazon rode the wave of (and contributed to). Locking that up for 20 years doesn't serve…

> I think Amazon were fine to get a monopoly (in USA) on commercial implementation of one-click.

But who benefits from that other than Amazon when, as you say, it arose naturally. Does anyone think one-click purchase is something that would never have existed if not for Amazon?

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#809

Post by account42 »

atomicUpdate wrote: post #358
panic wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there any organizations working toward the abolition of intellectual property in the US? I agree with you that it's ridiculous and would love to do something about it.

Assuming such an organization existed, what would stop someone from using their name, logo, etc. to also promote enhancing IP law and undermine they’re entire message? Presumably they wouldn’t be so hypocritical as to sue you for that, would they?

Even besides you mixing up trademarks and copyrights, subverting the existing system in order to achive the opposite is not inherently hypocritical. E.g., the GPL is a copyright license.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#810

Post by account42 »

Jochim wrote: post #550
dragonwriter wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Intellectual property is an unnatural, made up construct Property is an unnatural, made up construct. > that will one day be seen as ridiculous as absolute monarchy is today. Maybe, by just asserting untestable claims about future opinions isn’t an argument. > 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 i…

> I’d rather have both have short, free terms with copyright extendable by a tax, Why allow extension at all? The initial term serves as a societal "thank you for that cool idea". I'm not sure I agree that financial success should mean society continues to award you exclusive rights to the idea. Applying modern intellectual property law to "base" inventions illustrates how ridiculous it is. Should we be paying a tith…

I think the idea of an extensible copyright is not to allow some people to maintain the monopoly for longer than normal but to have a mechanism for things to enter the public domain earlier if the authors are no longer interested in distributing the works themselves but mainly use the copyright to stifle others.

This way you can set the base copyright duration shorther than you could otherwise without people complaining that some works take a while to become profitable.

That said, I agree that it isn't neccesarily the best idea is it predominantly benefits the already well off who can better afford to gamble on the copyright extension fees.

Personally I think zero copyright is probably the best since society benefits from sharing and remixes from day one. Look at how quickly memes propagate and consider if copyright was actually enforced there. Now consider if the could have the same creative mobility for the kinds of works where copyright is enforced.

But I also don't see zero copyright as attainable within my lifetime as it would upend so many business models. Shorter copyrights (with or without extensions) are much more realistically attainable as for most copyright holders it might change the equation a bit but won't require them to immediately overthink their funding.

Post reply on HN