4 ms·

> I've really been scratching my head trying to figure out what their overall strategy with this has been. They're doing what's right, with - it appears - insu

by a1369209993 6y ago

> I've really been scratching my head trying to figure out what their overall strategy with this has been. They're doing what's right, with - it appears - insufficient concern for pragmatism.

paulcole 6y ago
Totally disagree that they’re doing what’s right here. They did what they wanted to and thought they’d be able to get away with it. They still might, who knows.
jjcon 6y ago
> They're doing what's right Stealing from artists and authors is right? Just because a company you admire does something wrong doesn’t mean you need to resort to a fanboyish defense. More than 90% of libraries already have digital lending programs that they established legally following all the rules. IA completely disregarded these processes not to mention publishers and authors rights - they just opted to distribut pirated copies of works.
- devenblake 6y ago
  Thoughts cannot be stolen, nor can words on a page, nor can bits and bytes. For something to be stolen, the single instance of that object must be transferred from one entity to another. In this scenario, the existing book was copied from one entity to another. You may believe the Internet Archive was committing an act of theft, but your notions of what theft is are based on an obsolete idea of what property can be.
  - jjcon 6y ago
    > but your notions of what theft is are based on an obsolete idea of what property can be You mean based on internationally recognized standards and laws, unlike your stance which is based on hot air. Seriously, where do you even come up with this stuff? Are you one of those sovereign citizen types?
    - jachee 6y ago
      Just because something is a law, does not mean it is what's right.
      - jjcon 6y ago
        True in a general sense - but when countries and cultures all around the world recognize something as important... you might want to question yourself when you disagree.
        jachee 6y ago
        Not when those countries' leaderships are under the sway of large groups of professional middle-men, who seem to only leech value and litigate, while playing favorites and holding hostage work produced by others with no substantive contribution to the greater good of society.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        jjcon 6y ago
        That that conspiracy drivel to /r/im14andthisisdeep - copyright is a fundamental protection for innovation and has led to the past 100 years of innovation we have seen across the world. To suggest an alternative would require extraordinary evidence.
    - austhrow743 6y ago
      You don't have to be a sovereign citizen to be opposed to copyright law. Many people are. It's a legal fiction created to incentivise creation and enjoyment of new ideas. That by preventing people from copying things, you end up with more things for them to enjoy than they would have gained from the copying. It has more in common with a government choosing roundabouts over traffic lights or asphalt over pavers than a government making stealing or murder illegal. Its existence as a law is grounded in pragmatism not what's right, so you can't point to the law as evidence that it's what's right. However when I say grounded in pragmatism I mean based on theory and guess. That the ability to monetise a monopoly on an idea outweighs the creative costs of copyright existing is not something I've ever seen a copyright fan present. The worsened ability to copy and then improve works. The armies of people involved in upholding and defending the copyright rather than working on new things of their own. The people who can't afford many things under copyright so it doesn't matter if they have access to more variety, who would have been better off with less variety and lower costs. Instead the copyright fan goes "monopoly means monetisation which means incentive to create more things ergo more things created. Obvious, case closed".

> I've really been scratching my head trying to figure out what their overall strategy with this has been. They're doing what's right, with - it appears - insufficient concern for pragmatism.

paulcole 6y ago

Totally disagree that they’re doing what’s right here. They did what they wanted to and thought they’d be able to get away with it. They still might, who knows.

jjcon 6y ago

> They're doing what's right Stealing from artists and authors is right? Just because a company you admire does something wrong doesn’t mean you need to resort to a fanboyish defense. More than 90% of libraries already have digital lending programs that they established legally following all the rules. IA completely disregarded these processes not to mention publishers and authors rights - they just opted to distribut pirated copies of works.

devenblake 6y ago
Thoughts cannot be stolen, nor can words on a page, nor can bits and bytes. For something to be stolen, the single instance of that object must be transferred from one entity to another. In this scenario, the existing book was copied from one entity to another. You may believe the Internet Archive was committing an act of theft, but your notions of what theft is are based on an obsolete idea of what property can be.
- jjcon 6y ago
  > but your notions of what theft is are based on an obsolete idea of what property can be You mean based on internationally recognized standards and laws, unlike your stance which is based on hot air. Seriously, where do you even come up with this stuff? Are you one of those sovereign citizen types?
  - jachee 6y ago
    Just because something is a law, does not mean it is what's right.
    - jjcon 6y ago
      True in a general sense - but when countries and cultures all around the world recognize something as important... you might want to question yourself when you disagree.
      - jachee 6y ago
        Not when those countries' leaderships are under the sway of large groups of professional middle-men, who seem to only leech value and litigate, while playing favorites and holding hostage work produced by others with no substantive contribution to the greater good of society.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        jjcon 6y ago
        That that conspiracy drivel to /r/im14andthisisdeep - copyright is a fundamental protection for innovation and has led to the past 100 years of innovation we have seen across the world. To suggest an alternative would require extraordinary evidence.
  - austhrow743 6y ago
    You don't have to be a sovereign citizen to be opposed to copyright law. Many people are. It's a legal fiction created to incentivise creation and enjoyment of new ideas. That by preventing people from copying things, you end up with more things for them to enjoy than they would have gained from the copying. It has more in common with a government choosing roundabouts over traffic lights or asphalt over pavers than a government making stealing or murder illegal. Its existence as a law is grounded in pragmatism not what's right, so you can't point to the law as evidence that it's what's right. However when I say grounded in pragmatism I mean based on theory and guess. That the ability to monetise a monopoly on an idea outweighs the creative costs of copyright existing is not something I've ever seen a copyright fan present. The worsened ability to copy and then improve works. The armies of people involved in upholding and defending the copyright rather than working on new things of their own. The people who can't afford many things under copyright so it doesn't matter if they have access to more variety, who would have been better off with less variety and lower costs. Instead the copyright fan goes "monopoly means monetisation which means incentive to create more things ergo more things created. Obvious, case closed".