21 ms·

I think most people here saw this coming. Unfortunately this isn't a question of whether the law is good, it's a question of whether IA broke the current laws w

I think most people here saw this coming. Unfortunately this isn't a question of whether the law is good, it's a question of whether IA broke the current laws we have. IA can and should lobby for copyright law to change. But breaking it before it has changed is risky and foolish, and does more harm than good.

wahnfrieden 4y ago
You have it backwards, breaking it widely and repeatedly will do more good than harm.
alexfromapex 4y ago
The system shouldn't require lobbying to get results that benefit the greater good
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > system shouldn't require lobbying to get results that benefit the greater good It does when there is disagreement over what constitutes the greater good.
  - bcrosby95 4y ago
    This made me chuckle pretty hard. When lobbying enters the picture there's only a small, selective group of people that are going to constitute the greater good.
    - majormajor 4y ago
      I think you're referring to financial aspects of today's lobbying alone, but I think it's impossible to suggest you could have any sort of consideration of the greater good without taking into account different people's view on what that is, which means them trying to persuade you of it, which is the exact definition of lobbying.
      - ryandrake 4y ago
        It doesn't matter what "different people's view" is. With corporations lobbying, there is no greater good, only greater wallet.
      - User23 4y ago
        Not really. Lobbyists are merely bag-men for the real shot-callers.
  - brewdad 4y ago
    A handful of corporations vs the entire population of planet earth, or a nation’s subset, should be pretty obvious where the greater good lies.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > should be pretty obvious where the greater good lies Is this facetious? What constitutes the greater good is the entire point of government. Many things you think are obvious are lines another would die to prevent--this is the basis of civics.
  - Timwi 4y ago
    There is actually no such disagreement. The corporations and copyright mafia are very open about the fact that their profits are more important to them than the common good.
- IncRnd 4y ago
  The system is founded on protecting the rights of individuals. That's the system we have today, not a collective rights system.
- majormajor 4y ago
  How would that be accomplished? What are the options here? 1) an elected legislature that's supposed to consider the greater good? 2) a generally non-elected judiciary that is supposed to consider the greater good to override the legislature? 3) a hopefully-benevolent dictator to consider the greater good? Obviously any of these methods can fail; the first of them is the easiest to "edit," as it were. Things like term limits would likely improve it, though.
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    We're kinda taught that we choose representatives which reflect our values through the process of election and that those elected officials should they not reflect our values, are at the mercy of the electorate in the next election. Instead, few elections are competitive and the representation happens through the lobbying process. In short, the accountability story we're taught isn't true and money talks more than votes. It's this bait and switch that has the unintended consequence of fueling populism and the disbelief that representatives represent us, and that institutions work. Here's a dumb idea. Create and advocate for a congressional proportional representation interstate compact in the same vein as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact[1]. Then advocate for pooled campaign financing as a function of proportional representation[2]. The nice thing about interstate compacts is that they can eventually capture a majority given election variability over time. They divide and conquer the problem into actionable tasks that effectively aggregate. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta... 2. purposefully being vague. what would softmax(T>>1) look like, for instance?
    - Dalewyn 4y ago
      Citing the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact indicates you have no understanding of the political organization of the United States of America. I implore you to do your homework, but I will tell you the compact would only serve to reduce the voice of the people (that is to say, reduce democracy) rather than increase them.
      - 4y ago
- idiotsecant 4y ago
  that's like saying the washing machine should fold my socks after it's done washing them. That would be nice, but when you're running a large organization like IA you should be less concerned with how things should be and more concerned with how things are.
trinsic2 4y ago
Yeah I have to agree copying entire works and lending them out is probably not the best idea. I wonder how Google got away with the same though.
- hgsgm 4y ago
  > I wonder There's an app for that. https://www.google.com/googlebooks/perspectives/facts.html https://www.google.com/googlebooks/perspectives/facts.html
- jijji 4y ago
  how does a library get away with it.... they have to purchase the book first? is that how it works? how is internet archive different from a library, A lot of libraries are online right now and do the same thing.... It seems like a real harm if internet archive is forced offline because of a decision like this
  - krapp 4y ago
    >how does a library get away with it.... they have to purchase the book first? is that how it works? Yes. And they can lend those books to people due to the first-sale doctrine, which allows the legal owners of a work to lease, lend or sell it without the copyright owner's permission.
    - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
      this definition also seems to fit what libraries were doing, lending out their copy, sometimes digitally, sometimes in person, always only 1 copy at a time the judge said the conversion to digital was not transformative, so I don't see why it should constitute another work versus the original one
      - teraflop 4y ago
        Legally speaking, what the Internet Archive was doing is exactly what copyright law prohibits: making and distributing an unauthorized copy of the book. The first sale doctrine (which libraries depend on) says you're allowed to to sell, rent out or give away your own physical property, even if that property happens to be an embodiment of a copyrighted work. It doesn't say anything about it being legal to make another copy of a work, and then distribute it while you keep the original one for yourself.
ipcress_file 4y ago
> But breaking it before it has changed is risky and foolish, and does more harm than good. As I recall, this is precisely how British Columbia got Sunday shopping. Stores and shopping malls broke the law repeatedly. There were fines, but Sunday shopping was popular. Eventually, public pressure led governments to legalize Sunday opening. I didn't agree with it then and I don't fully agree with it now, but it can work.
- tuckerconnelly 4y ago
  Do you disagree because of the Sabbath?
  - egberts1 4y ago
    Does it matter?
    - Sunspark 4y ago
      For some it might. What if one is a practising member of a religion that has their Sabbath on Friday or Saturday? They are put at a competitive disadvantage if they are forced to be closed for 2 days instead of 1.
      - kevviiinn 4y ago
        That argument is just absurd, why should that matter Is it the responsibility of the government to protect the profit opportunities of some specific people who choose to be a certain religion?
    - zenexer 4y ago
      Yes: if it’s the sabbath, that’s an argument with which I’m familiar. My counter-argument is that I don’t want to be forced to practice someone else’s religion. If your religion already imposes those rules on its followers, why does it need a secular government to assist? If it’s not the sabbath, then I’m intrigued and want to learn more.
formerly_proven 4y ago
> But breaking it before it has changed is risky and foolish, and does more harm than good. That's how most laws get abolished.
- bawolff 4y ago
  Sometimes, but its also how people end up in prison.
  - CaptainNegative 4y ago
    Precedent for federal cases is typically first set at the appellate level. If you're working your activism through the courts, you usually have to lose before you can win.
    - ocdtrekkie 4y ago
      There is a less than zero percent chance this Supreme Court decides in favor of the Internet Archive, if they ever even cared to hear the case.
      - bentley 4y ago
        “This” Supreme Court? As opposed to any other Supreme Court? Which Supreme Courts have been friendly to fair use and opposed copyright expansionist arguments?
        thewildginger 4y ago
        While this was the southern district of new York, the 9th circuit court of appeals ruled on a similar issue with Vidangel on 2016. They would buy DVDs and let people pay to watch a censored version, even going so far as to purchase a physical version for every one that was streamed for censorship, and they claimed fair use. They were ruled against and filed for chapter 11. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_v._VidAngel#:~:text=Judge%20Birotte's%20order%20blocked%20VidAngel,VidAngel%20streamed%20was%20not%20an https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_v._VidAngel#:~:text=J... I'm sure someone will reply to tell us how it's not really that similar but I thought there were some parallels
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pncnmnp 4y ago
Just to clarify, what are the consequences of their actions? It appears to be a clear case of copyright infringement. Therefore, I assume that the legal penalties listed on this website (https://www.lib.purdue.edu/uco/infringement https://www.lib.purdue.edu/uco/infringement) can be applied in this case: - The infringer paying the monetary damages and profits. - The law offering a range from $200 to $150,000 for each infringed work. - The infringer paying for all lawyers' fees and court costs. Is it more likely for the case to be resolved outside the court? I am worried about their future.
- ocdtrekkie 4y ago
  The consequences may be the loss of the entire Internet Archive, if it can't afford to both pay the fines of deciding to ++++ around and find out with book publishers and running its servers at the same time.
  - echelon 4y ago
    I'll donate everything I can if that happens. And I'll call all of my representatives. I value Internet Archive as much as Wikipedia. And with LLMs set to replace Wikipedia, I think IA will have longer societal and historical value.
  - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
    > loss of the entire Internet Archive They host a lot of material that is not copyrighted and expired copyrights. Also this ruling does not apply to software.
    - danielheath 4y ago
      Yeah, and if they are financially wiped out they will no longer be able to do so.
  - viridian 4y ago
    You can say "fuck". Not doing so just makes your comment less clear, and forces the reader to go "what's with the pluses, is it a keyboard issue? Oh wait, the commenter is just censoring the word 'fuck' here, which I as a reader know since since 'fuck around and find out' is a common English expression".
RedCondor 4y ago
It's a little amusing to compare the reactions here to Internet Archive breaking the law ("The law is the law…") to Uber/AirBnB breaking the law ("Newcomers challenging the system! Ambitious, bold disruption!").
- iudqnolq 4y ago
  I'm sad the IA put good work like the wayback machine at risk. I hate Uber/AirBnB, but they at least correctly predicted they'd get away with it.
- cultureswitch 4y ago
  To me those are similar. Uber is addressing the universally reviled criminal organisation slash medieval guild that taxis are in every single city they operate. AirBnB really never was illegal to begin with. Internet Archive is breaking copyright law which needs a huge reform.
- misnome 4y ago
  I constantly see people still complaining about what Uber and AirBnB do/did. And, likewise, there are plenty of comments here saying the same positive things about IA. Are you just choosing to ignore those comments?
  - RedCondor 4y ago
    It's never a question of existence/nonexistence. One can always cite some minor example. It's a question of proportion, and I'd go further say that it's quite disingenuous to pretend that this contradiction, in this website, isn't heavily tilted in favour of predatory corporations and against public good services (i.e. libertarian). This of course makes sense. Innumerably more people here used Uber than IA, and what's more, many were literal employees of Uber, AirBnB, etc. and its competitors. It would be silly to expect anything else. But it's still amusing.
happytoexplain 4y ago
>should lobby for ... law to change. But breaking it before it has changed is risky and foolish, and does more harm than good. This advice is reasonable in most cases, but applying it as a rule is devastating for society.
Aeolun 4y ago
> But breaking it before it has changed is risky and foolish It certainly worked out well for Uber
nikau 4y ago
> But breaking it before it has changed is risky and foolish, and does more harm than good. Exactly, that's only for companies like uber and airbnb who add real value to society, not some losers trying to make books accessible.
- wmorgan 4y ago
  I don’t know about Airbnb. But you realize that before Uber existed, people ran businesses which were entirely, “you call us up, we’ll send you a car and take you where you want to go,” (And that driver was an independent contractor) I really don’t see the angle that Uber was doing something fundamentally new, except to the extent that they dramatically lowered the price and a lot more people used the service.
  - nikau 4y ago
    Yes my comment was very facetious.
  - palata 4y ago
    Pretty sure the parent was sarcasm.
superkuh 4y ago
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/22/book-publishers-wont-stop-until-libraries-are-dead/ https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/22/book-publishers-wont-sto... >Every part of that has been deemed legal. Copyright law already has first sale rights, written directly into the law and allow for the lending or reselling of copyright-covered works without a license or permission. Similarly libraries are given explicit rights to make copies, so long as those collections are made available to the public. On top of that, courts have determined, multiple times, that book scanning itself is fair use for libraries. >So, literally each separate component of what is happening with Controlled Digital Lending has already been deemed to be legal and exactly what we expect libraries to do. >To counter this, publishers (and their supporters, which unfortunately include some authors) argue that (1) this interferes with the market for licensed ebooks, and (2) that there is a real difference in lending out the digital scans: that they don’t deteriorate the way that physical books do.
- musicale 4y ago
  > if libraries were new today there’s no way that book publishers would let them exist ;-) Same for broadcast radio vs. record companies. And DVRs vs. streaming video companies. Oh wait...
cratermoon 4y ago
Not copyright, but I'm pretty sure both Uber and AirBnB were out breaking laws willy-nilly. They called it "disruption".
crooked-v 4y ago
> But breaking it before it has changed is risky and foolish, and does more harm than good. The entire US civil rights struggle would disagree with you.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
gaganyaan 4y ago
[flagged]
- the_only_law 4y ago
  You’re assuming they don’t agree with the hypothetical you suggest. These sort of people back then would have unequivocally supported her arrest and persecution. They defend the status quo and not much else. After all the status quo likely led to their own prosperity. I can only assume these sort people would have attempted to condemn something like the French resistance since it was “against the law” as long as they they benefited from occupation.

wahnfrieden 4y ago

You have it backwards, breaking it widely and repeatedly will do more good than harm.

alexfromapex 4y ago

The system shouldn't require lobbying to get results that benefit the greater good

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> system shouldn't require lobbying to get results that benefit the greater good It does when there is disagreement over what constitutes the greater good.
- bcrosby95 4y ago
  This made me chuckle pretty hard. When lobbying enters the picture there's only a small, selective group of people that are going to constitute the greater good.
  - majormajor 4y ago
    I think you're referring to financial aspects of today's lobbying alone, but I think it's impossible to suggest you could have any sort of consideration of the greater good without taking into account different people's view on what that is, which means them trying to persuade you of it, which is the exact definition of lobbying.
    - ryandrake 4y ago
      It doesn't matter what "different people's view" is. With corporations lobbying, there is no greater good, only greater wallet.
    - User23 4y ago
      Not really. Lobbyists are merely bag-men for the real shot-callers.
- brewdad 4y ago
  A handful of corporations vs the entire population of planet earth, or a nation’s subset, should be pretty obvious where the greater good lies.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > should be pretty obvious where the greater good lies Is this facetious? What constitutes the greater good is the entire point of government. Many things you think are obvious are lines another would die to prevent--this is the basis of civics.
- Timwi 4y ago
  There is actually no such disagreement. The corporations and copyright mafia are very open about the fact that their profits are more important to them than the common good.
IncRnd 4y ago
The system is founded on protecting the rights of individuals. That's the system we have today, not a collective rights system.
majormajor 4y ago
How would that be accomplished? What are the options here? 1) an elected legislature that's supposed to consider the greater good? 2) a generally non-elected judiciary that is supposed to consider the greater good to override the legislature? 3) a hopefully-benevolent dictator to consider the greater good? Obviously any of these methods can fail; the first of them is the easiest to "edit," as it were. Things like term limits would likely improve it, though.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  We're kinda taught that we choose representatives which reflect our values through the process of election and that those elected officials should they not reflect our values, are at the mercy of the electorate in the next election. Instead, few elections are competitive and the representation happens through the lobbying process. In short, the accountability story we're taught isn't true and money talks more than votes. It's this bait and switch that has the unintended consequence of fueling populism and the disbelief that representatives represent us, and that institutions work. Here's a dumb idea. Create and advocate for a congressional proportional representation interstate compact in the same vein as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact[1]. Then advocate for pooled campaign financing as a function of proportional representation[2]. The nice thing about interstate compacts is that they can eventually capture a majority given election variability over time. They divide and conquer the problem into actionable tasks that effectively aggregate. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta... 2. purposefully being vague. what would softmax(T>>1) look like, for instance?
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    Citing the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact indicates you have no understanding of the political organization of the United States of America. I implore you to do your homework, but I will tell you the compact would only serve to reduce the voice of the people (that is to say, reduce democracy) rather than increase them.
    - 4y ago
idiotsecant 4y ago
that's like saying the washing machine should fold my socks after it's done washing them. That would be nice, but when you're running a large organization like IA you should be less concerned with how things should be and more concerned with how things are.

trinsic2 4y ago

Yeah I have to agree copying entire works and lending them out is probably not the best idea. I wonder how Google got away with the same though.

hgsgm 4y ago
> I wonder There's an app for that. https://www.google.com/googlebooks/perspectives/facts.html https://www.google.com/googlebooks/perspectives/facts.html
jijji 4y ago
how does a library get away with it.... they have to purchase the book first? is that how it works? how is internet archive different from a library, A lot of libraries are online right now and do the same thing.... It seems like a real harm if internet archive is forced offline because of a decision like this
- krapp 4y ago
  >how does a library get away with it.... they have to purchase the book first? is that how it works? Yes. And they can lend those books to people due to the first-sale doctrine, which allows the legal owners of a work to lease, lend or sell it without the copyright owner's permission.
  - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
    this definition also seems to fit what libraries were doing, lending out their copy, sometimes digitally, sometimes in person, always only 1 copy at a time the judge said the conversion to digital was not transformative, so I don't see why it should constitute another work versus the original one
    - teraflop 4y ago
      Legally speaking, what the Internet Archive was doing is exactly what copyright law prohibits: making and distributing an unauthorized copy of the book. The first sale doctrine (which libraries depend on) says you're allowed to to sell, rent out or give away your own physical property, even if that property happens to be an embodiment of a copyrighted work. It doesn't say anything about it being legal to make another copy of a work, and then distribute it while you keep the original one for yourself.

ipcress_file 4y ago

> But breaking it before it has changed is risky and foolish, and does more harm than good. As I recall, this is precisely how British Columbia got Sunday shopping. Stores and shopping malls broke the law repeatedly. There were fines, but Sunday shopping was popular. Eventually, public pressure led governments to legalize Sunday opening. I didn't agree with it then and I don't fully agree with it now, but it can work.

tuckerconnelly 4y ago
Do you disagree because of the Sabbath?
- egberts1 4y ago
  Does it matter?
  - Sunspark 4y ago
    For some it might. What if one is a practising member of a religion that has their Sabbath on Friday or Saturday? They are put at a competitive disadvantage if they are forced to be closed for 2 days instead of 1.
    - kevviiinn 4y ago
      That argument is just absurd, why should that matter Is it the responsibility of the government to protect the profit opportunities of some specific people who choose to be a certain religion?
  - zenexer 4y ago
    Yes: if it’s the sabbath, that’s an argument with which I’m familiar. My counter-argument is that I don’t want to be forced to practice someone else’s religion. If your religion already imposes those rules on its followers, why does it need a secular government to assist? If it’s not the sabbath, then I’m intrigued and want to learn more.

formerly_proven 4y ago

> But breaking it before it has changed is risky and foolish, and does more harm than good. That's how most laws get abolished.

bawolff 4y ago
Sometimes, but its also how people end up in prison.
- CaptainNegative 4y ago
  Precedent for federal cases is typically first set at the appellate level. If you're working your activism through the courts, you usually have to lose before you can win.
  - ocdtrekkie 4y ago
    There is a less than zero percent chance this Supreme Court decides in favor of the Internet Archive, if they ever even cared to hear the case.
    - bentley 4y ago
      “This” Supreme Court? As opposed to any other Supreme Court? Which Supreme Courts have been friendly to fair use and opposed copyright expansionist arguments?
      - thewildginger 4y ago
        While this was the southern district of new York, the 9th circuit court of appeals ruled on a similar issue with Vidangel on 2016. They would buy DVDs and let people pay to watch a censored version, even going so far as to purchase a physical version for every one that was streamed for censorship, and they claimed fair use. They were ruled against and filed for chapter 11. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_v._VidAngel#:~:text=Judge%20Birotte's%20order%20blocked%20VidAngel,VidAngel%20streamed%20was%20not%20an https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_v._VidAngel#:~:text=J... I'm sure someone will reply to tell us how it's not really that similar but I thought there were some parallels

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

pncnmnp 4y ago

Just to clarify, what are the consequences of their actions? It appears to be a clear case of copyright infringement. Therefore, I assume that the legal penalties listed on this website (https://www.lib.purdue.edu/uco/infringement https://www.lib.purdue.edu/uco/infringement) can be applied in this case: - The infringer paying the monetary damages and profits. - The law offering a range from $200 to $150,000 for each infringed work. - The infringer paying for all lawyers' fees and court costs. Is it more likely for the case to be resolved outside the court? I am worried about their future.

ocdtrekkie 4y ago
The consequences may be the loss of the entire Internet Archive, if it can't afford to both pay the fines of deciding to ++++ around and find out with book publishers and running its servers at the same time.
- echelon 4y ago
  I'll donate everything I can if that happens. And I'll call all of my representatives. I value Internet Archive as much as Wikipedia. And with LLMs set to replace Wikipedia, I think IA will have longer societal and historical value.
- TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
  > loss of the entire Internet Archive They host a lot of material that is not copyrighted and expired copyrights. Also this ruling does not apply to software.
  - danielheath 4y ago
    Yeah, and if they are financially wiped out they will no longer be able to do so.
- viridian 4y ago
  You can say "fuck". Not doing so just makes your comment less clear, and forces the reader to go "what's with the pluses, is it a keyboard issue? Oh wait, the commenter is just censoring the word 'fuck' here, which I as a reader know since since 'fuck around and find out' is a common English expression".

RedCondor 4y ago

It's a little amusing to compare the reactions here to Internet Archive breaking the law ("The law is the law…") to Uber/AirBnB breaking the law ("Newcomers challenging the system! Ambitious, bold disruption!").

iudqnolq 4y ago
I'm sad the IA put good work like the wayback machine at risk. I hate Uber/AirBnB, but they at least correctly predicted they'd get away with it.
cultureswitch 4y ago
To me those are similar. Uber is addressing the universally reviled criminal organisation slash medieval guild that taxis are in every single city they operate. AirBnB really never was illegal to begin with. Internet Archive is breaking copyright law which needs a huge reform.
misnome 4y ago
I constantly see people still complaining about what Uber and AirBnB do/did. And, likewise, there are plenty of comments here saying the same positive things about IA. Are you just choosing to ignore those comments?
- RedCondor 4y ago
  It's never a question of existence/nonexistence. One can always cite some minor example. It's a question of proportion, and I'd go further say that it's quite disingenuous to pretend that this contradiction, in this website, isn't heavily tilted in favour of predatory corporations and against public good services (i.e. libertarian). This of course makes sense. Innumerably more people here used Uber than IA, and what's more, many were literal employees of Uber, AirBnB, etc. and its competitors. It would be silly to expect anything else. But it's still amusing.

happytoexplain 4y ago

>should lobby for ... law to change. But breaking it before it has changed is risky and foolish, and does more harm than good. This advice is reasonable in most cases, but applying it as a rule is devastating for society.

Aeolun 4y ago

> But breaking it before it has changed is risky and foolish It certainly worked out well for Uber

nikau 4y ago

> But breaking it before it has changed is risky and foolish, and does more harm than good. Exactly, that's only for companies like uber and airbnb who add real value to society, not some losers trying to make books accessible.

wmorgan 4y ago
I don’t know about Airbnb. But you realize that before Uber existed, people ran businesses which were entirely, “you call us up, we’ll send you a car and take you where you want to go,” (And that driver was an independent contractor) I really don’t see the angle that Uber was doing something fundamentally new, except to the extent that they dramatically lowered the price and a lot more people used the service.
- nikau 4y ago
  Yes my comment was very facetious.
- palata 4y ago
  Pretty sure the parent was sarcasm.

superkuh 4y ago

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/22/book-publishers-wont-stop-until-libraries-are-dead/ https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/22/book-publishers-wont-sto... >Every part of that has been deemed legal. Copyright law already has first sale rights, written directly into the law and allow for the lending or reselling of copyright-covered works without a license or permission. Similarly libraries are given explicit rights to make copies, so long as those collections are made available to the public. On top of that, courts have determined, multiple times, that book scanning itself is fair use for libraries. >So, literally each separate component of what is happening with Controlled Digital Lending has already been deemed to be legal and exactly what we expect libraries to do. >To counter this, publishers (and their supporters, which unfortunately include some authors) argue that (1) this interferes with the market for licensed ebooks, and (2) that there is a real difference in lending out the digital scans: that they don’t deteriorate the way that physical books do.

musicale 4y ago
> if libraries were new today there’s no way that book publishers would let them exist ;-) Same for broadcast radio vs. record companies. And DVRs vs. streaming video companies. Oh wait...

cratermoon 4y ago

Not copyright, but I'm pretty sure both Uber and AirBnB were out breaking laws willy-nilly. They called it "disruption".

crooked-v 4y ago

> But breaking it before it has changed is risky and foolish, and does more harm than good. The entire US civil rights struggle would disagree with you.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

gaganyaan 4y ago

[flagged]

the_only_law 4y ago
You’re assuming they don’t agree with the hypothetical you suggest. These sort of people back then would have unequivocally supported her arrest and persecution. They defend the status quo and not much else. After all the status quo likely led to their own prosperity. I can only assume these sort people would have attempted to condemn something like the French resistance since it was “against the law” as long as they they benefited from occupation.