8 ms·

This is a little meta but: it's great how you predicted a possible unproductive line of discussion that might result from your question and headed it off with a

This is a little meta but: it's great how you predicted a possible unproductive line of discussion that might result from your question and headed it off with a clarification. Props for communications skills. I'm also a little sad that this disclaimer is even needed. I think it says something about how the character of HN has changed in the last ten years--there's no longer an assumption that the people on the other end of the wire assume curiosity and good will. There's a lot more heat here these days.

itsanaccount 3y ago
Maybe because the average understanding of how our society is run, with things like morals, fairness and hope for the future, and the legal understanding of how our society is run has diverged. And maybe people are getting sick and tired (and banned and flagged) of "good natured discourse" being entirely windowed by the latter.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  It's arguably always been like that. The Internet's audience (on average) has simply grown up to an age where they start to care about that more. >maybe people are getting sick and tired (and banned and flagged) of "good natured discourse" being entirely windowed by the latter. I know it feels cathartic, but "record company bad" is neither discourse, nor particularly good natured. It's more reflective of how forums have shifted by twitter's popularity into being "microblogs". You don't really talk "to" people on Twitter, you throw out your tweet among a sea of tweets. A shame, because I hate twitter precisely because of that.
- throw10920 3y ago
  dang does a pretty good job of not banning people who are avoiding breaking the HN guidelines, and most of flagged content is political stuff not appropriate for HN. HN is not an activism platform.
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
Thanks for that. I tried, yet still there are comment responses that literally do the exact thing I think is so annoying: complain sarcastically that copyright is stupid because it obviously isn't incentivizing the original artists here. No shit, we know. But whatever, those comments get pushed to the bottom, and I thought the top responses were really helpful (I didn't previously know about the details of the fair use tests).
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  For some additional context, the copyright laws in the US make a very specific exception for archival[1]. >(a)Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: >(2)that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful. Note that "computer program" here is in reference to any and all forms of digital data thereof. The digital copies made from the records concerned are "computer programs". Sony, et al. allege that Internet Archive's public redistribution of their digital copies of the records do not fall under the archival exception. If all Internet Archive does really is just archiving, none of the rightsholders would have standing to sue or otherwise get in their way. [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117 Obligatory IANAL.
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    > Sony, et al. allege that Internet Archive's public redistribution of their digital copies of the records do not fall under the archival exception. Seems pretty obvious to me that, just with respect to the archival exception, that Sony et al is correct here. The issue is not with IA making backup copies of these works - the issue is with making copies and making them available for free over the Internet that is the issue at hand.
    - 3y ago
zugi 3y ago
I think I've spent too much time on reddit, because in comparison all the comments here seem quite reasoned, calm, and insightful. And then there's YouTube, and comments on news sites... I guess it's all relative.
johnnyanmac 3y ago
>I think it says something about how the character of HN has changed in the last ten years--there's no longer an assumption that the people on the other end of the wire assume curiosity and good will. The internet as a whole has diverged from assuming good faith, between polarizing politics, the rapid increase of bots, and general shift of popular sentiment over the decade. And there's also a lot more people online, so it's much harder to moderate for that even if you wanted to. It's an inevitability since this site's moderation hasn't scaled with its user base.
- throw10920 3y ago
  Right, there's a scale problem, among other things. I want the invite-only system of Lobsters, with the actually good moderation of HN. I think that would help with some of the issues, here and on other platforms.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
I don't know. I've been here since 2016 and discussion is pretty great. No one bears ill will towards GP, people are only guilty of agreeing with him too aggressively. I really hate copyright and have engaged in heated discussions about the matter here before but still refrained from replying to GP because I realized I too would like to know what legal arguments could be used to defend Internet Archive. It's difficult to be curious about copyright. For many of us that matter is already settled and only strong opinions remain. This post still managed to make me curious though. It's great.

itsanaccount 3y ago

Maybe because the average understanding of how our society is run, with things like morals, fairness and hope for the future, and the legal understanding of how our society is run has diverged. And maybe people are getting sick and tired (and banned and flagged) of "good natured discourse" being entirely windowed by the latter.

johnnyanmac 3y ago
It's arguably always been like that. The Internet's audience (on average) has simply grown up to an age where they start to care about that more. >maybe people are getting sick and tired (and banned and flagged) of "good natured discourse" being entirely windowed by the latter. I know it feels cathartic, but "record company bad" is neither discourse, nor particularly good natured. It's more reflective of how forums have shifted by twitter's popularity into being "microblogs". You don't really talk "to" people on Twitter, you throw out your tweet among a sea of tweets. A shame, because I hate twitter precisely because of that.
throw10920 3y ago
dang does a pretty good job of not banning people who are avoiding breaking the HN guidelines, and most of flagged content is political stuff not appropriate for HN. HN is not an activism platform.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

Thanks for that. I tried, yet still there are comment responses that literally do the exact thing I think is so annoying: complain sarcastically that copyright is stupid because it obviously isn't incentivizing the original artists here. No shit, we know. But whatever, those comments get pushed to the bottom, and I thought the top responses were really helpful (I didn't previously know about the details of the fair use tests).

Dalewyn 3y ago
For some additional context, the copyright laws in the US make a very specific exception for archival[1]. >(a)Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: >(2)that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful. Note that "computer program" here is in reference to any and all forms of digital data thereof. The digital copies made from the records concerned are "computer programs". Sony, et al. allege that Internet Archive's public redistribution of their digital copies of the records do not fall under the archival exception. If all Internet Archive does really is just archiving, none of the rightsholders would have standing to sue or otherwise get in their way. [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117 Obligatory IANAL.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  > Sony, et al. allege that Internet Archive's public redistribution of their digital copies of the records do not fall under the archival exception. Seems pretty obvious to me that, just with respect to the archival exception, that Sony et al is correct here. The issue is not with IA making backup copies of these works - the issue is with making copies and making them available for free over the Internet that is the issue at hand.
  - 3y ago

zugi 3y ago

I think I've spent too much time on reddit, because in comparison all the comments here seem quite reasoned, calm, and insightful. And then there's YouTube, and comments on news sites... I guess it's all relative.

johnnyanmac 3y ago

>I think it says something about how the character of HN has changed in the last ten years--there's no longer an assumption that the people on the other end of the wire assume curiosity and good will. The internet as a whole has diverged from assuming good faith, between polarizing politics, the rapid increase of bots, and general shift of popular sentiment over the decade. And there's also a lot more people online, so it's much harder to moderate for that even if you wanted to. It's an inevitability since this site's moderation hasn't scaled with its user base.

throw10920 3y ago
Right, there's a scale problem, among other things. I want the invite-only system of Lobsters, with the actually good moderation of HN. I think that would help with some of the issues, here and on other platforms.

matheusmoreira 3y ago

I don't know. I've been here since 2016 and discussion is pretty great. No one bears ill will towards GP, people are only guilty of agreeing with him too aggressively. I really hate copyright and have engaged in heated discussions about the matter here before but still refrained from replying to GP because I realized I too would like to know what legal arguments could be used to defend Internet Archive. It's difficult to be curious about copyright. For many of us that matter is already settled and only strong opinions remain. This post still managed to make me curious though. It's great.