4 ms·

Nobody should attempt any systemic change, let's rather lose one small isolated case at a time.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> attempt any systemic change That’s the joke. This never had a chance of changing anything. All it’s done is make publishers look reasonable, because most people don’t believe one person should be able to unilaterally override millions of authors’ preferences around their works. (To say nothing of their livelihoods.)
- jampekka 2y ago
  Livelihoods of long dead people is a weirdly pressing issue when it comes to intellectual property.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Livelihoods of long dead people This is a reasonable stance! If the IA had only released books of dead authors, they’d have a point. They didn’t.
- Retric 2y ago
  Looking at let’s play, fan fiction, and straight up piracy, etc I don’t think most people agree with the current copyright system even slightly. Edit: On Hacker News more people upvote subscription bypass links in articles than downvote them.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > I don’t think most people agree with the current copyright system No. But most people don’t agree with the IA’s anything goes position either. I hate our system of copyright. But I can’t think of a better defence for it than pointing to the IA and saying is that what you really want? That authors can’t demand payment for their work?
    - Retric 2y ago
      You skipped the “even slightly” bit. Piracy is very much anything goes. People post “commentary streams” where someone else’s YouTube video or even whole movies are shown in their entirety and there’s basically zero backlash from millions of fans. From what I can see the vast majority of Americans take no issue with what IA did.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > what I can see the vast majority of Americans take no issue with what IA did Because nobody noticed outside a narrow slice of tech and media. When people are polled on copyright, no copyright is never more than a niche.
        Retric 2y ago
        Revealed preferences say otherwise. If the general public shoplifted as frequently as they pirated content convince stores wouldn’t exist. Most people respect private property on some level, but copyright just doesn’t get that same respect.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Revealed preferences say otherwise I’ve pirated content. That doesn’t mean I believe copyright should be eliminated. There is widespread dissatisfaction with our current system of copyright. That doesn’t imply support for abolishment.
  - dotancohen 2y ago
    > I don’t think most people agree with the current copyright system even slightly. Vocal people do not agree with current copyright. Don't confuse that for the majority - on any issue.
    - Retric 2y ago
      The #1 streaming service in the US is piracy and it’s still growing. That’s the silent majority.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > #1 streaming service in the US is piracy Not doubting you. But do you have a source?
      - dotancohen 2y ago
        That is far more likely to be a financial consideration than a stance on copyright.
        Retric 2y ago
        YouTube and many other options are free. I have trouble accepting the idea that someone would actually compromise on something they feel is important for a slightly wider number of options. Personally I don’t pirate movies, games, shows, etc or pay for such content.
        skeaker 2y ago
        Actions speak louder than words.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  The courtroom isn't the place. Congress is.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > courtroom isn't the place. Congress is The courts can be. But you have to be strategic.
DoctorOetker 2y ago
If attempting systemic change had been their goal, they could have done plenty of other things: decentralize their dataset, with some distributed hash table, and a minimalistic blockchain for it (yes, yawn) provide randomized signatures by themselves AND gather them from provably randomly selected participants of each page served, in order to testify a page showed specific claims/content at a certain date / time. and so on ... If the internet archive comes crashing down, at least the user base that relied on such services (or whatever simulacra they appeared to manifest) can band together and make such things happen properly, whereas the network effect was all usurped by the IA we know (and love or hate). i.e. those who secure the status quo may regret allowing some greedy "publishers" to deconstruct an excellent fata morgana, the problem with deception is that some parts of the system start believing the overt purpouse of the covert behavior of other parts of the same system. just look at how the soviet union spontaneously imploded.
miki123211 2y ago
Somebody should, but it should be somebody else, with less to lose. Whether IA is morally right or wrong here is completely irrelevant. They undertook an activity which had significant legal risks attached, and that might undermine their future web archiving efforts. THe IA might believe that they are morally and legally in the right here, but they should have at least predicted that, with copyright law being what it is, the courts could be "wrong" and believe otherwise. It feels like they don't see the difference between believing that they are right and assuming that everybody else shares this belief.
- jampekka 2y ago
  Or maybe they have some goals beyond providing whiny entitled users temporary conveniencies for no profit or personal gain?

> attempt any systemic change That’s the joke. This never had a chance of changing anything. All it’s done is make publishers look reasonable, because most people don’t believe one person should be able to unilaterally override millions of authors’ preferences around their works. (To say nothing of their livelihoods.)

jampekka 2y ago
Livelihoods of long dead people is a weirdly pressing issue when it comes to intellectual property.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Livelihoods of long dead people This is a reasonable stance! If the IA had only released books of dead authors, they’d have a point. They didn’t.
Retric 2y ago
Looking at let’s play, fan fiction, and straight up piracy, etc I don’t think most people agree with the current copyright system even slightly. Edit: On Hacker News more people upvote subscription bypass links in articles than downvote them.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > I don’t think most people agree with the current copyright system No. But most people don’t agree with the IA’s anything goes position either. I hate our system of copyright. But I can’t think of a better defence for it than pointing to the IA and saying is that what you really want? That authors can’t demand payment for their work?
  - Retric 2y ago
    You skipped the “even slightly” bit. Piracy is very much anything goes. People post “commentary streams” where someone else’s YouTube video or even whole movies are shown in their entirety and there’s basically zero backlash from millions of fans. From what I can see the vast majority of Americans take no issue with what IA did.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > what I can see the vast majority of Americans take no issue with what IA did Because nobody noticed outside a narrow slice of tech and media. When people are polled on copyright, no copyright is never more than a niche.
      - Retric 2y ago
        Revealed preferences say otherwise. If the general public shoplifted as frequently as they pirated content convince stores wouldn’t exist. Most people respect private property on some level, but copyright just doesn’t get that same respect.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Revealed preferences say otherwise I’ve pirated content. That doesn’t mean I believe copyright should be eliminated. There is widespread dissatisfaction with our current system of copyright. That doesn’t imply support for abolishment.
- dotancohen 2y ago
  > I don’t think most people agree with the current copyright system even slightly. Vocal people do not agree with current copyright. Don't confuse that for the majority - on any issue.
  - Retric 2y ago
    The #1 streaming service in the US is piracy and it’s still growing. That’s the silent majority.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > #1 streaming service in the US is piracy Not doubting you. But do you have a source?
    - dotancohen 2y ago
      That is far more likely to be a financial consideration than a stance on copyright.
      - Retric 2y ago
        YouTube and many other options are free. I have trouble accepting the idea that someone would actually compromise on something they feel is important for a slightly wider number of options. Personally I don’t pirate movies, games, shows, etc or pay for such content.
      - skeaker 2y ago
        Actions speak louder than words.
2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
The courtroom isn't the place. Congress is.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > courtroom isn't the place. Congress is The courts can be. But you have to be strategic.

DoctorOetker 2y ago

If attempting systemic change had been their goal, they could have done plenty of other things: decentralize their dataset, with some distributed hash table, and a minimalistic blockchain for it (yes, yawn) provide randomized signatures by themselves AND gather them from provably randomly selected participants of each page served, in order to testify a page showed specific claims/content at a certain date / time. and so on ... If the internet archive comes crashing down, at least the user base that relied on such services (or whatever simulacra they appeared to manifest) can band together and make such things happen properly, whereas the network effect was all usurped by the IA we know (and love or hate). i.e. those who secure the status quo may regret allowing some greedy "publishers" to deconstruct an excellent fata morgana, the problem with deception is that some parts of the system start believing the overt purpouse of the covert behavior of other parts of the same system. just look at how the soviet union spontaneously imploded.

miki123211 2y ago

Somebody should, but it should be somebody else, with less to lose. Whether IA is morally right or wrong here is completely irrelevant. They undertook an activity which had significant legal risks attached, and that might undermine their future web archiving efforts. THe IA might believe that they are morally and legally in the right here, but they should have at least predicted that, with copyright law being what it is, the courts could be "wrong" and believe otherwise. It feels like they don't see the difference between believing that they are right and assuming that everybody else shares this belief.

jampekka 2y ago
Or maybe they have some goals beyond providing whiny entitled users temporary conveniencies for no profit or personal gain?