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.
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.
Gas stations were also allowed to be open although they rarely had convenience stores attached to them back then.
> “Didn’t realize you were low on bread and forgot to get it Saturday oh well kids are not getting a sandwich in their lunches for Monday morning school.”
It is possible to make bread. And to eat other things. And to buy school lunches. And to borrow or trade food with neighbours.
Remember when Arkansas rolled back some child labour laws? Hopefully you do, it was last week[1]. The reason why not "just do something good for workers instead" is because companies want cheaper employees with fewer options to leave, not better protections for workers.
> "Why is it Sunday? Why not Saturday?"
Great, well done, you've bikeshedded it from "mandatory day off" to "no mandatory day off" because you can't see a difference between them. Religion bad, Atheism good, therefore roll back labour protections?
[1] https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/08/politics/sarah-huckabee-s...
I didn't say religion bad. I said that Sunday was chosen because of it's alignment with many Christian religions, and this is true: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law
There are many other religions that do _not_ have Sunday as a day of rest; other abrahamic religions choose Friday (Islam) or Saturday (Judaism, 7th day Adventist). Non-abrahamic religions and atheists feature further diversity.
Consider:
> California twice passed Sunday closing laws, in 1858 and in 1861. The first was found unconstitutional just five months after it was enacted. It was used to convict and imprison a Jewish clothing merchant who closed his business on Saturday, and opened it on Sunday.
( https://historycollection.com/the-random-history-of-blue-law... )
One could simply mandate that businesses offer employees one or more consistent day of rest instead of having the state pick religious winners and losers.
In the United States, blue laws have historically been used to oppress religious minorities like Jews and Sabbatarian Christians.
It's a stupid idea and a dumb law that it only makes sense if your worker protection laws are too weak.
i am actually curious how they do that in israel where the jewish law not to work on sabbath is taken much more seriously.
As those people should have same exact rights to spend leisure time with their families and friends.
And… just protection for retail workers? Is there a reason it wouldn’t apply to all workers below a certain pay range (or maybe it did, and the “no shopping” rule is just a shorthand?)
and actually, in germany for example, the rule is not that shops must be closed. you can open your shop if you can run it yourself, without any employees help.
depending on the country, saturdays can be school days, but generally nowadays, the rule extended to saturday as well, actually, with the exception of retail. it used to be that saturdays were half work days. and of national holidays are equal to sundays.
Provide your own answer here: why did the system which exists to exploit humans for profit do away with a free day instead of "just" passing worker protection laws? (Why did you frame it as "prevent people from overworking" instead of "prevent people from being overworked"?)
> "It's a stupid idea and a dumb law that it only makes sense if your worker protection laws are too weak."
Humans exist for more than just buying things. You may not like "A Sabbath for God" but "A day for something in life other than shopping" is an important idea. When September 11th 2001 terrorist attacks happened - great big terrorist attacks on American soil for pretty much the first time - President George Bush told Americans to "go shopping" in response. When many American teenagers grew up, they hung out at a shopping mall.
Are you not lamenting the increasing feeling that you can't go out in public without being charged to be somewhere these days? Or the gradual turning of all walks of life into advertising and subscription services? Is any pushback on it "stupid and dumb" to you?
I'm sorry I used the wrong words.
> Humans exist for more than just buying things
Yea, duh
> "A day for something in life other than shopping" is an important idea
That's fine. Why does it have to be the _same_ day for everyone? That's the stupid idea. Pass a law that says everyone must be given a full day off every week, I'm with you. Pass a law saying that day _must_ be Sunday, and I'm walking away.
Hell, pass a law that says everyone must be given three full days off every week, I'm with you. Pass a law that says you have to pay someone 3x for every hour they work beyond 30 hours, I'm with you. Pass a law that says everyone must work 9am-3pm and I'm walking away.
> Are you not lamenting the increasing feeling that you can't go out in public without being charged to be somewhere these days?
Irrelevant to the conversation, but generally, no.
> Or the gradual turning of all walks of life into advertising and subscription services?
Irrelevant to the conversation, but yea, it's a hellscape.
> Is any pushback on it "stupid and dumb" to you?
Nope.
Is the low wages of retail workers less bad on the other days of the week?
Probably not the best example, because it's not like a sandwich is the only lunch option (the lazy one for sure), but I take your point. Migraine and no painkillers, period and no pads, sex and no condom, alcoholic and no alcohol (with risk of lethal DTs)? Too bad...
Why even do this to someone if you understood their meaning and more or less agree?
Scotland - Largely Presbyterian ie rather more Catholic than us southern softies wot do Church of Eng. Your Catholic is rather more concerned about Sabbath behaviour than your Protestant except when they don't. Mind you we have some laughable nonsense available regardless of denomination - for example otters were once classed as fish hereabouts for Fish Friday. lol! It is quite hard to get more than 50 miles away from the sea in Britain. We also have quite a lot of rivers/streams/brooks/burns/cultured waterways - canals. Those ribbons of water contain quite a lot of fish. Yes, the UK might be quite as mad as you imagine it - we seem to require mammals to be classified as fish to ensure we make a God happy (one day in seven).
I recall shopping on Sunday becoming a thing here around the late 80s/early 90s but hours were not too conservative here in the UK compared to the rest of europe. We never had formal lunchtime closing for example, which is bloody annoying. I lived in W Germany for a few years back in 70s-90s and it was tricky buying stuff around 1200-1400 depending on where you were and the time. Nowadays I note that Italy, Spain, Portugal int al still have some pretty patchy midday work practices. That's fine but caveat emptor!
Back then, nothing was open on a Sunday.
In some parts of Scotland (the Western Isles for example) doing any work, hanging your washing out, cutting your grass etc. on a Sunday, to be violating the Sabbath. No laws. Just peer pressure from your neighbours. As you'd expect this is stronger in smaller villages than larger towns.
Your final para describes rather more of little Britain than just bits of Scotland.
I actually do agree with it. Same reason as jury nullification. If enough people (jury members in this case) believe that the law / particular application is unjust then fuck it. In nullification the government must give in. I do not see why it should be any different in general. The key here should be what constitutes "enough"
Mob rule.
Slavish obedience.
The jury is not supposed to be robots. They're there because there's supposed to be someone with judgment.
IA is learning the difference, unfortunately.
If I told someone smoking is bad forr their health, would you follow with "I know a person that smoked till 98" as reasonable advice? This is the same argument.
And in this case, the actions of IA may well end them for all of us. That's not such a good outcome for breaking the law, is it?
And we're seeing the IA possibly going to end because they wanted to break the law, and not completely for some moral cause, but because breaking it helps them. There was plenty of reasonable calling out Brewster's ignorant and self-serving choices on this issue for some time. He didn't need to do this, and he put the entire operation at unnecessary risk, as his critics claimed would happen.
This is what lawbreaking generally does.
Does cohesion of those families matter less?
You didn't split out essential services, and it seems dead-obvious to me that shutting those down would cause more harm than good even when you value all families exactly the same. There's no way they're saying the families of essential service providers are less important.
And it seems pretty clear they're grouping those other things in with essential services, which you could disagree with, but is a very different thing from saying those families are less important.
I am genuinely curious how a person reconciles two seemingly opposing views:
"It gives everyone a guaranteed weekly timeslot to spend time together."
where everyone is everyone except:
"except restaurants, attractions, hospitality and essential services".
I could easily give in on essential services, because a lot will ride on how broadly they are defined, but if the goal is 'family cohesion' building for everyone then as few groups should be excluded as possible ( which also means that businesses that people, who usually have even less leisure time than most of us -- restaurants, attractions, hospitality -- can recharge ).
I will be honest. For me it the line drawing always tends to be the most interesting piece, because it tends to indicate what the individual really values. In this case, and this is not a shot, because it is very human thing to do, they value 'their family cohesion' and 'their ability to participate in various leisure activities' over those who have to serve them, while they bond with their loved ones.
For the record, the line listed by parent is not unreasonable, but can you give me an argument as to why it is not amazingly selfish way of looking at society ( Sunday for me, but not for thee ).
Sure, that's easy enough. Even if some people can't participate, it's a big benefit to have most people share a day, and everyone that's taking those sunday work slots should be getting paid significantly extra and also probably on rotation. And the other poster might be in one of those businesses.
If someone in a restaurant/attraction/hospitality business has less leisure time, you could improve that by valuing Sunday higher. Let them trade two Sundays in a month for 3-4 non-Sundays.
And I btw, do not count public transport as essential service. People have plenty of time to walk, and emergency can include ambulances for medical problems.
Is it the responsibility of the government to protect the profit opportunities of some specific people who choose to be a certain religion?
If it’s not the sabbath, then I’m intrigued and want to learn more.
That's how most laws get abolished.
Which Supreme Courts have been friendly to fair use and opposed copyright expansionist arguments?
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
- 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.
Statutory damages are the most significant risk to IA's finances, both in this case but also wrt other potential plaintiffs who might be waiting in the wings. Exemption almost certainly figured into IA's risk assessment when designing and deploying their loan program. The argument for exemption is, naturally, stronger than for Fair Use.
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.
They host a lot of material that is not copyrighted and expired copyrights. Also this ruling does not apply to software.
Exactly, that's only for companies like uber and airbnb who add real value to society, not some losers trying to make books accessible.
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.
>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.
;-)
Same for broadcast radio vs. record companies.
And DVRs vs. streaming video companies. Oh wait...
It does when there is disagreement over what constitutes the greater good.
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.
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.
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_Intersta...
2. purposefully being vague. what would softmax(T>>1) look like, for instance?
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.
You are absolutely right that the States, particularly the smaller and weaker States, would have zero incentive to agree to surrender their sovereignties in deference to the other States.
The United States of America is a Union of States, and the first step to further democracy in this country is respecting the sacred fact that each State and the people within them each have the right to decide their own path. Violating their sovereignties is destructive for democracy.
Except that they already have. Each of Vermont(3), Delaware(3), Hawaii(4), Rhode Island(4), New Mexico(5), Connecticut(7), and Oregon(8) has already ratified legislation agreeing to the compact. That's seven counter examples.
I'll point out that there are in fact enough states pending ratification that will obsolete the EC should they be confirmed. In a twist of irony, a sacred duty to represent states could be foiled by state legislatures themselves.
The United States of America is exactly what it says on the tin: A Union of States. Each State is equal to all the others, united somewhat loosely as a Federal Republic.
With regards to the consequences of the Compact, it would destroy the democratic right of the people of each State to decide, for themselves, who will represent their State in the Executive Branch of the Federal government. The President of the United States represents the States in the Union and is elected by the States, the States in turn determine who they elect as President by respectively asking for their people to vote who their State should vote for.
You might ask who in the Executive Branch of government represents the peoples of each State directly, that role falls upon the Governor of each respective State.
The Compact would reduce the voice of the people and the sovereignties of States by removing their right to decide, for themselves, who to elect for President of the United States. People from one State would be able to overrule the people of another State, and vice versa. You're in California and voted for Bob? Tough shit, someone in North Dakota voted for Alex and your vote quite literally does not matter.
Citing and supporting the Compact indicates you have no understanding of who, and more accurately what, the President of the United States represents. It indicates you have no understanding what powers and rights each State and their respective peoples hold. If you are in a larger State, it indicates you have no care for what your fellow Americans and Statesmen think; if you are in a smaller State, it indicates you are fine with forfeiting your right to vote in deference to the nationwide majority.
If you sincerely think the Compact would improve democracy in the United States of America, at best you are misguided and were misled, and at worst you are disingenuous with ulterior motives.
> The United States of America is exactly what it says on the tin: A Union of States. Each State is equal to all the others, united somewhat loosely as a Federal Republic.
This is simply counter-exampled with the proportional representation of the US House. If states were equal then population would play no part in representation.
> With regards to the consequences of the Compact, it would destroy the democratic right of the people of each State to decide, for themselves, who will represent their State in the Executive Branch of the Federal government. The President of the United States represents the States in the Union and is elected by the States, the States in turn determine who they elect as President by respectively asking for their people to vote who their State should vote for.
Again untrue. This doesn't reflect reality. People don't behave like that or believe that. Most people are in fact in favor of abolishing the electoral college[1].
> You might ask who in the Executive Branch of government represents the peoples of each State directly, that role falls upon the Governor of each respective State.
I'm not asking that. We're discussing Federal elections and representation.
> The Compact would reduce the voice of the people and the sovereignties[sic] of States by removing their right to decide, for themselves, who to elect for President of the United States. People from one State would be able to overrule the people of another State, and vice versa. You're in California and voted for Bob? Tough shit, someone in North Dakota voted for Alex and your vote quite literally does not matter.
This literally describes how Electoral College operates. It's a well known point of discussion when critiquing the electoral college. Surely, you must be familiar with that line of reasoning.
> Citing and supporting the Compact indicates you have no understanding of who, and more accurately what, the President of the United States represents. It indicates you have no understanding what powers and rights each State and their respective peoples hold. If you are in a larger State, it indicates you have no care for what your fellow Americans and Statesmen think; if you are in a smaller State, it indicates you are fine with forfeiting your right to vote in deference to the nationwide majority.
This confuses a personal subjective experience with the objective truth of reality. You've extrapolated a genuine question and comment into a malevolent and sinister plot. I truly urge you to find the best in people.
> If you sincerely think the Compact would improve democracy in the United States of America, at best you are misguided and were misled, and at worst you are disingenuous with ulterior motives.
Questioning people's character and motives distracts from productive discussion.
Never in my wildest dreams would I imagine meeting someone who had this take. Can you point me in the direction of Constitutional scholars who share the same opinions you do?
I urge you to familiarize yourself with The Federalist Papers : No. 68[2]. It covers the motivations for the construction of the electoral college all which are not reflected in your assessment of it. If you wish to continue belaboring this point, please just quote from No68 where it agrees with you.
1. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/08/05/majority-of...
2. https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-61-70#s-lg-box...
This is a compromise because not all States have the same population (obviously). The Senate, where all States have equal representation, decides matters which are considered de facto of higher importance such as government appointments and diplomatic matters, among many others. All bills must also pass both the House and the Senate, meaning a bill must pass the test of equal representation voting; larger States cannot simply force their way through, especially if smaller States come together.
>Again untrue. This doesn't reflect reality. People don't behave like that or believe that. Most people are in fact in favor of abolishing the electoral college[1].
Abolishing the Electoral College (which in my humble opinion is rooted in ignorance and party politics more than anything) has nothing to do with the fact that the President of the United States represents the States and is elected by the States. The Governors are who represent the peoples of the respective States in the Executive branch of government.
Congress will act as a failsafe in the event the Electoral College deadlocks, and in such an event the House will vote for President-elect along State lines with the Representatives of each State voting in unison with fellow State Congressmen as a bloc, just like the Electoral College, with each State bloc getting 1 vote. The Senate will likewise vote per-Senator on who will become Vice President-elect.
It is very clear that the intent is the Presidency (and Vice Presidency) will be decided by the States, with or without the Electoral College by an equal representation vote. The Presidency is voted in at the pleasure of the States, derived from the pleasure of the people of each State respectively.
>I'm not asking that. We're discussing Federal elections and representation.
The President of the United States does not represent the people, at least not directly. In that context, you are in fact asking that because you, by citing and supporting the Compact, are arguing the President of the United States should represent the people directly rather than the United States.
>This literally describes how Electoral College operates. It's a well known point of discussion when critiquing the electoral college. Surely, you must be familiar with that line of reasoning.
The Electoral College (or Congress in the event of failsafe) votes, either officially or de facto, according to the will of the people of the respective States that the Electors (or Congressmen) hail from. The Electoral College (or Congress) quite literally represents the direct will of the people in each State.
The Compact instead proposes to not represent the direct will of the people in each State, instead deferring to whatever is the majority vote of the nation as a whole.
The very nature of the Compact means that if the nationwide majority votes for Bob, then any States that voted for Alex or Charlie or Dave effectively have their votes uncounted; this is because the Electors of States whose people voted for Alex or Charlie or Dave will instead vote for Bob in absolute defiance of that State's peoples' votes for the others.
The Compact effectively legalizes unfaithful Electors answering to the will of States they do not represent.
This is an attack on the sovereignties and democracies of the States and their peoples thereof and should never be accepted, let alone tolerated.
>This confuses a personal subjective experience with the objective truth of reality. You've extrapolated a genuine question and comment into a malevolent and sinister plot. I truly urge you to find the best in people.
>Questioning people's character and motives distracts from productive discussion.
Explain yourself how the Compact would improve democracy, then. What the Compact proposes is the exact opposite: What part of deliberately defying the will of the people is supportive of democracy?
Stop focusing in on exactly how individual electors would supposedly defy things, because the point of the compact is to make electors irrelevant, and the overall outcome follows people's will perfectly fine.
Consider this: If states traded pairs of electors with each other your logic would call that defying the will of the people, even though it would change nothing about the outcome. Because now they're not voting directly based on what their state said. Your logic is wrong.
Consider another example of Federal matters being decided by votes by the States: Constitutional amendments. Amendments require ratification from 2/3rds of all the States to become part of the Constitution, not 2/3rds of the nationwide popular vote.
The Compact argues for the people of one State dictating the decision of the people of another State, in this case the question of who shall become President of the United States of America. Destroying State rights like that is not how you improve democracy.
So would my theoretical where states trade electors. So that's not enough to show that democracy has been damaged.
The process as a whole would still be democratic. The result as a whole would be based on everyone's vote with even more equality than usual.
Looking at individual electors to make an objection is not going to give you the right answer.
First and foremost, the Electoral College (and Congress, whose numbers are the basis for the College's numbers) are determined by a popular vote within the respective States. The ballots in a presidential election are asking the voters "Which candidate should your State vote for?".
This means California determines by popular vote who to vote for President, likewise Wyoming. The State tallies their votes, and the State then decides according to the results who to vote for President. If the voters in California voted for Bob, California will vote for Bob in the Electoral College; if the voters in Wyoming voted for Dave, Wyoming will vote for Dave in the Electoral College.
We should also note that Nebraska and Maine both allot their Electors proportionally according to vote results, unlike all other States where the winner of the State gets all Electors.
I reiterate for emphasis: The basis for the Electoral College (and Congress) is a popular vote within the respective States.
As regards the "disproportionate voter power" itself, the Electoral College's roster of 538 Electors is derived from the following numbers in Congress:
* 435 House Representatives.
* 100 Senators.
* Equivalents of 2 "Senators" and 1 "House Representative" for the District of Columbia.
All States are guaranteed a minimum of 1 House Representative, with more allotted according to population as determined by the Census. All States are guaranteed 2 Senators. The District of Columbia has no representation in Congress (D.C. is not a State!) but is represented in the Electoral College with representation equivalent to the smallest State in the Union.
The "disproportion" comes from all States being guaranteed at least 1 House Representative and 2 Senators (this is where "all States have at least 3 Electors" comes from), and this is necessary in order to make sure that all States are represented no matter how small they are.
The ability of smaller States banding together to override a larger State is the system working as intended, it is a safeguard against a tyranny of the masses. The United State is a Union of States, not a Union of Peoples.
This indicates most of it is all politically motivated, enabled by a lack of understanding for the political system among most Americans. It's a gross violation of Chesterton's Fence, crying for the Electoral College (the "fence") to be abolished ("torn down") because who needs such a seemingly convoluted and meaningless system, amirite?
As for you specifically, you obviously still aren't understanding how American democracy is structured, no. We are a representative democracy and a federal republic. The people vote along State lines to determine delegations whom we respectively send to the Federal political table. The United States operates on Statewide Popular Votes, not nationwide popular votes, because we are a Union of individual, otherwise independent States.
That's the original reason, but it doesn't have any real benefit. Everyone knows why this fence was built. You're not specially enlightened among a bunch of fools.
But it causes people's votes for president to have different strengths, which is bad. And nudging the presidential vote up or down by 5% doesn't do jack shit against the tyranny of the masses.
It's a complication with no upsides and mild downsides.
This advice is reasonable in most cases, but applying it as a rule is devastating for society.
Copyrighted works only show snippets, and publisher-enabled limited previews.
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.
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
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.
There's an app for that.
The entire US civil rights struggle would disagree with you.
It certainly worked out well for Uber
Are you just choosing to ignore those comments?
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.