Hacker News Reader

Comment by blendergeek | Hacker News Reader

> The only one putting The Internet Archive in danger... is The Internet Archive.

Um ... no. The ones putting The Internet Archive in danger are the copyright cartels and the laws that enable them. If you "love the internet archive", you should oppose the current copyright regime.

If you think that the Internet Archive is their own worst enemy and anyone who thinks differently is wrong, then you don't actually support the work of The Internet Archive. Sure, you may like parts of it. But you oppose its core mission.

I support changing the law to allow the The Internet Archive to operate. I am sad that the current laws (apparently) may not allow it to operate. I am not dunking on everyone who thought they have a reasonable legal case. Why? Because I "love the internet archive".

View on HN

I support the work of the internet archive, but I also think that for a nonprofit in this role, survival is job one.

The risky stuff needs to be done via cut-aways that, if defeated, don't wipe out all the other good.

And even these cut-aways need to be used with discretion: better to choose favorable cases to fight first, instead of likely losses.

Supporting the mission doesn't mean one needs to bet everything on maximalist success in the first go-round.

> you may like parts of it. But you oppose its core mission

Sure. I guess I do. I stopped giving after this fiasco, so my money is where my mouth is.

I still think the Wayback Machine and several of their projects are worthwhile. Perhaps the best outcome is this organisation fails and new one, with a new core mission, takes over. Because risking the entire organisation on an ideological boobdoggle and then doubling down practically ensures failure.

> If you think that the Internet Archive is their own worst enemy and anyone who thinks differently is wrong, then you don't actually support the work of The Internet Archive. Sure, you may like parts of it. But you oppose its core mission.

This is where I stand.

One can support the mission of the Internet Archive (in archiving the public internet) and still express concern over more legally questionable ventures that may threaten their existence (e.g digitising and redistributing owned copies of books) and may be more of a challenge being justified under the first-sale doctrine.

> If you "love the internet archive", you should oppose the current copyright regime

Trying to "change the law" by not actually changing the law and instead convincing the courts to ignore the law is delusional. And entirely within "own worst enemy" territory.

> then you don't actually support the work of The Internet Archive

> But you oppose its core mission.

"You're either with us or against us" is also solidly within "own worst enemy" territory.

> the copyright cartels

You mean "living authors who would like to be paid for their work", right?

A fraction of the monopoly rent goes to living authors.

So you do mean "I am happy to steal from living authors who would like to be paid for their work, this is my excuse du jour".

Hey, how do you make a living, jampekka?

> Hey, how do you make a living, jampekka?

Currently doing research. I've also done software development and some of our household's income comes from literature copyright royalties, though it's largely a pittance.

I would download, and upload, a car.

We're supposed to discuss better than that here -- to discuss the actual disagreement in good faith.

People who create stuff should have an exclusive right to publish their work-- for awhile. But not forever; our culture should not end up locked behind a paywall. And even in the shorter term, we shouldn't have a reigning oligopoly involved in distribution of cultural artifacts.

> People who create stuff should have an exclusive right to publish their work-- for awhile.

Or there should be some other ways of providing livelihood for people who create stuff. Preferably something that doesn't artificially limit the availability of their work. E.g. in Finland authors can get more income from library loans (paid from public funds) than what pittance the publishers allow for them from sales. Such system could be quite easily extended.

But in any case, very few authors really make a living from book proceedings. "Think of the authors" is mostly a narrative pushed by the industry that does their best to exploit the authors and minimize their share of the income.

> very few authors really make a living from book proceedings.

Sure, but there's very few notable authors, too.

> industry that does their best to exploit the authors

Granted.

There's a lot of creative works that are very, very expensive to make (feature films, AAA video games, etc). Paying for them from proceeds makes sense-- hence the Constitution didn't really get it wrong with "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Likewise, writing a book takes a great degree of personal time and effort at risk.

> some other ways of providing livelihood for people who create stuff.

I do think that, even if we don't go all the way to a full basic income, it would still be good to have policy that somewhat lowers personal risk in creative, entrepreneurial, and inventive pursuits, as well as career changes. But still, that's not going to get the job done on its own.

If the discussion leads with the idea that we're entitled to question whether authors and editors deserve to make a living for their work, why should anyone else be immune?

The discussion here is leading with the idea that there is collusion and monopolization of publishing marketplaces that, in practice, screw consumers and most authors.

I do not see anything that "question[s] whether authors and editors deserve to make a living for their work."

I am unsure whether you misread the thread we're in or are deliberately mischaracterizing what was said.

You might think that following policies they advocate will put authors in an even worse position. That would be a worthy point of discussion-- in good faith, instead of deliberately misreading and trolling.

No, I don't believe this was what anyone was thinking. Copyright very obviously extends egregiously beyond this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com