Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 290 posts

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#101

Post by hakfoo »

codazoda wrote: post #85
isykt wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright should be life of the authors full stop. My dad dug ditches for half his life but I don’t get checks in the mail every time water flows through them.

What about software? I was thinking about this last night. Should I use a license agreement that gives my proprietary software to the public domain when I die? What about my open source software that I can no longer maintain? In my case, the software is probably not popular enough to continue without me. Should it keep a GPL license or be converted to MIT or to public domain? What if I do have a hit someday and it pr…

I was always sort of surprised nobody invented a clear declaration for that sort of thing-- a pre-packaged, battle-tested paragraph you could put in your will that says "On my death, all my copyrights immediately revert to the public domain."

Market it in a cute way, like "content donor" analogous to the "organ donor" tickoff on the driver's license form.

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#102

Post by tptacek »

drewbug01 wrote: post #21

> “When Defendants exploit Plaintiffs’ sound recordings without authorization, neither Plaintiffs nor their artists see a dime. All of the artists are dead. > Not only does this harm Plaintiffs and the artists or their heirs by depriving them of compensation, Hereditary wealth and continued rent-seeking is a very, very poor argument in favor of eternal copyright protection. > but it undermines the value of music,” th…

I'm sure that whatever the labels are doing here is odious, and that there's no validity to the suit, but "all the artists are dead" isn't a valid argument. Artists receive, during their lifetimes, funds valued based on the duration of the label's rights to their work. Copyrights that terminated with the life of the author would drastically reduce the compensation authors got in their own lifetimes.

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#103

Post by callalex »

wredue wrote: post #51
absrec wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Music piracy is almost non-existent post spotify. Streaming service fragmentation and geolocking has resulted in more video piracy but it still is less compared to what it was.

Did you actually look that up, or are you just believing it cause piracy forums say it? Cause I did just look it up, and you’re not correct. The ways that music piracy occurs has changed, for sure.

If you had actually looked it up you would have cited sources.

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#104

Post by anigbrowl »

hakfoo wrote: post #97
lotsofpulp wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Author’s life is too long. Surely, 20 years is far sufficient to incentivize creating media, although I would err on the side of 10 years. The copyright term is automatically too long if my anyone who would benefit from it entering the public domain is dead.

I think we need to completely revisit the ownership model here. Kill copyright entirely. (I would vote for anyone-- up to and including Mike Pence-- who made this a major plank of their campaign) We have at least one corner of the universe where we've defeated scarcity. We can't run out of music. Hell, we can't even run out of a specific recorded performance, if even the most trivial efforts of due-diligence backups…

Music and other media are not fungible. I think this is a worm in the apple that dooms many market based arguments. However your idea of a creative endowment is intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#105

Post by boomboomsubban »

kirksan wrote: post #44
ghaff wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Internet Archive (including the Wayback Machine) basically exists in a legal Gray area (to be generous) that has mostly depended on not doing things (or undoing things) that caught someone's attention who was willing to actually take some action about it. For the most part, the IA doesn't have any more special status than you or I if we were to mirror someone's website or create a comic strip museum. A lot of wha…

The IA has been skating on thin ice for a long time. They’ve archived a ton of content I generated over the years, most of it copyrighted. In my case I don’t care, I actually appreciate it since I didn’t keep archives as well as I should and occasionally use IA to find my own stuff. Also, my content is worth approximately 25¢. Others are not so forgiving. What we really need are updated copyright laws that allow for…

>In my case I don’t care

If you did, you could DMCA claim it. They'd still archive the stuff, but it wouldn't be publicly available until whenever it'd fall into the public domain. That part of the system seems to work fairly well, except the century it would take for it to fall into public domain.

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#106

Post by raincole »

Asooka wrote: post #96
echelon wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Yes it should. Property is property. It is insane that some property somehow becomes unownable after an arbitrary length of time. If I own land, that land will go to my heirs or, if none exist, on auction. Then someone else will own it. It won't become permanently public and non-property. Intellectual property ought to work the same way. The great part is that we can create an infinite amount of intellectual property…

> Property is property. It is insane that some property somehow becomes unownable after an arbitrary length of time. If I own land, that land will go to my heirs or, if none exist, on auction. Then someone else will own it.

Yes and in almost every country properties like land are taxed by their values. If copyright lasts forever, it should be taxed by its value too (not by income!).

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#107

Post by isykt »

adventured wrote: post #98
isykt wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The contracts of adhesion that perpetuate society disproportionately valuing one form of labor over another do not validate the exploitation of one group of laborer over another.

Not all labor is created equal, nor should it be. It's not equal, it can never be equal. And there's nothing that can ever be done to change that, no matter how hard a state might try to force 'equal' distribution of unearned money. Society should value one form of labor different from another, it's good that it always has and always will. I've worked with plenty of very lazy bums that intentionally, knowingly do 1/3…

If there are people working 3x as hard, why aren’t they negotiating for 3x the pay? It would create an incentive for the business to fire the people only doing 1/3 the work, or else cut their pay by 2/3rds in accordance with the value of the labor.

This does not happen because the workers involved don’t have that kind of power. The power imbalance between the two parties is so vast that the laborers have no choice but to accept unfair terms.

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#108

Post by prox »

beej71 wrote: post #39

And I'll double down on making sure I never pay the record labels another dime. Authors and artists: make sure you have a way for me to send you money online.

A few options for those looking:

Bandcamp, Patreon, Twitch, Ko-Fi, CDbaby, and probably a host of others.

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#109

Post by comprev »

isykt wrote: post #107
adventured wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all labor is created equal, nor should it be. It's not equal, it can never be equal. And there's nothing that can ever be done to change that, no matter how hard a state might try to force 'equal' distribution of unearned money. Society should value one form of labor different from another, it's good that it always has and always will. I've worked with plenty of very lazy bums that intentionally, knowingly do 1/3…

If there are people working 3x as hard, why aren’t they negotiating for 3x the pay? It would create an incentive for the business to fire the people only doing 1/3 the work, or else cut their pay by 2/3rds in accordance with the value of the labor. This does not happen because the workers involved don’t have that kind of power. The power imbalance between the two parties is so vast that the laborers have no choice bu…

Management do have a method to legally fire those only putting in 1/3rd of the necessary effort - Performance Improvement Plans.

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#110

Post by t0mas88 »

arghdos wrote: post #15

> The complaint states that when the 78rpm records were converted into digital files, IA reproduced copyrighted recordings without permission. When IA copied those files to a server, that amounted to another unauthorized reproduction Am I wrong to interpret this as trying to outlaw ripping a CD and uploading to a personal NAS? There’s additional claims about distribution to the public that (may??) seem more reasonabl…

They can relocate that part to the Netherlands. Copying without public distribution is explicitly legal, and all storage media and smartphones carry a "tax" that's given to the rights holders to compensate them for this.

For a long time downloading was legal (uploading wasn't), due to this. But it has changed sometime in the last decade. While the tax is still there and mandatory, so the copyright-lobbyists won on paper.

In reality people are moving back from streaming to pirate sites and nothing is being done about it.

Post reply on HN