Live data from Hacker News

Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

torrentfreak.com

161–170 of 290 posts

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#161
post #16
post #5

What is the best way to let these greedy bastards know that we disagree with their conduct? Not buying records will only lead to them wrongfully claiming that they "lost revenue due to piracy".

A brick through a window used to be a common way to make a message known.

They have so many windows nowadays though ;) in too many cities

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#162

The ONLY reason these disgusting predators can colonize human cultural output like this is the antisocial, and tremendously stupid copyright laws enacted. It always makes me wonder why people want a tiny cartel of companies to own humanity’s music culture, and subsequently be able to bully companies like Spotify, Youtube and others into enforcing extrajudicial policies that maintain the cartel’s dominance. Like, seri…

Because normal people don’t care about “human cultural output” or “societal value” and think people who use those kinds of terms sound like blowhards. The rest of us just want reasonably cheap, convenient entertainment. Artists and others in the music biz want to get paid. Nothing here that is very hard to understand.

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#163

Whenever we hit upon copyright battles in the USA, I’m reminded that the national anthem steals its tune from a well established English drinking song. A drinking song — basically understood that it “belongs to everyone and is shared for when we collectively drink and be merry together”.

I had no idea! Would you be able to shed light on the name of the song?

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#164
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…

Courts have ruled that merely executing an exe file is itself an act of copyright infringment, because the OS copies the contents into RAM. That's how deep it goes. The reason no users are violating copyright when running software normally is because of a special exception for software in the Copyright Act.

If we're going to be pedantic about it, just playing a piece of music, from whatever medium it is stored in, is making a (n analog and transient) copy of it.

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#165
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You made the claim, so the burden of proof is on you, nevertheless:

https://www.statista.com/chart/amp/15764/prevalence-of-music...

One thing I did find is that, for some reason, Covid saw a drop in music piracy. That has nothing to do with the claim that “since Spotify released (2011), music piracy is non existent”, though. I didn’t bother to read on idea of why that occurred.

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#166
post #148

> 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, and when it transferred those copies to the public, yet another. That first step, making a digital copy of a copyrighted work, is not illegal to my knowledge of at least Dutch copyright…

It’s 70 years after the death of the author. So if Andy Weir died tomorrow, The Martian wouldn’t enter the public domain until 2093.

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#167

Whenever we hit upon copyright battles in the USA, I’m reminded that the national anthem steals its tune from a well established English drinking song. A drinking song — basically understood that it “belongs to everyone and is shared for when we collectively drink and be merry together”.

I had no idea! Would you be able to shed light on the name of the song?

To Anacreon in Heaven: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eg7z0-6Nhc

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#168
post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pa…

You are completely mistaken That fee only covers general piracy. It does not give you the right to copy copyrighted works. In fact, european copyright is much stricter than US copyright. There is no fair use and european copyright (based on the napoleon code) forbids making a copy of copyrighted works except for a few exceptions specifically mentioned in the law (eg a browser displaying a webpage, etc...).

You are also completely mistaken. Making copies for personal use is legal in the Netherlands and (many/most?) EU countries.

> You are permitted to make copies of other people’s texts, music and photographs provided that they derive from a legal source. The copies must be for your own use. It is not permissible, however, to distribute or publish such copies.

https://www.government.nl/topics/intellectual-property/quest...

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#169

The ONLY reason these disgusting predators can colonize human cultural output like this is the antisocial, and tremendously stupid copyright laws enacted. It always makes me wonder why people want a tiny cartel of companies to own humanity’s music culture, and subsequently be able to bully companies like Spotify, Youtube and others into enforcing extrajudicial policies that maintain the cartel’s dominance. Like, seri…

Because normal people don’t care about “human cultural output” or “societal value” and think people who use those kinds of terms sound like blowhards. The rest of us just want reasonably cheap, convenient entertainment. Artists and others in the music biz want to get paid. Nothing here that is very hard to understand.

Normal people do like free stuff it turns out. And typically not going to pay when it's ancient anyway. Instead of going without, they could give it a try. They'd like that too—if they knew it was possible and even encouraged.

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#170
post #57
post #5

What is the best way to let these greedy bastards know that we disagree with their conduct? Not buying records will only lead to them wrongfully claiming that they "lost revenue due to piracy".

The answer is not palatable because it will take forever: contact your representatives in the federal government and lobby for copyright reform. IA might be luck they were not sued for more. I believe the MP3.com lawsuit is relevant reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMG_Recordings,_Inc._v._MP3.co... .

Man, that's just a bad precedent. Space shifting should still apply to the internet and digital files.
Post reply on HN