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

211–220 of 290 posts

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#211

Post by nucleardog »

redwall_hp wrote: post #139
tux3 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think of the middlemen and distributors, they need to get paid, otherwise who will be making the music?

I like how they've even managed to shove the middleman bullshit into digital distribution, where there's practically no way to even justify it. You can't just upload music to Spotify or Apple Music or whatever as an independent artist. You need to pay rent to a distributor who is allowed to interact with the streaming service. (Some of them offer the convenient feature of administering royalties for cover songs, but…

Worked with a company that did stuff like that for a while.

My view on it (take it for what you will) is those companies exist mainly as a way for the streaming platforms to outsource and scale their quality control/checks.

The expectation from platforms like Spotify was basically that anything we sent over can go up without further review and that it added value to the platform, didn’t violate copyright law, was appropriately encoded, etc. If we let anything they rejected or later found issues with through, our status as a distributor was at risk.

I expect if Spotify had to staff and scale to deal with the garbage our users were trying, they would end up charging enough extra that you’d pay the same anyway. Basing that mostly on the fact that we weren’t really making much money.

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#212

Post by sidlls »

b800h wrote: post #205
sidlls wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if you meant "you cannot become rich without owning copyrights, patents, oil fields, or real estate" literally or not, but it's not really true in any case. There are plenty of people (doctors, dentists, lawyers, software engineers, small business owners) who become wealthy without owning any of those things. Not as wealthy as those who do, perhaps, but wealthy nonetheless. I'm one of them--a lucky IPO t…

> doctors, dentists, lawyers, software engineers, small business owners Felix Dennis would contend that such people aren't "wealthy". They're comfortable.

Being in that class of people, I’d contend Felix Dennis’ view of what wealth is is poor.

It may take a decade or two, but individuals in these professions who work at top tier roles will be wealthy by any reasonable measure (7-figure investment portfolios and no bad debt is “wealthy” to anyone without a very uninformed understanding of what the word means).

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#213

Post by p_l »

bluelu wrote: post #145
t0mas88 wrote: post #110

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...).

Many european "copyright" laws do not talk about copies at all.

A summary of stance of polish law on copying a copyrighted work can be given as "feel free", with an annoying bit about "circumventing effective copy protection" that got pushed in (note that "effective" results in funny legal discussion of whether a broken DRM system is effective).

What is controlled is distribution. I can have my house overflowing with all sorts of copies of disney movies, including derivative works made by myself, so long as I do not actually distribute them beyond myself.

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#214

Post by jazzyjackson »

kevinmchugh wrote: post #210
jazzyjackson wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Picking these fights is part of the mission, universal access to all knowledge requires pushing boubdaries and changing the law.

I think people shouldn't leave rakes littered all over the ground. Perhaps by stepping on them I'll demonstrate why it's a bad idea, but I'll also probably take a couple thwacks to the head in the meantime.

I mean if the rakes are government mandated and the public needs convincing to change the mandate, sure

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#215

Post by jtode »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #180
jtode wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also quite interested in the source of their peace of mind. It might be that they're already involved in that project and it's flush with space and distribution; the message here might just be "we got this". Or it might be "don't worry, corporate feudalism is great."

Thoughts and opinions my own. No affiliation with the Internet Archive. It is my belief that libraries and repositories of culture must (not may or shall, must) be built in a manner where they can’t be burned. They require durable, persistent, fault and human tolerant foundational systems (technology and otherwise) that exhibit the features of a Ulysses Pact, protecting the future from the present; from greed, from s…

Clear as Mississippi mud.

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#216

Post by jazzyjackson »

IndySun wrote: post #198
cannabis_sam wrote: post #157

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…

So the answer to 'disgusting predators' is to declare all 'art' (ludicrous distinction, why not everything, and why art?) free? Why not go after the 'disgusting predators' instead?

You are free to repeat what you've heard, are you not?

So where do you draw the line and say "no, this is intellectual property, you are not allowed to take it with you"

(For my own part I've been coming around to thinking of it as a consent framework and not a property framework. I might refrain from distributing photos I have a copy of because someone in the photo asked me not to. Or delete a video I took at a kareoke bar because the singer is embarrased - not because they own the content and can sue me for distributing it, but because I want to be respectful of someone else's wishes.)

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#217

Post by jazzyjackson »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #37
vaylian wrote: 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".

Ransomware with no key provided from a jurisdiction that won’t extradite if discussing threat modeling around generic org weaknesses. Everyone is vulnerable to a sufficiently resourced attack, one simply needs to understand their adversary’s defense budget (incident response arrangement, cyber insurance limits) and attack surface. Educational purposes only, not legal advice, don’t do this.

Perhaps some kind of rootkit would be just...

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#219

Post by margalabargala »

IndySun wrote: post #189
nikanj wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh no, not free and unlimited access to art! Anything but that!

Is this 'Art access' you refer to something you make also? Or are you only referring to 'Art' other people make? The distinction is critical.

It of course includes all of the art I make myself, which I make available for free to all under either permissive or copyleft licenses.

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#220

Post by mixmastamyk »

IndySun wrote: post #191
mixmastamyk wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can you please add a link to your free art, movie, album, musical, and/or poem. Or do you only supply links to other peoples said art?

You missed the part where we are talking about ancient work and dead people. Think—Hitchcock movies.

My personal software is floss BTW.

Post reply on HN