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

241–250 of 290 posts

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#241

Post by frutiger »

mumblemumble wrote: post #235
djbusby wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2749÷400000 = 0.0068725 So, 0.7% which seems like a very, very small sample. Did they spend time checking 400k tracks to find these?

If it were a proper random sample then it would be a decent-sized sample that should permit the calculation of a useful confidence interval on a non-negligible proportion. The cool thing about random samples is that the size you need is generally not dependent on the size of the population you're sampling from. If it's not a random sample then I think we probably shouldn't allow them to get away with using the word "…

> I think we probably shouldn't allow them to get away with

How could they be held accountable for that?

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#242

Post by IndySun »

margalabargala wrote: post #219
IndySun wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Interesting. Do you believe, your applaudable position, should be enforced on anyone doing anything, or just anyone creating 'art'? Seems odd to weaken a musicians chances of making a living (not majors, individuals - copyright laws are odious). The position implies a 'living' will not be permitted by means of creativity. Is that the intention?

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#243

Post by ponderings »

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?

I don't like answering questions with questions but how would you know it is mine? How do you firmly tie the license to the art work? How do you tie parts of a remix to different licenses? How do the songs on my security camera work? How do we record the licenses onto the security footage? Can we play security camera footage at someones funeral? If not, how do we obtain the license so that we may pay the right conglomerate?

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#244

Post by tux3 »

IndySun wrote: post #229
tux3 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not really sure I understand why I should suppose that. I've seen people in every category, who started with a passion and did or did not turn it into a job, and did or did find the time to keep making art for the love of it You can do art for money or not, I just don't see how you're trying to relate this to archival of music that is no longer sold, whose authors aren't around anymore. I get the impression you'r…

'You can do art for money or not', does not compute in the poverty stricken corners of this planet. A staggeringly blasé remark. US Copyright laws, that tend to circle the globe, are obnoxious, favoring the already wealthy or established entities to make creativity an unfair business. I look forward to the change. I am not advocating a blanket position on 'art', or any human endeavour, for that matter. But it would b…

Sure, but at some point it's a debate of high-contextualisation versus low. We can commiserate about the poverty stricken corners of the planet. And I'm happy to recomend global health charities. It's taking effort not to.

But what's that have to do with the much more specific legal situation the Internet Archive is in, with old archived works of audio?

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#245

Post by pessimizer »

mumblemumble wrote: post #235
djbusby wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2749÷400000 = 0.0068725 So, 0.7% which seems like a very, very small sample. Did they spend time checking 400k tracks to find these?

If it were a proper random sample then it would be a decent-sized sample that should permit the calculation of a useful confidence interval on a non-negligible proportion. The cool thing about random samples is that the size you need is generally not dependent on the size of the population you're sampling from. If it's not a random sample then I think we probably shouldn't allow them to get away with using the word "…

You're misunderstanding a little, although it's exactly what you think. The 2.7K recordings are not at all a random sample of the 400K, they were probably chosen because the labels could find a reasonably clean copyright history for them (i.e. be pretty sure they actually owned them.)

The "small sample" is the number of those 2.7K that have gone out of print. They're playing language games to imply that almost all of the music that is part of the "Great 78s" project is currently in print by only suing over 0.7% of it, and saying that most of that 0.7% is available as a digital download.

So to summarize, they combed through an IA project, and probably found that it consisted 99.3% of recordings that the entire RIAA (which represents the entire mainstream US recording industry) doesn't think that it can prove ownership of. These, they insist, are just cover so they can distribute the 0.7% of Bing Crosby 78s.

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#246

Post by isykt »

ikekkdcjkfke wrote: post #228
isykt wrote: post #178

If IA is dismantled, and doesn’t manage to survive on its Canadian or other outposts, historians will look back on its destruction with disdain. Cultural heritage destroyed so corporate stooges can afford another yacht or whatever. The only way to fight this is to pirate the fuck out of everything. Seriously. Fuck DRM, fuck gatekeepers, free information NOW and ALWAYS.

Enforcers of copywrite on materials that currently isn't being sold are Book Burners

Agreed. There should be an active sale clause for all copyrighted material, including video games. If you want to make money from the work you “own,” then fucking do it. Emulators exists for most systems. For books, the marginal cost of epub distribution is essentially zero and any high school kid can make one for you on a Sunday afternoon.

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#247

Post by isykt »

blackoil wrote: post #123
beej71 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the publish date plus 20 years not to exceed the life of the author is plenty.

Would you like this for all assets, basically banning inheritance. Govt will seize all property, savings, stocks etc on a person's death.

False premise. Intellectual property is not equivalent to those assets.

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#248

Post by steroids33331 »

echelon wrote: post #33
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".

Build AI music tools. Make it easy for the next generation of artists and create a Cambrian explosion of new music to wash out the old, copyright encumbered works.

[flagged]

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#249

Post by pessimizer »

IndySun wrote: post #242
margalabargala wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Interesting. Do you believe, your applaudable position, should be enforced on anyone doing anything, or just anyone creating 'art'? Seems odd to weaken a musicians chances of making a living (not majors, individuals - copyright laws are odious). The position implies a 'living' will not be permitted by means of creativity. Is that the intention?

> The position implies a 'living' will not be permitted by means of creativity.

You're begging the question, here. Also, you know that there exist people who distribute creative works for free, and make money by donations, sponsorships, patronage, and grants. Therefore you know that the statement as you have made it is false, and that you should be looking for a weaker one.

edit: I don't know how somebody goes from "weaken the chances" to "not be permitted" in subsequent sentences, and in addition tries to derive "not be permitted" from "weaken the chances" through the weasel word "imply," and still feels like they're engaging in good faith argument. If you're confident, you don't need to make up a position for your opponent, and your position is not as weak as you're making it look.

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#250

Post by pessimizer »

uni_rule wrote: post #177
vGPU wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hence, congress passed a law: (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer progra…

Imagine how bad a judicial take has to be for Congress to actually get up off their hands and legislate about in the current year.

Call me crazy, but I think it's a good law, and I don't think that being vague in law helps anyone other than people who want to selectively prosecute their enemies.
Post reply on HN