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

261–270 of 290 posts

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#261

Post by avidiax »

isykt wrote: post #246
ikekkdcjkfke wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You need to also require the the work is offered in previous versions, with monotonically decreasing real price (and maybe a meaningful discount on prior versions).

Goodbye Calculus 47th Edition. Students can now buy Calculus 40th edition both used and new at a reasonable price in perpetuity. The publisher can charge more for Calculus 50th edition when there's actually new calculus or better teaching methods.

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#262

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#263

Post by kmeisthax »

sidlls wrote: post #212
b800h wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

I'll rephrase the above comments: having seven figures of assets or income confers material wealth but not political control. Political capital is far more expensive. At a minimum, you need so much money that hiring a team of lobbyists to confuse your local congresscritter is a petty cash drawer expense. Ideally you will also want to forefeit your right to privacy and become some kind of a public figure.

A case study here would be Louis Rossman: rich enough to run a MacBook repair business but not rich enough to bribe/tip Congress into passing a right-to-repair law.

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#264

Post by IndySun »

tux3 wrote: post #244
IndySun wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'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?

How? Firstly, do not commiserate poverty. I think you might mean something else. I hope.

Not sure what you mean by 'high contextualisation'.

I put ballet dancers on a par with accountants, scientists, and (above) politicians. Not above scientists et al, you mind, on a par.

The question specific to IA being pursued and my role here is to do with questioning the somewhat regimented reaction on this forum. I have already said 'context' is critical. And blanket change never works, evolution, not revolution. There are considered views that aught to be seen by people other than the converted.

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#265

Post by mycall »

pessimizer wrote: post #43

I like this case. It's about recordings that are 70 years old or more, the vast majority are out of print, and the rest are often precariously in print. If I'm reading correctly, the silly nature of the claim that > [...] of the 2,749 recordings listed in the complaint, all but a “small sample” are already available to stream or download from licensed online platforms so they “face no danger of being lost, forgotten,…

Oh, I was wondering why so many of my search hits were 30 seconds long, but there is so much other stuff that is great.

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#267

Post by tux3 »

IndySun wrote: post #264
tux3 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

How? Firstly, do not commiserate poverty. I think you might mean something else. I hope. Not sure what you mean by 'high contextualisation'. I put ballet dancers on a par with accountants, scientists, and (above) politicians. Not above scientists et al, you mind, on a par. The question specific to IA being pursued and my role here is to do with questioning the somewhat regimented reaction on this forum. I have alread…

>I have already said 'context' is critical

That's what I mean by high-contextualisation!

There are discussion cultures where it's okay to talk about just a thing in isolation with the understanding that we're putting context aside (low-context), and there are cultures where it's important to be very explicit about the context (high-contextualisation)

Both can be completely okay, but it's something to be aware of when someone wants to discuss a specific point, and someone else thinks the context is more important. Otherwise we're just talking past each other.

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#268

Post by theoriginaldog »

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…

huh? A friend of mine is an independent musician and he uploads his song on the platforms directly without a middleman, at least on spotify.

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#269

Post by account42 »

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?

I do not believe people should be forced to share their art freely. I also don't believe people should be forced to not re-share art they have received, which is what copyright is. This should not be a thing the government wastes resources on.

You are framing weakening copyright as some kind of act of violence onto the poor artists when copyright is the status where everyones rights get violated in order to help the few.

Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit

#270

Post by account42 »

kragen wrote: post #225
thethimble wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without women?? Genuinely curious how this is sustainable.

athos. religious recruitment from other societies. may end soon but it's lasted over a millennium

I'm not sure if a community that is dependent on the outside for replenishment can really be called an independent society.
Post reply on HN