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

Internet Archive responds to recording industry lawsuit targeting obsolete media

blog.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 199 posts

Re: Internet Archive responds to recording industry lawsuit targeting obsolete media

#41

Post by westcort »

I made a static page that points to the 78RPM collection, but it is more of a novelty than a real source of entertainment. Nobody would pay for these scratchy records! The content is here: https://www.locserendipity.com/PushPlay.html

The LPs from the Boston Public Library are a bit more interesting, but again none of this is going to even remotely compete with Spotify: https://locserendipity.com/LP.html

I do not host any of these, but just point to the URL at archive.org. Why can’t copyright holders use DMCA requests instead?

Re: Internet Archive responds to recording industry lawsuit targeting obsolete media

#42

Post by Dalewyn »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #38
Dalewyn wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A PDF of the lawsuit was provided by Torrentfreak, linked below[1]. In it, Sony, et al. state on pages 13 and 14 that Internet Archive failed to take necessary actions and file required paperwork with the US Copyright Office as required under the Music Modernization Act. The DMCA is never mentioned in the suit, so I presume no DMCA takedown requests were sent. [1]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/1-23-cv-07133-UMG-et…

Thanks. Then to me, this lawsuit is primarily about attacking the IA. If they were actually concerned about their songs being pirated, they would try the easy way known to work.

Please read the linked PDF for a proper understanding of the context. You said you "want to know", so I presume knowing the circumstances of what transpired are important to you.

Specifically, the suit alleges that Internet Archive failed to take the steps necessary for them to enjoy a safe harbor provided by the Music Modernization Act. In failing to take those steps, the Internet Archive failed to give the rightsholders (Sony, et al.) an opportunity to either permit or prohibit Internet Archive the digital copying and redistribution of the records in question.

That, plus the indiscriminate redistribution of the digital copies and soliciting monetary donations with those copies, all together are the arguments Sony, et al. are bringing forth for their copyright being violated.

Obligatory disclaimer that IANAL.

Re: Internet Archive responds to recording industry lawsuit targeting obsolete media

#43

Post by nullc »

acyou wrote: post #13
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #6

While I strongly disagree with the length of copyright protection, after reading this and reading more about the case, from a purely legal perspective, I just don't see how IA has any defense. They basically just seem to be saying "these are old records, so we should be able to copy them. Also, our work is mainly for academic researchers." My guess is that they are arguing fair use, but I just don't see how that appl…

Legal considerations are not the only considerations. What the court says is not accepted by all as the final word. And why should we need to confine our replies to a narrow and arbitrary framework of existing case law, when there is so much more at play?

The ancestor poster isn't saying you can't discuss those other things at all-- but they are offtopic for their interesting sub-question.

Re: Internet Archive responds to recording industry lawsuit targeting obsolete media

#44

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

Regardless of the moral merit, I feel Internet Archive is taking on way too much risk with regard to these copyright fights.

Internet Archive, in my mind is one of the most valuable things on the Internet mainly for their massive archive of web sites.

Risking losing all that over music records and a very risky “loan” program of copyrighted books seems rather reckless.

Re: Internet Archive responds to recording industry lawsuit targeting obsolete media

#45

Post by causality0 »

harshreality wrote: post #27
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the NEL will probably go down as one of the dumbest decisions in Internet history. The IA got away with a lot of stuff and then just decided throwing out all semblance of copyright credibility was the right call, for some reason. That's a cat they can't put back in the bag either, as long as the same people are running the show there's no reason to believe the IA won't do future stunts either.

Counterpoint: It wasn't like IA people woke up one day and decided to give publishers the middle finger because they felt like it. Trump had declared a national emergency due to COVID-19, under the guise of which Biden later tried to forgive hundreds of billions of dollars of student loans because he felt like it. Libraries were shut down and inaccessible to a lot of people during pandemic lockdowns. The NEL involved…

if you're a publisher or make a living as a self-published author and you aren't keeping tabs on major book-related news, isn't that on you?

Most people would think they don't have to worry about it because there are these things called laws that say you can't make unlimited copies of copyrighted material. Which is what the IA did, independent of the fact they didn't allow their users to also make unlimited copies.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the very concept of intellectual property. But there are right and wrong people to engage in political activism through flagrant lawbreaking and the thirty year old forty million dollar nonprofit is the wrong frickin' person. Being morally justified doesn't make it not apocalyptically stupid and now the stupendously obvious result is happening and I don't even feel bad anymore.

Re: Internet Archive responds to recording industry lawsuit targeting obsolete media

#46

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

mlyle wrote: post #28
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #6

While I strongly disagree with the length of copyright protection, after reading this and reading more about the case, from a purely legal perspective, I just don't see how IA has any defense. They basically just seem to be saying "these are old records, so we should be able to copy them. Also, our work is mainly for academic researchers." My guess is that they are arguing fair use, but I just don't see how that appl…

> My guess is that they are arguing fair use, but I just don't see how that applies here when they make copyrighted works available, for free, over the Internet. The fourth part of the fair use test rests on whether the use of the work impacts the commercial market for the work. Given these works are often: - Not offered in their original form - Would likely have little residual commercial value if so offered - And,…

Just wanted to say I very much appreciate your thoughtful response. I wasn't aware of the details on the 4 tests of fair use, and your comment led me to some helpful searches. For anyone else who is interested: https://nwtc.libguides.com/c.php?g=43772&p=7188025

Re: Internet Archive responds to recording industry lawsuit targeting obsolete media

#47

Post by boomboomsubban »

Dalewyn wrote: post #42
boomboomsubban wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. Then to me, this lawsuit is primarily about attacking the IA. If they were actually concerned about their songs being pirated, they would try the easy way known to work.

Please read the linked PDF for a proper understanding of the context. You said you "want to know", so I presume knowing the circumstances of what transpired are important to you. Specifically, the suit alleges that Internet Archive failed to take the steps necessary for them to enjoy a safe harbor provided by the Music Modernization Act. In failing to take those steps, the Internet Archive failed to give the rightsho…

I had skimmed it when the torrentfreak article was posted, I didn't notice any mention of a DMCA claim in it but as I had skimmed it I wasn't confident.

Whether they sent a DMCA takedown request is what I see as key, not what reason they can give for not sending one. If their concern was piracy, they would take the cheap and easy option. This means they picked this battle, not the IA.

Re: Internet Archive responds to recording industry lawsuit targeting obsolete media

#48

Post by Dalewyn »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #40
throwayay583739 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a little meta but: it's great how you predicted a possible unproductive line of discussion that might result from your question and headed it off with a clarification. Props for communications skills. I'm also a little sad that this disclaimer is even needed. I think it says something about how the character of HN has changed in the last ten years--there's no longer an assumption that the people on the other…

Thanks for that. I tried, yet still there are comment responses that literally do the exact thing I think is so annoying: complain sarcastically that copyright is stupid because it obviously isn't incentivizing the original artists here. No shit, we know. But whatever, those comments get pushed to the bottom, and I thought the top responses were really helpful (I didn't previously know about the details of the fair u…

For some additional context, the copyright laws in the US make a very specific exception for archival[1].

>(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:

>(2)that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

Note that "computer program" here is in reference to any and all forms of digital data thereof. The digital copies made from the records concerned are "computer programs".

Sony, et al. allege that Internet Archive's public redistribution of their digital copies of the records do not fall under the archival exception.

If all Internet Archive does really is just archiving, none of the rightsholders would have standing to sue or otherwise get in their way.

[1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117

Obligatory IANAL.

Re: Internet Archive responds to recording industry lawsuit targeting obsolete media

#49

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

westcort wrote: post #41

I made a static page that points to the 78RPM collection, but it is more of a novelty than a real source of entertainment. Nobody would pay for these scratchy records! The content is here: https://www.locserendipity.com/PushPlay.html The LPs from the Boston Public Library are a bit more interesting, but again none of this is going to even remotely compete with Spotify: https://locserendipity.com/LP.html I do not host…

> Why can’t copyright holders use DMCA requests instead?

DMCA requests are only when you host a platform where others can upload content. As a platform owner, if you take the content down, you won't be held liable for copyright infringement. But the original uploader definitely still can be! In this case, IA is the uploader.

Re: Internet Archive responds to recording industry lawsuit targeting obsolete media

#50

Post by blooalien »

userbinator wrote: post #32
causality0 wrote: post #5

If there's copyrighted material on the Archive you find valuable, download and save it now before it's the target of the next lawsuit. I expect it won't be long before you can't get old magazines or other nostalgic and niche material. This is exactly what we all said would happen when the IA gave a giant "Fuck You!" to copyright holders with the Emergency Library. The era of copyright holders ignoring the IA if they'…

In other words, the archive itself needs archived --- preferably in a highly distributed and fault-tolerant fashion.

Torrents and pinned IPFS stashes stored on machines in countries with "free-er" copyright laws would probably be an easy way to start.
Post reply on HN