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

81–90 of 199 posts

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

#81

Post by kevinh »

JakeAl wrote: post #69
dmbche wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Statement from Brewster Kahle, digital librarian of the Internet Archive: “When people want to listen to music they go to Spotify. When people want to study sound recordings as they were originally created, they go to libraries like the Internet Archive. Both are needed. There shouldn’t be conflict here.”" From the article I believe they are arguing that the intent behind the digitization is fair use, as you say, bu…

They are indeed making copies in the strictest sense, but the real problem is if the copyright holders don't enforce their copyrights in the strictest sense they can forfeit their copyright. For example, if I let the public use an image copyrighted by me long enough without strict guidelines and I try to take someone to court, the court can say yes well you let the horse out of the barn and now you are trying to put…

As far as I can tell, in the United States you cannot lose your copyright, even if you don't defend it at all.

A cursory glance suggests that BYU asserts the opposite (see Myth #11) https://copyright.byu.edu/copyright-myths.

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

#82

Post by AnthonyMouse »

Dalewyn wrote: post #54
boomboomsubban wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Another commenter explained it much more eloquently than I can concerning DMCA: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37129304

People are obviously saying "DMCA takedown request" when they mean "generic takedown request" and arguing about whether the DMCA is the kind of takedown request to make in this case is missing the point.

If they don't want it there, did they ask to have it removed before going to court, or did they do the thing vexatious jerks do?

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

#83

Post by labster »

stavros wrote: post #63
jandrese wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright protections are important. Just how many of those artists would have created their works if they knew that decades after their death an average of one researcher of a month might access a digital copy of the work for free ? It completely ruins the incentive structure! Might as well become a fry cook instead.

I don't know, if you tell me that 120 years from now, one researcher a month will be accessing it, I'll go write a song right now!

But the hedge fund that owns the record company that will own the rights to your song won’t earn any money! How can you live with that future moral tragedy after you die?

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

#84

Post by zugi »

throwayay583739 wrote: post #9
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…

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…

I think I've spent too much time on reddit, because in comparison all the comments here seem quite reasoned, calm, and insightful. And then there's YouTube, and comments on news sites... I guess it's all relative.

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

#85

Post by cosmojg »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #75
zbowling wrote: post #22

So the conspiracy theorist in me believes they may see this archiving as a threat for their current copyrights. So often modern copyrights holders get their copyrights invalidated when trying to enforce and litigate against others by someone finding an older work that predates the more more recent one. The Happy Birthday song got invalidated by an older work of "Good Morning to All" [1]. Having this database out ther…

It's interesting because it implies that music is finite. Or possibly that commercial music is finite - there's an infinitely long tail of weird shit that we don't want to listen to, but the stuff we do want to listen to is confined to a finite segment of possible music. If so then eventually all music will be free, because it will be repeating a previous iteration of the same tune. This also implies that music is di…

These guys tried to generate every possible melody and then released them under Creative Commons Zero in an attempt to thwart industry rent seekers: https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxepzw/musicians-algorithmic...

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

#86

Post by [deleted] »

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,…

[deleted]

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

#87

Post by InSteady »

causality0 wrote: post #45
harshreality wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. D…

It's ok. They did the right thing, and continue to do so even without your approval or sympathy. You can move on with your life, they will continue to fight the good fight as they always have.

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

#88

Post by mannyv »

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,…

Note that the Supremes recently ruled that commercial use isn't necessarily a gate to fair use. I'm not thinking about the Warhol case. Maybe it was the Oracle/Java case?

Also, there are some odd fair use things, like the google books case, which may tilt the court in the archive's favor.

Here's a nice site that talks about fair use. https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/cases/

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

#89

Post by AnthonyMouse »

matwood wrote: post #30
Dalewyn wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I expect it won't be long before you can't get old magazines or other nostalgic and niche material. I will point out that the Internet Archive is among the foremost source of warez[1] today. Being brutally honest, what Internet Archive is doing these days isn't archiving or academic fair use anymore. They are flagrantly violating copyright, or enabling violations of copyright, and that is straight up not okay. As an…

Yeah, and if you read the ruling in the controlled digital lending case, it was a mess. IA wasn't making sure the print copy came off the shelf, and they were linking to their own site (BWB) to sell copies of the book. Not a well built case to take to court.

Isn't linking to a place to buy a licensed copy an argument in favor? It implies that they sincerely believe that the "free download" doesn't hurt the market for the book, given that they expect people to still be willing to pay for it.

And not making sure the book is removed from the self seems kind of irrelevant when the book is on a shelf in a closed library where nobody can borrow it anyway. Are we really supposed to believe that the number of copies they lent out during COVID exceeded the number of copies locked up in libraries everywhere?

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

#90

Post by InSteady »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #31
criddell wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The IA is risking all the work they’ve done so far. If they want to archive copyrighted material, they should do it and sit on it until the copyright expires. If the hope is that the archive is around 1000 years from now, then what’s the rush to release these 78’s right now?

Exactly! This is entirely on the IA for refusing to recognize they don't have the inherent right to violate copyright at their leisure. The reason they will keep getting into this is because they keep insisting they aren't doing anything wrong. If preservation of unprofitable content is the goal, sit down with the lawyers and hammer out conditions under which the IA can be given permission to preserve content . A goo…

Content is not necessarily preserved for the good of humanity of no one alive today is likely to access it during the productive years of their life. Who knows what the future holds legally, politically, or more broadly.

Whether they are likely to win or lose, IA is fighting the good fight on behalf of humanity. They are entitled to fight that fight, regardless of whether you think they should shrink back and stay in some arbitrary lane that copyright lawyers decide is financially irrelevant.

Post reply on HN