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

101–110 of 199 posts

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

#101

Post by jcranmer »

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…

> The Happy Birthday song got invalidated by an older work of "Good Morning to All" [1].

That's an incorrect rendition of the underlying facts. Happy Birthday was based on the tune of Good Morning to All, and this history was well known even when Warner was on a warpath demanding licensing fees for singing it. The invalidation instead arises from the fact that available evidence indicates that the words to Happy Birthday were not written by the Hill sisters and thus the song was never properly copyrighted.

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

#102

Post by dehrmann »

SoftTalker wrote: post #67
dehrmann wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most record players don't even play 78's Really? I don't know turntables, but I feel like every DJ wants a Technics one. The first several I looked at on their website play 33 1/3s, 45s, and 78s.

The classic DJ turntable was the Technics SL-1200. It plays 45 and 33.3. The Pioneer PLX-1000 is a near-copy of the old Technics, it also plays 45 and 33.3 rpm

Maybe the classics don't, but the SL-1200 variants here play 78: https://us.technics.com/collections/turntables

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

#103

Post by slaymaker1907 »

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 certainly finite when you have ridiculous copyright claims over very trivial elements like chord progressions and short ostinatos. There’s also the element that composers, intentionally or not, borrow elements from earlier works all the time. I’d even argue that “remixing” is really the default state of affairs. I cannot name a single composer who hasn’t borrowed a melody from somewhere else. The only people that actually want complete originality are corporate lawyers.

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

#104

Post by Tao3300 »

kristopolous wrote: post #17

Why do we always defer to these copyright mongers? They're so absurd. Ah yes, preventing the listening of "Tip Toe Thru' The Tulips With Me" by Bert Ambrose & his Orchestra is a pressing national priority. Oh, the national economy will collapse if someone can hear "I Lift Up My Finger & I Say Tweet Tweet" by Stanley Lupino. I found their "sacred rights" implausible when the RIAA was hauling grannies into prison 20 ye…

I blame Metallica. Particularly Lars. I don't know if he's more or less responsible than any of the other guys in the band, but in my heart he's the source of the enshittifying evil. The derelict that brought the xenomorph. The meteor that brought the color out of space. The cow with prion disease.

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

#105

Post by skissane »

kevinh wrote: post #81
JakeAl wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

Suppose a copyright holder knows people are infringing their copyright and chooses to turn a blind eye to it - and then after many years of doing this, suddenly decides to assert its rights and sue the infringers (maybe the copyright has been acquired by a new owner who is desperate to make money from it, somehow, anyhow.) Is it possible that the defendants might raise estoppel as a defence? Or argue that the copyright holders failure to act on the infringement when it was widespread public knowledge constituted an implicit license?

I’m not saying those defences would actually work. Indeed, my non-lawyer gut-feel is they probably wouldn’t. But now I’m wondering if anyone has ever tried those arguments? And if nobody has ever tried them, I think there remains a chance they might succeed, even if that chance is small. And if they ever did succeed, that would effectively amount to “defend it or lose it”, although the owner technically would not have lost the copyright, just (some of) their ability to sue infringers.

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

#106

Post by [deleted] »

kristopolous wrote: post #17

Why do we always defer to these copyright mongers? They're so absurd. Ah yes, preventing the listening of "Tip Toe Thru' The Tulips With Me" by Bert Ambrose & his Orchestra is a pressing national priority. Oh, the national economy will collapse if someone can hear "I Lift Up My Finger & I Say Tweet Tweet" by Stanley Lupino. I found their "sacred rights" implausible when the RIAA was hauling grannies into prison 20 ye…

[deleted]

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

#107

Post by piperswe »

isykt wrote: post #97
userbinator wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do they have the space? From what I've read, the Internet Archive is huge .

How big are we talking?

90 PB as of a couple years ago: https://www.protocol.com/internet-archive-preserving-future

> The web archive alone is about 45 petabytes — 4,500 terabytes — and the Internet Archive itself is about double that size (the group has other collections, like a huge database of educational films, music and even long-gone software programs).

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

#108

Post by ChainOfFools »

ang_cire wrote: post #76
adventured wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Possibly because many of us recognize that the protections under GDPR are about reigning in dangerous corporate data usage, not about allowing people to curate their online image by scrubbing things they've previously made public. There is a huge gap between "you shouldn't be able to use my data for things I did not consent to in order to commodify me" and, "I should be able to force people to get rid of any info abo…

What happens when biotech enables effectively (or in practice, externally undetectable) seamless integration of artificial storage into the brain? When millions have perfect photographic memory, are they not allowed to recall the memorized account of personally acquired sensory experiences? If so, can the handful of individuals who can do so today, with no such technological enhancement, be sued for perfectly 'remembering' extensive details of someone's past public statements/actions since scrubbed from the internet? Does Alice's right to be forgotten override Bob's right to remember what she did / said?

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

#109

Post by zucker42 »

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…

Federal statute says the following:

> In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

> 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

> 2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

> 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

> 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

So, everything in the article is relevant to 1, 2, and 4. In fact, besides element 3, to me this usage strongly matches each of these criterion. Fair use is interpretable, though, so the outcome of the case if it goes to trial will be dependent on the judge.

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

#110

Post by realusername »

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…

> Would appreciate it if folks would abstain from responding with how the record companies are greedy bastards,

How else would you interpret their behavior though? They are hundreds of thousands of dead artists on this archive and they specifically attack the ones which made money.

The conclusion can only be that those record companies are just after the money, I don't see any other possible one from this behavior.

Post reply on HN