The goal of IA should be to distribute full copies of the archive. Not doing so guarantees it will be deleted and replaced.
Internet Archive responds to recording industry lawsuit targeting obsolete media
121–130 of 199 posts
Re: Internet Archive responds to recording industry lawsuit targeting obsolete media
#122Earlier 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?
Also, they could have program where researchers register and then login to access the content. That would go a long way towards supporting scholarship fair use. They wouldn't even have to be strict about joining especially for something niche like this.
But, also, what makes someone a researcher? Do you have to forcefully be affiliated to a University, a Newspaper, or similar institution? Then the world would be missing out on work done by independent researchers, journalists, etc.
Re: Internet Archive responds to recording industry lawsuit targeting obsolete media
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sony, et al. allege that Internet Archive's public redistribution of their digital copies of the records do not fall under the archival exception. Seems pretty obvious to me that, just with respect to the archival exception, that Sony et al is correct here. The issue is not with IA making backup copies of these works - the issue is with making copies and making them available for free over the Internet that is the…
What should the M.O. of an archive be, then? Paid access? That would be an even worse offense! Zero access except for the person who created the archive? That makes no sense either. The archivist needs to vet potential accessors for certain motives? Only offer access to small samples?
>Paid access?
No, in that case you need permissions or licensing from the rightsholders to resell or otherwise profit en masse from their work.
>Zero access except for the person who created the archive?
This is, fundamentally, what archiving something means. It is legal for someone to rip a music CD that they own for archival purposes, but it is illegal to share the resulting archives.
>The archivist needs to vet potential accessors for certain motives?
One facet of fair use is whether the use is for academical, educational, or other non-profit purposes. So yes, the archivist needs to vet potential accessors for certain motives.
>Only offer access to small samples?
Another facet of fair use is that only the minimum portion required from a given work is used for a given purpose under fair use. For example, quoting certain passages and only those passages in a book to discuss them in a review or critique, etc.
Re: Internet Archive responds to recording industry lawsuit targeting obsolete media
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
As stated in the lawsuit, Sony, et al. filed their side of the required paperwork under the Music Modernization Act with the US Copyright Office. Internet Archive meanwhile failed to do so, and in failing to do so did not give Sony, et al. an opportunity to give or withhold permissions as the rightsholders.
So this lawsuit, to me, seems like a fair thing to do. Sony, et al. were never given an opportunity to respond due to either negligence or malice from Internet Archive, so they filed suit.
Re: Internet Archive responds to recording industry lawsuit targeting obsolete media
#125[flagged]
Re: Internet Archive responds to recording industry lawsuit targeting obsolete media
#126While 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…
[flagged]
Congratulations, I think you hit every tired cliche that the OP requested explicitly not to descend into
> Copyright expires after certain amount of years, depending on the country and the law?
Yes. In case you didn’t notice, this is specifically about a case in one country, for things that are still under copyright.
> it looks to me like you are an afforded troll by the company to spread out the company propaganda on the internet and social media sites. I can't tell for sure, I might be wrong, but that is how it looks to me.
No, it doesn’t look like this at all. You are egregiously wrong.
Re: Internet Archive responds to recording industry lawsuit targeting obsolete media
#127Isn't vinyl the most popular physical medium by sales right now? Sure, 78s aren't as supported, but the first Technics turntable I clicked on can play them, and the Wirecutter has a recommendation that plays them. "Obsolete" is a stretch.
That gave me an idea, I have some old 78s -- could I play them at 45 and then use Audacity to speed them up by 173%?
Audacity wiki (which is the official documentation and not something you can request an account for IIRC) has a page for that: https://manual.audacityteam.org/man/recording_78_rpm_records...
Just make sure you invert the equalizer / preemphasis before you change the speed.
Re: Internet Archive responds to recording industry lawsuit targeting obsolete media
#128While 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,…
I am completely on the IA's side here, and I hope they win the case. Down with copyright.
However, "on average, each recording in the collection is only accessed by one researcher per month" seems to me like a dishonest way to present the data. Surely surely there are one or a few recordings in the project that are vastly more popular than others. That's always how it goes. So "on average" completely obscures how popular the most popular ones might be.
Re: Internet Archive responds to recording industry lawsuit targeting obsolete media
#129While 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…
That is what struck me too after reading the article.
With the digital (and maybe Bigdata/ML) age, copyright protections need some revisions & broadened scope of "fair use". But digitizing and making media items available over internet face the arguments that piracy sites get accused of. IA is a respectable agency, and these media is from 50s & 60s. But the optics of it from legality remains the same unfortunately. I wouldn't also believe these having no commercial value. Among the collection, I found popular artists such as Louis Armstrong - who I still listen to over Spotify/Apple.
IA would probably cut some losses if they disable all streaming or only provide 30sec clips (as preview), while keeping the music archive more restricted. Not that I like this proposition, but if we are serious about preserving the legacy of 78rpm, some more consideration could be useful. Copyright laws in their current form is (unfortunately) unforgiving to IAs efforts in this context.
Re: Internet Archive responds to recording industry lawsuit targeting obsolete media
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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,…
I am completely on the IA's side here, and I hope they win the case. Down with copyright. However, "on average, each recording in the collection is only accessed by one researcher per month" seems to me like a dishonest way to present the data. Surely surely there are one or a few recordings in the project that are vastly more popular than others. That's always how it goes. So "on average" completely obscures how pop…
I disagree. A median value might be really misleading (you could have very high usage for 49% of the collection, and nothing for the rest). But assuming average means "mean..."
You might have a few hotspots, but there's a very tight upper bound on how many downloads of each item. Further, it argues that the overall collection has a very high research and preservation value compared to the total number of downloads.