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

171–180 of 199 posts

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

#171

Post by matheusmoreira »

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 don't know. I've been here since 2016 and discussion is pretty great. No one bears ill will towards GP, people are only guilty of agreeing with him too aggressively.

I really hate copyright and have engaged in heated discussions about the matter here before but still refrained from replying to GP because I realized I too would like to know what legal arguments could be used to defend Internet Archive.

It's difficult to be curious about copyright. For many of us that matter is already settled and only strong opinions remain. This post still managed to make me curious though. It's great.

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

#172

Post by throw10920 »

itsanaccount wrote: post #20
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…

Maybe because the average understanding of how our society is run, with things like morals, fairness and hope for the future, and the legal understanding of how our society is run has diverged. And maybe people are getting sick and tired (and banned and flagged) of "good natured discourse" being entirely windowed by the latter.

dang does a pretty good job of not banning people who are avoiding breaking the HN guidelines, and most of flagged content is political stuff not appropriate for HN.

HN is not an activism platform.

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

#173

Post by throw10920 »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #143
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…

>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 end of the wire assume curiosity and good will. The internet as a whole has diverged from assuming good faith, between polarizing politics, the rapid increase of bots, and general shift of popular sentiment over the decade. And there's also a lot more people online,…

Right, there's a scale problem, among other things.

I want the invite-only system of Lobsters, with the actually good moderation of HN. I think that would help with some of the issues, here and on other platforms.

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

#174

Post by at_a_remove »

noirscape wrote: post #150
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…

I guess the main problem with the usual "they're a library" defense that IA usually gets to trot out is that their regular books usually are accessible under a lending system - that's to say, they manually digitize the books and don't let people read more copies than they have on file[0]. This system as I understand it doesn't apply to any of their non-book collections (not to mention it only applies to files that IA…

Their ebook move was good-hearted and tactically foolish. I wonder if library protections can be re-earned.

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

#175

Post by tga_d »

6510 wrote: post #168
scotteh wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This appears to be a hoax. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/metallica/

haha, that I was unable to tell the difference says a lot.

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/aaaah

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

#176

Post by mlyle »

nottrobin wrote: post #134
mlyle wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't agree. The size of the set is of paramount importance to that point. They can always bring the mean down by just adding more recordings to the set, to further obscure how popular the most popular recordings are. In a set of 10 billion, of course people aren't listening to most of them. Quite clearly what the plaintiffs are afraid of is that there are a few very popular works in there that they could be making…

Even if all the traffic were from 100 pieces, that's a few thousand downloads per month. Let's talk about those specific pieces, then, instead of trying to obliterate an archive.

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

#177

Post by tacocataco »

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…

"They have monopolized everything that it is possible to monopolize; they have got the whole earth, the minerals in the earth and the streams that water the earth. The only reason they have not monopolized the daylight and the air is that it is not possible to do it.

If it were possible to construct huge gasometers and to draw together and compress within them the whole of the atmosphere, it would have been done long ago, and we should have been compelled to work for them in order to get money to buy air to breathe. And if that seemingly impossible thing were accomplished tomorrow, you would see thousands of people dying for want of air – or of the money to buy it – even as now thousands are dying for want of the other necessities of life.

You would see people going about gasping for breath, and telling each other that the likes of them could not expect to have air to breathe unless the had the money to pay for it. Most of you here, for instance, would think and say so. Even as you think at present that it’s right for so few people to own the Earth, the Minerals and the Water, which are all just as necessary as is the air. In exactly the same spirit as you now say: “It’s Their Land,” “It’s Their Water,” “It’s Their Coal,” “It’s Their Iron,” so you would say “It’s Their Air,” “These are their gasometers, and what right have the likes of us to expect them to allow us to breathe for nothing?”

And even while he is doing this the air monopolist will be preaching sermons on the Brotherhood of Man; he will be dispensing advice on “Christian Duty” in the Sunday magazines; he will give utterance to numerous more or less moral maxims for the guidance of the young. And meantime, all around, people will be dying for want of some of the air that he will have bottled up in his gasometers.

And when you are all dragging out a miserable existence, gasping for breath or dying for want of air, if one of your number suggests smashing a hole in the side of one of th gasometers, you will all fall upon him in the name of law and order, and after doing your best to tear him limb from limb, you’ll drag him, covered with blood, in triumph to the nearest Police Station and deliver him up to “justice” in the hope of being given a few half-pounds of air for your trouble.’

    Robert Tressell, The Ragged-Trousered Philathropists (1914) | Ch 15

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

#178

Post by Dan_Sylveste »

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 .

> suggests that BYU asserts the opposite

The page you've linked says: "Copyright protection is effectively never lost, unless explicitly given away or the copyright has expired. However, if you do not actively defend your copyright, there may be broader unauthorized uses than you would like."

How on earth did you read that and come to the conclusion that BYU 'asserts (sic) the opposite' ?

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

#179

Post by kristopolous »

tacocataco wrote: post #177
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…

"They have monopolized everything that it is possible to monopolize; they have got the whole earth, the minerals in the earth and the streams that water the earth. The only reason they have not monopolized the daylight and the air is that it is not possible to do it. If it were possible to construct huge gasometers and to draw together and compress within them the whole of the atmosphere, it would have been done long…

1. Find a Commons

2. Enclose it

3. Convert it to a capitalist mode of production

4. Exit as the exploitation leads to a hollow core and the profit declines

5. Repeat

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

#180

Post by Dan_Sylveste »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #79
dehrmann wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I refuse to donate to them because I see their disregard for copyright as a liability.

Non-profits essentially have to be the ones to push the limits of laws like this, because it's not profitable, so for-profit entities aren't going to do it. But someone has to do it or you can never get a precedent saying that something good is actually allowed. The problem is the RIAA knows this, because they have expensive lawyers, and they try to avoid proceeding with a suit unless they think their victim has made…

> be the ones to push the limits of laws like this

I can think of a much more prudent way to do that, namely, by legally segregating their non-contentious archiving (the wayback machine et al) from their legally contentious archiving such that legal threats to one entity cannot disrupt the other entity.

Post reply on HN