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

181–190 of 199 posts

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

#181

Post by jfengel »

soco wrote: post #142
nottrobin wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Shouldn't the plaintiffs then single out that particular popular record, and not try to take down the entire catalogue? It goes both ways - if you ask for all you get data about all and that data shows one access/month.

The plaintiff doesn't want to open a loophole. Suppose that one of these records gets used in a major film soundtrack, and now everybody is downloading it. They will have a harder time asserting their ownership if they don't defend it now.

Their approach stands on applying the law as written: "This is mine and you can't have it, even if I don't really much care about it."

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

#182

Post by Dan_Sylveste »

ghaff wrote: post #8
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'…

The IA managed for years to cruise under the radar by mostly hosting things no publisher or label cared about and removing it if someone did care. But now that the ant’s nest is kicked up it’s easy to imagine a lot of things are now seen as fair game.

It would seem prudent for them to partition their business into two separate entities - one which handles non-contentious archiving (the wayback machine, etc) and another one which handles the stuff which seems to attract repeated lawsuits.

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

#183

Post by Dan_Sylveste »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #7
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'…

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.

> That's a cat they can't put back in the bag either

Trivial fix here - split off the non-contentious archiving (the web archive / wayback machine) into a separate legal entity from the contentious archiving.

That preserves the more-irreplaceable material (the web archive.)

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

#184

Post by Dan_Sylveste »

causality0 wrote: post #161
InSteady wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If that was guaranteed I'd be more than happy. But it isn't, because their foolish actions have endangered the existence of the Archive. These first two lawsuits are just the beginning. There's blood in the water now.

If they are going to continue this weird strategy of tanking lawsuits that any competent counsel would advise they're going to lose, they should split off the more-irreplaceable and more frequently used part of the archive (that is, the web archive) into a separate legal entity, so that attacks on one don't endanger the other.

As you seem concerned about the existence of the archive being endangered I presume you agree.

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

#185

Post by AnthonyMouse »

Dan_Sylveste wrote: post #180
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which would make them less sympathetic and imply that they think they're doing something illegitimate.

Also, the wayback machine is not a non-contentious thing. They're making copies of everything on the internet and then distributing them to the public. It's all content that was freely available to begin with, but as far as I know that has never been tested in court.

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

#186

Post by AnthonyMouse »

matwood wrote: post #160
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 suppose…

If I put up a copyrighted work and link from that work to my own company to buy a copy, that is not going to look very good in court. It also undermines my claimed altruistic reasons. Linking to the publisher site or even Amazon to purchase would have been better to show increasing marketshare. Ignore the covid emergency library. The entire CDL was never setup to do what was claimed. Libraries uploaded their holdings…

> If I put up a copyrighted work and link from that work to my own company to buy a copy, that is not going to look very good in court. It also undermines my claimed altruistic reasons.

How is a free copy less altruistic when you also provide one for sale? Does the free copy make it more likely to buy the paid one? What would it imply about the alleged damages to the copyright holder if that were true?

> Libraries uploaded their holdings list, the books were made available digitally, and nothing was done to verify the books came off the shelf when a digital copy was checked out.

Wasn't this the difference between CDL and the emergency library?

And the argument for the latter is presumably something like this: They could go contact every closed library and inventory their books, but the emergency is happening right now and in many cases contacting them has high latency or isn't possible because they're closed, so they're going to temporarily guestimate that there are more books in libraries everywhere than they're lending out. Which isn't a bad guess, and if they went over by a slim margin in some specific case, it's a trivial amount of harm that only occurs during a temporary emergency, i.e. the effect of that on the market for the book is negligible.

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

#187

Post by Dan_Sylveste »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #185
Dan_Sylveste wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Which would make them less sympathetic and imply that they think they're doing something illegitimate. Also, the wayback machine is not a non-contentious thing. They're making copies of everything on the internet and then distributing them to the public. It's all content that was freely available to begin with, but as far as I know that has never been tested in court.

> Which would make them less sympathetic

You think them saying 'we understand that the web archive is a valuable resource of data which isn't under legal attack, and to best serve the needs of the public we'll ring-fence that resource by spinning it off as a separate legal entity that won't be affected by any legal action that may be taken against us while we fight a (more) contentious battle' would result in less sympathy for them?

How so?

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

#188

Post by matwood »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #186
matwood wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I put up a copyrighted work and link from that work to my own company to buy a copy, that is not going to look very good in court. It also undermines my claimed altruistic reasons. Linking to the publisher site or even Amazon to purchase would have been better to show increasing marketshare. Ignore the covid emergency library. The entire CDL was never setup to do what was claimed. Libraries uploaded their holdings…

> If I put up a copyrighted work and link from that work to my own company to buy a copy, that is not going to look very good in court. It also undermines my claimed altruistic reasons. How is a free copy less altruistic when you also provide one for sale? Does the free copy make it more likely to buy the paid one? What would it imply about the alleged damages to the copyright holder if that were true? > Libraries up…

The first is I'm now trying to profit from someone else's copyrighted work. That's always going to be an issue.

For the later, read the judges ruling. The EL was not the issue, but what came out is that the CDL was never what they claimed. By being so cavalier they ruined what could have been a great test case.

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

#189

Post by causality0 »

Dan_Sylveste wrote: post #184
causality0 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that was guaranteed I'd be more than happy. But it isn't, because their foolish actions have endangered the existence of the Archive. These first two lawsuits are just the beginning. There's blood in the water now.

If they are going to continue this weird strategy of tanking lawsuits that any competent counsel would advise they're going to lose, they should split off the more-irreplaceable and more frequently used part of the archive (that is, the web archive) into a separate legal entity, so that attacks on one don't endanger the other. As you seem concerned about the existence of the archive being endangered I presume you agr…

Oh certainly, if IA wants to split off an independent entity for bulldog IP freedom advocacy I'll open my wallet right now. But putting all the legal and semi-legal content I care about at risk because you want to swing around a big freedom dick doesn't make you a hero; it makes you a jackass.

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

#190

Post by IIsi50MHz »

jfengel wrote: post #181
soco wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn't the plaintiffs then single out that particular popular record, and not try to take down the entire catalogue? It goes both ways - if you ask for all you get data about all and that data shows one access/month.

The plaintiff doesn't want to open a loophole. Suppose that one of these records gets used in a major film soundtrack, and now everybody is downloading it. They will have a harder time asserting their ownership if they don't defend it now. Their approach stands on applying the law as written: "This is mine and you can't have it, even if I don't really much care about it."

As I understand it: in USA law copyright, unlike a trademark, is not invalidated by failure to defend it. You are free to ignore unauthorised copying of, or usage, of your work until such time as you find it sufficiently objectionable.
Post reply on HN