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

191–199 of 199 posts

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

#191

Post by dredmorbius »

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…

Trademarks require enforcement (as others have noted), copyrights do not.

There is the doctrine of laches which might be applied in general to an excessive delay in asserting an equitable right, but there is no failure-of-defence loss of copyright under US or generally Berne Convention statutes globally. I've most frequently seen laches raised in the context of patent enforcement. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/laches>

This is rampantly false and misleading information.

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

#192

Post by tremon »

guax wrote: post #156
slim wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what's preventing them from getting sued for the websites? it's the same copyright law being infringed on, on the same pretenses

The form in which the websites were made available originally. They were public, so its more than fair to store a copy. It would be different if they were archiving content hidden behind a paywall or bypassing login, etc. Other media and books have a more restrictive implied license of access and reproduction.

It would be different if they were archiving content hidden behind a paywall or bypassing login, etc.

You've never noticed HN posts under a NYT or WP (for example) article pointing to the non-paywalled version on archive.org?

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

#193

Post by piperswe »

account42 wrote: post #159
piperswe wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

How the fuck do you get that unit conversion wrong and not fixed in the 3 years the article has been published.

Oh damn, didn't notice the conversion issue. Not sure which one is correct (9PB or 90PB). I'd expect it to be 90, but either one is a _lot_ of data.

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

#194

Post by Dan_Sylveste »

causality0 wrote: post #189
Dan_Sylveste wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The thought did cross my mind that being destroyed by lawsuits might actually be their objective...

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

#195

Post by AnthonyMouse »

matwood wrote: post #188
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #186

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. 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.

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

It's an authorized copy. Is Amazon in trouble because they sell used books, i.e. are trying to profit from someone else's copyrighted work?

Doesn't the copyright holder also profit from selling the used books, by taking them off the market so the next customer has to buy a new one?

> 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.

It seems clear that the judge in that case was intent on finding against the Internet Archive, and explicitly stated that they wouldn't have been allowed to win regardless:

> Even full enforcement of a one-to-one owned-to-loaned ratio, however, would not excuse IA’s reproduction of the Works in Suit.

See also concluding that the use wasn't non-commercial despite being a non-profit who didn't charge for it, because members of the public might have liked that they did this and made a donation. Which likewise moots the implications of them selling used books (as they're indisputably allowed to do), because the next excuse was already lined up.

One wonders how a use could ever be non-commercial under this line of reasoning.

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

#196

Post by AnthonyMouse »

Dan_Sylveste wrote: post #187
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sy…

You're proposing that they separate their more sympathetic more traditional activities into a separate entity than their more contentious activities, so that the latter entity is engaged in only the more contentious activities. Is it not clear why that makes the latter entity less sympathetic and more likely to lose? Even the act of doing it would imply that they expect to lose.

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

#197

Post by Dan_Sylveste »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #196
Dan_Sylveste wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 sy…

You're proposing that they separate their more sympathetic more traditional activities into a separate entity than their more contentious activities, so that the latter entity is engaged in only the more contentious activities. Is it not clear why that makes the latter entity less sympathetic and more likely to lose? Even the act of doing it would imply that they expect to lose.

> Is it not clear why that makes the latter entity less sympathetic and more likely to lose?

Yes, but that entity is clearly violating the law and is archiving material that is already (by definition) archived by somebody, just not publicly accessible. This strategy is about preserving the more valuable non-alternatively-archived data.

> Even the act of doing it would imply that they expect to lose.

They're clearly violating the law, they've lost already on a similar case, if they don't expect to lose they should fire their counsel.

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

#198

Post by AnthonyMouse »

Dan_Sylveste wrote: post #197
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're proposing that they separate their more sympathetic more traditional activities into a separate entity than their more contentious activities, so that the latter entity is engaged in only the more contentious activities. Is it not clear why that makes the latter entity less sympathetic and more likely to lose? Even the act of doing it would imply that they expect to lose.

> Is it not clear why that makes the latter entity less sympathetic and more likely to lose? Yes, but that entity is clearly violating the law and is archiving material that is already (by definition) archived by somebody, just not publicly accessible. This strategy is about preserving the more valuable non-alternatively-archived data. > Even the act of doing it would imply that they expect to lose. They're clearly v…

> archiving material that is already (by definition) archived by somebody, just not publicly accessible.

How useful to the public is it to have it archived but not publicly accessible?

> They're clearly violating the law, they've lost already on a similar case

They're not clearly violating the law, they're doing something where the law isn't established (which is the point), and the other case is subject to appeal.

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

#199

Post by neurostimulant »

pipes wrote: post #116

I'm surprised they haven't been sued for hosting ROMs for old games. They are the best place on the web to download. Does anyone know if they've had issues with publishers yet?

AFAIK those are users-uploaded contents and can be removed when someone sent a valid takedown request. On the other hand, the Great 78 Project is officially run by the Internet Archive themselves, which makes them the target of the legal action.
Post reply on HN