231–240 of 290 posts
Is there a distributed archive project to save the content? I could donate a few TB of redundancy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would they allow permanently archiving content which is censored by their own regimes?
Their own governments.
NK needs no explanation, I hope. Here is the most recent example of why I have no respect for the system in Russia:
https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/world/news/kremlin-s...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm dating someone who has visions of fame through his music. These "soundcloud rapper millionaires" and Billie Eilesh have so much more marketing spent on them than you might believe. It is hard to make it anywhere in that business without a lot of promotion, and that requires a lot of money. Initially often in the form of small payments that add up. A few hundred dollars here to be added to a playlist, a few hundre…
Almost every business out there has costs associated with it.
The ONLY reason these disgusting predators can colonize human cultural output like this is the antisocial, and tremendously stupid copyright laws enacted. It always makes me wonder why people want a tiny cartel of companies to own humanity’s music culture, and subsequently be able to bully companies like Spotify, Youtube and others into enforcing extrajudicial policies that maintain the cartel’s dominance. Like, seri…
I like this case. It's about recordings that are 70 years old or more, the vast majority are out of print, and the rest are often precariously in print. If I'm reading correctly, the silly nature of the claim that > [...] of the 2,749 recordings listed in the complaint, all but a “small sample” are already available to stream or download from licensed online platforms so they “face no danger of being lost, forgotten,…
2749÷400000 = 0.0068725 So, 0.7% which seems like a very, very small sample. Did they spend time checking 400k tracks to find these?
If it's not a random sample then I think we probably shouldn't allow them to get away with using the word "sample" at all. It's a bowl of cherries that they picked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Think of the middlemen and distributors, they need to get paid, otherwise who will be making the music?
This is the bogus argument made by so-called "tech" companies profiting from user-generated content. The so-called "tech" company middleman needs to get paid, otherwise so-called "creators" will not produce works nor share them.
On the other end of the spectrum we could charge royalties on the sales of instruments and require musicians and listeners to buy a license. We would have so much more music that way! No one would listen to it but it would be there behind the great paywall!
If IA is dismantled, and doesn’t manage to survive on its Canadian or other outposts, historians will look back on its destruction with disdain. Cultural heritage destroyed so corporate stooges can afford another yacht or whatever. The only way to fight this is to pirate the fuck out of everything. Seriously. Fuck DRM, fuck gatekeepers, free information NOW and ALWAYS.
Historians are very, very used to siloed and proprietary knowledge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hence, congress passed a law: (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer progra…
Imagine how bad a judicial take has to be for Congress to actually get up off their hands and legislate about in the current year.
The law was written prior to the existence of digital computers.
That law, as written, made copying a program into computer memory to execute it illegal.
The law was dumb.
But judges enforce the law. That's their job. They have discretion when laws conflict with each other (including with the Constitution) or provide space for ambiguity or flexibility, but otherwise the law is the law.
So Congress did their job (a novel concept these days, I know) and updated the law to reflect the realities in modern technology.
You don't want judges legislating from the bench. If laws need to be updated, lawmakers should update them. That's how the system works.
This really scares me. The wayback machine is a treasure. I don't know what will happen to it if these cases succeed.
It'll move to a different country, or its authors will be hounded down by the United States and gigantic corporations. Working for Sony, UMG, Netflix, any media distribution group, is, as far as I'm concerned, evil. You actively work to make human existence worse. I'd have a word for their lawyers, but I'm sure they're busy being paid hundred of thousands to be sacks of shit.
As a music producer once told me "it's LA man, there must be something in the water."
If you want a good idea on how these guys operate, check that Fyre Fest documentary on Netflix.
Do you know what they do understand? Lawyers. The same lawyers that told them to sue the Archive because they can make more cash this way (or not, it's not really a cause of concern of their lawyers other than making them spend more money) will tell them to stop keep pushing for a lawsuit once they realize they can lose a lot more money they were planning to make and they have to skip this month trip to Thailand or something.