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 applies here when they make copyrighted works available, for free, over the Internet.
Would appreciate it if folks would abstain from responding with how the record companies are greedy bastards, or how the IA is doing great work, or how copyright protection has strayed from its original goals of encouraging innovative new works to become a victim of rent-seeking behavior, or that the law itself is unjust here. All of that I wholeheartedly agree with. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm just interested in trying to understand if they have any legal defense that isn't going to get laughed out of court.
> 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, the article states, are only accessed by one researcher per month
Indicates that the research, educational, and cultural value from this use likely far outweighs the impact to the commercial use of these works.
"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, but what I find interesting is they seem to argue that there is no loss of profit from their work, which is a valid point to raise - if this is all hypothetical exceptions can and should be made to the law.
Even if they don't have a case, say the copyright law is very tight and clear and there's no way this can skirt around it - they still can bring it to court, fight it, and lose until they get it overturned by the Supreme Court and they get a special status or the copyright law is amended. This is standard - it's how the 19th amendement was passed I believe, I'll look for a link.
Edit: to clarify, there is no damage to the copyright holders because the medium holding their work is impossible to be used to listen to their work by anyone but experts, like the IA
Edit 1: Here's what I was remembering - it's not an amendment, but it's neat!
Copyright protections are important. Just how many of those artists would have created their works if they knew that decades after their death an average of one researcher of a month might access a digital copy of the work for free? It completely ruins the incentive structure! Might as well become a fry cook instead.
Copyright is meant to serve the public. This is done by incentivizing artists and corporations but the goal is to promote creation so that the populace ultimately benefits. If this isn't assumed, then you assume government should not work for the people.
By doing something that's technically illegal but antithetical to the spirit of public good, IA is highlighting how perverted copyright law has become.
You want people to refrain from criticizing record companies greed but there's a clear argument that highlights this as the main motivation. Artists who own their own copyrighted works sometimes buy up old media of themselves and refuse to license it for fear of impacting the image they've created for themselves (or just because they're embarrassed). Very much different from this scenario, record companies are preventing use in a way that looks like extortion.
In my view, it's not that there isn't an argument to made that this is an illegal act, it's that there's a deeper question of whether it should be. Sometimes new laws are changed by breaking them.
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 end of the wire assume curiosity and good will. There's a lot more heat here these days.
> In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
> 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
> 2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
> 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
> 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
So, everything in the article is relevant to 1, 2, and 4. In fact, besides element 3, to me this usage strongly matches each of these criterion. Fair use is interpretable, though, so the outcome of the case if it goes to trial will be dependent on the judge.
Just to present a counterpoint, I can see a range of fair use exceptions that IA could argue, these largely align with the educational exceptions present in US copyright law.
What's working in their favour:
1. The intended use of the copyrighted work. The recordings are not pristine, culturally important, and have limited commercial consumption potential in their available form.
2. Nature of the copyrighted work, i.e. Is the use to further creative expression(yes) or consumption(no). IA's own access statistics and duration of the project can strengthen this point.
3. Potential market/value of the copyrighted work: This will play significantly in their favour as the records are dated, rarely sold and not pristine/remastered.
What isn't working in their favour:
1. Unvetted self-serve distribution over the Internet: However this case is an excellent opportunity to extend the face-to-face education exception to self-serve online educational resources. This would be a reasonable modernisation of the clause, and would still provide a clear boundary between the education and commercial use purposes.
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 has uploaded themselves, the archive also accepts user submissions).
Fair Use is very unlikely to apply here I think. The fair use test looks in part at the question of how much of the copyrighted work is distributed (ie. A radio program promoting a song with a short jingle has a much more solid defense than others.) and "all of it" isn't a good defense. They could've put these recordings under their usual lending system, but they didn't and that probably makes them liable.[1]
For reference, I am not a lawyer, so if you think this is legal advice, go talk to an actual lawyer.
[0]: The ebook lawsuit they recently lost was because they disabled all lending restrictions for the pandemic, triggering the lawsuit. The lawsuit itself is ballooned with other crap because the usual nonsense from publishers is a thing, but the grounds for the lawsuit were unfortunately very solid.
[1]: That said, this lawsuit was probably triggered because the judge in the ebook case partially stripped IA of its library protections. The record companies probably are trying to arrange a similar removal of protections from IA, hence why this specific collection was targeted.
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.
> 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.
I worry that they're going to end up, as with Lessig, ending up in a case that creates terrible fucking case law that screws up copyright law even more than it already is. Like, if they win, it will be by making it impossible to enforce copyright for anyone who can't show substantial profit, zeroing copyright for anyone who isn't Oracle or Sony. Or they'll do such a shit job of defining what an archive or public interest or lending library looks like that they'll destroy the legal protections that libraries and archivists currently enjoy.
> Would appreciate it if folks would abstain from responding with how the record companies are greedy bastards,
How else would you interpret their behavior though? They are hundreds of thousands of dead artists on this archive and they specifically attack the ones which made money.
The conclusion can only be that those record companies are just after the money, I don't see any other possible one from this behavior.
Considering the low volume of downloads and that it is primarily for academic research, I think there’s a strong argument for fair use. I’ve seen so many great recordings completely disappear because some record company decided they might like to re-release something between now and the end of time (they usually don’t).
IANAL but there’s probably some fair use defense given that some may find value in studying the material and it probably doesn’t otherwise have market value.
So the conspiracy theorist in me believes they may see this archiving as a threat for their current copyrights. So often modern copyrights holders get their copyrights invalidated when trying to enforce and litigate against others by someone finding an older work that predates the more more recent one. The Happy Birthday song got invalidated by an older work of "Good Morning to All" [1]. Having this database out there, it won't take long for someone to fingerprint this music that hasn't ever been stored in a digital form to use to invalidate claims using newer music. A certain cord progression or beat or a creative lyric and rhyme long forgotten in this old music could endanger parts of their current music catalog.
> The Happy Birthday song got invalidated by an older work of "Good Morning to All" [1].
That's an incorrect rendition of the underlying facts. Happy Birthday was based on the tune of Good Morning to All, and this history was well known even when Warner was on a warpath demanding licensing fees for singing it. The invalidation instead arises from the fact that available evidence indicates that the words to Happy Birthday were not written by the Hill sisters and thus the song was never properly copyrighted.
> So the conspiracy theorist in me believes they may see this archiving as a threat for their current copyrights.
The media industry has had it out for the internet archive for a long time. I don't think they see this collection as a threat any larger than anything else the archive is offering. They've also been endlessly pushing for more and more control over the internet.
They've been largely successful getting ISPs to perform vast amounts of work for them entirely for free and without question. They can force ISPs to permanently disconnect users based on nothing but unproven accusations. ISPs who fail to cut their customers off from the internet risk an endless barrage of massive lawsuits. Courts have so been agreeing with the RIAA that this is acceptable.
They've been able to force ISPs in many countries to censor and block access to online content on demand based on nothing but their assurance that something is infringing. In the US they've had less success with content blocking and blacklists but they keep pushing and pushing.
It's insane how much power they've been able to get already, but they aren't satisfied. I see this attack on the internet archive as just another push for control over online media.
> A certain cord progression or beat or a creative lyric and rhyme long forgotten in this old music could endanger parts of their current music catalog.
The conspiracy theorist in me believes that this is actually a feature for them! Anyone who dares to make music without paying the cartel is forever at risk of having their works challenged for sounding too similar to something else. If you're a musician and don't want to pay up and hand your creative works over to the RIAA you'll be giving up the protection of RIAA lawyers.
Most of the other copyright owners who might sue you are also in the RIAA (or their international equivalents) which can make it easier to reach "an understanding" outside of the court system avoiding expensive lawsuits a struggling independent artist can't afford. The constant threat of having your songs challenged helps them operate as a protection racket and keeps independent artists in a very vulnerable position which drives up membership and discourages competition.
It’s certainly finite when you have ridiculous copyright claims over very trivial elements like chord progressions and short ostinatos. There’s also the element that composers, intentionally or not, borrow elements from earlier works all the time. I’d even argue that “remixing” is really the default state of affairs. I cannot name a single composer who hasn’t borrowed a melody from somewhere else. The only people that actually want complete originality are corporate lawyers.
It's interesting because it implies that music is finite. Or possibly that commercial music is finite - there's an infinitely long tail of weird shit that we don't want to listen to, but the stuff we do want to listen to is confined to a finite segment of possible music.
If so then eventually all music will be free, because it will be repeating a previous iteration of the same tune.
This also implies that music is discovered, not invented.
I made a static page that points to the 78RPM collection, but it is more of a novelty than a real source of entertainment. Nobody would pay for these scratchy records! The content is here: https://www.locserendipity.com/PushPlay.html
The LPs from the Boston Public Library are a bit more interesting, but again none of this is going to even remotely compete with Spotify: https://locserendipity.com/LP.html
I do not host any of these, but just point to the URL at archive.org. Why can’t copyright holders use DMCA requests instead?
> Why can’t copyright holders use DMCA requests instead?
DMCA requests are only when you host a platform where others can upload content. As a platform owner, if you take the content down, you won't be held liable for copyright infringement. But the original uploader definitely still can be! In this case, IA is the uploader.
I think the RIAA's gonna lose actually. The media being archived isn't being used at large as a way to circumvent IP. I think we'll see a fairuse conclusion but not without some damage along the way - I suspect bits and pieces of IA will have to be removed.
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're not actively making money off the material is officially over.
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.
Most record players don't even play 78's. I had to go out and buy some borderline novelty player to play a few Soviet 78's.
The whole point of copyright is it's a limited time monopoly that must end at a reasonable time, at which point works fall into the public domain.
The problem is sheet music, music recording, likenesses, photography, and written works all have radically different interpretations of this, or have sometimes become perpetual due to corporate $$$ lobbying.
PS: Fuck the RIAA. They're risking the preservation and archival of human art for all time at the behest of a few big money corporations.
If only they could finally get their donation box working properly. Every time I try, it fails me. I do not remember what went wrong last time, but it somehow never works for me. I remember, than at some point it did not let me type in the card field or did not check the card number. I wonder how much in donations they already lost this way.
I really want to know if the record labels tried a DMCA takedown request. Normally IA follows those, I can't determine if one was sent and the IA ignored for some reason or if the record labels purposely chose a different manner of attack.
One of the stories mentioned something about an ignored cease and desist, but that seems like a separate thing.
Isn'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.
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?
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 years ago or suing babies and dead people and I'm still not convinced today.
Why do we have to continue to put up with this crap? It's like the SCO/Linux bullshit but it never ended. I really wish things were less insane. This is so stupid.
There needs to be attorney crowd funding so the 99% can have legal representation and not continue to get trampled by these lunatic clowns
I blame Metallica. Particularly Lars. I don't know if he's more or less responsible than any of the other guys in the band, but in my heart he's the source of the enshittifying evil. The derelict that brought the xenomorph. The meteor that brought the color out of space. The cow with prion disease.
"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
[+] [-] hn_throwaway_99|2 years ago|reply
Would appreciate it if folks would abstain from responding with how the record companies are greedy bastards, or how the IA is doing great work, or how copyright protection has strayed from its original goals of encouraging innovative new works to become a victim of rent-seeking behavior, or that the law itself is unjust here. All of that I wholeheartedly agree with. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm just interested in trying to understand if they have any legal defense that isn't going to get laughed out of court.
[+] [-] mlyle|2 years ago|reply
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, the article states, are only accessed by one researcher per month
Indicates that the research, educational, and cultural value from this use likely far outweighs the impact to the commercial use of these works.
[+] [-] dmbche|2 years ago|reply
From the article
I believe they are arguing that the intent behind the digitization is fair use, as you say, but what I find interesting is they seem to argue that there is no loss of profit from their work, which is a valid point to raise - if this is all hypothetical exceptions can and should be made to the law.
Even if they don't have a case, say the copyright law is very tight and clear and there's no way this can skirt around it - they still can bring it to court, fight it, and lose until they get it overturned by the Supreme Court and they get a special status or the copyright law is amended. This is standard - it's how the 19th amendement was passed I believe, I'll look for a link.
Edit: to clarify, there is no damage to the copyright holders because the medium holding their work is impossible to be used to listen to their work by anyone but experts, like the IA
Edit 1: Here's what I was remembering - it's not an amendment, but it's neat!
https://lithub.com/how-ruth-bader-ginsburg-and-gloria-steine...
[+] [-] jandrese|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abetusk|2 years ago|reply
By doing something that's technically illegal but antithetical to the spirit of public good, IA is highlighting how perverted copyright law has become.
You want people to refrain from criticizing record companies greed but there's a clear argument that highlights this as the main motivation. Artists who own their own copyrighted works sometimes buy up old media of themselves and refuse to license it for fear of impacting the image they've created for themselves (or just because they're embarrassed). Very much different from this scenario, record companies are preventing use in a way that looks like extortion.
In my view, it's not that there isn't an argument to made that this is an illegal act, it's that there's a deeper question of whether it should be. Sometimes new laws are changed by breaking them.
[+] [-] throwayay583739|2 years ago|reply
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 end of the wire assume curiosity and good will. There's a lot more heat here these days.
[+] [-] zucker42|2 years ago|reply
> In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
> 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
> 2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
> 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
> 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
So, everything in the article is relevant to 1, 2, and 4. In fact, besides element 3, to me this usage strongly matches each of these criterion. Fair use is interpretable, though, so the outcome of the case if it goes to trial will be dependent on the judge.
[+] [-] quitit|2 years ago|reply
What's working in their favour:
1. The intended use of the copyrighted work. The recordings are not pristine, culturally important, and have limited commercial consumption potential in their available form.
2. Nature of the copyrighted work, i.e. Is the use to further creative expression(yes) or consumption(no). IA's own access statistics and duration of the project can strengthen this point.
3. Potential market/value of the copyrighted work: This will play significantly in their favour as the records are dated, rarely sold and not pristine/remastered.
What isn't working in their favour:
1. Unvetted self-serve distribution over the Internet: However this case is an excellent opportunity to extend the face-to-face education exception to self-serve online educational resources. This would be a reasonable modernisation of the clause, and would still provide a clear boundary between the education and commercial use purposes.
[+] [-] noirscape|2 years ago|reply
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 has uploaded themselves, the archive also accepts user submissions).
Fair Use is very unlikely to apply here I think. The fair use test looks in part at the question of how much of the copyrighted work is distributed (ie. A radio program promoting a song with a short jingle has a much more solid defense than others.) and "all of it" isn't a good defense. They could've put these recordings under their usual lending system, but they didn't and that probably makes them liable.[1]
For reference, I am not a lawyer, so if you think this is legal advice, go talk to an actual lawyer.
[0]: The ebook lawsuit they recently lost was because they disabled all lending restrictions for the pandemic, triggering the lawsuit. The lawsuit itself is ballooned with other crap because the usual nonsense from publishers is a thing, but the grounds for the lawsuit were unfortunately very solid.
[1]: That said, this lawsuit was probably triggered because the judge in the ebook case partially stripped IA of its library protections. The record companies probably are trying to arrange a similar removal of protections from IA, hence why this specific collection was targeted.
[+] [-] srvmshr|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] rodgerd|2 years ago|reply
I worry that they're going to end up, as with Lessig, ending up in a case that creates terrible fucking case law that screws up copyright law even more than it already is. Like, if they win, it will be by making it impossible to enforce copyright for anyone who can't show substantial profit, zeroing copyright for anyone who isn't Oracle or Sony. Or they'll do such a shit job of defining what an archive or public interest or lending library looks like that they'll destroy the legal protections that libraries and archivists currently enjoy.
[+] [-] acyou|2 years ago|reply
And why should we need to confine our replies to a narrow and arbitrary framework of existing case law, when there is so much more at play?
[+] [-] realusername|2 years ago|reply
How else would you interpret their behavior though? They are hundreds of thousands of dead artists on this archive and they specifically attack the ones which made money.
The conclusion can only be that those record companies are just after the money, I don't see any other possible one from this behavior.
[+] [-] slaymaker1907|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ghaff|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lovegrenoble|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cto_of_antifa|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] adventured|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] amno|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dehrmann|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zbowling|2 years ago|reply
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/u-s-judge-rul...
[+] [-] jcranmer|2 years ago|reply
That's an incorrect rendition of the underlying facts. Happy Birthday was based on the tune of Good Morning to All, and this history was well known even when Warner was on a warpath demanding licensing fees for singing it. The invalidation instead arises from the fact that available evidence indicates that the words to Happy Birthday were not written by the Hill sisters and thus the song was never properly copyrighted.
[+] [-] autoexec|2 years ago|reply
The media industry has had it out for the internet archive for a long time. I don't think they see this collection as a threat any larger than anything else the archive is offering. They've also been endlessly pushing for more and more control over the internet.
They've been largely successful getting ISPs to perform vast amounts of work for them entirely for free and without question. They can force ISPs to permanently disconnect users based on nothing but unproven accusations. ISPs who fail to cut their customers off from the internet risk an endless barrage of massive lawsuits. Courts have so been agreeing with the RIAA that this is acceptable.
They've been able to force ISPs in many countries to censor and block access to online content on demand based on nothing but their assurance that something is infringing. In the US they've had less success with content blocking and blacklists but they keep pushing and pushing.
It's insane how much power they've been able to get already, but they aren't satisfied. I see this attack on the internet archive as just another push for control over online media.
> A certain cord progression or beat or a creative lyric and rhyme long forgotten in this old music could endanger parts of their current music catalog.
The conspiracy theorist in me believes that this is actually a feature for them! Anyone who dares to make music without paying the cartel is forever at risk of having their works challenged for sounding too similar to something else. If you're a musician and don't want to pay up and hand your creative works over to the RIAA you'll be giving up the protection of RIAA lawyers.
Most of the other copyright owners who might sue you are also in the RIAA (or their international equivalents) which can make it easier to reach "an understanding" outside of the court system avoiding expensive lawsuits a struggling independent artist can't afford. The constant threat of having your songs challenged helps them operate as a protection racket and keeps independent artists in a very vulnerable position which drives up membership and discourages competition.
[+] [-] slaymaker1907|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marcus_holmes|2 years ago|reply
If so then eventually all music will be free, because it will be repeating a previous iteration of the same tune.
This also implies that music is discovered, not invented.
[+] [-] westcort|2 years ago|reply
The LPs from the Boston Public Library are a bit more interesting, but again none of this is going to even remotely compete with Spotify: https://locserendipity.com/LP.html
I do not host any of these, but just point to the URL at archive.org. Why can’t copyright holders use DMCA requests instead?
[+] [-] hn_throwaway_99|2 years ago|reply
DMCA requests are only when you host a platform where others can upload content. As a platform owner, if you take the content down, you won't be held liable for copyright infringement. But the original uploader definitely still can be! In this case, IA is the uploader.
[+] [-] RcouF1uZ4gsC|2 years ago|reply
Internet Archive, in my mind is one of the most valuable things on the Internet mainly for their massive archive of web sites.
Risking losing all that over music records and a very risky “loan” program of copyrighted books seems rather reckless.
[+] [-] slim|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ollien|2 years ago|reply
https://web.archive.org/web/20230814235044/https://blog.arch...
[+] [-] fallat|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] causality0|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ghaff|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 1letterunixname|2 years ago|reply
The whole point of copyright is it's a limited time monopoly that must end at a reasonable time, at which point works fall into the public domain.
The problem is sheet music, music recording, likenesses, photography, and written works all have radically different interpretations of this, or have sometimes become perpetual due to corporate $$$ lobbying.
PS: Fuck the RIAA. They're risking the preservation and archival of human art for all time at the behest of a few big money corporations.
[+] [-] jakeogh|2 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8732894
[+] [-] zelphirkalt|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Pannoniae|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robgibbons|2 years ago|reply
Oh, the irony of using Archive.org to read blog.archive.org.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230814224105/https://blog.arch...
[+] [-] hettygreen|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ghaff|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] boomboomsubban|2 years ago|reply
One of the stories mentioned something about an ignored cease and desist, but that seems like a separate thing.
[+] [-] dehrmann|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pipes|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] endisneigh|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kristopolous|2 years ago|reply
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 years ago or suing babies and dead people and I'm still not convinced today.
Why do we have to continue to put up with this crap? It's like the SCO/Linux bullshit but it never ended. I really wish things were less insane. This is so stupid.
There needs to be attorney crowd funding so the 99% can have legal representation and not continue to get trampled by these lunatic clowns
[+] [-] TheCleric|2 years ago|reply
Elon will just sue to force them to rename it "I Lift Up My Finger & I Say X X"
[+] [-] Tao3300|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tacocataco|2 years ago|reply
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.’
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]