[HN Gopher] Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyrigh...
___________________________________________________________________
Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit
Author : EMIRELADERO
Score : 248 points
Date : 2023-08-12 13:49 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (torrentfreak.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (torrentfreak.com)
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| I don't understand, did the record labels DMCA strike the
| recordings? The article says something about a cease and desist
| that was ignored, but my understanding is that the IA follows
| DMCA claims so there must be something more missing about this
| story.
|
| Sticking the IA with more legal fees as another poster suggested
| seems plausible.
| arghdos wrote:
| > The complaint states that when the 78rpm records were converted
| into digital files, IA reproduced copyrighted recordings without
| permission. When IA copied those files to a server, that amounted
| to another unauthorized reproduction
|
| Am I wrong to interpret this as trying to outlaw ripping a CD and
| uploading to a personal NAS? There's additional claims about
| distribution to the public that (may??) seem more reasonable, but
| that seems like some copyright maximalism trying to rewrite
| history?
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| Courts have ruled that _merely executing an exe file_ is itself
| an act of copyright infringment, because the OS copies the
| contents into RAM. That 's how deep it goes.
|
| The reason no users are violating copyright when running
| software normally is because of a special exception for
| software in the Copyright Act.
| teddyh wrote:
| So executing software actually _isn't_ an infringement of
| copyright, as an exception exists in the law? An explicit
| exception is an actual exception (unlike "fair use" which
| remains technically illegal until brought to a trial). AFAIK,
| IANAL.
| gcanyon wrote:
| If we're going to be pedantic about it, just playing a piece
| of music, from whatever medium it is stored in, is making a
| (n analog and transient) copy of it.
| terminous wrote:
| > Courts have ruled that merely executing an exe file is
| itself an act of copyright infringment, because the OS copies
| the contents into RAM
|
| You can't just drop an extraordinary claim like that without
| a citation. When I search those terms, your comment is the
| only one I can find that remotely resembles anything like the
| case you're describing.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Com
| p....
| vGPU wrote:
| 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 program
| in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no
| other manner, or
|
| (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival
| purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed
| in the event that continued possession of the computer
| program should cease to be rightful.
| uni_rule wrote:
| 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.
| gumby wrote:
| I think a lot of that has since gone away.
|
| I remember the battles around '2000 when the record industry
| tried to get paid for each instance when parts of the music
| files were buffered (because they were "copies"). They
| weren't laughed out of court. These days I think they would.
| [deleted]
| ghaff wrote:
| IANAL, but I've written a bit about copyright and had it
| reviewed by a very good IP lawyer. There was at one point
| some controversy about this point--especially in the
| context of computer software licensing. But, as I
| understand it, current case law allows copying where it's
| necessary to functionally make use of a copyrighted piece
| of work.
| wtallis wrote:
| > _But, as I understand it, current case law allows
| copying where it 's necessary to functionally make use of
| a copyrighted piece of work._
|
| Not just case law; it's explicit in statute too:
|
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117
|
| > _(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
| program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used
| in no other manner, or_
|
| > _(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival
| purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed
| in the event that continued possession of the computer
| program should cease to be rightful._
| cma wrote:
| How about skip protection in portable CD players? It loads
| bit ahead of time into a little buffer of RAM.
| [deleted]
| t0mas88 wrote:
| They can relocate that part to the Netherlands. Copying without
| public distribution is explicitly legal, and all storage media
| and smartphones carry a "tax" that's given to the rights
| holders to compensate them for this.
|
| For a long time downloading was legal (uploading wasn't), due
| to this. But it has changed sometime in the last decade. While
| the tax is still there and mandatory, so the copyright-
| lobbyists won on paper.
|
| In reality people are moving back from streaming to pirate
| sites and nothing is being done about it.
| bluelu wrote:
| You are completely mistaken
|
| That fee only covers general piracy. It does not give you the
| right to copy copyrighted works. In fact, european copyright
| is much stricter than US copyright. There is no fair use and
| european copyright (based on the napoleon code) forbids
| making a copy of copyrighted works except for a few
| exceptions specifically mentioned in the law (eg a browser
| displaying a webpage, etc...).
| tokai wrote:
| You are also completely mistaken. Making copies for
| personal use is legal in the Netherlands and (many/most?)
| EU countries.
|
| > You are permitted to make copies of other people's texts,
| music and photographs provided that they derive from a
| legal source. The copies must be for your own use. It is
| not permissible, however, to distribute or publish such
| copies.
|
| https://www.government.nl/topics/intellectual-
| property/quest...
| spookie wrote:
| I can account that the same is true in Portugal and
| Sweden
| t0mas88 wrote:
| It is called the "thuiskopieer heffing" which is literally
| the "home copy tax". Making a non commercial copy of a
| copyrighted work at home (not distribute it) is absolutely
| legal in the Netherlands.
|
| The fee is not about piracy at all, it's about legal home
| copies that are not distributed.
| lakomen wrote:
| The new copyright act, I don't know what all changed.
|
| All I can say is that analogue copies were permitted. You
| play it back analogue and record digitally.
|
| A youtube copyright claim one of my videos got, from where
| I filmed fireworks and there was music playing in the
| background, which was then auto-flagged by the machine, I
| responded with that video not being about the music and
| that I can't record fireworks without that music playing
| and that I had no influence over the person playing that
| music and that it was technically an analogue recording.
|
| The claim was dropped.
|
| That is however different from this case of the IA and Sony
| etc
| pessimizer wrote:
| 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, or destroyed."
|
| when the 2,749 recordings have been cherry-picked from
|
| > [...] more than 400,000 works [...]
|
| is pretty much an attack on their own claims that
|
| > [...] to retain, restore and redistribute content that they
| believe should never be lost to history [...is...] nothing but a
| "smokescreen" to hide what amounts to IA offering "free and
| unlimited access to music for everyone," regardless of copyright.
|
| Not to mention that the IA constantly looking for copyrighted
| works uploaded that are _not_ part of the "Great 78 Project" and
| reducing them to 30 second previews.
|
| Prevailing on this would be a good thing. IA needs a win, even
| though it doesn't need to be paying to defend itself against
| another lawsuit. This is obviously vexatious. They're not really
| concerned with 78s. They're hoping to bankrupt IA with legal
| expenses, and/or they think that they have the fix in at a
| particular venue that they think they can steer the case to.
| nikanj wrote:
| Oh no, not free and unlimited access to art! Anything but that!
| tux3 wrote:
| Think of the middlemen and distributors, they need to get
| paid, otherwise who will be making the music?
| lakomen wrote:
| Surely not those now dead people
| redwall_hp wrote:
| I like how they've even managed to shove the middleman
| bullshit into digital distribution, where there's
| practically no way to even justify it.
|
| You can't just upload music to Spotify or Apple Music or
| whatever as an independent artist. You need to pay rent to
| a distributor who is allowed to interact with the streaming
| service. (Some of them offer the convenient feature of
| administering royalties for cover songs, but it's an
| additional cost and not a given...) Most will probably
| never make enough royalties to cover the fees.
|
| Then you have the whole growing SubmitHub thing. (Pay for
| consideration on playlists to get exposure.)
| aquariusDue wrote:
| As an interesting side note almost 24 hours ago (roughly) I
| believe someone posted a thread on 4chan's /g/ urging people to
| back up the things they cared about on Internet Archieve warning
| about an upcoming takedown/court case, looks like they weren't
| fooling around.
| isykt wrote:
| 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.
| amelius wrote:
| Or run IA like SciHub.
| drewbug01 wrote:
| > "When Defendants exploit Plaintiffs' sound recordings without
| authorization, neither Plaintiffs nor their artists see a dime.
|
| All of the artists are dead.
|
| > Not only does this harm Plaintiffs and the artists or their
| heirs by depriving them of compensation,
|
| Hereditary wealth and continued rent-seeking is a very, very poor
| argument in favor of eternal copyright protection.
|
| > but it undermines the value of music," the complaint adds.
|
| Music has inherent value and worth that can never be quantified
| or monetized.
|
| Honestly, screw the record labels. We can argue about the
| technicalities of copyright law until the cows come home, but
| this suit is morally disgusting to me.
| tptacek wrote:
| I'm sure that whatever the labels are doing here is odious, and
| that there's no validity to the suit, but "all the artists are
| dead" isn't a valid argument. Artists receive, during their
| lifetimes, funds valued based on the duration of the label's
| rights to their work. Copyrights that terminated with the life
| of the author would drastically reduce the compensation authors
| got in their own lifetimes.
| echelon wrote:
| [flagged]
| api wrote:
| If AI destroys anyone it would be the artists, since labels
| with distribution networks could use it to create content
| without ever needing to pay anyone.
|
| The Internet should have taught us that if there is a portal
| the owner of that portal and the network effect around it has
| all the power.
|
| Look at Twitter. Half its users hate its new management and
| spend much of their time there complaining about it, but they
| are still using it. Why? Because people are still using it.
| prepend wrote:
| Copyright is no threat to artists as artists create for
| their own drive.
|
| Copyright will kill millionaire artists.
|
| Currently the system has poor artists and millionaire
| artists. The millionaire artists will be hosed. The poor
| artists are already poor so not much changes for them.
|
| Most music is produced by people at home and with friends
| chilling. Look at guitar center and all those stores. Lots
| of instruments sold. Same for art supplies.
|
| There are only a few thousand wealthy artists.
| Asooka wrote:
| Yes it should. Property is property. It is insane that some
| property somehow becomes unownable after an arbitrary length
| of time. If I own land, that land will go to my heirs or, if
| none exist, on auction. Then someone else will own it. It
| won't become permanently public and non-property.
| Intellectual property ought to work the same way. The great
| part is that we can create an infinite amount of intellectual
| property, so everybody has an equal opportunity to own as
| much as their fingers can write. Land is finite, art is
| infinite. If there were a lot of art available entirely for
| free, people would never pay for any new art and we will
| stagnate.
|
| I guess patents could be forcibly taken by the government and
| licenses minted for free, if the current holder is determined
| to be maliciously setting the price for licensing too high
| and holding back science.
| raincole wrote:
| > Property is property. It is insane that some property
| somehow becomes unownable after an arbitrary length of
| time. If I own land, that land will go to my heirs or, if
| none exist, on auction. Then someone else will own it.
|
| Yes and in almost every country properties like land are
| taxed by their values. If copyright lasts forever, it
| should be taxed by its value too (not by income!).
| beej71 wrote:
| I see no reason why the laws around IP need to be the same
| as the laws for real estate.
| spamizbad wrote:
| Oh labels love AI: they can train their catalogs and produce
| "new" works from dead artists. Contracts already have AI
| clauses which, if an artist isn't careful, gives the label
| rights to use their works to have AI produce new content
| under their name.
| isykt wrote:
| Copyright should be life of the authors full stop. My dad dug
| ditches for half his life but I don't get checks in the mail
| every time water flows through them.
| beej71 wrote:
| I think the publish date plus 20 years not to exceed the
| life of the author is plenty.
| blackoil wrote:
| Would you like this for all assets, basically banning
| inheritance. Govt will seize all property, savings,
| stocks etc on a person's death.
| beej71 wrote:
| No.
| adventured wrote:
| There are some significant edge cases that can plainly
| make that unfair.
|
| Let's say Kurt Cobain dies at 27 (or even younger)
| without an heir other than a very young daughter. ~95% of
| his earning capacity might be in the next 15 years,
| rather than the prior 5 years. The daughter might be cast
| into relying on charity while everybody else gets to
| freely commercially exploit his music after his death.
|
| ('the US social safety net needs reformed'; pre-empting
| those responses, because one is extraordinarily difficult
| to reform, the other isn't nearly so; that'd just be an
| excuse to hide behind)
|
| Ritchie Valens comes from a poor family, creates a
| gigantic hit, dies at 17. His family deserves nothing
| specifically, while everybody else gets to freely
| commercially exploit his young talent forever.
|
| A life of the author clause is inherently cruel. 20 years
| fixed, approaches that in a far more reasonable and fair
| manner. Families / heirs matter too. They often suffer,
| or otherwise carry a share of weight for the artist, so
| the artist can create, tour, publish, publicize, etc.
| Pretending otherwise is pure fantasy, it's life in an
| idealized vacuum.
| beej71 wrote:
| I agree that's a potential loss with a 20 year or life
| term, but I still argue this is a net gain for the world.
|
| Edit: I might be flexible on the life part. But not the
| 20.
| comprev wrote:
| That's because the contract he signed with his employers
| did not include an agreement where he continued to get paid
| for when water flowed through the ditches.
|
| Some artists will have a contract for a lump sum, others
| will have agreements for every time their record is played.
| isykt wrote:
| The contracts of adhesion that perpetuate society
| disproportionately valuing one form of labor over another
| do not validate the exploitation of one group of laborer
| over another.
| adventured wrote:
| Not all labor is created equal, nor should it be. It's
| not equal, it can never be equal.
|
| And there's nothing that can ever be done to change that,
| no matter how hard a state might try to force 'equal'
| distribution of unearned money.
|
| Society should value one form of labor different from
| another, it's good that it always has and always will.
|
| I've worked with plenty of very lazy bums that
| intentionally, knowingly do 1/3 of their job while other
| people have to work far harder because of them (or the
| business would fail and everybody loses). People like
| that are free riders, society should not be kind to them
| when they're repeatedly fired from jobs. All labor isn't
| equal, quite obviously, and treating it as though it is,
| is unfair to the vast majority.
| isykt wrote:
| If there are people working 3x as hard, why aren't they
| negotiating for 3x the pay? It would create an incentive
| for the business to fire the people only doing 1/3 the
| work, or else cut their pay by 2/3rds in accordance with
| the value of the labor.
|
| This does not happen because the workers involved don't
| have that kind of power. The power imbalance between the
| two parties is so vast that the laborers have no choice
| but to accept unfair terms.
| comprev wrote:
| Management do have a method to legally fire those only
| putting in 1/3rd of the necessary effort - Performance
| Improvement Plans.
| isykt wrote:
| The managers have that power, not the workers. That's the
| key.
| knorker wrote:
| Well, should be _capped_ by life of the author.
| echelon wrote:
| Copyright should be an annual fee that increases by year.
|
| Year zero through five: free
|
| Year six: $500
|
| Year seven: $1000
|
| Year eight: $2500
|
| Year nine: $5000
|
| Year ten: $10,000
|
| Year eleven: $25,000
|
| Year twelve: $50,000
|
| Year thirteen: $100,000
|
| Year fourteen: $250,000
|
| Year fifteen: $500,000
|
| Year sixteen: $1,000,000
|
| Year seventeen: $2,500,000
|
| Year eighteen: $5,000,000
|
| Year nineteen: $10,000,000
|
| Year twenty: $25,000,000
|
| ...
| remram wrote:
| Some things make more money than others. A uniform
| pricing means that Disney can afford to keep their work
| protected for decades while my non-monetized short
| stories/illustrations/blog posts will be protected for a
| year.
|
| How do you even price that per item? Do I pay once for
| the blog? Once per post?
| ghaff wrote:
| Big publishers would love that sort of scheme. It puts
| copyright out of reach of basically everyone else.
| echelon wrote:
| Maybe my scale is wrong, maybe it's not.
|
| In the above case, big media couldn't afford to drag
| everything along forever. If every music track over 20
| years old cost $25M per year to renew, they'd let tons of
| it expire into the public domain.
|
| This kind of increasing scale renewal fee forces them to
| make more impactful works that are worth paying for. If
| they're truly valued by society, they'll pay the tax to
| keep them for longer.
|
| It forces _everyone_ to keep creating, which is good for
| employment and the economy. You shouldn 't stop your
| output.
|
| There's probably some optimal scale that incentivizes
| everyone to make more, and more of the content to be
| excellent.
| codazoda wrote:
| What about software?
|
| I was thinking about this last night. Should I use a
| license agreement that gives my proprietary software to the
| public domain when I die? What about my open source
| software that I can no longer maintain? In my case, the
| software is probably not popular enough to continue without
| me. Should it keep a GPL license or be converted to MIT or
| to public domain?
|
| What if I do have a hit someday and it provides income to
| me? My family might rely on that income, at least for a
| time, if I die early. I'd love to give a business to my
| kids and them to their kids.
|
| Anyway, just rambling. I agree that copyright is probably
| too long.
| beej71 wrote:
| I have an unwritten dying wish to grant all my writing to
| the public domain when I pass away, but still need to
| figure out where to cram that in the will and need to set
| it up with someone to update the licenses and copyright
| notices for me.
| hakfoo wrote:
| I was always sort of surprised nobody invented a clear
| declaration for that sort of thing-- a pre-packaged,
| battle-tested paragraph you could put in your will that
| says "On my death, all my copyrights immediately revert
| to the public domain."
|
| Market it in a cute way, like "content donor" analogous
| to the "organ donor" tickoff on the driver's license
| form.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Author's life is too long. Surely, 20 years is far
| sufficient to incentivize creating media, although I would
| err on the side of 10 years.
|
| The copyright term is automatically too long if my anyone
| who would benefit from it entering the public domain is
| dead.
| version_five wrote:
| I think (but could be convinced otherwise) that the term
| is less important than the restrictions. More liberal
| definitions of fair use, for example, or clarity on when
| something is a copy or a derivative (like with people
| getting sued for vaguely similar songs) would be better.
| The work is always the authors, I'm less concerned about
| them retaining some kind of claim on it, especially if
| they're still actively using it, as long as there's
| sensible limitations on what rights they can block for
| others.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I think that makes the situation more complex than needs
| be by opening people up to more legal liability than
| necessary.
|
| As far as society is concerned, society's resources
| (police, courts, etc) should only be given up to the
| point that the incentive to create works of art exists.
|
| At zero copyright length, we can say artists (and media
| creating/owning businesses) have less than a desirable
| amount of incentive to create (from society's
| perspective).
|
| At 100 years, we can easily say there is too much
| incentive to seek rent and rest on one's laurels.
|
| The most expensive works of art covered by copyright
| right now are big budget Hollywood movies and tv shows.
| If these businesses would continue to make them with a 20
| year copyright term, then 20 years should be the max. And
| I might even say they would continue to make them with a
| 10 year term.
| OfSanguineFire wrote:
| I would be satisfied with 20 years for commercial use of
| recordings, zero years - or simply no actual enforcement
| of copyright - for personal filesharing. Filesharers
| deeply passionate about music are likely to collect a
| larger library of recordings than they could ever afford
| to purchase, especially if they come from a relatively
| poor country. (No, streaming services like Spotify don't
| do it. As far as I'm concerned, if it's not a FLAC
| securely preserved on my hard drive and backups, it
| doesn't really exist.)
| hakfoo wrote:
| I think we need to completely revisit the ownership model
| here. Kill copyright entirely. (I would vote for anyone--
| up to and including Mike Pence-- who made this a major
| plank of their campaign)
|
| We have at least one corner of the universe where we've
| defeated scarcity. We can't run out of music. Hell, we
| can't even run out of a specific recorded performance, if
| even the most trivial efforts of due-diligence backups
| are performed. We should be proud-- we're at least one
| step on the way towards Star Trek replicators and
| universal abundance.
|
| But the current system is so tied to the idea of
| "markets" and "ownership" that only really make sense for
| scarce physical goods, that we ended up having to force
| everyone, under threat of law, to treat a limitless
| resource that's part of our shared cultural experience,
| like a rare physical widget that must be owned, sliced
| up, and sold under restrictive covenant.
|
| We should be taking all the money going into the content
| business-- all the funds being spent on the production of
| movies, music, novels, art, potentially even software--
| and use it to bankroll an enormous centralized endowment
| for the creative community.
|
| This immediately silences all "but how will artists eat?"
| strawmen. Even if you're not a live-show performer or
| merchandising expert, you get paid by the endowment on a
| predictable stipend basis, rather than having to hope you
| can effectively monetize a package of "rights" while
| dealing with an industry full of middlemen out to rip you
| off.
|
| This would ensure that many, many more artists can live
| their passion-- how many great but unknown bands could
| spend their lives touring, if we took the money that
| bankrolled Taylor Swift's tour and sliced it up into
| 50k-per-person-per-year grants? How many sculptors could
| we keep on the books for the price of one Anish Kapoor?
| It would also be interesting to compare efficiency of
| funds delivery-- replacing a bunch of for-profit
| publishers with a single cooperative or state-run entity
| probably results in more dollars actually reaching
| artists overall.
|
| It also avoids the perverse incentives on the other
| side-- if you make one world-breaking hit, you can't ride
| it forever. Just because you sung White Christmas once
| doesn't mean you get out of ever having to work again. If
| we eliminate the opportunity to slice and subdivide
| "rights" to a work, then there's no incentive to hold
| back maximum utilization of it. Imagine the improved
| utility of modern content services if they can get legal
| access to _all the things_ -- Netflix and Hulu would have
| to compete on the best infrastructure, UI and tooling,
| rather than "only we have Futurama".
| bigodbiel wrote:
| Like the idea, but tangible arts like paintings or live
| tours are scarce, unlike digital media. So for these
| money should be going directly to the organizer (artist,
| sculpture, troupe, etc). For non-tangible mediums, an
| endowment would make sense (despite the bickering). I can
| see an incentive for artists to then produce tangible
| arts for the monetary rewards, but also our industry
| already is filled with negative incentives and bickering.
| Something new would be nice.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Music and other media _are not fungible_. I think this is
| a worm in the apple that dooms many market based
| arguments. However your idea of a creative endowment is
| intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
| nick-of-time wrote:
| I go in slightly different directions on both of your
| proposals. I think _intellectual property in general_
| should be eliminated, though I think copyright is a good
| olace to start. As for the artistic endowment, I think
| that the task of deciding _what counts as an artistic
| endeavor_ is an intractable problem and that universal
| basic income is much more simple and equitable.
| version_five wrote:
| Some VC will come up with a "drainage as a service" or
| "uber for drainage" model that lets them extract more value
| from ditches.
| TheAceOfHearts wrote:
| I know this is meant as a joke, but any sufficiently
| advanced drainage system already includes contracts and
| provisions for cleaning and maintenance. Drainage at-
| scale is actually a very challenging engineering problem.
|
| @PracticalEngineeringChannel on YouTube has plenty of
| videos on engineering drainage systems.
| charcircuit wrote:
| Were the pipes that were installed leased to the city? An
| artist could choose to release a song as public domain
| after being paid to make it and people would use it without
| paying them.
| Wistar wrote:
| Although, that'd be cool.
| dumpsterlid wrote:
| [dead]
| staplers wrote:
| The movie and music business sure spends a lot of money fighting
| piracy. This fruitless endeavor draws a lot of parallels with the
| war on drugs.
| naasking wrote:
| > The movie and music business sure spends a lot of money
| fighting piracy.
|
| If they spent it on providing a no-bullshit, reasonably priced
| platform that provides access to their whole catalog, then they
| would be making a lot more money than they would from lawsuits,
| and piracy would be virtually non-existent.
| wredue wrote:
| Most people pirate to get stuff for free. If everything was
| cheaply, easily available, piracy would exist at similar
| numbers.
|
| Now, I do agree that "one pirate number doesn't necessarily
| equate to one lost sale". But that's not what you're arguing.
|
| Pirates have been saying this for decades, and yet despite
| content being easier than ever, with pricing falling faster
| than ever (non-streaming services), piracy is as healthy as
| ever. If what you were saying is true, you'd expect piracy to
| have fallen as different people's barriers for "cheap and
| easy" were broken through, but that's not what's observed.
| naasking wrote:
| > If everything was cheaply, easily available, piracy would
| exist at similar numbers.
|
| This contradicts all the research that shows that piracy
| went down when cheap, easy and reliable music services were
| available that let you access content how you want, eg.
| time shifted, different devices, not region restricted,
| etc. And piracy went up when they tried to lock that stuff
| down again.
|
| Piracy will never fall to zero, but it's not worth fighting
| below a certain point.
| OfSanguineFire wrote:
| > Most people pirate to get stuff for free. If everything
| was cheaply, easily available, piracy would exist at
| similar numbers.
|
| As the other poster mentioned, the music piracy scene today
| is a shadow of its old self. There has never again been a
| private tracker as vast and ambitious as what.cd. Seed
| numbers are down on lots of remaining trackers. I logged
| into Soulseek recently (which used to be the obsessive
| music anorak's filesharing network) and I can't find all
| kinds of things that were widely shared a decade ago.
|
| A lot of this is due to the rise of Spotify as a more
| convenient means of listening. It is also due to so many
| young people today using their phone as their sole device,
| which is not very suitable for torrenting and other types
| of filesharing.
| wredue wrote:
| It's actually because torrenting is harder than
| downloading YouTube audio streams.
|
| People want shit for free.
|
| The number of people that openly state that they pirate
| music has contracted a little bit, but it's nowhere near
| "non-existent".
| OfSanguineFire wrote:
| If downloading YouTube audio streams is what music piracy
| has become today, then I stand by my dismal remarks.
| YouTube audio is recompressed, even the highest-quality
| YT from yt-dlp --bestaudio is not up to the standards of
| yore, and you miss out on things like album-art scans.
| ghaff wrote:
| I do think a lot of people stream music who would otherwise
| pirate in various ways. But I don't really disagree with
| your basic argument. There's a never-ending stream of
| rationales for not paying for things.
| absrec wrote:
| Music piracy is almost non-existent post spotify. Streaming
| service fragmentation and geolocking has resulted in more
| video piracy but it still is less compared to what it was.
| wredue wrote:
| Did you actually look that up, or are you just believing
| it cause piracy forums say it? Cause I did just look it
| up, and you're not correct.
|
| The ways that music piracy occurs has changed, for sure.
| callalex wrote:
| If you had actually looked it up you would have cited
| sources.
| wredue wrote:
| You made the claim, so the burden of proof is on you,
| nevertheless:
|
| https://www.statista.com/chart/amp/15764/prevalence-of-
| music...
|
| One thing I did find is that, for some reason, Covid saw
| a drop in music piracy. That has nothing to do with the
| claim that "since Spotify released (2011), music piracy
| is non existent", though. I didn't bother to read on idea
| of why that occurred.
| ghaff wrote:
| An analyst I know once argued pretty strongly that
| Napster became popular not because it was free but
| because it was more convenient than going to the record
| store and buying a CD. I disagreed fairly strongly at the
| time. But today? Times are quite different of course but
| widespread streaming music with a near-universal (at
| least mainstream) catalog suggests that a ton of people
| are fine with paying $15/month to not bother seeking out
| content through torrents.
|
| While the situation is obviously messier with video, it's
| also the case that many of us don't feel a burning need
| to watch most specific content and are fine with having
| access to enough stuff we want to watch without hassle.
| giantrobot wrote:
| > An analyst I know once argued pretty strongly that
| Napster became popular not because it was free but
| because it was more convenient than going to the record
| store and buying a CD.
|
| Some context for the younger HN audience: a CD used to
| cost $15-20 new and almost no artist in the US sold
| singles. If you wanted a song you heard on the radio you
| needed to go to one or more record stores to find the CD
| and pay your $15. Rarely did you get to sample anything
| on the CD at the store. So you'd get home only to realize
| you essentially paid $15 for one stupid song. Hopefully
| you liked half the songs on the album so you were maybe
| paying $3 per song you liked. Ripping that CD to MP3 was
| also more time invested.
|
| Even over a 28.8k dial-up downloading the same song of
| Napster would only take about twenty minutes.
|
| As the various online music stores showed, money wasn't
| the main issue with Napster et al. People were fine
| paying for music so long as it was convenient. By the
| early 00s buying CDs was far from convenient for how
| people actually wanted to listen to music. Music
| streaming is just the latest convenience since everyone
| has an Internet connected device in their pocket and
| their "library" is just every song in the service's
| catalog.
| ghaff wrote:
| >Music streaming is just the latest convenience since
| everyone has an Internet connected device in their pocket
| and their "library" is just every song in the service's
| catalog.
|
| Yeah, mobile probably played a role as well. Even if you
| _have_ a few TB of music reasonably cataloged on a USB
| drive at home, that doesn 't do you a huge amount of good
| when you're somewhere where you only have access to your
| phone or want to have a listen to some newly-released
| album.
|
| We're also in a situation where if you know someone with
| vaguely similar music tastes, they could clone that few
| TB in less than an hour but I honestly don't know how
| much even that goes on these days. My sense is that most
| people aren't interested in spending much time to catalog
| their media.
| OfSanguineFire wrote:
| > Even if you have a few TB of music reasonably cataloged
| on a USB drive at home
|
| I have been pirating artists' entire discographies across
| multiple genres, 200 CD box sets, etc. for 20 years now,
| but I still have barely scratched 1TB -- and that's even
| with my collection consisting entirely of FLACs, some of
| which are large 96/24 files or 5.1 surround-sound files.
| Audio alone just doesn't take up much space. I don't
| think obsessive fans are going to get into a "few TB"
| unless they are collecting for the sake of collecting,
| not just building their own personal collection to listen
| to. And a 1TB collection actually does fit now on your
| phone thanks to Sandisk offering a 1TB SD card.
|
| For films, sure, one is definitely looking at more than
| "a few TB". I have a collection of about 600 films, all
| of which are DVD images or Blu-ray remuxes, and that
| already amounts to 6TB. With the availability of 4K
| remuxes that can be up to 100GB each, demands on storage
| will only grow.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| Yes and no. Making music ubiquitous has been great for
| stomping out piracy but terrible for revenues. This isn't
| just a problem of underpricing. In the movies and TV space,
| all the studios found out that exclusive licensing makes more
| money because you can drag viewers from one subscription
| service to another. At the most extreme you have shit like
| the Disney Vault, which works because some creative work is
| worth more dead than alive.
|
| If you were correct we would have stuck with everything being
| on Netflix and Spotify for $10/mo each because it keeps
| piracy rates down. In practice, while piracy rates have gone
| back up, they don't hurt the bottom lines of publishers as
| much as they've claimed[0], at least relative to how much
| they make from people buying multiple subscriptions. But the
| law allows them to continue crying crocodile tears about how
| much money they're losing from old sound recordings being on
| an archive site.
|
| [0] In other words, one pirate copy is not one lost sale
| naasking wrote:
| > In the movies and TV space, all the studios found out
| that exclusive licensing makes more money because you can
| drag viewers from one subscription service to another.
|
| That's exactly the kind of shit that drives people to
| piracy. Then they try to recoup their falling revenue with
| litigation. It's stupid.
|
| I also don't believe streaming has been that bad for
| revenue. The financial shenanigans they go through to avoid
| paying artists, writers and more are insane. It's part of
| the whole impetus behind the current strikes.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| Their wealth managers must be tearing their hair out in
| frustration. If they instead invested all the money, they could
| easily weather the coming AI-induced collapse of their
| industry.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > This fruitless endeavor draws a lot of parallels with the war
| on drugs.
|
| Neither were fruitless. The RIAA keeps the price of culture
| high, and the war on drugs kept the price of drugs high.
| vaylian wrote:
| What is the best way to let these greedy bastards know that we
| disagree with their conduct? Not buying records will only lead to
| them wrongfully claiming that they "lost revenue due to piracy".
| isykt wrote:
| A brick through a window used to be a common way to make a
| message known.
| lakomen wrote:
| They have so many windows nowadays though ;) in too many
| cities
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| How? Set up your own record label and implement your wish list
| of better terms. If you're reading hacker news, there's a good
| chance you can do most of the coding for free/stock/spec. Then
| you can be like totally cool about piracy and drink all of the
| kool aid about how piracy is just a different form of
| promotion.
|
| My guess is that you'll come to the same conclusion as me:
| piracy destroys marketplaces. It forces the honest people to
| subsidize the free riders. If it were about something like
| food, I can understand a Jean-Val-Jean argument, but can anyone
| say with a straight face that they're stealing these fresh cuts
| just so their baby can listen to ccool music?
|
| I think you'll also come to a grudging recognition of just how
| expensive it can be to market music. I've always thought the
| percentages demanded by record companies were outrageous, but
| when I tried to duplicate their services on my own I quickly
| learned where the money goes.
|
| The IA is on a crash course to destroy the livlihood of
| artists, writers and other content creators. Don't ask me why.
| It doesn't make sense. They provide a nice service for society
| but now they're out on some crusade.
| hirako2000 wrote:
| A couple of fallacies in there.
|
| Distributors have
|
| - bended creative work property laws/precedents to maximise
| profits.
|
| - Been using marketing as barrier of entry.
|
| - many times used anti competitive practices.
|
| Paying consumers are not subsidising free riders. Given zero
| or an infinity of pirates the ticket price would not change.
| An effective anti piracy solution doesn't imply pirates would
| convert into paying consumers, some would of course, and
| ticket prices would most likely increase rather than
| decrease. Dubious parallel and nobody is forced. Taxes are
| forced subsidies. Aside those that's business models and
| market response.
| isykt wrote:
| > how expensive it can be to market music.
|
| Did you write this comment in 2001? The cost to produce and
| promote music has dropped to near zero. SoundCloud rappers
| have become millionaires. Billie Eilesh recorded her first
| album in her bedroom.
| raincole wrote:
| Recording album is not marketing.
|
| If you think there is no marketing and PR people behinds
| those "grassroots superstars", you're utterly naive.
| sidlls wrote:
| 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 hundred there for gig promotion...over time
| that turns into tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.
| For one artist. To even get a tiny start that may not lead
| anywhere.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Almost every business out there has costs associated with
| it.
| GhostWhisperer wrote:
| i grew up downloading everything from music to games, and
| windows xp, anything i could get my hands on
|
| these days i do pay for everything, music(spotify),
| movies(netflix, apple tv), games(steam, gog, itch.io,
| playstation), to software(app store, gh sponsor,
| opencollective) - i still pirate though; if netflix has an
| anime but happens to be dubbed on the wrong language, i'll
| hit the high seas and get me a copy dubbed in english, no
| regrets
| BoxFour wrote:
| > The IA is on a crash course to destroy the livlihood of
| artists, writers and other content creators
|
| Every single artist mentioned by name here has long since
| passed away, and in some cases even their children have
| passed away.
| iforgotpassword wrote:
| There's more between "being cool with piracy" and "thinking
| copyright should hold indefinitely". This is about 78rpm
| records ffs. All the artists are probably dead by now.
| redwall_hp wrote:
| The artists were probably paid a one-off $50 to come into
| the studio and record, and the rentiers have profited off
| them ever since.
| satao wrote:
| Stop voting in capitalistic assholes who value intelectual and
| property rights over everything else.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| The only way to start on this path is to support ranked
| choice voting.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Then we'll be free of copyright like Australia must be.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Start on this path <> guaranteed to achieve the desired
| results in X years, especially when Australia is not a
| big player on the global scene.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Australia has ranked choice voting and it has not
| resulted in Australia making better decisions. I'd argue
| that in muddling the level of preference between options
| by overquantizing things, it biases elections towards the
| status quo and a complete lack of change, and motivates
| the two main parties to minimize (or eliminate) their
| differences.
|
| It can be better to pick the one you like most rather
| than to sort a bunch of candidates, some of which will be
| inauthentic and strategic, evenly along a continuum. In a
| field of nine, that transforms the number one candidate
| from being _preferred_ over the number nine candidate to
| being _nine times better than the number one candidate_.
|
| I think there's a reason that Australia requires that you
| rank _all_ choices. If you don 't, it spoils your vote.
| If you intentionally spoil your vote, that's actually a
| crime in Australia (don't listen to people who tell you
| that the least Australia requires is that you turn in a
| blank ballot; Australia disagrees.) You're not even
| allowed to ask people not to rank certain candidates. It
| is a jailable offense:
|
| > In 1986 Albert Langer wrote a conference paper entitled
| Don't Vote, examining possible electoral strategy for the
| left, aiming to bring down the Labor government and to
| target ALP candidates in marginal seats. In 1987 and 1990
| there were instances where Victorian voters were urged to
| take advantage of section 270 of the Commonwealth
| Electoral Act and give less preferred parties equal last
| preferences (now known as a Langer vote), so as not to
| express a choice for either major party.
|
| > As a result of his imprisonment, Amnesty International
| declared him the first Australian prisoner of conscience
| for over 20 years.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Langer
|
| Ranked choice (and obligatory) voting inflates the
| support for status quo parties. It's also a way to make
| that pesky 40% who don't vote because they hate both
| parties disappear.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Thanks for the interesting context. I will have to read
| further on mandatory voting or mandatory ranking of all
| candidates, but as it is, first past the post in the USA
| always leads to voting for the lesser evil.
|
| I never get to vote for the person representing the
| policies I want, but rather voting against the handful of
| policies I do not want.
| defrost wrote:
| > If you intentionally spoil your vote, that's actually a
| crime in Australia
|
| Incorrect.
|
| Spoilt votes are legal and non criminal - spoil your own
| vote as much as you like.
|
| > Albert Langer
|
| wasn't convicted of spoiling his vote.
|
| He advocated everybody spoil their votes, and handed out
| "how to not vote" flyers
|
| He was asked not to, there was a court case, an appeal,
| an injunction against Langer, a deliberate violation of
| that injunction, an arrest for violating that injunction,
| a sentence, that sentence halved, a review of the law
| created to mess with Langer, and then that law was tossed
| out.
|
| So ..
|
| _Never_ a crime to spoil a vote in Australia.
|
| _Briefly_ "illegal" to advocate others do so (during one
| election).
|
| That's no longer the case.
|
| > I think there's a reason that Australia requires that
| you rank all choices.
|
| _Only_ in the House of Representatives - where you order
| a small number of choices to choose a candidate to
| represent your local district.
|
| https://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/How_to_Vote/Voting_HOR.htm
|
| _Senate_ votes (the other House) only require to rank
| six parties (out of a field of potentially many) OR rank
| 12 individuals (out of potentially many more)
|
| https://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/How_to_Vote/Voting_Senate.h
| tm
|
| You really don't appear to know much about the Australian
| Electoral system.
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| In a true free market, there won't be govt enforcement of IP.
| raincole wrote:
| In a true free market we'll be hiring militias to protect
| our properties. Or more likely, be hired as one.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| Unfortunately you can't vote None of the Above :/
|
| Support among the US political class for copyright and patent
| law runs so deep that the main argument for untangling our
| economy from China's is not "they undercut US labor" or "they
| manipulate their currency" but "they steal our IP". An
| interesting choice of words, because that's an exclusive
| 'we'[0]. US voters have little need for copyrights and
| patents beyond ensuring that creative works get made. But the
| US political class is utterly dependent on their continued
| existence.
|
| BTW, this even extends to Trumpism. Trump was very vocal
| about China stealing "our IP." The US economy is structured
| such that you cannot become rich without owning copyrights,
| patents, oil fields, or real estate. Everything else will be
| thrown into the abyss of partial post-scarcity.
|
| [0] In some languages (not English) there's an inclusive 'we'
| and an exclusive 'we'. The latter would be used with the same
| implication as, say, " _We 've_ won the lottery - except for
| you."
| sidlls wrote:
| I'm not sure if you meant "you cannot become rich without
| owning copyrights, patents, oil fields, or real estate"
| literally or not, but it's not really true in any case.
| There are plenty of people (doctors, dentists, lawyers,
| software engineers, small business owners) who become
| wealthy without owning any of those things. Not as wealthy
| as those who do, perhaps, but wealthy nonetheless. I'm one
| of them--a lucky IPO that occurred a few years after I
| started working at my current employer turned me from an
| indebted paycheck-to-paycheck engineer into someone who
| could retire tomorrow and still live a decent middle-class
| lifestyle on my investments. I didn't own real estate until
| I after I got rich.
| jachee wrote:
| You benefitted from that IPO likely because you owned
| (shares of) profitable IP which, given the company went
| public, were likely protected by copyright and/or
| patents.
| dano wrote:
| The answer is not palatable because it will take forever:
| contact your representatives in the federal government and
| lobby for copyright reform. IA might be luck they were not sued
| for more. I believe the MP3.com lawsuit is relevant reading htt
| ps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMG_Recordings,_Inc._v._MP3.co....
| Andrex wrote:
| Man, that's just a bad precedent. Space shifting should still
| apply to the internet and digital files.
| echelon wrote:
| Build AI music tools. Make it easy for the next generation of
| artists and create a Cambrian explosion of new music to wash
| out the old, copyright encumbered works.
| jacquesm wrote:
| New _crappy_ music.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Ransomware with no key provided from a jurisdiction that won't
| extradite if discussing threat modeling around generic org
| weaknesses. Everyone is vulnerable to a sufficiently resourced
| attack, one simply needs to understand their adversary's
| defense budget (incident response arrangement, cyber insurance
| limits) and attack surface.
|
| Educational purposes only, not legal advice, don't do this.
| sschueller wrote:
| So DRM...
| karaterobot wrote:
| Don't let that stop you. They'll always have complaints.
| feedsmgmt wrote:
| Time to boycott the labels participating in this lawsuit.
| hunters_laptop wrote:
| internet archive should move their server/business to china or
| russia so these greedy companies more hard to touch them
| hilbert42 wrote:
| This isn't a new concept. Those of us who are old enough will
| remember the UK pirate radio station Radio Caroline. It was a
| ship in international waters broadcasting into areas that
| required a broadcasting license. It was so effective that it
| eventually changed the whole broadcasting environment:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Caroline
| izzydata wrote:
| We need servers in space. I wonder if the latency would be good
| or bad.
| williamtrask wrote:
| ...huh... there's an idea
|
| Would just routing the data via starlink be good enough? (if
| you could hide the original location)
| consumer451 wrote:
| Would they allow permanently archiving content which is
| censored by their own regimes?
| pessimizer wrote:
| Their own _governments._
| qingcharles wrote:
| Can anyone find anywhere on the IA where they explain the process
| they are using to archive these 78s?
|
| They have a brief link to Audacity if you want to do it yourself,
| but no-one do they explain their process for doing it themselves.
| Very opaque :(
| ShadowBanThis01 wrote:
| I would get a 78-optimized needle for my turntable, set it for
| 45 RPM (since it doesn't have 78), and capture it through a
| high-quality ADC. Then I'd speed it up in post. I've done this.
|
| I imagine that contributors use different methods. Old record
| players used thorn needles (as in plant thorns). A purist might
| do that and record from the player's horn with a mic.
|
| One annoyance I encountered in capturing old mono content is
| the lack of a filter in the audio software I've used that would
| keep only the mono content of a stereo recording. A lot of the
| crackles on a mono record are in stereo, being on only one side
| of a groove.
| slenk wrote:
| Yo ho yo ho a pirate's life for me.
|
| This does not make me want to support record labels
| livinginfear wrote:
| I've donated multiple times to IA. I can't live without the
| Wayback Machine. I have a question about the Wayback Machine that
| someone here might know the answer to: Sometimes a website may be
| imaged 10 times across the years, but hasn't changed since the
| first time it was crawled. Is there some system in place to avoid
| storing the redundant, duplicate data?
| westcort wrote:
| Enjoy them while they last by streaming them here:
| https://www.locserendipity.com/PushPlay.html
|
| And LPs here: https://locserendipity.com/LP.html
|
| (And donate to IA)
| jtode wrote:
| Is there a distributed archive project to save the content? I
| could donate a few TB of redundancy.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| You should not be concerned.
| rovr138 wrote:
| explain?
| [deleted]
| jtode wrote:
| I'm also quite interested in the source of their peace of
| mind.
|
| It might be that they're already involved in that project
| and it's flush with space and distribution; the message
| here might just be "we got this".
|
| Or it might be "don't worry, corporate feudalism is great."
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Thoughts and opinions my own. No affiliation with the
| Internet Archive.
|
| It is my belief that libraries and repositories of
| culture must (not may or shall, must) be built in a
| manner where they can't be burned. They require durable,
| persistent, fault and human tolerant foundational systems
| (technology and otherwise) that exhibit the features of a
| Ulysses Pact, protecting the future from the present;
| from greed, from savagery, from disaster, from
| deterioration (regardless of source). I hope this
| clarifies my position on the topic.
| whycome wrote:
| Whenever we hit upon copyright battles in the USA, I'm reminded
| that the national anthem steals its tune from a well established
| English drinking song. A drinking song -- basically understood
| that it "belongs to everyone and is shared for when we
| collectively drink and be merry together".
| pixelatedindex wrote:
| I had no idea! Would you be able to shed light on the name of
| the song?
| p1mrx wrote:
| To Anacreon in Heaven:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eg7z0-6Nhc
| whycome wrote:
| Wiki
|
| > Although it is often described as a "drinking song",
| Lichtenwanger states that "To Anacreon in Heaven" "was not a
| barroom ballad, a drinking ditty to be chorused with glasses
| swung in rhythm", but "convivial, ... in a special and
| stately way".
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anacreontic_Song
|
| So the "drinking song" description is challenged. But
| still...
|
| Either way, the anthem is a remix. (From times when that was
| a part of extending our culture...)
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrafactum
| ApolloFortyNine wrote:
| So the internet archive is knowing distributing media still under
| copyright?
|
| Is this not a slam dunk win for the record labels? Sounds like
| the internet archive officially made recordings available for
| download.
| kevinmchugh wrote:
| They were flaunting copyright laws with books even more
| egregiously and lost that suit. I think the IA is a deeply
| important project and wish they'd stop picking these fights.
| ghaff wrote:
| The Internet Archive (including the Wayback Machine) basically
| exists in a legal Gray area (to be generous) that has mostly
| depended on not doing things (or undoing things) that caught
| someone's attention who was willing to actually take some
| action about it. For the most part, the IA doesn't have any
| more special status than you or I if we were to mirror
| someone's website or create a comic strip museum.
|
| A lot of what they make available arguably _shouldn 't_ be
| protected by copyright under a rational copyright regime but
| that's an argument to make to Congress rather than saying the
| IA can do whatever feels justified to them. (Which can cut both
| ways once you say the law is whatever you personally think is
| fair.)
| kirksan wrote:
| The IA has been skating on thin ice for a long time. They've
| archived a ton of content I generated over the years, most of
| it copyrighted. In my case I don't care, I actually
| appreciate it since I didn't keep archives as well as I
| should and occasionally use IA to find my own stuff. Also, my
| content is worth approximately 25C/. Others are not so
| forgiving.
|
| What we really need are updated copyright laws that allow for
| research and preservation. However, people have been calling
| for updated laws for decades, but powerful copyright holders
| have stood in the way, so don't hold your breath.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| >In my case I don't care
|
| If you did, you could DMCA claim it. They'd still archive
| the stuff, but it wouldn't be publicly available until
| whenever it'd fall into the public domain. That part of the
| system seems to work fairly well, except the century it
| would take for it to fall into public domain.
| ghaff wrote:
| You probably don't even need to make a DMCA claim.
| Probably just ask them to take it down. That's pretty
| much how the IA has operated in general. Mostly just act
| as if most people don't care (which they don't) and, for
| most other cases, take any requested actions because it's
| easier for both sides than a lawsuit.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| The important part of the DMCA claim is that you state
| under threat of perjury that you either own the copyright
| or are a representative of whomever owns the copyright.
| That's why they'd probably want a DMCA claim or some
| other verification you owned the copyright on what you
| want taken down.
| bscphil wrote:
| 100% agree with this. The biggest issue seems to be that
| they make no _visible_ effort to find and disable user-
| uploaded copyright content, so it 's effectively a free-
| for-all file sharing site. A lot of the cases are
| especially egregious because the uploading user will give
| the content an invalid "license" like CC0 that they have no
| right to apply.
|
| I picked three random pieces of recent copyright content
| (Adobe Lightroom, the video game Hollow Knight, the Taylor
| Swift album "Folklore"), and I found _all_ of them easily
| and trivially on the Internet Archive. In fact I found
| hacked versions of the entire Adobe CC suite. The IA is at
| least as complete a source for pirated content as most
| public bittorrent trackers.
|
| Officially, of course, the Internet Archive is subject to
| DMCA safe harbor protections. This is user uploaded
| content, and so long as IA responds quickly to takedown
| notices, they're in the clear. But this story represents
| the situation _de jure,_ not _de facto_. Ever since Viacom
| v. YouTube, it 's been abundantly clear that even the
| biggest online platforms can't use this excuse in practice
| when sharing of copyright IP becomes rampant. YouTube put
| in the first version of their much maligned "Content ID"
| system the year after the Viacom lawsuit, and the parties
| settled out of court after YouTube lost at the circuit
| court level. [1]
|
| I don't believe that the Internet Archive, as a much
| smaller entity, is likely to see a significantly different
| outcome - that is, unless the lawsuits manage to bankrupt
| them entirely. This would suggest they need to be much more
| proactive about removing or disabling access to copyright
| content on the platform.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc.
| _v._Y....
| ghastmaster wrote:
| This really scares me. The wayback machine is a treasure. I don't
| know what will happen to it if these cases succeed.
| Cypher wrote:
| we'll lose it like the great library of alexander
| ta988 wrote:
| The great library was lost by abandon not fire. That's a
| really strongly held belief that's hard to debunk
| unfortunately.
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| I think you mean Alexandria.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| There were actually two libraries. Alexandria was the
| better known of the two, so it always drowns out the search
| results, but the Library of Alexander has a long and
| storied history. https://www.alexander.lib.ia.us/
|
| Still a shadow of its former self though.
| xtracto wrote:
| Or like gigapedia :
| https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2012/3/1/the-
| disappearing...
|
| Few people remember that. But losing it was such a shame.
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| 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.
| HenryBemis wrote:
| Imagine a mixture of 1984: Who controls the past, controls the
| future: who controls the present controls the past.
|
| On the specifics of the lawsuit.. well if the law us bad, then
| change the law. But not following the law is not nice.
| rvba wrote:
| Tbh that's how cliques on wikipedia work.
|
| There are cases when 2 admins "guard" an article and no user
| can change them. Worst is that wikimedia foundation takes
| tens of millions and doesnt even bother to spend anything to
| defend wikipedia from that.
| jancsika wrote:
| > On the specifics of the lawsuit.. well if the law us bad,
| then change the law.
|
| The March on Selma and Greensboro Lunch Counter Sit-ins agree
| with you.
|
| > But not following the law is not nice.
|
| The March on Selma and Greensboro Lunch Counter Sit-ins
| disagree with you.
| praptak wrote:
| In principle, not following an unjust law is a moral
| obligation. Yes, you can argue the edge cases. I also agree
| that there's some good in obeying a particular law even if it
| is _a little_ bad (to uphold respect for law in general).
|
| This doesn't refute the general principle though - unjust
| laws should be broken. Historically enough repulsive stuff
| was mandated by law.
| j0057 wrote:
| > The complaint states that when the 78rpm records were converted
| into digital files, IA reproduced copyrighted recordings without
| permission. When IA copied those files to a server, that amounted
| to another unauthorized reproduction, and when it transferred
| those copies to the public, yet another.
|
| That first step, making a digital copy of a copyrighted work, is
| not illegal to my knowledge of at least Dutch copyright law --
| you're allowed to make a copy "for your own studies", although
| it's not allowed to then give this copy away, or in general to
| make the copy for somebody else.
|
| I also thought that copyright lasts for 70 years, so that all
| pre-1953 work is in the public domain, or did Disney succeed in
| extending this period?
| nukeman wrote:
| It's 70 years after the death of the author. So if Andy Weir
| died tomorrow, The Martian wouldn't enter the public domain
| until 2093.
| qingcharles wrote:
| Copyright in music is a nightmare. I used to work in this area,
| setting up one of the very first legal streaming services.
| There are about five different rights attached to each piece of
| music:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_licensing
|
| (See also Taylor Swift re-recording all her own music)
| lakomen wrote:
| I seem to very vaguely remember some shenanigans in the past 3
| years that lifted the 70 years restriction, but not sure if it
| was the US or EU.
| cannabis_sam wrote:
| 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, seriously, what is the perceived societal value here???
| lotsoweiners wrote:
| Because normal people don't care about "human cultural output"
| or "societal value" and think people who use those kinds of
| terms sound like blowhards. The rest of us just want reasonably
| cheap, convenient entertainment. Artists and others in the
| music biz want to get paid. Nothing here that is very hard to
| understand.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Normal people do like free stuff it turns out. And typically
| not going to pay when it's ancient anyway. Instead of going
| without, they could give it a try. They'd like that too--if
| they knew it was possible and even encouraged.
| b59831 wrote:
| [dead]
| uni_rule wrote:
| This point would work better if the vast majority of artists
| actually were paid well.
| dariosalvi78 wrote:
| This a fight between barbarians and civilization. Each one pick
| their own side. History will tell us which one was right.
| beej71 wrote:
| And I'll double down on making sure I never pay the record labels
| another dime.
|
| Authors and artists: make sure you have a way for me to send you
| money online.
| prox wrote:
| A few options for those looking:
|
| Bandcamp, Patreon, Twitch, Ko-Fi, CDbaby, and probably a host
| of others.
| gabereiser wrote:
| Soundcloud, Music Gateway, Discogs, Reverb Nation, Sellfy,
| TuneCore...
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Is there any way we can get rid of these rent-seeking parasites
| destroying everything in their path out of their greed?
| NetOpWibby wrote:
| That's the million dollar question
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| Here is the complaint
|
| https://ia802701.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.60...
|
| And here is Exhibit A: Sound Recordings at Issue
|
| https://ia802701.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.60...
| al2o3cr wrote:
| Shorter RIAA: "We stole these recordings with bullshit contracts
| decades ago, who are YOU to interfere with that????!!!!"
|
| You can see their point, though: obviously Frank Sinatra wouldn't
| have even bothered recording in the 1950s if he knew that a
| quarter-century after his death his record company might not make
| every available cent in profit. /s
| realusername wrote:
| I love how they always talk about the poor artists which cannot
| make new songs due to piracy and then they chose to enforce
| rights on ... Sinatra and a bunch of other long dead artists
| who will never make a single new song.
| jareklupinski wrote:
| he might have done it anyway, if he knew what engineers were
| going to do with those recordings a half century later:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDOQ-y87YnE
| bongobingo1 wrote:
| What a rabbit hole to fall down.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyfQVZHmArA
|
| > Humans doing the hard jobs on minimum wage while the robots
| write poetry and paint is not the future I wanted
|
| ~ https://nitter.net/KarlreMarks/status/1658028017921261569
| (possibly ~ An AI too...)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-08-12 23:01 UTC)