7 ms·

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 d

• throwayay583739 3y ago
  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.
  • itsanaccount 3y ago
    Maybe because the average understanding of how our society is run, with things like morals, fairness and hope for the future, and the legal understanding of how our society is run has diverged. And maybe people are getting sick and tired (and banned and flagged) of "good natured discourse" being entirely windowed by the latter.
    • johnnyanmac 3y ago
      It's arguably always been like that. The Internet's audience (on average) has simply grown up to an age where they start to care about that more. >maybe people are getting sick and tired (and banned and flagged) of "good natured discourse" being entirely windowed by the latter. I know it feels cathartic, but "record company bad" is neither discourse, nor particularly good natured. It's more reflective of how forums have shifted by twitter's popularity into being "microblogs". You don't really talk "to" people on Twitter, you throw out your tweet among a sea of tweets. A shame, because I hate twitter precisely because of that.
    • throw10920 3y ago
      dang does a pretty good job of not banning people who are avoiding breaking the HN guidelines, and most of flagged content is political stuff not appropriate for HN. HN is not an activism platform.
  • hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    Thanks for that. I tried, yet still there are comment responses that literally do the exact thing I think is so annoying: complain sarcastically that copyright is stupid because it obviously isn't incentivizing the original artists here. No shit, we know. But whatever, those comments get pushed to the bottom, and I thought the top responses were really helpful (I didn't previously know about the details of the fair use tests).
    • Dalewyn 3y ago
      For some additional context, the copyright laws in the US make a very specific exception for archival[1]. >(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: >(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. Note that "computer program" here is in reference to any and all forms of digital data thereof. The digital copies made from the records concerned are "computer programs". Sony, et al. allege that Internet Archive's public redistribution of their digital copies of the records do not fall under the archival exception. If all Internet Archive does really is just archiving, none of the rightsholders would have standing to sue or otherwise get in their way. [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117 Obligatory IANAL.
      • hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
        > Sony, et al. allege that Internet Archive's public redistribution of their digital copies of the records do not fall under the archival exception. Seems pretty obvious to me that, just with respect to the archival exception, that Sony et al is correct here. The issue is not with IA making backup copies of these works - the issue is with making copies and making them available for free over the Internet that is the issue at hand.
        • 3y ago
  • zugi 3y ago
    I think I've spent too much time on reddit, because in comparison all the comments here seem quite reasoned, calm, and insightful. And then there's YouTube, and comments on news sites... I guess it's all relative.
  • johnnyanmac 3y ago
    >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. The internet as a whole has diverged from assuming good faith, between polarizing politics, the rapid increase of bots, and general shift of popular sentiment over the decade. And there's also a lot more people online, so it's much harder to moderate for that even if you wanted to. It's an inevitability since this site's moderation hasn't scaled with its user base.
    • throw10920 3y ago
      Right, there's a scale problem, among other things. I want the invite-only system of Lobsters, with the actually good moderation of HN. I think that would help with some of the issues, here and on other platforms.
  • matheusmoreira 3y ago
    I don't know. I've been here since 2016 and discussion is pretty great. No one bears ill will towards GP, people are only guilty of agreeing with him too aggressively. I really hate copyright and have engaged in heated discussions about the matter here before but still refrained from replying to GP because I realized I too would like to know what legal arguments could be used to defend Internet Archive. It's difficult to be curious about copyright. For many of us that matter is already settled and only strong opinions remain. This post still managed to make me curious though. It's great.
• cto_of_antifa 3y ago
  [dead]
• acyou 3y ago
  Legal considerations are not the only considerations. What the court says is not accepted by all as the final word. 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?
  • iraqmtpizza 3y ago
    [flagged]
  • nullc 3y ago
    The ancestor poster isn't saying you can't discuss those other things at all-- but they are offtopic for their interesting sub-question.
  • hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    Because so many of those responses are just wholly uninteresting - they're just "basic" as the kids say (or used to say? I can't keep up anymore). "Rich companies abuse copyright" - no shit. "Copyright is unreasonably long" - no shit. "It's absurd to think copyright needs to be that long to incentivize creation" - no shit. Putting a sarcastic or "witty" spin on the above types of arguments still gets the same "no shit" response from me. I have not read a single response of that form that I find interesting in the slightest, or adds new information, or makes an insightful point, and I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment!
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  • johnnyanmac 3y ago
    >And why should we need to confine our replies to a narrow and arbitrary framework of existing case law Because the user wants responses from that narrow and arbituary framework. You are free to make or respond to another thread to look in another lens.
• dmbche 3y ago
  "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! https://lithub.com/how-ruth-bader-ginsburg-and-gloria-steinem-fought-for-your-right-to-get-a-beer/ https://lithub.com/how-ruth-bader-ginsburg-and-gloria-steine...
  • ggm 3y ago
    I think there's both a legal defence (its for legitimate research) and a law-change-advocacy (we think copyright in these works is silly) component to what they're doing. I don't think you are wrong about the risks to them in fighting the case with what looks to be such abundently clear IPR over the mechanical recording. But, I do think the wider fight about what "should" be the IPR here, is worth fighting. That advocacy lies in the part of your comment which heads off the "RIAA is bad" fu.
  • jonhohle 3y ago
    Shellac 78s are old but equipment to play them is commercially available and they can be played on turntables that support 78 rpm with the right cartridge. I misplaced the 78 belt for my Pro-ject turntable during a move a few years ago and in the mean time found a copy of New World Symphony that I’ve been wanting to listen to.
• adventured 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • ang_cire 3y ago
    Possibly because many of us recognize that the protections under GDPR are about reigning in dangerous corporate data usage, not about allowing people to curate their online image by scrubbing things they've previously made public. There is a huge gap between "you shouldn't be able to use my data for things I did not consent to in order to commodify me" and, "I should be able to force people to get rid of any info about me that I don't want them to have, even if I made it public".
    • ChainOfFools 3y ago
      What happens when biotech enables effectively (or in practice, externally undetectable) seamless integration of artificial storage into the brain? When millions have perfect photographic memory, are they not allowed to recall the memorized account of personally acquired sensory experiences? If so, can the handful of individuals who can do so today, with no such technological enhancement, be sued for perfectly 'remembering' extensive details of someone's past public statements/actions since scrubbed from the internet? Does Alice's right to be forgotten override Bob's right to remember what she did / said?
      • zimpenfish 3y ago
        > What happens when biotech enables effectively (or in practice, externally undetectable) seamless integration of artificial storage into the brain? I would[2] put good money on "will never happen"[1]. [1] Or at least "any chance of it happening are on a timescale long enough that human civilisation will ruin itself well before we get there". [2] But for the fact this is a long term bet and I am already old.
  • shapefrog 3y ago
• abetusk 3y ago
  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.
• ghaff 3y ago
  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.
• mlyle 3y ago
  > 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.
  • hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    Just wanted to say I very much appreciate your thoughtful response. I wasn't aware of the details on the 4 tests of fair use, and your comment led me to some helpful searches. For anyone else who is interested: https://nwtc.libguides.com/c.php?g=43772&p=7188025 https://nwtc.libguides.com/c.php?g=43772&p=7188025
  • ramraj07 3y ago
    Couldn’t one argue that while there’s _minimal_ commercial viability of this work now, it’s still not zero? And that by making these available they could make it zero?
    • AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      Zero and minimal are the same thing when it costs non-minimal resources to bring something to market and reach potential customers through advertising etc. When it costs you $15 to make a $10 sale you are not losing money to abandon the market.
    • mlyle 3y ago
      The test doesn't require there to be no impact on the commercial viability of the work; rather, benefits exceeding the loss in commercial value of the work is one (important) factor arguing in favor of fair use.
    • HWR_14 3y ago
• jandrese 3y ago
  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.
  • stavros 3y ago
    I don't know, if you tell me that 120 years from now, one researcher a month will be accessing it, I'll go write a song right now!
    • labster 3y ago
      But the hedge fund that owns the record company that will own the rights to your song won’t earn any money! How can you live with that future moral tragedy after you die?
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      • stavros 3y ago
        [flagged]
  • InSteady 3y ago
    Thankfully we have record companies acting in good faith to recoup that gulp 400 million in potential lost revenue on behalf of those long-dead artists and their deserving kin.
• dehrmann 3y ago
  I refuse to donate to them because I see their disregard for copyright as a liability.
  • AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    Non-profits essentially have to be the ones to push the limits of laws like this, because it's not profitable, so for-profit entities aren't going to do it. But someone has to do it or you can never get a precedent saying that something good is actually allowed. The problem is the RIAA knows this, because they have expensive lawyers, and they try to avoid proceeding with a suit unless they think their victim has made a mistake. So you have to get close enough to the line to at least make them think that, but then there is the risk that the judge thinks that too. Yet what alternative is there?
    • extraduder_ire 3y ago
      Although he actually had a profit motive, god bless Larry Flynt.
      • AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        And this is why public companies are worse than private ones. A public company exists to make the shareholders money. A private company exists to do whatever the owners want. And then, once in a while, one of them wants to do something good. But sadly most major companies are public anymore.
    • Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
      > be the ones to push the limits of laws like this I can think of a much more prudent way to do that, namely, by legally segregating their non-contentious archiving (the wayback machine et al) from their legally contentious archiving such that legal threats to one entity cannot disrupt the other entity.
      • AnthonyMouse 3y ago
• rodgerd 3y ago
  > 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.
• slaymaker1907 3y ago
  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).
• zucker42 3y ago
  Federal statute says the following: > 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.
• realusername 3y ago
  > 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.
  • johnnyanmac 3y ago
    >How else would you interpret their behavior though their goal isn't the analyze the company's intents. It's to understand what legal arguments IA has.The cards are dealt and the goal here isn't to change copyright law at large. At least, not at this stage.
• amno 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • jplona 3y ago
    It's not unreasonable to ask for a better understanding of the applicable law(s) in a post about a lawsuit.
    • amno 3y ago
      > It's not unreasonable to ask for a better understanding of the applicable law(s) in a post about a lawsuit. Of course, I completely agree with that :-).
  • misnome 3y ago
    Congratulations, I think you hit every tired cliche that the OP requested explicitly not to descend into > Copyright expires after certain amount of years, depending on the country and the law? Yes. In case you didn’t notice, this is specifically about a case in one country, for things that are still under copyright. > it looks to me like you are an afforded troll by the company to spread out the company propaganda on the internet and social media sites. I can't tell for sure, I might be wrong, but that is how it looks to me. No, it doesn’t look like this at all. You are egregiously wrong.
    • amno 3y ago
      > you hit every tired cliche that the OP requested explicitly not to descend into Op asked us to not tell him they are "greedy bastards", and he asks that because he knows they are. Op knows he is wrong for the obvious reasons and asks us to not see him as "wrong" and to close eyes and pretend those reasons just do not exist. It is just stupid. > You are egregiously wrong. Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps I am not. I have drawn my conclusion after reading all of the comments and seen all of his replies and link he posted, that is how I perceive them.
• srvmshr 3y ago
  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.
• noirscape 3y ago
  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.
  • at_a_remove 3y ago
    Their ebook move was good-hearted and tactically foolish. I wonder if library protections can be re-earned.
• quitit 3y ago
  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.
• lovegrenoble 3y ago
  30 years years will be sufficient