4 ms·

I really want to know if the record labels tried a DMCA takedown request. Normally IA follows those, I can't determine if one was sent and the IA ignored for so

I really want to know if the record labels tried a DMCA takedown request. Normally IA follows those, I can't determine if one was sent and the IA ignored for some reason or if the record labels purposely chose a different manner of attack. One of the stories mentioned something about an ignored cease and desist, but that seems like a separate thing.

Dalewyn 3y ago
A PDF of the lawsuit was provided by Torrentfreak, linked below[1]. In it, Sony, et al. state on pages 13 and 14 that Internet Archive failed to take necessary actions and file required paperwork with the US Copyright Office as required under the Music Modernization Act. The DMCA is never mentioned in the suit, so I presume no DMCA takedown requests were sent. [1]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/1-23-cv-07133-UMG-et-al-v.-Internet-Archive-et-al-complaint-230811.pdf https://torrentfreak.com/images/1-23-cv-07133-UMG-et-al-v.-I...
- boomboomsubban 3y ago
  Thanks. Then to me, this lawsuit is primarily about attacking the IA. If they were actually concerned about their songs being pirated, they would try the easy way known to work.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    Please read the linked PDF for a proper understanding of the context. You said you "want to know", so I presume knowing the circumstances of what transpired are important to you. Specifically, the suit alleges that Internet Archive failed to take the steps necessary for them to enjoy a safe harbor provided by the Music Modernization Act. In failing to take those steps, the Internet Archive failed to give the rightsholders (Sony, et al.) an opportunity to either permit or prohibit Internet Archive the digital copying and redistribution of the records in question. That, plus the indiscriminate redistribution of the digital copies and soliciting monetary donations with those copies, all together are the arguments Sony, et al. are bringing forth for their copyright being violated. Obligatory disclaimer that IANAL.
    - boomboomsubban 3y ago
      I had skimmed it when the torrentfreak article was posted, I didn't notice any mention of a DMCA claim in it but as I had skimmed it I wasn't confident. Whether they sent a DMCA takedown request is what I see as key, not what reason they can give for not sending one. If their concern was piracy, they would take the cheap and easy option. This means they picked this battle, not the IA.
      - Dalewyn 3y ago
        Another commenter explained it much more eloquently than I can concerning DMCA: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37129304 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37129304
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        People are obviously saying "DMCA takedown request" when they mean "generic takedown request" and arguing about whether the DMCA is the kind of takedown request to make in this case is missing the point. If they don't want it there, did they ask to have it removed before going to court, or did they do the thing vexatious jerks do?
        Dalewyn 3y ago
        As stated in the lawsuit, Sony, et al. filed their side of the required paperwork under the Music Modernization Act with the US Copyright Office. Internet Archive meanwhile failed to do so, and in failing to do so did not give Sony, et al. an opportunity to give or withhold permissions as the rightsholders. So this lawsuit, to me, seems like a fair thing to do. Sony, et al. were never given an opportunity to respond due to either negligence or malice from Internet Archive, so they filed suit.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        The Internet Archive seems to be operating under this theory: https://blog.archive.org/2018/10/15/the-music-modernization-act-is-now-law-which-means-some-music-goes-public/ https://blog.archive.org/2018/10/15/the-music-modernization-... But none of that really addresses the point, it's just another example of a law they couldn't use for some reason. You don't need any specific law to try negotiating with someone before you file a lawsuit.
thristian 3y ago
A DMCA takedown is a tool for a very specific situation, where a small-time, difficult-to-identify, near-anonymous user uploads copyrighted content to a third-party, big-time, easy-to-identify host. The copyright owner would prefer to sue the original uploader, but suing the host is a lot easier, so the host is strongly encouraged to obey the DMCA takedown as quickly as possible. In this case, the uploads were done by the Internet Archive itself, not by a near-anonymous user. So there's no point to sending a DMCA takedown - the copyright owner already knows the identity of the original uploader, they're easy-to-identify and they have money to pay damages. Therefore, they're just suing the IA directly.

Dalewyn 3y ago

A PDF of the lawsuit was provided by Torrentfreak, linked below[1]. In it, Sony, et al. state on pages 13 and 14 that Internet Archive failed to take necessary actions and file required paperwork with the US Copyright Office as required under the Music Modernization Act. The DMCA is never mentioned in the suit, so I presume no DMCA takedown requests were sent. [1]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/1-23-cv-07133-UMG-et-al-v.-Internet-Archive-et-al-complaint-230811.pdf https://torrentfreak.com/images/1-23-cv-07133-UMG-et-al-v.-I...

boomboomsubban 3y ago
Thanks. Then to me, this lawsuit is primarily about attacking the IA. If they were actually concerned about their songs being pirated, they would try the easy way known to work.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  Please read the linked PDF for a proper understanding of the context. You said you "want to know", so I presume knowing the circumstances of what transpired are important to you. Specifically, the suit alleges that Internet Archive failed to take the steps necessary for them to enjoy a safe harbor provided by the Music Modernization Act. In failing to take those steps, the Internet Archive failed to give the rightsholders (Sony, et al.) an opportunity to either permit or prohibit Internet Archive the digital copying and redistribution of the records in question. That, plus the indiscriminate redistribution of the digital copies and soliciting monetary donations with those copies, all together are the arguments Sony, et al. are bringing forth for their copyright being violated. Obligatory disclaimer that IANAL.
  - boomboomsubban 3y ago
    I had skimmed it when the torrentfreak article was posted, I didn't notice any mention of a DMCA claim in it but as I had skimmed it I wasn't confident. Whether they sent a DMCA takedown request is what I see as key, not what reason they can give for not sending one. If their concern was piracy, they would take the cheap and easy option. This means they picked this battle, not the IA.
    - Dalewyn 3y ago
      Another commenter explained it much more eloquently than I can concerning DMCA: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37129304 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37129304
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        People are obviously saying "DMCA takedown request" when they mean "generic takedown request" and arguing about whether the DMCA is the kind of takedown request to make in this case is missing the point. If they don't want it there, did they ask to have it removed before going to court, or did they do the thing vexatious jerks do?
        Dalewyn 3y ago
        As stated in the lawsuit, Sony, et al. filed their side of the required paperwork under the Music Modernization Act with the US Copyright Office. Internet Archive meanwhile failed to do so, and in failing to do so did not give Sony, et al. an opportunity to give or withhold permissions as the rightsholders. So this lawsuit, to me, seems like a fair thing to do. Sony, et al. were never given an opportunity to respond due to either negligence or malice from Internet Archive, so they filed suit.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        The Internet Archive seems to be operating under this theory: https://blog.archive.org/2018/10/15/the-music-modernization-act-is-now-law-which-means-some-music-goes-public/ https://blog.archive.org/2018/10/15/the-music-modernization-... But none of that really addresses the point, it's just another example of a law they couldn't use for some reason. You don't need any specific law to try negotiating with someone before you file a lawsuit.

thristian 3y ago

A DMCA takedown is a tool for a very specific situation, where a small-time, difficult-to-identify, near-anonymous user uploads copyrighted content to a third-party, big-time, easy-to-identify host. The copyright owner would prefer to sue the original uploader, but suing the host is a lot easier, so the host is strongly encouraged to obey the DMCA takedown as quickly as possible. In this case, the uploads were done by the Internet Archive itself, not by a near-anonymous user. So there's no point to sending a DMCA takedown - the copyright owner already knows the identity of the original uploader, they're easy-to-identify and they have money to pay damages. Therefore, they're just suing the IA directly.