7 ms·

But you can't even download the allegedly infringing material from the .org site. You can just read about it? So they're abusing the All Writs Act to take down

But you can't even download the allegedly infringing material from the .org site. You can just read about it? So they're abusing the All Writs Act to take down a site that they think is related to some undetermined future nebulously bad thing for their business. If I wasn't on Anna's side before, I sure am now.

cyanydeez 9mo ago
unless you have a billion dollars, not sure anyone cares what side you're on. Voting with your wallet no longer really matters does it unless your wallet is attached to a billion dollar stock portfolio.
crazygringo 9mo ago
> that they think is related to some undetermined future nebulously bad thing I mean, Anna's Archive was pretty clear about the future bad thing. Spotify didn't "think", it wasn't just "related", nothing was "undetermined" or "nebulous". Anna's Archive explicitly announced they were going to start distributing Spotify's music files. It's not even a case of hosting links to torrents but not seeding -- no, they were going to be doing the seeding too. You can't get more clear-cut than that. I'm not taking anybody's side here, as to what copyright law ought to be, but Spotify isn't abusing the legal process here.
- Supermancho 9mo ago
  > Anna's Archive explicitly announced they were going to start distributing Spotify's music files. It's not even a case of hosting links to torrents but not seeding -- no, they were going to be doing the seeding too. You can't get more clear-cut than that. You can get more "clear cut" than that. You could rule when there were damages or law was actually broken. Committing a crime is not the same as saying you will commit a crime. ie. I will rob the bank on the Chase Bank Kraemer Branch in Orange County. Now try and prosecute me. Yes, I understand this would fall under criminal vs civil. The issue is about the law being applied in the way the benefits the ones with the most money, more often than not, violating equal protections and further eroding public confidence in the US legal system.
  - crazygringo 9mo ago
    > Actually committing a crime is not the same as saying you will commit a crime. No, but it can have a lot of legal repercussions, like restraining orders, you can be arrested for making a threat, search warrants may be issued... and in the case of corporations, restraining orders and injunctions. Like here. This is all very standard stuff. There's absolutely nothing exceptional about the court process in this particular case.
    - johnnyanmac 9mo ago
      >On January 2, the music companies asked for a temporary restraining order, and the court granted it the same day. That pretty much tells me all about what courts care about. Can't get TRO's when the government is attacking its people, but when there's a sniff of sharing music? Instant hammer. EDIT: to answer a response I got about "courts aren't supposed to 'care'", that's the point of a TRO: >To obtain a TRO, a party must convince the judge that they will suffer immediate irreparable injury unless the order is issued. TRO's are rare and losing it just means you need to wait for the actual court case. That's why I'm making such a big deal of this. Getting a TRO the same day because maybe one day some website will have archives of music files just shows how out of touch the justice system is with tech.
      - hirako2000 9mo ago
        Law is made of people and politics touches everything. Even with separate of powers, lobbies make sure those they represent get good treatments.
        johnnyanmac 9mo ago
        I guess this is a naive question, but where are the lobbies that care about the people? Or even common decency at this point? It really feels like people are treating the US less as an investment and more like a sinking ship to abandon. And they were the ones that shot the holes to begin with.
- DannyBee 9mo ago
  "I'm not taking anybody's side here, as to what copyright law ought to be, but Spotify isn't abusing the legal process here". Normally, only those who own one or more of the exclusive rights in copyright can actually enforce. Spotify does not own copyright in the music involved in the archive, unless they created some of it (which would be an interesting story, actually - spotify competing with its own artists). So normally, they would not be able to sue for copyright related violations against anyone. The other plaintiffs (record companies) are not abusing legal process, but it is unclear what spotify is doing in this lawsuit. They almost certainly do not own meaningful copyright in the metadata, either, and that would be a bad precedent to see set.
  - fny 9mo ago
    This is not unusual. Spotify is included because it is a relevant source of evidence as the custodian of the data. It improves the narrative that the data wasn't just indexed but obtained illegally.
bbor 9mo ago
If I wasn't on Anna's side before, I sure am now. A) You're quite the poet! B) We should all be on Anna's side if we're to live up this board's name even a little bit: https://archive.org/stream/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goamjuly2008_djvu.txt https://archive.org/stream/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goamj...
snowmobile 9mo ago
> think is related to some undetermined future nebulously bad thing for their business The thing in question being "we copied all your data and are now gonna release it for free". I like what Anna's is doing, but come on! This is dishonest communication if I've ever seen it!
surround 9mo ago
Anna's Archive announced they intended to infringe on the label's copyrights by distributing their music without a license. The law allows the court "to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright" (emphasis mine). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/502#:~:text=Any%20court%20having%20jurisdiction%20of,restrain%20infringement%20of%20a%20copyright. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/502#:~:text=Any%2...
- kassner 9mo ago
  Spotify does not own that copyright, only a distribution license. How they can get away with it?
  - direwolf20 9mo ago
    Apparently you can win anything you want in a default judgement, no matter how ridiculous. When you know the other side won't show up because they'd be handcuffed, this is a useful way to achieve your goals.
    - DannyBee 9mo ago
      Nah - the plaintiffs include record companies, who do have rights here.
  - DannyBee 9mo ago
    The plaintiffs are actually record companies, spotify is tacked on at the end for some reason, and the article decided to confuse matters :)
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 9mo ago
      With the amount of content that has been described, it's not unlikely that Spotify actually owns some tiny fraction of it. They probably have some half-assed record label that owns two songs by a nobody.
    - solaris2007 9mo ago
perihelions 9mo ago
> "think is related to some undetermined future nebulously bad thing" Anna's Archive made threats in writing to distribute, concretely and specifically, the plaintiff's copyrighted works as torrents.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- DannyBee 9mo ago
  Except spotify doesn't own the copyright to the music. The record company plaintiffs make sense here - spotify does not. They don't own copyright in anything here, including the metadata.
- helsinki8 9mo ago
  Something they, and everyone else, should have a natural right to do. It's insane to call this a "threat". It's like saying they made threats to breathe. Freely sharing things should be an inalienable universal right.
unparagoned 9mo ago
Look at this clever hack to get away with committing crimes and there is nothing they can do. Oh it looks like the justice system isn’t stupid enough to fall for it. Now everyone is angry that the justice system isn’t serious and dumb.

cyanydeez 9mo ago

unless you have a billion dollars, not sure anyone cares what side you're on. Voting with your wallet no longer really matters does it unless your wallet is attached to a billion dollar stock portfolio.

crazygringo 9mo ago

> that they think is related to some undetermined future nebulously bad thing I mean, Anna's Archive was pretty clear about the future bad thing. Spotify didn't "think", it wasn't just "related", nothing was "undetermined" or "nebulous". Anna's Archive explicitly announced they were going to start distributing Spotify's music files. It's not even a case of hosting links to torrents but not seeding -- no, they were going to be doing the seeding too. You can't get more clear-cut than that. I'm not taking anybody's side here, as to what copyright law ought to be, but Spotify isn't abusing the legal process here.

Supermancho 9mo ago
> Anna's Archive explicitly announced they were going to start distributing Spotify's music files. It's not even a case of hosting links to torrents but not seeding -- no, they were going to be doing the seeding too. You can't get more clear-cut than that. You can get more "clear cut" than that. You could rule when there were damages or law was actually broken. Committing a crime is not the same as saying you will commit a crime. ie. I will rob the bank on the Chase Bank Kraemer Branch in Orange County. Now try and prosecute me. Yes, I understand this would fall under criminal vs civil. The issue is about the law being applied in the way the benefits the ones with the most money, more often than not, violating equal protections and further eroding public confidence in the US legal system.
- crazygringo 9mo ago
  > Actually committing a crime is not the same as saying you will commit a crime. No, but it can have a lot of legal repercussions, like restraining orders, you can be arrested for making a threat, search warrants may be issued... and in the case of corporations, restraining orders and injunctions. Like here. This is all very standard stuff. There's absolutely nothing exceptional about the court process in this particular case.
  - johnnyanmac 9mo ago
    >On January 2, the music companies asked for a temporary restraining order, and the court granted it the same day. That pretty much tells me all about what courts care about. Can't get TRO's when the government is attacking its people, but when there's a sniff of sharing music? Instant hammer. EDIT: to answer a response I got about "courts aren't supposed to 'care'", that's the point of a TRO: >To obtain a TRO, a party must convince the judge that they will suffer immediate irreparable injury unless the order is issued. TRO's are rare and losing it just means you need to wait for the actual court case. That's why I'm making such a big deal of this. Getting a TRO the same day because maybe one day some website will have archives of music files just shows how out of touch the justice system is with tech.
    - hirako2000 9mo ago
      Law is made of people and politics touches everything. Even with separate of powers, lobbies make sure those they represent get good treatments.
      - johnnyanmac 9mo ago
        I guess this is a naive question, but where are the lobbies that care about the people? Or even common decency at this point? It really feels like people are treating the US less as an investment and more like a sinking ship to abandon. And they were the ones that shot the holes to begin with.
DannyBee 9mo ago
"I'm not taking anybody's side here, as to what copyright law ought to be, but Spotify isn't abusing the legal process here". Normally, only those who own one or more of the exclusive rights in copyright can actually enforce. Spotify does not own copyright in the music involved in the archive, unless they created some of it (which would be an interesting story, actually - spotify competing with its own artists). So normally, they would not be able to sue for copyright related violations against anyone. The other plaintiffs (record companies) are not abusing legal process, but it is unclear what spotify is doing in this lawsuit. They almost certainly do not own meaningful copyright in the metadata, either, and that would be a bad precedent to see set.
- fny 9mo ago
  This is not unusual. Spotify is included because it is a relevant source of evidence as the custodian of the data. It improves the narrative that the data wasn't just indexed but obtained illegally.

bbor 9mo ago

If I wasn't on Anna's side before, I sure am now. A) You're quite the poet! B) We should all be on Anna's side if we're to live up this board's name even a little bit: https://archive.org/stream/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goamjuly2008_djvu.txt https://archive.org/stream/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goamj...

snowmobile 9mo ago

> think is related to some undetermined future nebulously bad thing for their business The thing in question being "we copied all your data and are now gonna release it for free". I like what Anna's is doing, but come on! This is dishonest communication if I've ever seen it!

surround 9mo ago

Anna's Archive announced they intended to infringe on the label's copyrights by distributing their music without a license. The law allows the court "to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright" (emphasis mine). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/502#:~:text=Any%20court%20having%20jurisdiction%20of,restrain%20infringement%20of%20a%20copyright. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/502#:~:text=Any%2...

kassner 9mo ago
Spotify does not own that copyright, only a distribution license. How they can get away with it?
- direwolf20 9mo ago
  Apparently you can win anything you want in a default judgement, no matter how ridiculous. When you know the other side won't show up because they'd be handcuffed, this is a useful way to achieve your goals.
  - DannyBee 9mo ago
    Nah - the plaintiffs include record companies, who do have rights here.
- DannyBee 9mo ago
  The plaintiffs are actually record companies, spotify is tacked on at the end for some reason, and the article decided to confuse matters :)
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 9mo ago
    With the amount of content that has been described, it's not unlikely that Spotify actually owns some tiny fraction of it. They probably have some half-assed record label that owns two songs by a nobody.
  - solaris2007 9mo ago

perihelions 9mo ago

> "think is related to some undetermined future nebulously bad thing" Anna's Archive made threats in writing to distribute, concretely and specifically, the plaintiff's copyrighted works as torrents.

deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
DannyBee 9mo ago
Except spotify doesn't own the copyright to the music. The record company plaintiffs make sense here - spotify does not. They don't own copyright in anything here, including the metadata.
helsinki8 9mo ago
Something they, and everyone else, should have a natural right to do. It's insane to call this a "threat". It's like saying they made threats to breathe. Freely sharing things should be an inalienable universal right.

unparagoned 9mo ago

Look at this clever hack to get away with committing crimes and there is nothing they can do. Oh it looks like the justice system isn’t stupid enough to fall for it. Now everyone is angry that the justice system isn’t serious and dumb.