Archived version: https://archive.ph/ZGo6X
Universal Music Group (UMG.AS), Sony Music Entertainment (6758.T) and other record labels on Friday sued the nonprofit Internet Archive for copyright infringement over its streaming collection of digitized music from vintage records.
The labels’ lawsuit filed in a federal court in Manhattan said the Archive’s “Great 78 Project” functions as an “illegal record store” for songs by musicians including Frank Sinatra, Ella Fitzgerald, Miles Davis and Billie Holiday.
They named 2,749 sound-recording copyrights that the Archive allegedly infringed. The labels said their damages in the case could be as high as $412 million.
Representatives for the Internet Archive did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the complaint.
The San Francisco-based Internet Archive digitally archives websites, books, audio recordings and other materials. It compares itself to a library and says its mission is to “provide universal access to all knowledge.”
The Internet Archive is already facing another federal lawsuit in Manhattan from leading book publishers who said its digital-book lending program launched in the pandemic violates their copyrights. A judge ruled for the publishers in March, in a decision that the Archive plans to appeal.
The Great 78 Project encourages donations of 78-rpm records – the dominant record format from the early 1900s until the 1950s – for the group to digitize to “ensure the survival of these cultural materials for future generations to study and enjoy.” Its website says the collection includes more than 400,000 recordings.
The labels’ lawsuit said the project includes thousands of their copyright-protected recordings, including Bing Crosby’s “White Christmas,” Chuck Berry’s “Roll Over Beethoven” and Duke Ellington’s “It Don’t Mean a Thing (If It Ain’t Got That Swing)”.
The lawsuit said the recordings are all available on authorized streaming services and “face no danger of being lost, forgotten, or destroyed.”
Internet Archive makes me feel like a visit to an old section of a library that noone visited for a while every time I go there.
It’s a shame that the US have at the same time people who treasure the need for preservation of culture and Civilization, and people who would sell their own mothers for the shareholder’s profit.
If they don’t move to a country with more logical copyright laws, I’m afraid we ll lose the too.
Dammit, 2023 is a year the Internet is gone to hell by the corpos faster than I can remember
edit: formating
Maybe it’s time for R.A.B.I.D.S.
What’s R.A.B.I.D.S.?
Probably referring to this: Cyberpunk 2077 anti-corporate virus
If the virus could mutate AIs, why couldn’t it mutate ICE and just fuck up the black wall, too? Thing was designed to break into Datafortresses. Those would have had the strongest ICE to exist before the Blackwall, and what a virus would need to cut past anyway.
Internet Archive is such a gem among all the shit.
Unfortunately I think you’re right.
It makes me sick to think about. I guess I’ll enjoy it while I can.
Didn’t they lobby government to extend copyright to ridiculous lengths, thereby denying the US public a robust body of public-domain works?
Where the fuck are our rights?
The only way we are getting them rights back is when we hold the rich and government hostage like they do with us. When their heads start rolling they might think twice about fucking with our rights.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
More egregiously, corporations can and routinely do hire artists to make works, fire them, and keep ownership and profits for around a literal century beyond that.
And they won’t stop there either. You bet your ass it’ll be extended again once more corporations start hitting those public domain limitations on works they care about.
Well you have the right to remain silent. So there’s that.
Beyond that though I’m not really sure. I thought it was fairly clear in the US for a persons rights, but you guys are all over the place these days.Removed by mod
Then let me crack open ur head then
Removed by mod
You should have opened with that.
deleted by creator
Can’t these companies not be greedy for 5 seconds?
That’s the fucked up thing, they legally have to be as greedy as possible.
I stand corrected. Makes their actions even more despicable.
Except this article is completely incorrect and doesn’t even acknowledge the actual ruling responsible for this popular belief:
In 1919 the primacy of shareholder value maximization was affirmed in a ruling by the Michigan State Supreme Court in Dodge vs. Ford Motor Company. Henry Ford wanted to invest Ford Motor Company’s considerable retained earnings in the company rather than distribute it to shareholders. The Dodge brothers, minority shareholders in Ford Motor Company, brought suit against Ford, alleging that his intention to benefit employees and consumers was at the expense of shareholders. In their ruling, the Michigan court agreed with the Dodge brothers:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
Among non-experts, conventional wisdom holds that corporate law requires boards of directors to maximize shareholder wealth. This common but mistaken belief is almost invariably supported by reference to the Michigan Supreme Court’s 1919 opinion in Dodge v. Ford Motor Co.
Lol
deleted by creator
The really fucked up thing is that it didn’t start out that way, but was perverted over time.
Do libraries also violate copyright laws? 🤔
The lawsuit said the recordings are all available on authorized streaming services and “face no danger of being lost, forgotten, or destroyed.”
Until, that is, they succeed in having the archives destroyed. Then they can continue making shit artificially scarce to drive up the cost/demand.
Legally speaking, I don’t see how the Internet Archive wins this case. Problem is, what happens then? It would be pretty unfortunate to lose the Internet Archive as a resource, over a risky foray into streaming.
Could they still keep the content but not have it available to the public until it enters public domain or copyright laws are improved?
That would have been the legally defensible move. But if this case goes through, they’ll be liable for past damages, which would bankrupt them.
IMO, this project of digitising/streaming old records should have been done under a totally separate organization from the get go, because of how risky it is.
The offshore platform where piratebay existed a while ago would be a nice place for them to operate from.
You’re referring to the so-called Principality of Sealand.
The Pirate Bay began an attempt to buy Sealand in 2007, but it never went through with it and the website was never actually located there. Also, due to updated territorial claims by the UK over the years, Sealand is now firmly within British waters and has zero chance of ever being recognized as an actual sovereign state; although the owners still play it off like it’s a micronation for the lulz and merch sales the place would be considered pretty firmly subject to UK law in the case of things ever being important.
Aside from all that though, Sealand tried for a time to market themselves as a “data haven” and due to a pile-up of failures and misunderstandings of reality that did not end well for anyone.
The only thing more grotesque than a music industry attorney is a conservative music industry attorney. Vile, sub-humans… All of them.
This is why I never pay for music as a matter of principle.
I don’t care if it is cheap, or if the software is easy to use. I don’t pay for music. Period.
Even if it’s an independent label or unsigned artist?
Paying artists ≠ paying for music. If I want to support them, I will.
This unless it’s bandcamp Friday or it can be found secondhand.
Poor take
That’s an interesting principled stance. How should musicians provide for their familes?
Almost no musician makes any substantial money from music sales. Like at all, it’s genuinely extremely rare. Most makes more money from touring and merch.
Buy tickets for their shows at the venue. Buy their merchandise directly from the band. Never go through a middle man. Deal with the musicians directly.
deleted by creator
So, because they don’t pay artists enough, you shouldn’t pay them at all?
I’ve got the karma to spare so I’ll be clear about it. I’m not going to say you have to pay for music. That’s between you and the people you want to keep making music for you. You can fly the black flag all you want, and it does make you something of a rebel, but it does not make you any kind of hero.
deleted by creator
I remember back when music (or any artistic expression really) was done by people out of passion.
They used their talent to help people enjoy life more and did other things like picking up a trade for money.
These days, people feel like they can’t do anything to help other people without being paid for it.
When was this? When did people who need to devote their life to a craft long enough to get good at not want, even need, to be paid for it? There have always been hobbyists, and maybe that’s all you want, but there has never been a time when musicians would not have preferred to be supported by their passion, rather than the job they had to do in order to keep eating.
Musicians don’t make money either way.
I don’t think that 10% cut (or 0% if the artist still has debt) will amount to much for the majority of artists on a major label
Dmca and walked gardens of ways to consume media can fuck right off. Because anyone should have to pay to listen to music that’s 50 plus years old.
I feel like the Internet Archive is current day’s library of Alexandria and it’s going to get burned down for nothing.
Copyright in the US is an absolute joke.
Internet archive should move to somewhere like Switzerland
