Musicians Rally Behind Internet Archive in $621 Million Music Label Battle 65
Over 300 musicians have signed an open letter defending the Internet Archive against a $621 million copyright infringement lawsuit over its preservation of 78 rpm records. The letter, organized by Fight for the Future, opposes the lawsuit filed by major record labels including Universal Music Group and Sony Music.
The labels claim the Archive's Great 78 Project, which digitizes shellac discs from the 1890s-1950s, amounts to widespread copyright infringement. Musicians argue the lawsuit prioritizes corporate profits over artists' interests.
The labels claim the Archive's Great 78 Project, which digitizes shellac discs from the 1890s-1950s, amounts to widespread copyright infringement. Musicians argue the lawsuit prioritizes corporate profits over artists' interests.
Pikachu chooses you! (Score:2)
First visible comment on the propagated FP abuse by the usual suspect.
My Subject? It might be funny and I don't care enough about music to even RTFA.
Re: United Healthcare shooter in custody (Score:2)
No! It has to be a team sport. Pick a colour and turn off your brain! You are ruining it for everyone!
Re: (Score:1)
Neither "right wing" nor "left wing". He's just a typical frustrated American with a gun and "mad as hell and not going to take it any more."
I don't think "typical" means what you're implying it means.
Re: (Score:1)
Are you a lost Redditor
Re: (Score:2)
Are you a lost Redditor :o
Considering this isn't even Reddit, they must be very lost. To be fair though, since the stories on this site are posted at the whim of the editors (and sometimes even the same story more than once), it's not unusual for someone here to prefer discussing something trending rather than a mundane story about the latest entity being sued by the RIAA. It's such an old trope by now that it even has an 18-year-old Weird Al song. [youtube.com]
Also: Beer GOOD! Napster BAD!
Re: (Score:2)
I concur!
Re: (Score:1)
So do you think he was left-wing or right-wing? He seems anti-capitalist, but he used a gun. This presents a paradox and makes his actions difficult to understand.
What? Guns are the exclusive province of the right wing? Cf. Black Panthers, Patty Hearst and the SLA, Mao, et al. If only it were so.
Take it all the way (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
...to the Supreme Court if need be. These attacks on the public domain must be stopped.
You've seen the Supreme court... They'll probably rule that the artists owe the record companies money. Especially after the brib... erm.. I mean gratuities.
Re: (Score:2)
How wasn't that opening comment modded Funny? Oh. AC again.
How was it modded into visibility?
Re:Take it all the way (Score:5, Informative)
Discs recorded in the 1950s are not public domain.
Nor are the ones from the 40s.
Nor are the ones from the 30s.
That is a problem. They SHOULD be public domain. They aren't, and Congress SHOULD fix that. Until that's fixed, the internet archive's digitizing them and making them publicly available is no different than you ripping CDs and sharing them with Napster.
The Internet archive has once again opened themselves up to an indefensible copyright lawsuit. I do not understand the strategy behind this.
Re: (Score:3)
That is a problem. They SHOULD be public domain. They aren't, and Congress SHOULD fix that. ...
The Internet archive has once again opened themselves up to an indefensible copyright lawsuit. I do not understand the strategy behind this.
IMHO, it's a means to the aforementioned end. IE: how do you get congress to change the copyright terms? Maybe getting a big, expensive case in front of the Supreme Court will help? It can even fail spectacularly - if it gets the desired attention, then it could get congress to act. What's the alternative? Just keep lobbying with thoughts and prayers against RIAA dollars?
PS: to anyone curious about the term limits: https://guides.library.cornell... [cornell.edu]
* Audio recordings from 1925 will go public domain in 2025.
Re: (Score:3)
Until that's fixed, the internet archive's digitizing them and making them publicly available is no different than you ripping CDs and sharing them with Napster.
Re: (Score:2)
If you accept the assertion that the archive qualifies for the library provision, they have clearly violated the "reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work," in both spirit in letter.
They pull four separate copies of every record with four different needles and then make those raw files and the filtered composite audio available for uncontrolled downloads.
I want the archive to succeed, and they have to stop shooting themselves in the foot.
Re: (Score:2)
The Internet Archive is a legally registered and recognized US archival library.
Where they get into trouble is section g, part 1:
Re: (Score:2)
Discs recorded in the 1950s are not public domain. Nor are the ones from the 40s. Nor are the ones from the 30s.
That is a problem. They SHOULD be public domain. They aren't, and Congress SHOULD fix that. Until that's fixed, the internet archive's digitizing them and making them publicly available is no different than you ripping CDs and sharing them with Napster.
I get what you are saying, but perhaps you don't know. Congress did fix it - sort of. But not like you want. They did finally codify real copyright expiration dates. Unfortunately they are generally 95 years. On the plus side, that does actually now require works to eventually enter the public domain, like Steamboat Willie. On the downside, it takes so long in the USA that almost nothing that enters the public domain has any value by the time it does so.
I can't speak to what the Internet Ar
Re: (Score:2)
Never heard about NY state copyright laws. Can't those be challenged as unconstitutional (Fed law trumps state law)? Article 1, section 8 mentions limited times for copyright explicitly, and NY grants unlimited. Would seem like a slam dunk to me.
Re: (Score:2)
SCOTUS sides with the larger corporations. The current one seems to be upholding all decisions that favor the large corporations. They would reject the artists claims on the grounds they have no actual involvement and would rule in favor of the corporations.
I mean parody and satire were severely limited over dog piss.
Copyright vs History (Score:5, Insightful)
While I understand the motivation behind copyright law, I think that there are situations in which it can work against the preservation of history - a cause that I think in the long run is more important.
Re:Copyright vs History (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the big problems is that the "preservation of history" can still happen, it just needs to happen in private until the copyright expires.
That means that projects like this, and the previous Google Books archival project and so on, can collect and digitise the originals today, they just cant distribute it today.
And that inability to distribute it today is what puts a lot of these archival projects off - they want an immediate outcome rather than an outcome that happens 60+ years from now. So either the projects don't happen, or they say "fuck it" and publish anyway - which is where the Internet Archive is at.
Theres a lot to be said about the current state of copyright law, and Im sure a lot of that will be rehashed here in the comments, but at the end of the day "preservation of history" is not a good argument because it can still happen.
Re:Copyright vs History (Score:4, Interesting)
The IA is in a difficult position here. They rely on people donating material and often digitising and uploading it themselves. They can't cope with the volume of data coming in, so they make it public by default, but worse than that they don't even offer a "prevent downloads of this" button.
As such IA has become the go-to for a lot of people when it comes to things like emulator ROM files and pirate textbooks. That may be serving the public good, but isn't helping IA with their copyright lawsuits.
In the case if 78s most of them are out of copyright now, at least in the US, but not all of them. I've said it before, but we need multiple archives in different legal jurisdictions.
Re:Copyright vs History (Score:5, Insightful)
Disagree.
Making a copy is a very, very small part of preservation. Much like data backups, the other components are having it saved in a variety of formats in multiple locations, and there isn't a more efficient way to do that than making available to the public.
History is rife with examples of bootlegs being the only known "originals" and copyright holders doing such a poor job of preservation that many works are gone for good.
If groups like IA had unlimited resources, you might have had a point. But as is, they have to work under the conditions allotted to them, and rights arguments aside, the logical path towards preservation is to make available as a fault tolerance.
Older sound recordings are entering public domain (Score:4, Informative)
Frequently Asked Questions: Recorded Sound, Audio [loc.gov]
The [2018] law now provides that
For recordings first published before 1923, the copyright term ends on December 31, 2021.
Recordings first published between 1923-1946 are protected for 100 years.
Recordings first published between 1947-1956 are protected for 110 years.
For all remaining recordings first made prior to February 15, 1972, protection shall end on February 15, 2067.
Recorded after February 15, 1972, 95 years from publication or 120 years from recording date, whichever is shorter.
Re: (Score:2)
How about that copyright is no longer valid if the original is no longer for sale at cpi from original price.
Culture is being lost, but hey who cares, right. You can't preserve that which is lost and no longer available.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> One of the big problems is that the "preservation of history" can still happen, it just needs to happen in private until the copyright expires.
And before it expires, the archive may be dead. Preservation requires that people may have a backup of the archived copy.
If the music industry tries to sue the Internet archive out of business it's the best proof that they should have used torrents, which aren't that easy to kill off as long as someone is interested into an archive. Long term archival is hard an
Re:Copyright vs History (Score:4)
Hardly anyone is going to get behind funding a project they can't benefit from in their lifetime. Asking for donations or public money to archive and preserve something that will be inaccessible to the public until most of the living people who would vote for/donate to it are dead is a non-starter.
Modern copyright law is morally bankrupt and should be undermined at every possible opportunity. Writing one good book or album should not entitle your great grand kids to profit off of it. It should expire in 20 years or 5 years after the author's death, whichever comes first. Corporations should get even less time.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The founding fathers ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... thought that 7 years, renewable once for another 7, was good enough.
That's good enough for me.
I don't think Tin Pan Alley is going to be incentivized to create more tunes by still having 1920s music under copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at what happened in the requests for DMCA exemptions for video game preservation. The studio cartels admitted that they think ANY ability for the public to see/play older games "competes with" their current crap-offerings.
The same is why the MafiAA is being so pissy here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The founding fathers ... (Score:4, Informative)
The 1790 law was 14 years, renewable for an additional 14.
As for 1920s recordings, the recordings themselves will be out of copyright by the end of this decade (100 years, under 2018 law), but the underlying musical score and lyrics may have a longer term depending on things like "life of the author plus X years" situations. But you are right, even if, hypothetically, a young child created and recorded a Tin Pan Alley work back in the day and that person is still alive, I doubt current royalties would be much of an incentive for the now-centenarian to record something new.
Re: (Score:2)
Same here. There really is no need for creators to benefit from their works forever. 7/14 years sounds entirely sensible to me.
Response (Score:2)
The IA response to this lawsuit should be a photocopy of everyone at IA's ass, along with a pair of middle fingers.
Outisde of the few artists from the 50s who might still be alive, no one should still be holding on to a copyright for any of this music. There is no valid reason for it (and no, money isn't a valid reason). Life of author plus 70 years is fucking ridiculous - which doesn't even apply to any of this music. It should be life of author or 20 years after publication, whichever is longer, non-renew
Re: (Score:2)
The nice thing is IA has torrents for all this stuff. So seed away through your favorite proxy.
Re: Response (Score:1)
I am of the opinion that the creators children should just get a job.
Re: (Score:2)
But that only applies to works created since 1st January, 1978... which is absolutely none of these works.
Yeah, good job, I already said that.
the law is usually wrong these days (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Creativity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But originally the extensions and restrictions were pushed as a way to get artists more money; but Disney was just using Sonny Bono as a puppet.
Re: (Score:2)
I think there needs to be a broader understanding that "intellectual property" has become far more valuable than "real" property and the basis for enormous amounts of wealth. Its not just Disney. And this is a modern phenomena. Newton did not get any licensing fees for uses of gravity. Pythagoras and his descendants would be extremely wealthy in today's world.
There have been "patents" for a long time that provided monopolies on economic activity. They were privileges granted by the monarch. Patent laws we
As an artist & technologist (Score:2)
I support the preservation of musical history via digital distribution.
I really think copyright law needs to be revised to allow projects that actually preserve the artistry, culture and the timelessness of the art itself. Ask any true artist if they'd want their works preserved lovingly and honorably for many hundreds/thousands of years to come.
copyright revisted (Score:4, Insightful)
It is time to address copyright laws that have gone too far and have become abusive and extreme in their grasp and duration.
Musicians always get ripped off (Score:3)
75 year limit? (Score:2)
For the USA, here is what the Copyright Term Extension Act [wikipedia.org] has to say:
Following the Copyright Act of 1976, copyright would last for the life of the author plus 50 years (or the last surviving author), or 75 years from publication or 100 years after creation, whichever is shorter for a work of corporate authorship (works made for hire) and anonymous and pseudonymous works.
I do think the music industry is being greedy, especially for anything from the 1890s. I also agree this is not in the interests of the artists.
Preserving Old Songs (Score:2)
If the Labels truly cared about the art of music, and not simply the money they can squeeze out of people, they would have attempted to salvage and preserve the Shellac and PAPER 78's (from the Depression Era) rather than waiting for more interested parties to do the work instead of them. There is not a huge market of people willing to spend money on this historic music -- but like paper rolls for player pianos, these songs should be preserved for future generations.
My solution to this.. (Score:2)
My idea would be that you must register your copyright claim on a special publicly accessible database of copyright works within 20 years of the works creation, giving your identity, clearly identifying the work, and giving clear reasons why you believe the work is your property.
Failure to do this results in the work becoming public domain. Knowingly making a fast claim should be an offence.
Oh, and lets have 50 year max for
Given how the labels screwed the musicians... (Score:3)
Arlo Guthrie didn't get a penny of royalties for Alice's Restaurant for THIRTY YEARS. Oh, sure, right, all the rest was paying for... label profits.
And most smaller names never got anything but the advance, because, you know, profits for the labels.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps a few of these music industry leeches need to experience a health insurance event.
The Act of Queen Anne (Score:2)
All of this makes sense, but I doubt anything we do will incentivise people making 78s' in the 1890s' to make even one more original piece of music. For that matter, I doubt many people producing original music i
Who the heck (Score:2)
Also, how many people today listen to the music that is on the old 78's?
The Recording industry is OFF their rocker on this one. Oh wait but they usually are....