←back to thread

Internet Archive's big battle with music publishers ends in settlement

(arstechnica.com)
335 points coloneltcb | 8 comments | 15 Sep 25 22:34 UTC | HN request time: 0.204s | source | bottom
Show context
ethagnawl ◴[19 Sep 25 14:03 UTC] No.45301807[source]▶
> He suggested that perhaps labels just "don't like the Internet Archive's way of pushing the envelope on copyright and fair use."

This seems to be the whole ballgame.

They're (UMG, specifically) doing the same to YouTuber Rick Beato. His music theory/analysis/reaction videos are very careful to abide by the rules of _fair use_ and, yet, UMG is still drowning him in copyright violation claims. He's had to hire representation to deal with the backlog of claims that are (extremely likely) all bogus and _hope_ to keep his videos and channel online.

On one hand, their behavior is baffling, as I've streamed and purchased music from these companies I would not have otherwise because of Beato's channel. On the other, it's completely unsurprising, as they stand to _have their cake and eat it too_ by introducing chokepoints for _all_ access to their music (in theory, anyways) and suing anyone in the hopes of inking these bullshit settlements with anyone who dares get within a few miles of their moat.

replies(7): >>45302055 #>>45302638 #>>45303336 #>>45303357 #>>45303910 #>>45305362 #>>45307727 #
1. Palomides ◴[19 Sep 25 14:27 UTC] No.45302055[source]▶
it's not really the same as putting snippets of media in a youtube video... the internet archive has, loosely, three categories of stuff:

* out of copyright (totally legal)

* copyright but abandoned (not legal but nobody cares and is good for society)

* copyright and actively being sold right now (not legal and huge exposure to lawsuits)

modern pop media movies, books, audio are not uploaded to the internet archive in their entirety under any kind of fair use unless you're a copyright abolitionist taking a very expansive view on the term

replies(3): >>45302927 #>>45303196 #>>45303659 #
2. NemoNobody ◴[19 Sep 25 15:46 UTC] No.45302927[source]▶
That's why exactly it tho - normal ppl that are not the non-profit with very limited resources and staff, upload the infringing content - it's not even the IA fault that they are hosting it and placing such a responsibility on the IA to polofe the.archive - isn't what that is.

The recording companies should have gone after the individual uploaders or this one as always bullshit - the record labels themselves can just upload a bunch music and screw the IA - it's supposed to be a copy of the whole internet.

This was just to essentially own the IA, which they effectively do now - bc it was easier for them to take over the IA, than to actually protect their content creators by going after the actual distributors, the uploaders. Obviously, they broke tho

Yeah... nothing done against those companies is actually "wrong" - thats a grey area when corpos suck as bad as they do.

3. gs17 ◴[19 Sep 25 16:02 UTC] No.45303196[source]▶
> * copyright but abandoned (not legal but nobody cares and is good for society)

This is where they should be "pushing the envelope on copyright", but for some reason they keep exposing themselves to big lawsuits.

4. rwmj ◴[19 Sep 25 16:40 UTC] No.45303659[source]▶
They're the digital equivalent of a library. My local library lends out in-copyright music and films.

The real problem here however is copyright. There should be a balance between creators, publishers, readers, libraries, fair use, and remixers. But the balance is all out of whack with the publishers making most of the money and everyone else including most creators getting stiffed.

replies(1): >>45303847 #
5. charcircuit ◴[19 Sep 25 16:56 UTC] No.45303847[source]▶
Digital equivalents to libraries typically have a fixed number of copies of a digital book paired with DRM such that the user can only read them while checked out. That is very different from how the internet archive works.
replies(3): >>45304043 #>>45304119 #>>45304686 #
6. ◴[19 Sep 25 17:13 UTC] No.45304043{3}[source]▶
7. thayne ◴[19 Sep 25 17:18 UTC] No.45304119{3}[source]▶
Except for the DRM, that is exactly how the internet archive works for content that is still under copyright. However, for libraries, they often have a limited number of borrows per book (enforced with the DRM), and they are effectively renting the book, not owning it. Which gets back to the imbalance of copyright law and enforcement.
8. rwmj ◴[19 Sep 25 18:13 UTC] No.45304686{3}[source]▶
Digital is fundamentally different because everything can be copied infinitely. Any model that doesn't accept this basic fact is broken. Luckily there are plenty of other models that could be used, such as compulsory licensing or flat fees that are divided amongst creators. The publishers of course are not interested in that.