←back to thread

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

(arstechnica.com)
335 points coloneltcb | 2 comments | 15 Sep 25 22:34 UTC | HN request time: 0.443s | source
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 #
wackget ◴[19 Sep 25 15:21 UTC] No.45302638[source]▶
The people at these companies probably do realise that literally nobody has ever tried to watch a video like Rick Beato's to simply listen to a piece of music. Anyone who is watching a Rick Beato video is watching it because of the theory, discussion, and commentary surrounding the music.

A record label has never lost a sale because somebody discovered they could "get music for free" by watching YouTube critique videos.

Realistically, what's probably happening is the labels have decided it's too (i.e. would cost too much money) to apply a nuanced approach to copyright striking and so are knowingly flagging everything containing snippets of their music whether it's fair use or not. They've simply decided to not care.

replies(8): >>45302899 #>>45302910 #>>45302915 #>>45302951 #>>45304430 #>>45304994 #>>45305114 #>>45306518 #
1. vintermann ◴[19 Sep 25 17:47 UTC] No.45304430[source]▶
I think it's bold to think it's conscious planning that's behind this behavior from UMG. Most of us work or have worked with large companies, we've seen for ourselves how dysfunctional they can be.
replies(1): >>45304611 #
2. dylan604 ◴[19 Sep 25 18:05 UTC] No.45304611[source]▶
More than likely it is a subcontracted law firm that specializes in YT notices with automation. I seriously doubt that their in-house legal team do it at all. They might receive an email from the subcontractors with updates to their progress each day/week/month that rarely if ever gets reviewed by in-house legal.