Internet Archive sued for copyright infringement

[drh]

UMG Recordings, Capitol Records, Concord Bicycle Assets, CMGI Recorded Music Assets, Sony Music, and Arista Music have brought suit against Internet Archive on grounds its "Great 78 Project" constitutes a mass copyright infringement. They seek damages that, according to this article, could exceed $412 million.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/music/news/re ... 6d0e&ei=52

[chunnybh]

I'm all for copyright protection but how can these companies justify ownership after such a long time. I mean, I'm sure the artists aren't getting paid anymore.
I use the Internet Archive all the time. It's totally free and ever expanding. The research I have done would be impossible without the wonderful search facility at the Internet Archive.
Perhaps we should be making a list of all the books on phonographs and gramophones that are available currently at the Archive, before it disappears.
Can anyone explain copyright laws regarding 78's.

[Lah Ca]

I wonder how much is just predatory greed and how much is legitimate concern for copyright on titles that were once in their catalogues but are no longer issued.

I can see taking legal action if the companies all had comprehensive re-issues in their current catalogues, but mostly they don't. However, many titles, certainly not all, are available on streaming services now, and perhaps it is this revenue the litigious companies are interested in protecting. The revenue is probably all gravy. I doubt they pay the estates of artists the performance royalties, and I would assume many of the pieces of music recorded are now public domain.

The legal action may kill Internet Archive, and then so much of the music will not be available to anyone without the original recordings or without dark-net skills to access hidden archives. This would be a shame. The world be a much poorer place.

[Sidewinder]

Remember the Oscar winning picture "Searching for Sugar Man" about an American singer who's records bombed in the USA but unbeknownst to him he became hugely successful in the southern hemisphere.

The American singer spent decades working hard labour on building sites and had no idea he was famous until he was tracked down by a couple of obsessed fans from South Africa. His record label "failed" to alert him to the fact that he had developed a cult following overseas, was bringing in a ton of money, which the record company put into its own pocket.

So their hands are not so clean either. Does the website that is performing a valuable service with excerpts of 5 inch Berliners now have to worry?

[Lah Ca]

Remember the Oscar winning picture "Searching for Sugar Man" about an American singer who's records bombed in the USA but unbeknownst to him he became hugely successful in the southern hemisphere.

The American singer spent decades working hard labour on building sites and had no idea he was famous until he was tracked down by a couple of obsessed fans from South Africa. His record label "failed" to alert him to the fact that he had developed a cult following overseas, was bringing in a ton of money, which the record company put into its own pocket.

So their hands are not so clean either. Does the website that is performing a valuable service with excerpts of 5 inch Berliners now have to worry?

+1!

And in the other direction, Africa to the US, we have The Lion Sleeps Tonight.

https://theenvoyweb.com/news/the-lion-s ... cumentary/

[shoshani]

Maybe Brewster should move operations (servers, etc) outside the US. Every 78 ever issued is public domain pretty much everywhere else in the world now - until 2013 or so the copyright period in sound recordings in much of the world was only 50 years. That changed when The Beatles first album was about to come out of copyright (their first two singles slipped out in the UK, having been issued in 1962.)

Yes, I understand that if someone from the US accesses something, it's technically a US action. Or something. I honestly wish there could be global standards for some things.

[52089]

I'm all for copyright protection but how can these companies justify ownership after such a long time. I mean, I'm sure the artists aren't getting paid anymore.
I use the Internet Archive all the time. It's totally free and ever expanding. The research I have done would be impossible without the wonderful search facility at the Internet Archive.
Perhaps we should be making a list of all the books on phonographs and gramophones that are available currently at the Archive, before it disappears.
Can anyone explain copyright laws regarding 78's.

I covered the copyright status of sound recordings in the USA and EU here:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=51504&hilit=domain

Note again that this is the status of the sound recording itself. The underlying compositions follow completely different rules.

[Curt A]

I find it funny that YouTube has all types of music and videos available uploaded by individuals...

[mrrgstuff]

I find it funny that YouTube has all types of music and videos available uploaded by individuals...

Although YouTube do carefully check the contents of all uploaded videos, and if they find any copyright material (even a few seconds), the copyright owner gets to choose if it is allowed and how much, if any of the advertising revenue you can have, assuming you are allowed to have advertising revenue anyway.

Either way, adverts will run on it and they of course will take their share.

In the case where the copyright owner does not permit usage, you can end up with a copyright strike, and 3 of them will shut your channel down permanently. With 78s though, I think it is more likely they would be happy to earn some money off the back of your video though.

I suspect in the case of the Internet Archive, there is no way for the copyright holders to take a share, which would explain their actions, though I have no direct knowledge of the case, or the Internet Archive.

[Curt A]

I am enjoying your YouTube channel...