The inability to prove damages normally is the end of a suit. But there is something magic in copyright where judges seem to waive that requirement. This special dispensation seems to be extralegal, and limited to where it serves large copyright holders.
> Days before the settlement was announced, record labels had indicated that everyone but the Internet Archive and its founder, Brewster Kahle, had agreed to sign a joint settlement
Does IA have an independent board of directors? If so, why is the board and its members never mentioned in the copyright lawsuits? Most other organizations (nonprofit and corporate) with independent boards would be heavily involved in any major litigation and issuing statements as developments warrant.
I don't see that here - the IA blog post is by a director of library services. The about page (https://blog.archive.org/about/) mentions nothing about a board.
A search for "Internet Archive rumors" returns a copy of Fleetwood Mac "Rumours" on my first page of results. Playable in browser and downloadable in high-quality lossless format.
The book lawsuit was over current titles (not really archival and preservation), and the record lawsuit wasn't really about the rare 78s, it was about the modern Jimi Hendrix and Paul McCartney records that somehow slipped in. And their refusal to follow the modern law that they themselves celebrated that made what they're trying to do (including downloads) explicitly legal. But that law prohibited fundraising, and they couldn't resist tweeting out links to Frank Sinatra records with a big banner on top asking for money.
In both lawsuits the discovery revealed tech debt and sloppy process at the Archive that made it impossible for them to argue on behalf of the future we all want.
It’s a good time to remind everyone that the budget of the Internet Archive — the largest library in the world — is smaller than the SF public library. It has a small fraction of the budget of Wikipedia.
Did something happen in the past couple of days? I had this link to a Sam Cooke (1963) album [0] open and working and was enjoying it, but today it no longer exists.
> 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.
There is so much pirated material on Internet Archive. They have so many movies with titles directly from the warez groups. I don't think they are done getting in trouble sadly.
I guess things could be worse? The Internet Archive is too precious of a resource for humanity to lose. I still fear its days are numbered. I don't think non-technical people appreciate it, or are even aware of its existence, in the same way as Wikipedia.
I fear that when a certain administration finds out about it they will force it to shut down. The last thing they want is for the internet to have a memory, because then they can define past in any way they want.
There's an easy solution to this: just move hosting to and register in the Marshall Islands where there is effectively no copyright enforcement. It is difficult to threaten someone with a lawsuit when the law they cite is not enforced.
If I had to guess, I'd say that the settlement was a lot closer to $41K than one would think, and that's why it's being kept quiet. Otherwise, the labels saw themselves either losing a famous copyright case in the age of LLM threats to copyright, or winning a famous copyright case in an awkward fashion that made people far less sympathetic to them.
People are on copyright holders' side in the battle with LLMs. Either winning or losing this case would be poison.
I'm interested to know if last year's book publisher settlement cost will be reflected in IA's public filings. I assume they'll file a 990 in november:
How does IA get picked on but YT does not? I can type in any music artist or album I can think of with the word playlist and get a full playlist. With exception of the YT channels owned by the publisher or artist I am highly skeptical YT own even 1% of the music on their site. Most of the music I run across seems to be just random YT user accounts and the music has been there for years. For the record I am not complaining, it just seems very biased to me as in IA probably do not have as many lawyers, as much bureaucracy, connections and money as YT making them an easier target but I am just guessing if that is the reason.
26 comments
[ 1.6 ms ] story [ 48.6 ms ] threadDoes IA have an independent board of directors? If so, why is the board and its members never mentioned in the copyright lawsuits? Most other organizations (nonprofit and corporate) with independent boards would be heavily involved in any major litigation and issuing statements as developments warrant.
I don't see that here - the IA blog post is by a director of library services. The about page (https://blog.archive.org/about/) mentions nothing about a board.
The book lawsuit was over current titles (not really archival and preservation), and the record lawsuit wasn't really about the rare 78s, it was about the modern Jimi Hendrix and Paul McCartney records that somehow slipped in. And their refusal to follow the modern law that they themselves celebrated that made what they're trying to do (including downloads) explicitly legal. But that law prohibited fundraising, and they couldn't resist tweeting out links to Frank Sinatra records with a big banner on top asking for money.
In both lawsuits the discovery revealed tech debt and sloppy process at the Archive that made it impossible for them to argue on behalf of the future we all want.
It’s a good time to remind everyone that the budget of the Internet Archive — the largest library in the world — is smaller than the SF public library. It has a small fraction of the budget of Wikipedia.
[0] https://archive.org/details/sam-cooke-the-best-0f-1963/01++S...
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.
You can argue the law is wrong but you can't argue that IA isn't trampling it.
People are on copyright holders' side in the battle with LLMs. Either winning or losing this case would be poison.
https://www.reddit.com/r/internetarchive/comments/1nk4pwt/ca...
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943...
Seriously, if you are going to challenge this kind of shit actually challenge it.