Gregory's ServerNow the Washington lawyers want to destroy digital collections of scratchy 78rpm records, 70-120 year old, built by dedicated preservationists online since 2006.
Who benefits?
 33 comments
 @matoakit @brewsterkahle Is it by any chance still online? Would be too bad if some crawlers would download that stuff and distribute it via torrents...  @Natanox @brewsterkahle I think we're getting back to everything being torrents anyway because capitalist assholes are quite unreasonable in every way. @matoakit @brewsterkahle Of course they are, you can't argue with any of the 7 deadly sins (or the embodiment of 'em). Pirating can be an ethically viable solution if done right, and I trust pirates more than our broken system.   @brewsterkahle The RIAA (and MPAA) were clients of mine when I worked in "anti-piracy" (a categorically broken and/or stupid industry if ever there was one) and the petty, reactionary, scrooge on meth personalities there were utter gobshite on a good day...good days were rare. They are utter turd-tsunamis.  @brewsterkahle "The lawsuit said the recordings are all available on authorized streaming services and "face no danger of being lost, forgotten, or destroyed."" Except we know full well the moment it becomes more profitable for them to destroy the media, they will. We've already seen it with several media conglomerates in the last 8 months. This lawsuit reeks of bullshit. @brewsterkahle I guess the Internet Archive is threatening their possible but unrealized profits. That the music industry might leave money on a table that doesnβt yet exist.  Itβs not about profits, itβs about control. Itβs been about totalitarian control since the Powell Memo. @brewsterkahle Some of the songs in the complaint are considerably less than 70 years old. This isn't going to go any better than CDL did.  To anyone as ignorant as I: "CDL" is "controlled digital lending" and this is how that lawsuit has gone so far (as of October last year): blog.archive.org/2022/10/17/thβ¦ The publishers seem to be arguing that all digital lending is a potential threat to their business and libraries have no right to do it. That's as expected. It seems the lawsuit has not reached a summary judgement, reached a settlement, nor gone to court yet?   @Dhmspector @brewsterkahle But I think things are likely to be locked up unless they were produced before 70 years ago So the rolling date of βout of copyrightβ is now 1923 (moving forward every year)  Can you give a copy of the archive to the Library of Congress or Smithsonian just in case? It would be fun if the LOC posted the archive online, causing the suit against the Internet Archive to be moot or a pyrrhic victory at best. Their lawyers. "The lawsuit said the recordings are all available on authorized streaming services and "face no danger of being lost, forgotten, or destroyed."" Anyone watched Willow (tv series) this week oh wait that was a tax write off. Because the archive exists, there will be no market for their "remasters" meant to extend the copyrights another 150 years because you call it a remaster & restart the clock. Just happy the artists will be paid... oh wait... @brewsterkahle @deborahh Information wants to be freeβ¦ to provide profit increasing exponentially annually to the wealthiest owners who can buy everything they desire.  @brewsterkahle Future historians and society will thank you. It's a moral imperative at this point. @brewsterkahle @toolbear @brewsterkahle Not only pirate - but record everything too! For record of history, for when the history is written by the victors or time later when it is reflected upon we can see what actually happened @rm4 @brewsterkahle Records are subversive anyway as they donβt provide recurring revenue streams. A concept like βbuy once and listen as often as you likeβ is a dangerous idea and people shouldnβt be reminded something like that ever existed. π  @brewsterkahle Arenβt those past copyright protection thus making them βfreeβ?  @brewsterkahle @brewsterkahle the minute they filed suit and unleashed headlines across the internet, millions of people who weren't aware of the collection are now checking it out (and hopefully downloading it) |
@brewsterkahle That falls under cultural destruction and destruction of history doesn't it?
There is no profit motive here and any reasonable judge should throw out the case.
Sadly we have a lot of unreasonable judges that don't value culture or history.