arctander t1_ixkswdy wrote
I am genuinely curious as to how The Internet Archive can have this clearly copyrighted material stored and served without any rights - and they know it "Rights yikes" is on the page.
Are they simply waiting for a DMCA notice?
Then there's this note "Uploaded as it may never get an official re-release" which simply isn't any kind of legal reason under US copyright law.
Anyway, not trying to start a fight, but I don't understand how The IA can host this. I figure that if I did, I'd get crushed by an attorney somewhere.
sedition- t1_ixkuluz wrote
You'd probably lose your mind if you actually looked into what IA hosts without issues, I'm talking entire video game console libraries.
[deleted] t1_ixmkfq5 wrote
Just search "goodset" and you'll be entertained for the rest of your life.
salartarium t1_ixl6hkq wrote
The Internet Archive is like YouTube when it comes to this stuff. Some random internet user uploaded the video and filled out the page. It stays up until they receive a DCMA notice and because the uploader checked the box that they had the rights, the IA is not responsible for having believed them.
They just aren't as aggressive as google and don't have automated bots to search for copyrighted content as they don't care about relations with big media companies.
MattsAwesomeStuff t1_ixl8ukn wrote
> I am genuinely curious as to how The Internet Archive can have this clearly copyrighted material stored and served without any rights
Copyrights are actually the exception. It says "You get to be the only one who controls this, for an amount of time, before it belongs to everyone." It's just that that limit is like 75 years after the death of the creator.
One of the provisions of fair use has to do with the commercial impact of the copyright violation. I.E. How damaging you're being by distributing it.
If someone will not sell or make available the work, then it's pretty easy to argue that there is no lost commercial value. This is also true of out of print books, classic video games, etc.
The whole point of copyright law was to encourage the creation of new works, by which all of society benefits. Society benefits a lot more from the availability of "lost" works than from protecting people who are withholding it.
On a tangent, it's a bit of a joke that copyright (which used to be like, 5-10 years) existed to give a creator an encouragement to create creative works by allowing a window of time to profit from them. But, to not make it indefinite, so that creators, like Youtubers, have to constantly create new content in order to profit from it. The whole point was "More people will write books, perform plays, create maps, etc. Society is way better off." Exactly how encouraged is a creator, to create new works... 75 years after they're dead?
arctander t1_ixlj6s2 wrote
This is an eloquent take on the fourth test of fair use under US Copyright law, namely "Effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." Under this economic interpretation Disney's Song of the South ought to be available, and it is. Disney has refused to re-release this film and it remains under copyright until 2041.
The Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act was clearly overreaching and should be repealed, but there's no political will to do so. My question was really about the apparent impunity under which IA operates.
I appreciate the good conversation, thank you.
ramilehti t1_ixlq5pn wrote
The author's life + 75 years is an absurdly long time period. It is solely used by corporations to hoard culture. To milk every last cent out of them.
Author's life + 20 years would be acceptable in my opinion. That would ensure that the author's offspring are adults and can take care of themselves. If the copyright is owned by a corporation then 20 years.
But I agree the corporations that own most of the culture there is would never allow this. So it must be done against their will.
MattsAwesomeStuff t1_ixm4d8y wrote
> Author's life + 20 years would be acceptable in my opinion. That would ensure that the author's offspring are adults and can take care of themselves.
But that's not the purpose of copyrights.
The purpose is to encourage the creation of creative works for society.
You cannot encourage new creative works from a corpse.
You have to think "At what point does the lack of a copyright future, prevent this person from creating it in the first place?"
And the answer is probably 5-10 years. You've milked it all but dry after 5-10 years.
How much money does a movie make 5-10 years after it's published? A trickle. Not enough for a studio to say "Well if it's only 5 years, we're not making the movie in the first place."
Musicians wouldn't retire or stop making albums (or good albums) so readily if they can't rely on evergreen sales of stuff they did 20, 30, 40 years ago.
Etc.
The purpose isn't "Your children should keep earning money from this."
Once upon a time there were no copyrights at all. You created something because you wanted to create it. People still made stuff.
MattsAwesomeStuff t1_ixm5xfh wrote
> This is an eloquent take on the fourth test of fair use under US Copyright law, namely "Effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." Under this economic interpretation Disney's Song of the South ought to be available, and it is. Disney has refused to re-release this film and it remains under copyright until 2041.
Indeed, and that interpretation has controversy.
It's not that the copyright is invalid, but, with the goal of maintaining public access to creative works, it's not hard to make a case that you have not harmed the market for the good, if they intend not to sell it.
A more peculiar case is, remember in the 90s when Disney would stagger the release of their movies on VHS? If you didn't buy it, it might not be available for another 5 years or whatnot. How's copyright supposed to handle that?
The same way copyright handles everything: Whoever spends the most on lawyers wins :p
trackofalljades t1_ixlnvkb wrote
Kevin Smith advocates pirating the movie, and the Weinstein Company hasn’t been actively taking it down. It’s that simple.
awkisopen t1_ixl7zx2 wrote
Ghede t1_ixlc086 wrote
That only applies to video games and software, not movies.
[deleted] t1_ixl4h2y wrote
[deleted]
OysterTongs t1_ixmq881 wrote
>Are they simply waiting for a DMCA notice?
Yes. They take everything then take it down if you ask them.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments