"The lawsuit said the recordings are all available on authorized streaming services and "face no danger of being lost, forgotten, or destroyed.""
Until the owner of streaming service decides to delete it for no reason or warning. These huge corpos can go fuck themselves.
Or the label itself decides to remove them because of [insert reason here].
I was recently looking for a song on Spotify that I remembered enjoying, what must’ve been 10 year ago. It had been removed from Spotify (greyed out in a playlist) but I sure as shit found it quickly on YouTube, uploaded by some random person.
How many times have we seen popular games removed from Steam because of music licensing issues?
Hell, I had a movie I bought a billion years ago on DVD that I ripped to my machine as part of my digitalization effort, the physical media didn’t make it in my second to last move.
I then decided to move everything to h.265 to shrink my capacity needs and this one was eaten by the transcoder. I went to go BUY it again, can’t find it anywhere. Went to stream? Nowhere.
You telling me I’m gonna trust these rat fucks? No chance.
They’re just here to bleed us dry, the medium is only part that’s negotiable to them.
Oh no, did the two huge companies hoarding the rights to the vast majority of popular music in the world while underpaying artists and overcharging everyone else lose some potential revenue?!
Love the image!
Way to !donthelpjustfilm, some people...
Nah, that tardigrade is having TONS of fun playing the world's smallest violin for Sony and Universal 😁
Geezus, leave it to record labels and recording companies to become even bigger assholes than they already were.
if you pay for music you feed a system that starves the artist.
dont buy music. ever. but their merch, go to concerts or support them in other ways.
Unless the artist is on Bandcamp, buy their music there. On bandcamp fridays
and with concerts most the money goes to ticketmaster
in the US i heard its bad but taylor has enough to be no1 in aor pollution with that privat jet...so it might be still too much
They named 2,749 sound-recording copyrights that the Archive allegedly infringed.
collection includes more than 400,000 recordings.
Has anybody the list with the 2749 recordings in Question?
Copyright law to blame here. If the labels don't defend it, then they could be sued themselves. Internet Archive shouldn't be in America though, far too stringent
That's not how copyright law works. You don't have to defend it or risk being sued.
Copyright law actually has specific exceptions for libraries and hasn't been updated for the modern world, which is the actual problem.
Families of original holders will expect labels to do this
Okay, they can "expect" all they want. Doesn't matter. Doesn't mean anything, and they have no power if they don't own the copyright themselves, and if they do then they are just choosing to act and nothing about copyright law requires they choose to act.
You're mistaking it with trademarks - those you have to defend or you lose them.
I am not. Survivors from these artists expect the labels to do this
Seems like that should be a problem already. I have family that was in the music industry and collected royalties. They won a few Grammys, so the royalties were substantial. Their estate should not continue to receive royalties indefinitely. Hell, as much as I loved them, they shouldn't be collecting indefinitely. They worked hard their entire life and because of that hard work, they deserved to live comfortably in retirement until they passed, but they weren't owed anything they didn't deserve. And as much as I love their kids, they're family too, it isn't as though they deserved any income for something their parent did decades earlier, before they had families of their own.
"The lawsuit said the recordings are all available on authorized streaming services and "face no danger of being lost, forgotten, or destroyed.""
Until the owner of streaming service decides to delete it for no reason or warning. These huge corpos can go fuck themselves.
Or the label itself decides to remove them because of [insert reason here].
I was recently looking for a song on Spotify that I remembered enjoying, what must’ve been 10 year ago. It had been removed from Spotify (greyed out in a playlist) but I sure as shit found it quickly on YouTube, uploaded by some random person.
How many times have we seen popular games removed from Steam because of music licensing issues?
Hell, I had a movie I bought a billion years ago on DVD that I ripped to my machine as part of my digitalization effort, the physical media didn’t make it in my second to last move.
I then decided to move everything to h.265 to shrink my capacity needs and this one was eaten by the transcoder. I went to go BUY it again, can’t find it anywhere. Went to stream? Nowhere.
You telling me I’m gonna trust these rat fucks? No chance.
They’re just here to bleed us dry, the medium is only part that’s negotiable to them.
Oh no, did the two huge companies hoarding the rights to the vast majority of popular music in the world while underpaying artists and overcharging everyone else lose some potential revenue?!
Love the image!
Way to !donthelpjustfilm, some people...
Nah, that tardigrade is having TONS of fun playing the world's smallest violin for Sony and Universal 😁
Geezus, leave it to record labels and recording companies to become even bigger assholes than they already were.
if you pay for music you feed a system that starves the artist. dont buy music. ever. but their merch, go to concerts or support them in other ways.
Unless the artist is on Bandcamp, buy their music there. On bandcamp fridays
and with concerts most the money goes to ticketmaster
in the US i heard its bad but taylor has enough to be no1 in aor pollution with that privat jet...so it might be still too much
Has anybody the list with the 2749 recordings in Question?
Copyright law to blame here. If the labels don't defend it, then they could be sued themselves. Internet Archive shouldn't be in America though, far too stringent
That's not how copyright law works. You don't have to defend it or risk being sued.
Copyright law actually has specific exceptions for libraries and hasn't been updated for the modern world, which is the actual problem.
Families of original holders will expect labels to do this
Okay, they can "expect" all they want. Doesn't matter. Doesn't mean anything, and they have no power if they don't own the copyright themselves, and if they do then they are just choosing to act and nothing about copyright law requires they choose to act.
You're mistaking it with trademarks - those you have to defend or you lose them.
I am not. Survivors from these artists expect the labels to do this
Seems like that should be a problem already. I have family that was in the music industry and collected royalties. They won a few Grammys, so the royalties were substantial. Their estate should not continue to receive royalties indefinitely. Hell, as much as I loved them, they shouldn't be collecting indefinitely. They worked hard their entire life and because of that hard work, they deserved to live comfortably in retirement until they passed, but they weren't owed anything they didn't deserve. And as much as I love their kids, they're family too, it isn't as though they deserved any income for something their parent did decades earlier, before they had families of their own.