it's not really the same as putting snippets of media in a youtube video... the internet archive has, loosely, three categories of stuff:
* out of copyright (totally legal)
* copyright but abandoned (not legal but nobody cares and is good for society)
* copyright and actively being sold right now (not legal and huge exposure to lawsuits)
modern pop media movies, books, audio are not uploaded to the internet archive in their entirety under any kind of fair use unless you're a copyright abolitionist taking a very expansive view on the term
> * copyright but abandoned (not legal but nobody cares and is good for society)
This is where they should be "pushing the envelope on copyright", but for some reason they keep exposing themselves to big lawsuits.
That's why exactly it tho - normal ppl that are not the non-profit with very limited resources and staff, upload the infringing content - it's not even the IA fault that they are hosting it and placing such a responsibility on the IA to polofe the.archive - isn't what that is.
The recording companies should have gone after the individual uploaders or this one as always bullshit - the record labels themselves can just upload a bunch music and screw the IA - it's supposed to be a copy of the whole internet.
This was just to essentially own the IA, which they effectively do now - bc it was easier for them to take over the IA, than to actually protect their content creators by going after the actual distributors, the uploaders. Obviously, they broke tho
Yeah... nothing done against those companies is actually "wrong" - thats a grey area when corpos suck as bad as they do.
They're the digital equivalent of a library. My local library lends out in-copyright music and films.
The real problem here however is copyright. There should be a balance between creators, publishers, readers, libraries, fair use, and remixers. But the balance is all out of whack with the publishers making most of the money and everyone else including most creators getting stiffed.
Digital equivalents to libraries typically have a fixed number of copies of a digital book paired with DRM such that the user can only read them while checked out. That is very different from how the internet archive works.
Digital is fundamentally different because everything can be copied infinitely. Any model that doesn't accept this basic fact is broken. Luckily there are plenty of other models that could be used, such as compulsory licensing or flat fees that are divided amongst creators. The publishers of course are not interested in that.
Except for the DRM, that is exactly how the internet archive works for content that is still under copyright. However, for libraries, they often have a limited number of borrows per book (enforced with the DRM), and they are effectively renting the book, not owning it. Which gets back to the imbalance of copyright law and enforcement.