Universal Music Group , Sony Music Entertainment and other record labels on Friday sued the nonprofit Internet Archive for copyright infringement over its streaming collection of digitized music from vintage records.

Archived version: https://archive.ph/ZGo6X

Universal Music Group (UMG.AS), Sony Music Entertainment (6758.T) and other record labels on Friday sued the nonprofit Internet Archive for copyright infringement over its streaming collection of digitized music from vintage records.

The labels’ lawsuit filed in a federal court in Manhattan said the Archive’s “Great 78 Project” functions as an “illegal record store” for songs by musicians including Frank Sinatra, Ella Fitzgerald, Miles Davis and Billie Holiday.

They named 2,749 sound-recording copyrights that the Archive allegedly infringed. The labels said their damages in the case could be as high as $412 million.

Representatives for the Internet Archive did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the complaint.

The San Francisco-based Internet Archive digitally archives websites, books, audio recordings and other materials. It compares itself to a library and says its mission is to “provide universal access to all knowledge.”

The Internet Archive is already facing another federal lawsuit in Manhattan from leading book publishers who said its digital-book lending program launched in the pandemic violates their copyrights. A judge ruled for the publishers in March, in a decision that the Archive plans to appeal.

The Great 78 Project encourages donations of 78-rpm records – the dominant record format from the early 1900s until the 1950s – for the group to digitize to “ensure the survival of these cultural materials for future generations to study and enjoy.” Its website says the collection includes more than 400,000 recordings.

The labels’ lawsuit said the project includes thousands of their copyright-protected recordings, including Bing Crosby’s “White Christmas,” Chuck Berry’s “Roll Over Beethoven” and Duke Ellington’s “It Don’t Mean a Thing (If It Ain’t Got That Swing)”.

The lawsuit said the recordings are all available on authorized streaming services and “face no danger of being lost, forgotten, or destroyed.”

  • Landrin201@lemmy.mlEnglish
    406·
    1 year ago

    I’ve said it many times: I think that copyright for all published art should extend for exactly one year after it’s publication then become public domain. For almost ALL media, the first year is the time in which it make over 90% of its money. If you haven’t turned a profit, or at least broken even, by then then you aren’t going to.

    After tjay I don’t see why you should be entitles to royalties from every sale, especially with our modern system of mass distribution.

    • Unbeelievable@beehaw.orgEnglish
      8·
      1 year ago

      One year is way too short. IMO, twenty years would be perfect.

      And I’m not sure if that’s already a thing, but what enters the public domain has to be made freely accessible (de-DRMed, open-sourced…).

    • oryx@lemmy.worldEnglish
      51·
      1 year ago

      As someone in the industry that makes and releases music, I can say that there are many problems with copyright laws, but this is 100% not the way to solve it.

    • beeng@discuss.tchncs.de
      2·
      1 year ago

      Saw panel with somebody suggesting eg you set your price of art at a level, after which your art goes creative commons and you get paid.

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      1·
      1 year ago

      Meh, I would be fine with the original copyright laws. 30 years that was it. It allowed the creator to make a career off of being creative, but didn’t allow Disney to keep Mickey.