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.”

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    14611 months ago

    Why can’t we have nice things? These people are literally just archiving and preserving old media, and if I recall correctly, they have strict rules of sharing these archived media.

    I kinda understand why they got sued by Wiley/HarperCollins due to breaking the rules of sharing unlimited copies of archived books, but this time it doesn’t look like it.

    Honestly, I hope Internet Archive survives all these lawsuits they’re dealing with

    • HubertManne
      link
      fedilink
      3611 months ago

      Also there are so many ways to get music I doubt people would be flocking to the internet archive for it.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        1911 months ago

        Yeah, it doesn’t add up. Why would one go to the restricted access distributor if they can get a lot more by pirating?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          311 months ago

          I agree. I once forgot the book I was reading when I went on a trip, so I found it on internet archive for the time I was traveling. Reading a novel on there is just obnoxious, because they have short time limits for borrowing, which I forget if it’s an hour or half hour. Either way, it’s good for reference books, not so much for novels.

        • loathesome dongeater
          link
          fedilink
          English
          111 months ago

          Well it would be a positive step forward if we could normalise sharing old shit like Frank Sinatra music without having to worry about drawing the ire of a publishing company exec about to buy his 10th yatch. Piracy is cool but it would be better to eliminate reasons which make piracy almost necessary in the first place.

    • fmstrat
      link
      fedilink
      English
      211 months ago

      I don’t think the strict rules are true. Someone on Lemmy was asking about the legality of downloading music there because it was so easy to find. Maybe they are suing about the non-normalized versions that are not indexed as reserved.