[hn_throwaway_99]

Thanks for that. I tried, yet still there are comment responses that literally do the exact thing I think is so annoying: complain sarcastically that copyright is stupid because it obviously isn't incentivizing the original artists here. No shit, we know.

But whatever, those comments get pushed to the bottom, and I thought the top responses were really helpful (I didn't previously know about the details of the fair use tests).

[Dalewyn]

For some additional context, the copyright laws in the US make a very specific exception for archival[1].

>(a)Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

>(2)that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

Note that "computer program" here is in reference to any and all forms of digital data thereof. The digital copies made from the records concerned are "computer programs".

Sony, et al. allege that Internet Archive's public redistribution of their digital copies of the records do not fall under the archival exception.

If all Internet Archive does really is just archiving, none of the rightsholders would have standing to sue or otherwise get in their way.

[1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117

Obligatory IANAL.

[hn_throwaway_99]

> Sony, et al. allege that Internet Archive's public redistribution of their digital copies of the records do not fall under the archival exception.

Seems pretty obvious to me that, just with respect to the archival exception, that Sony et al is correct here. The issue is not with IA making backup copies of these works - the issue is with making copies and making them available for free over the Internet that is the issue at hand.

[hunter2_]

What should the M.O. of an archive be, then? Paid access? That would be an even worse offense! Zero access except for the person who created the archive? That makes no sense either. The archivist needs to vet potential accessors for certain motives? Only offer access to small samples?

[Dalewyn]

>Paid access?

No, in that case you need permissions or licensing from the rightsholders to resell or otherwise profit en masse from their work.

>Zero access except for the person who created the archive?

This is, fundamentally, what archiving something means. It is legal for someone to rip a music CD that they own for archival purposes, but it is illegal to share the resulting archives.

>The archivist needs to vet potential accessors for certain motives?

One facet of fair use is whether the use is for academical, educational, or other non-profit purposes. So yes, the archivist needs to vet potential accessors for certain motives.

>Only offer access to small samples?

Another facet of fair use is that only the minimum portion required from a given work is used for a given purpose under fair use. For example, quoting certain passages and only those passages in a book to discuss them in a review or critique, etc.

[realusername]

> This is, fundamentally, what archiving something means.

I completely disagree, you can't separate archiving from the accessibility of the content, the whole point of why you are archiving something is to make sure it's not lost and future generations can still access it in the first place!

[throw10920]

I highly suggest making liberal use of the flag feature.

Boring, flamey, predictable activist/political content has absolutely no place on HN.

Your prediction was on point, but we shouldn't have to head off these extremely repetitive and unproductive tangents every time - they should be flagged and downvoted into the ground so that they stop coming up in the first place.

I want 2010 HN back.