[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!