Yesterday, the Internet Archive submitted its response to the record labels’ recent motion, which seeks to add an additional 493 sound recordings to their lawsuit against the Internet Archive for preserving 78rpm sound recordings.
The Internet Archive’s position is clear: the labels have been engaged in a long-running game of “hide-the-ball” and their motion to file a second amended complaint should be denied.
The full response is available here (PDF); the entire docket is here (CourtListener).
Statement from Brewster Kahle, digital librarian of the Internet Archive:
“More than 850 musicians have called on Universal Music Group to drop its lawsuit against the Internet Archive. Instead, the recording industry has decided to aggressively escalate its attack at a time when the Internet Archive’s preservation efforts have never been more vital.”
Learn more about the lawsuit
In 2023, major labels sued the Internet Archive for preserving 78rpm sound recordings. Learn more about the lawsuit, and why the Internet Archive is fighting back:
What archivists and historians are saying:
- Belanger, Ashley. “Music labels will regret coming for the Internet Archive, sound historian says” Ars Technica, March 7, 2025.
What musicians are saying:
- Blistein, Jon. “Kathleen Hanna, Tegan and Sara, More Back Internet Archive in $621 Million Copyright Fight” Rolling Stone, December 9, 2024.
- Carlos Campbell, Ian. “Musicians demand music labels drop their Internet Archive lawsuit” Engadget, December 9, 2024.
More:
- Blistein, Jon. “Inside the $621 Million Legal Battle for the ‘Soul of the Internet’” Rolling Stone, September 29, 2024.
- Masnick, Mike. “RIAA Piles On In The Effort To Kill The World’s Greatest Library: Sues Internet Archive For Making It Possible To Hear Old 78s” Techdirt, August 14, 2023.
- Freeland, Chris. “Internet Archive Responds to Recording Industry Lawsuit Targeting Obsolete Media” Internet Archive Blog, August 14, 2023.
We shall not let them thrust New Alexandria into the embers of the night!
The active legal effort being put forth by major record labels to prevent the archival of their material will hurt everyone in the long run, including the record labels themselves. It is very ballsy, for lack of a better term, for the major record label known for having a massive storage lot fire in 2008 that caused them to lose over 100,000 music master tapes to be the one fighting the preservation of music. If they had started some form of digital preservation in the early 2000’s then the lot fire wouldn’t have been such a major loss to the history of music.
There needs to be some form of law or legal precedent in the United States to:
A) require trademarked media properties to be reissued every 20-25 years in order for the recording label to keep the legal rights over the recording/property;
B) protect media archivists from DMCA;
C) allow some form of legal wiggle room for piracy if said media is not easily accessible by means of streaming and/or physical distribution;
and/or D) disallow the DMCA take down of copyrighted media that the corporate entity cannot easily redistribute through official means.
so so glad to hear musicians agreeing.
the internet is becoming an increasingly unreliable and misleading place. i adore this website.
Does anyone remember when the music industry was suing dead grandmothers, 12-year-olds, and other hapless people in a way that made the industry look like it was composed entirely of clueless, short-sighted business folk who seemed to think that the ticket to record profits was suing the bejeezus out of the very people who, in many cases, were the very ones trying to put money into the industry’s pocket?
Apparently, the music industry doesn’t.
(For anyone who missed it, you can start here: https://www.theregister.com/2005/02/05/riaa_sues_the_dead/)
If this silliness continues, the music industry may once again find itself one of the most despised, shunned, and alienated industries in history, just as they were twenty years ago. Don’t these people *ever* learn?
I honestly think that if IA conducts a survey of sorts of the users of great78, we would find that most of us simultaneously have at least one streaming platform subscription. Patrons do not come here to pirate songs for free, they come here to look at original cover art and liner notes, listen to un-remastered audio in their original glory (the difference is especially significant with classical music). Actually, with the superior experience in exploring records (like in a second-hand record store) on IA, it may even eventually help increase their sales by cultivating music tastes and reviving interest in old music.
In their defense. I suspect the current mechanics of copyright law is at least partly to blame for their stubbornness, they may have to this even if they don’t want to.
Trademark violations need to be pursued to preserve the trademark. It is not the same for copyright. The music industry can choose not to pursue a copyright claim and it will not affect their copyright of that piece of work in the future.
[quote]
The music industry can choose not to pursue a copyright claim and it will not affect their copyright of that piece of work in the future.
[/quote]
Wouldn’t mailing the IA a simple C&D “please take this down” letter would be enough to defend a copyright claim *if* that was the goal?
The sheer pope-bankrupting amount of money involved (“a maximum possible fine of $621 million”) causes me to believe this lawsuit has a lot more to do with:
A) Trying to milk the IA for a ton of money
and
B) Getting it shut down forever so the Wayback Machine is no longer an embarrassment to the kind of people who constantly insist they do not lie whilst the WM constantly shows otherwise.
…then it has to do with defending copyright.