The Internet Archive reveals: 'Gramophone' copyright lawsuit launched late by record companies!

The Internet Archive and its crucial role in digital archiving

Founded in 1996, the Internet Archive has built up an unrivalled library of digital artifacts in less than three decades.

Many people are familiar with the Wayback Machine website archiving project, but this non-profit organization also runs a number of other preservation projects.

These meticulous archiving skills are a vital part of the digital history books being "written" right now. However, good intentions are not immune from copyright infringement claims, or even million-dollar lawsuits.

The Great 78 Project

Six years ago, the Archive teamed up with other libraries and experts to archive the sounds of today's obsolete 78 rpm gramophone records. As well as capturing their unique sound, including crackles and hisses, this saves unique recordings for future generations before vinyl or shellac disintegrates.

The "Great 78 Project" has been hailed by curators, historians and music fans alike. However, not everyone in the music industry has welcomed it, as the copies were made without obtaining permission from all rights holders.

IA files motion to dismiss

Filed a few days ago, IA's motion to dismiss stresses the importance of archiving these old recordings, some of which date back to the late 19th century. The records have been obsolete since the 1950s, but that doesn't mean their sound should be lost forever, argues IA.

"The specific quality of the sound, including the peculiar crackles and other imperfections that are characteristic of this antiquated medium, has been an integral part of American culture for many decades," the motion notes.

The trial will ultimately have to decide whether "The Great 78 Project" is allowed to exist under U.S. copyright law. The motion to dismiss also deals with another time-related issue.

The RIAA's cease and desist letter

U.S. copyright law provides for a three-year statute of limitations. This means that once a concrete copyright infringement has been discovered, legal action must be taken within this period. This was not done here, according to IA.

The RIAA letter didn't mention any specific recordings, but referred to artists such as Elvis Presley, Duke Ellington and Billie Holiday. It also described IA as a platform for large-scale piracy, mentioning "thousands" of recordings.

"While the Internet Archive is full of counterfeit copies of sound recordings, the most prominent example of this infringement is the 'Great 78 Project'," the RIAA wrote in its letter.

IA responds

IA's motion to dismiss acknowledges that the RIAA sent this letter. At the same time, it provides more context by pointing out that founder Brewster Kahle responded to the letter. Among other things, Kahle noted that rights holders can send takedown notices or request the exclusion of certain artists and recordings.

According to the motion to dismiss, the RIAA never responded to this reply, and the project continued in the years that followed.

A sequel finally came when RIAA member labels filed suit, more than three years later. The timing is significant, as IA argues that the lawsuit is outside the three-year statute of limitations.

Limitation period

Under US copyright law, the three-year period begins when the rights holder "discovers" the infringement. IA now argues that the labels were aware of the alleged infringements of the "Great 78 Project" when the RIAA sent its letter.

"The letter acknowledges that the plaintiffs believed, as of July 22, 2020, that 'thousands' of recordings had already been digitized and uploaded to the Great 78 Project, including those of some named artists," writes IA.

IA argues that many claims are outside the three-year statute of limitations and should therefore be dismissed. Some claims may remain, but this will considerably reduce the scope of the trial and the potential damages.

Conclusion

At present, the labels have yet to respond to the AI argument. They may have a different opinion, but on the surface, the timing seems unfortunate. Had they filed their complaint a few weeks earlier, this question would not have arisen.

Finally, the Kahle-Austin Foundation has filed a separate motion to dismiss. The foundation argues that there is no reason to include it in the lawsuit, as it only funds the Internet Archive.