Senator Thom Tillis Seems Really Pissed Off That The Internet Archive Bought A Record Store To Make Rare Recordings Accessible

from the what-kind-of-monster...? dept

Senator Thom Tillis (or perhaps some staffer in his office who is desperate for a job as a legacy copyright industry lobbyist in his next job) really seems to have it in for the Internet Archive. Beyond trying to rewrite copyright law to make it favor the legacy players even more than it already does, and beyond telling copyright experts that they shouldn’t even dare think of commenting on the state of copyright law today, Tillis really seems to have an infatuation with the Internet Archive wanting to help people by providing them information. I don’t know what the library ever did to Tillis as a child, but as a Senator he sure seems to hate the very concept. He sent one very confused, misinformed, and angry letter to the Internet Archive over its National Emergency Library, and now he’s sent another one after news broke that the Archive had purchased the distressed, but famed, Bop Street Records in Seattle.

When the news originally broke that the Archive had purchased Bop Street, most portrayed it as great news. The owner, Dave Vorhees, had decided to shut down the shop a month earlier, and he wasn’t sure if he’d be able to sell off the 500,000 recordings the store held. So people were excited that the Archive stepped in — and did so not with plans to lock up and hide the collection, but to find the gems that could be made available and do so:

Kahle has a particular interest in obscure recordings, he said. ?High school marching bands, soundtracks for foreign movies you?ve never heard of ? those are just treasures.?

The diversity and quality of the Bop Street inventory, which includes more than 100 albums by jazz pianist Fats Waller as well as a healthy selection of classical music, rock, R&B, jazz, country and other musical genres, was exactly the kind of thing the Internet Archive is on the lookout for, Kahle said.

If you can’t tell, Brewster Kahle has the mind of someone looking to preserve and share culture.

Thom Tillis, on the other hand, has the mind of someone who thinks that culture must be locked up:

According to a May 15, 2020 article in the Seattle Times, the Internet Archive has purchased Bop Street Records full collection of 500,000 sound recordings with the ?inten[t] to digitize the recordings and put them online, where they can be streamed for free.? It is not clear from the article, or others, if you intend to digitize all of the sound recordings acquired from Bop Street. But it is clear that these sound recordings were very recently for sale in a commercial record shop and likely contain many sound recordings that retain significant commercial value. This raises serious alarms about copyright infringement.

As I understand, Bop Street Records, which the Wall Street Journal once deemed a top-five record shop in the country, focuses on collectible-quality vinyl records across a diverse range of musical genres. According to its website, there sound recordings includes ?Rock, Soul/R&B, Jazz, Blues, Classical, Country, World and many other genres from the 1920?s to 1990?s.? The overwhelming majority-if not all-of these sound recordings are protected by U.S. copyright law, and thus may not be digitized and streamed or downloaded without authorization.

In a similar vein, I am aware of the Internet Archive?s ?Great 78 Project,? which has already digitized-and continues to digitize daily-a vast trove of 78 rpm recordings, many of which are also commercially valuable recordings already in the marketplace, and has made those recordings available to the public for free through unlimited streaming and download. I understand that the Internet Archive is framing this and its other sound recording projects–which include both obscure gems for music fans and hits from the likes of Elvis Presley, Chuck Berry, and Johnny Cash-as preservation, but your current practices raise numerous potential issues of copyright infringement. The Bop Street collection is likely to add to that. Among other things, your sound recording projects do not appear to comply with the relevant provisions of the Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act (MMA), which deals only with pre-1972 sound recordings and would not allow for streaming or downloading. Moreover, there are additional copyrights, such as the musical composition and the album artwork, that are displayed on the Internet Archive website and would not be covered by an exception for preservation.

The inclusion of the Great 78 Project here just seems to be a gratuitous anti-culture attack by Tillis for no goddam reason other than he is against the preservation of cultural artifacts. The Great 78 Project has been out for a few years now, and it’s a project that was put together not just by the Internet Archive, but in collaboration with the Archive of Contemporary Music and George Blood LP. The project is a recognition that tons of old 78rpm records are the only copies of that music ever recorded and my grandparents were the last generation to have easy access to a 78 rpm record player. The archival of those records falls into a murky space in copyright law because, thanks to insane copyright term extension. You can be pretty damn sure that anything on a 78rpm record, when it was recorded, was recorded with the clear understanding that by 2020, it would be in the public domain. The fact that some might not be isn’t a condemnation of the Great 78 Project, but of Congress for destroying culture in this manner.

Now, someone who was actually, say, an elected official representing the public and who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, including the clause that pretty directly states that the purpose of copyright law is to “promote the progress,” might look at that last paragraph and say, quite obviously, that if a jumble of messed up copyright laws are getting in the way of preserving music that no one can listen to, and of making it widely available — or that merely posting album artwork is somehow against the law — that maybe the law is pretty damn messed up, and that Congress — or even the Senate Intellectual Subcommittee, of which Thom Tillis is the chair — would want to fix those obviously broken laws.

But, nope. To Tillis it’s an opportunity to attack a library that has stepped up to save a massive collection of rare items, and to give them a new life. To someone of Tillis’ point of view — that seems to merely be an unfiltered, unthinking conduit for some giant Hollywood interests — this kind of public good must be stopped.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,
Companies: bop street records, internet archive

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Senator Thom Tillis Seems Really Pissed Off That The Internet Archive Bought A Record Store To Make Rare Recordings Accessible”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
R.H. (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Unfortunately, that’s not how copyright works. If I bought a physical copy of a Drake album today, I wouldn’t be able to legally stream it on the internet for free. I’d have to pay royalties in order to do that until the copyright runs out in 93 years or so.

I think that album’s copyright is held by a corporation which would mean 95 years of copyright but, I could be wrong and that would make it Drake’s remaining lifespan plus 70 years.

Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

The devil is in the details, so...

Is it possible that Bop Street Records was in fact the copyright holder on those records, at least those that weren’t already in the public domain and that the sale transferred those copyrights to the Internet Archive? Short of that rule where the artists can reclaim their copyright after a certain amount of time, wouldn’t the Internet Archive then be able to do what they wished with those copyrights?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: The devil is in the details, so...

Is it possible that Bop Street Records was in fact the copyright holder on those records

Very unlikely, as copyright does not transfer with copies. In some cases it may not be possible to determine the copyright holder due to businesses ceasing to operate.

Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: The devil is in the details, so...

Granted, but if Bop Street Records made the recordings, as often happens, they could be the copyright holders due to contractual arrangements. If that was the case, then those assets could (in theory) be transferred in the sale of the company. I presume that it was the company that was sold, not just the recordings.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

"many of which are also commercially valuable recordings already in the marketplace"

Really? Some of these were only in the record store that closed because these socalled valuable recordings couldn’t connect with a buyer.

"likely contain many sound recordings that retain significant commercial value"

If they have so much commercial value how come I can’t buy them from the labels or any commercial music purchasing sites?

"This raises serious alarms about copyright infringement."

Something something boston strangler
Something something will cease to exist
Something something record profits
Something something we were unable to find the artists we owed money to & well then we just gave it to the top 10 acts
Something something stop allowing 1 group to control our shared history & cling to it long after even the dimmest memories of it have faded from our collective memories as they try to fsck a few more pennies from the corpse
Something something so valuable we can’t make it available at any price to "good" citizens who want to purchase it but we need to make it a felony to punish people we refuse to cater to.

ECA (profile) says:

well well...

Who remembers SOME of hte contracts of the past…Esp int he age of the 78′
The Artist SOLD everything to the production company. ALL of it. Gained nothing. And generally, NOT even paid that much for it.

Until the artists got together, and another group decided to take charge.. It then got almost worse. The production corps Had all the power Still. And then the artists made a few unions, and got legal backing, AND EVEN in the 70’s Artists were still being Screwed. Until they got Enough power to control PART of the songs, music, art.. And Finally got a Small share of the sales. Most ly because the Production companies Held contracts that only let THEM sell the music to Each of the locations.. No one could have any other agencies music, and nothing independent.

And when the Artists die…Who gets the money.. There has been a debate about this, and when the contracts END. And what the artist signed.

afn29129 David (profile) says:

The George Morrow 78 collection

The George Morrow 78 collection.

Following the collapse of his computer businesses, Morrow devoted the rest of his life to his hobby of collecting original 78 RPM jazz and dance records from the 1920s and 1930s. Until his death, he digitally transcribed and restored thousands of recordings using a computer system he developed, reissuing them under his Old Masters label.

Anonymous Coward says:

Let's not forget the other villain(s) in this.

Let me state the obvious. Copyright has become about limiting supply, in order to blackmail demand. If the entrenched xxAA can keep older material locked up, then the only supply is from them. Classic organized crime. (Refusal to prosecute doesn’t make the unlawful legal, it simply means the prosecutors are corrupt.)

HOWEVER, remember that there are additional serious villains in this, besides the xxAA’s and Congress. Another significant villain is Academia (as well as the corrupt consulting industry). Business schools teach this sort of business tactic and call it ethical. The xxAA’s pay consultants and academics to teach this, the consultants and academia sell out an teach this sort of business extortion back to the xxAA’s and their peers.

(BTW, this mechanism is called "positive feedback" in engineering. Not positive as good, but positive as the output reinforces the input and the result is a rapid progress to the extreme. Useful for digital logic, but a problem in the analog real world.)

Therefore, while we are complaining and (hopefully) objecting politically, it would be beneficial to object to public funding to universities who teach this sort of rot!

Does anyone know of a university that actually takes ethics, integrity, truth and civilization seriously?

(I don’t refer to those universities saturated in the barbarity of political correctness. There is no more uncivilized concept than PC).

Rishygg (user link) says:

virgo woman signs she likes you

Why would god be able to write us

Religion Chapter 1 and 2 flash cards

A body You have prepared for Me Jesus was with the Father as a master craftsman when He marked out the foundations of the planet. He breath awayed into man the inhale of life, And man became a living soul. Is your faith and hope in Him for your salvation? To make investments sin is to transgress or disobey these laws. our society cannot accept him, this neither sees him nor knows him. you saw my substance, indeed being yet unformed. And thus being capricious a creation with free will.

I realize that deep down, all people are selfish. in other words, It is contaminated and motivated by the sinful tendencies that dwell in all people by the fall into sin and disobedience in the garden of Eden. unfortunately, From the man can remember, We have chosen evil in many cases. If task is holding a grudge over someone being selfish, Then they are certainly not being forgiving themselves. They not only lived in the ideal world, But they had perfect fellowship along with Creator. But He created them anyway and gave them a free will with that chose to sin. You can only be prior to God by trusting in what Jesus did on the cross, By the sacrifice of Himself so you’ll probably be forgiven of your sins.

Why did God create us?

And he didn’t make us while he was lonely. Even christian believers often fail to grasp this purpose but purpose there is. Had God did not create Adam and Eve, Based on His idea of their fall or had He made them automatons with no volition we would never have truly known what love is. Did the bible known why God made human? this could be in word, deed, Or even suspected. God is Creator of all things and He says that all things that features you and me were created for His pleasure Rev.

1 Corinthians 1:9, Why did God turn you into?

Experience His great love when you the fullest, and don’t forget God loves you for who you are in Christ not for what you do or have done. This can be a great web site. But God didn’t create robots. for a, they will have earned crowns which they will receive one day. Pink writes with thought provoking wonder of main sovereignty of God before creation: In the particular expanse of eternity, Which lengthens behind Genesis 1:1, The universe was unborn and creation existed only in the mind of the nice Creator. God is lasting love 1 John 4:8, wedding ceremony of that love and his wonderful creativity, He made us so we can enjoy all that he is and all <a href=>Asian dating</a> that he’s done. He might call into existence a million different creatures and place them on absolute equality, Endowing them concentrating on the same faculties and placing them in the same environment; or just, He might create a million creatures each differing from the mediocre, And being the owner of nothing in common save their creaturehood, And who was there to nightmare His right? okay, God loved us before he even published us.

Why did God publish us? why are we here?

logically, He would not want to do so. As we gradually overcome our sinful human nature it is replaced by divine nature God shares His own nature with. Christians practice catechesis to teach believers on the foundational truths of the Christian faith. there is however, A purpose for our living. I find not one single infant baptism in everyone in your Bible. To say that God created man to obey Him is to assume that He has each perverted need to hold power over people and boss them around.

Why God formed Us? A Bible take a look at

then, God was not inwardly lonely or myself empty; He was entirely self full, Self written content, And all-in-one. One can not force love upon another it must be freely given and garnered. God created us for this function, Yet few people glorify God in their lives. Love is real only when we can select it. We can even choose good or evil, wrong or right, Self kinds. It’s not like God made us to fulfill some craving to be worshiped. Angels have fallen into sin and so have men and women, But why are we being wholesale mercy and not them? This was on the top Ark of the Covenant.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...