Slashdot Mirror


Record Label Infringes Own Copyright, Site Pulled

AnonCow sends in a peculiar story from TorrentFreak, which describes the plight of a free-download music site that has been summarily evicted from the Internet for violating its own copyright. The problem seems to revolve around the host's insistence that proof of copyright be snail-mailed to them. Kind of difficult when your copyright takes the form of a Creative Commons license that cannot be verified unless its site is up. "The website of an Internet-based record label which offers completely free music downloads has been taken down by its host for copyright infringement, even though it only offers its own music. Quote Unquote Records calls itself 'The First Ever Donation Based Record Label,' but is currently homeless after its host pulled the plug."

282 comments

  1. And people say by kidde_valind · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...the copyright system works and is perfectly sane.

    1. Re:And people say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who says that? The pro-copyright infonazis say it's not even near comprehensively draconian enough (though they don't say draconian). The digital liberty freaks say it's gone way too far. I haven't seen _anyone_ say it's fine the way it is for a looong time.

    2. Re:And people say by Bootarn · · Score: 5, Funny

      Copyright fault (Lawyer dumped)

    3. Re:And people say by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that this situation has nothing to do with the state of our copyright system.

    4. Re:And people say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I'm wondering is if the host is based in the United States, if so and they just started checking all their clients' content for copyright violations then I think they're also removing any possibility of Safe Harbor protections. I had a friend who had the same type of thing happen recently and while he complied with their request, he did tell them he was making note of it and if he heard of them continuing their witch hunt then he was going to forward the info to the Attorney General so they could be aware they had given up their protections and had chosen to be net police.

    5. Re:And people say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It does have to do with the state of the copyright system being based with the assumption that all copies are unauthorized, unless proven otherwise, and the DMCA(among other legislation) not specifying non-snail-mail proof as acceptable just exacerbates the problem. However, in the main, you're right, this is a stupid ISP problem, not a copyright problem.

    6. Re:And people say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the creators never even burned a CD of the music?
      That's how you'd prove copyright in Canada. Mail yourself a copy of the work and leave it sealed. For bonus marks you can fill out a 2 page form and pay a nominal fee to have it registered federally. For an even smaller amount of effort you can request your own ISBN publishing number for chrissake.

      Also, Copyright ownership is granted on creation regardless of the medium. Creative Commons is a license that you apply after creation - not the same thing. I can stick a CC button on something I stole, and you'd still have to prove I did or didn't steal it.

    7. Re:And people say by roguetrick · · Score: 1

      Your friend should go read the OCILLA section of the DMCA. There is nothing there against being proactive, and if anything, an ISP that independently discovers infringing behavior is liable if it does not end the infringing behavior. The only way being proactive can get an ISP in trouble is if it allows the ISP to end a contract on a bogus reason not supported by the contract.

      --
      -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
    8. Re:And people say by iminplaya · · Score: 0

      ...the copyright system works...

      Well yeah. Depending on your place in the food chain, it's working perfectly, as intended.

      --
      What?
    9. Re:And people say by gnuASM · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your friend should go read the OCILLA section of the DMCA. There is nothing there against being proactive, and if anything, an ISP that independently discovers infringing behavior is liable if it does not end the infringing behavior.

      I would dare to say that there has been no copyright infringement and therefore this ISP has done a legal wrong. Their behavior well may make them liable for a number of possible actionable complaints by the copyright holder.

      The only way being proactive can get an ISP in trouble is if it allows the ISP to end a contract on a bogus reason not supported by the contract.

      Or if it materially and/or intentionally interferes with a copyright holder's copyright. Not to mention the possible libel involved here, as well as other possible criminal charges that may come along with such. Any affiliation this ISP would have in ANY way with the RIAA could also lead to some conspiracy investigations as well.

      It all depends on how anal the wronged company decides it wants to be about the situation.

    10. Re:And people say by who's+got+my+nicknam · · Score: 1

      I'd like to know what freak accident in the space-time continuum got that statement modded 5 for Insightful. Had me checking my calendar to see if I'd slept until April 1st again. If by that you mean that actual copyright law is sane, but the enforcement of IP in general is seriously broken, then yes. But the 'system' (particularly in the US) is fscked up beyond all repair, and this is yet another lovely example for the history books.

      --
      "Apparatus dignosco occultus, satis non supernus."
    11. Re:And people say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well yeah. Depending on your place in the food chain, it's working perfectly, as intended.

      So, what's it look like from the bottom, user?

    12. Re:And people say by digitig · · Score: 1

      I would dare to say that there has been no copyright infringement and therefore this ISP has done a legal wrong. Their behavior well may make them liable for a number of possible actionable complaints by the copyright holder.

      I doubt it. They seem to be enforcing the letter of the contract, so unless the contract itself is illegal in some way they're in the clear. It's not illegal to be brain-dead.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    13. Re:And people say by roguetrick · · Score: 0

      There is no legal wrong done by an ISP ending a contract it has the right to end, as most do. This includes any financial damages a party may suffer due to it's ISP ending their contract.

      The idea that libel applies to something about a party written to that party in an email is ludicrous. To put it another way, you can say anything you want to someone to their face in a forum that they can reply to: You're a fat, pus filled, copyright violating idiot!

      Anyway, I'm not saying what the ISP did to his friend was right or wrong, or that the laws are right or wrong. If a contract says they can, anything an ISP finds that they object to in any way can be pulled down. This has nothing to do with the DMCA's safe harbor provisions, which was what the AC was talking about.

      --
      -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
    14. Re:And people say by roguetrick · · Score: 1

      Go back to sleep. It said "And some people say the copyright system works." It was using this as proof that those people are stupid.

      --
      -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
    15. Re:And people say by CecilPL · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mailing yourself a CD is not a valid method to prove copyright for one simple reason. How do you prove you didn't mail a non-sealed envelope to yourself, then seal it later with someone else's work inside?

    16. Re:And people say by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      What you describe is "the poor man's copyright," and it's of absolutely no value in the US, and I doubt it's worth bothering with anywhere. There's nothing to show that you didn't mail yourself an empty, unsealed envelope to get a postmark on it and seal the CD in at some later date. If you tried to use this as proof of ownership or date of creation in a law suit, you'd be laughed out of court.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    17. Re:And people say by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      OK, say the ISP pre-approves the media before you can upload it. What then happens when the inevitable DMCA nuisance notices start to come in? Is that enough for the ISP to NOT take down your stuff because you have affirmed it's your material? If it's not enough to stop a DMCA letter than requiring the authorizations before posting is just wasted time and energy.

    18. Re:And people say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What 'people' are these?

    19. Re:And people say by unlametheweak · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm wondering if the RIAA told on him. I'm wondering if I decide to write a poem and post it on my Website; will I then have to pay to have a lawyer formally copyright it for me. I suppose it would be useless for me to even start a blog in that case.

    20. Re:And people say by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Informative
      The idea that libel applies to something about a party written to that party in an email is ludicrous. To put it another way, you can say anything you want to someone to their face in a forum that they can reply to: You're a fat, pus filled, copyright violating idiot!

      No, you're completely wrong there about forums. Fortunately, the chances of it being tested in court are slim to none. But anyway: it's libel if it's published and ANY third party (beyond the sender and the person being defamed) see it. So an email to one person is not libellous. If however you CCed it to even one other person, then it is potentially libellous. Having right of reply is irrelevant.

    21. Re:And people say by leamanc · · Score: 4, Informative

      I hear what you're saying...it's baffling that anyone could defend current US copyright law. But in this case, isn't the problem with a very uninformed web hosting provider taking the wrong action? There was not a DMCA notice issued, but rather the host just decided to pull the site because they (wrongly) assumed it was copyright violations. The RIAA was not behind this, as the content was not even in their reach.

      --
      :q!
    22. Re:And people say by techno-vampire · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why do you think you need a lawyer for something as trivial as registering a copyright? As you can see by checking the US Copyright office fee schedule, doing it on-line only costs $35, much less than an attorney would charge you just to discuss the issue.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    23. Re:And people say by who's+got+my+nicknam · · Score: 1

      Holy crap, I can't believe I made such a fundamental goof! Colour me stupid, eh? I guess I really was asleep there.

      --
      "Apparatus dignosco occultus, satis non supernus."
    24. Re:And people say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because when people say things are fine, they don't get any money from other people.

    25. Re:And people say by roguetrick · · Score: 1

      Thanks for calling me on that, you're right and I was under a misunderstanding of libel laws. Even still, the fact that the company only talked about this to the individual person with emails eliminates any libel problems with this particular case. As well, I'd imagine the company was acting in good faith, if stupidity.

      --
      -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
    26. Re:And people say by Ignominous_one · · Score: 3, Informative

      The same thing happened to Kahvi.org a few years back. Kahvi.org hosts free legal music, sent for release by the artists themselves under various licensing, many a times Creative Commons etc. Someone decided that nobody can really be giving legal music away for free, and called Kahvis ISP, which promptly pulled the plug without even consulting with Kahvi staff. They were understandably pissed off, and terminated their contract with said ISP immediately. Theyre still going good, and serving free and good electronic tunes...

    27. Re:And people say by houghi · · Score: 3, Informative

      The moment you write it, you have the copyright. If you want to extend your copyright, only then do you need to do something.

      Copyright is a default.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    28. Re:And people say by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      I don't know for sure about the RIAA, but Belgium's SABAM, the local music copyright spawn, works on the (surprisingly enough legal) notion that ALL music content is within their reach, also that of artists that aren't members.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    29. Re:And people say by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 1

      The RIAA was DIRECTLY not behind this.

      One of their goals is to make people associate any music they don't clearly approve with crime, and they are gradualy making it happen.

    30. Re:And people say by Batou · · Score: 1

      >> It all depends on how anal the wronged company decides it wants to be about the situation.

      If we use RIAA math, then surely every stray packet that got dropped trying to route here surely would have translated to an album sale ... So by now ... after some math ... ... They owe them US $4.51 billion in lost revenue.

      --
      "Oh my God! The dead have risen! And they're voting Republican!" - Bart Simpson
    31. Re:And people say by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, they're enforcing their interpretation of the letter of their contract, which is actually quite a bit different than what they did. They claim it's warez. Unfortunately for the ISP, they didn't do their due diligence on the matter in question and while they believe it was infringing content, they've no proof thereof (which is required, actually, for them to carry out the letter of their contract in this case...) and they, in fact, have very probably brought at least a breach of contract suit on their heads if the guys choose to sue.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    32. Re:And people say by digitig · · Score: 1

      Ah! You've seen the T&Cs then? In that case you have the advantage over me.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    33. Re:And people say by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Informative

      doing it on-line only costs $35, much less than an attorney would charge you just to discuss the issue.

      I have some experience with lawyers, as my ex-wife once successfully sued the city of Springfield when I was married, and I've been divorced and bankrupted, both endeavors of which necessitate legal council. A lawyer will NOT charge youto "discuss the issue" unless you already have him or her on retainer. (S)He will tell you if you have a case or not for free.

      If it is you who is doing the suing, in most cases the lawyer will take 1/3 of any settlement and 1/2 of any judgement, meaning if you lose you don't pay him or her. If someone is suing you you have to pay, but in many cases your lawyer can countersue.

      In almost all cases, when you need a lawyer a lawyer is worth the money.

      However, you are correct that you need no lawyer to register a copyright; I've registered two of them (IIRC the fee was only ten bucks when I registered mine). Should you need to sue someone for copyright infringement, yes then you need a lawyer and no, you don't have to pay the lawyer to tell you if you have a case or not.

    34. Re:And people say by PMuse · · Score: 1

      I would dare to say that there has been no copyright infringement and therefore this ISP has done a legal wrong. Their behavior well may make them liable for a number of possible actionable complaints by the copyright holder.

      Forget copyright; if the host has done the site any 'legal wrong', it's not a copyright problem.

      The host contracted to provide hosting services. The host (may have) breached that contract. All they could possibly be liable for are the monies paid for the unprovided hosting services and maybe, maybe, some consequential damages to the site's revenues or business goodwill due to the outage, if any such consequences can be proved.

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    35. Re:And people say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would dare to say that there has been no copyright infringement and therefore this ISP has done a legal wrong. Their behavior well may make them liable for a number of possible actionable complaints by the copyright holder.
      A legal wrong? The ISP provides a hosting service. They are not required by law to provide this service. They are free to accept or deny whatever customers they choose to. It is their business, their servers, their "pipes". The only legal wrong would be if there was a contract in place and their actions breached the contract.

      Having said that, when was the last time ANY service provider contract was in the customer's favor? Do you really think an ISP would provide hosting without clauses in their TOS that states they can pull the plug due to X, Y or Z ?

    36. Re:And people say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And some people think sarcasm is an effective way to communicate.

    37. Re:And people say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mailing yourself a CD is not a valid method to prove copyright for one simple reason. How do you prove you didn't mail a non-sealed envelope to yourself, then seal it later with someone else's work inside?

      You need to use registered mail, they stamp all the edges of the envelope so tampering is obvious.

    38. Re:And people say by bandmassa · · Score: 1

      The copyright system is broken and beyond economical repair.

      That is a statement that carries as much intellectual and factual weight as yours. Back up yours with evidence, and I might support mine with the same (if I can be arsed.)

      --
      "I hope you like Guinness, Sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for, er... food." Col. Jack O'Neil, SG-1
  2. Yawn by Kjella · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When even pink contract spammers can find a way online, are you telling me they can't find an ISP that doesn't have their head up their ass? File a breach of contract lawsuit if you got good reason to and if not just move on.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:Yawn by thermian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When even pink contract spammers can find a way online, are you telling me they can't find an ISP that doesn't have their head up their ass? File a breach of contract lawsuit if you got good reason to and if not just move on.

      The problem is one of perception. There is a perception that spammers (and other internet denizens of a dodgy nature) are primarily a Russian and Chinese problem (a lie, but there we are), and that the US, with its 'clean' internet must crack down on the currently hot, if in reality extremely unimportant, issue of copyright enforcement (not that it isn't important, but no way is it as important as is being ranted in the halls of power).

      Its an assumption that all the big problems on the internet are 'somebody elses problem', so they focus on silly things like music copyright, often mindlessly following 'the rules' so that only the big labels get a say.

      Its classic disassociation, and it can't last. I'm not being all 'ooh look at me, I'm a liberal', I'm being realistic.

      The old economic and copyright models are collapsing. Not into anarchy, that's far too pessimistic an assessment. No, they're falling in the face of different models. In the case of Internet and copyright the people who run things (businesses, not regulatory bodies) aren't quite as up with the trends as they need to be.

      --
      A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
    2. Re:Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I take exception to your "too pessimistic an assessment". I find corruption and problem avoidance worse than not having to pay for the service of a government that doesn't do what it's meant to do. Anarchy(without having to pay for the government) would be an improvement. At least, we'd be able to use the saved money to get one that works... Right now we're in a holding pattern designed to prevent betterment of the situation.

    3. Re:Yawn by Eskarel · · Score: 1
      I think you'd find that within a very short period of time anarchy would be rather unpleasant and highly expensive.

      If you think it's a good idea take a look at a lot of the third world where whoever has the most guns controls the government of the day and everyone who has no guns gets screwed.

      There are some governments that are worse than no government, but, for all its faults, the US government is not one of them.

  3. There are plenty of hosts out there by kcbanner · · Score: 4, Informative

    I mean, the market for hosting is so huge they shouldn't have a problem finding a company that actual understands CC and won't pull their site right away. I hope they do.

    --
    Obligatory blog plug: http://www.caseybanner.ca/
    1. Re:There are plenty of hosts out there by Edgester · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you RTFA, then you would know that the ISP is denying him access to his data, and he has no other copies because his local hard drive died. Summary: Murphy struck and his ISP is holding the only copy of his data hostage until he can prove that he owns the copyright on the files.

      One could argue that his local hard drive was the backup to his ISP and vice versa. I have a co-worker who says you should always keep three copies of important data in different places. This lends weight to the three copies idea.

    2. Re:There are plenty of hosts out there by kcbanner · · Score: 1

      Ouch. I didn't RTFA, your right...but if your running a record label you'd think backups would be up there on the ol' priority list.

      --
      Obligatory blog plug: http://www.caseybanner.ca/
    3. Re:There are plenty of hosts out there by WK2 · · Score: 1

      The market for hosting is huge. Prices are very low. However, most of them are lame and full of bullshit. The problem mentioned here is with ixwebhosting.com.

      --
      Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
    4. Re:There are plenty of hosts out there by SpacePunk · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't see any reason that the site owner couldn't contact the feds, and charge the ISP for data theft. If it were me, I'd look into something like trademark dilution also since the ISP is hosting ads on the domain name.

    5. Re:There are plenty of hosts out there by mariushm · · Score: 1

      He should just create another domain like company-license.com which is for the sole purpose of showing the CC license.
      Then just snail mail a letter saying the license is this and that and online at company-license.com and get his data...

    6. Re:There are plenty of hosts out there by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 2, Funny

      I have a co-worker who says you should always keep three copies of important data in different places. This lends weight to the three copies idea.

      "I tell you three times!"

      -- R.A.Heinlein, "Number of the Beast" 1980.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    7. Re:There are plenty of hosts out there by Swampash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      he has no other copies because his local hard drive died

      See, that's the point where I stopped caring. This guy is too stupid to own a computer, let alone run a record label.

    8. Re:There are plenty of hosts out there by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      Oh stop, this common sense? This simple solution? Preposterous! Outrageous! Disgusting!

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    9. Re:There are plenty of hosts out there by mysidia · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Seems like he needs to file a complaint in court and get a subpoena or get a judge to order that the ISP turn over the files.

      And pursue some legitimate action against the ISP for unwarranted disruption of business (removing his web site).

      They are clearly not operating within the DMCA safe harbor, if they are "pulling for copyright infringement", and not putting the materials back up without proof.

      If there were a DMCA letter anyways, the site owner has the option of a DMCA counter-notification.

    10. Re:There are plenty of hosts out there by nacturation · · Score: 1

      It's probably a good time to ask them about it:

      http://www.ixwebhosting.com/index.php/v2/pages.LiveChat

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    11. Re:There are plenty of hosts out there by SpacePunk · · Score: 1

      Pretty outrageous huh? The key to everything is to use the system to your own benefit. Even if you have to fling a lot of shit at it until something sticks.

    12. Re:There are plenty of hosts out there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he has no other copies because his local hard drive died

      See, that's the point where I stopped caring. This guy is too stupid to own a computer, let alone run a record label.

      Amen! Too fucking stupid/clueless/lazy to make backups? Sorry, I've no sympathy. Doesn't make what the ISP is doing right, but, if he'd done due diligence, it'd be no more than a minor annoyance.

      Call it "Internet natural selection in action".

    13. Re:There are plenty of hosts out there by Toll_Free · · Score: 1

      wayback internet archive?

      --Toll_Free

    14. Re:There are plenty of hosts out there by roguetrick · · Score: 2, Funny

      That picture makes the live help look like some sort of phone sex service. I might have to go in and ask them to tell me I'm naughty.

      --
      -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
    15. Re:There are plenty of hosts out there by roguetrick · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's no mention of a DMCA complaint, the ISP just decided to say "prove it or fuck off." That causes no static with the DMCA safe harbor provision, if anything the safe harbor provision says ISPs that know of infringing content are liable.

      All that said, the ISP is still a bunch of idiots, if law-abiding idiots.

      --
      -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
    16. Re:There are plenty of hosts out there by mysidia · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My point is they are not following the rules of the DMCA safe harbor, so lost its protection. The result is they may be exposed to action by the person whose content they took down.

      If they had actually received a DMCA takedown notice and were operating properly within the safe harbor, they would have protection against the subscriber.

      Since they're not, the subscriber may have recourse against their host...

    17. Re:There are plenty of hosts out there by number11 · · Score: 3, Informative

      According to ecommerce.com's website, ixwebhosting is their service.
      Ask for Samir.

      Domain name: IXWEBHOSTING.COM

      Administrative Contact:
      Master, Domain samir@ecommerce.com
      247 Mitch Lane
      Hopkinsville, KY 42240
      US
      +1.8003850450
      Technical Contact:
      Master, Domain samir@ecommerce.com
      247 Mitch Lane
      Hopkinsville, KY 42240
      US
      +1.8003850450

    18. Re:There are plenty of hosts out there by roguetrick · · Score: 1

      You're right, depending on their contract. Sorry I come from the idea that all contracts contain "We can cancel this crap for whatever reason we want." Or more specifically "We can cancel this crap if you can't prove you have the rights you say you do."

      I thought you were saying they lost the DMCA safe harbor protection involving copyright claims of others. You're right that they have no DMCA protections on canceling their contract.

      --
      -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
    19. Re:There are plenty of hosts out there by bytethese · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but I heard Samir and Michael got fired tho...

    20. Re:There are plenty of hosts out there by tylerni7 · · Score: 0

      What are they supposed to make a backup of?
      The license to the song? That won't prove anything, and it won't get their site back.
      Should they send a copy of the song? That doesn't prove that they released it for free.

      Backups are good, but I don't think that's the problem in this case. It's just a very unreasonable ISP.

    21. Re:There are plenty of hosts out there by frieko · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hold on now. He contracted the storage of his data to professionals (the ISP) and retained a personal backup. What's stupid about thinking that would be sufficient? What's wrong with thinking that the people you contracted and paid to store and serve your data would actually do those things?

    22. Re:There are plenty of hosts out there by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hold on now. He contracted the storage of his data to professionals (the ISP) and retained a personal backup. What's stupid about thinking that would be sufficient? What's wrong with thinking that the people you contracted and paid to store and serve your data would actually do those things?

      Any data not stored on equipment or media under your direct control should be considered expendable. Period. That means that the owner of that data should have maintained multiple backups (preferably incremental so he'd have a history of changes) with off-site copies. Unless that ISP specified that it would provide backup and loss indemnification services (some do, but I'm betting this one doesn't) he's responsible if that data gets lost.

      In the meantime, assuming that this goofy ISP still has his site, he really should contact law enforcement, or a good lawyer at minimum. This is insane.

      The OP is correct: the guy screwed up.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    23. Re:There are plenty of hosts out there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Context FAIL.

      If you read above, you would see that they were supposed to make a backup of their site so they could host it with another provider when their ISP went down. That way they would be humming along with a new host instead of twiddling their thumbs because their ISP has the only copy of the site and won't give it to them.

    24. Re:There are plenty of hosts out there by narcberry · · Score: 1

      Yeah, leave the record label businesses up to da smartz guis in da housss boiya!!

      --
      Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
    25. Re:There are plenty of hosts out there by supernova_hq · · Score: 1

      And if they don't still have it, you can get them for destruction of evidence!

    26. Re:There are plenty of hosts out there by totally+bogus+dude · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, his local hard drive was the backup. I guess he reasoned the likelihood of his driving failing at the same time his ISP lost the data was very small. Technically his ISP hasn't lost the data, either.

      But yes; it seems very sloppy to only have one copy. I suppose if his contract with the ISP says that they're maintaining a proper backup scheme then using a local copy as a failsafe is reasonable. Except when the ISP decides not to give you your data, and your local drive happens to die at around the same time.

    27. Re:There are plenty of hosts out there by jesterzog · · Score: 1

      See, that's the point where I stopped caring. This guy is too stupid to own a computer, let alone run a record label.

      That seems harsh considering the guy is a musician rather than an IT professional. Maybe he's a bit naive and he'll learn from this. Making personal backups (and designing a good system for it) is something that most people tend to learn after a bad experience rather than something people just do... especially if they don't spend their lives working with computers.

      Under normal circumstances you'd at least expect that the ISP would have a decent, reliable storage system with proper backups. They probably do have backups. The fact that they're now with-holding his data because of paranoia about ridiculously designed copyright laws was probably unexpected, at least by an ordinary person.

      Hopefully he now does learn to keep his own personal backups, and he'll also learn to never use that host again.

    28. Re:There are plenty of hosts out there by OldManAndTheC++ · · Score: 1

      For the record, Heinlein was making an allusion to Lewis Carroll's The Hunting of the Snark:

      "Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
      That alone should encourage the crew.
      Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
      What i tell you three times is true."

      --
      Soylent Green is peoplicious!
    29. Re:There are plenty of hosts out there by houghi · · Score: 1

      So the fact that a HD dies because of hardware failure makes a person stupid? Not only that, some people made that insightful? Geeks are not what they used to be.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    30. Re:There are plenty of hosts out there by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      The what?

    31. Re:There are plenty of hosts out there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you expect?
      Half of these idiots commenting haven't even read what happened and went by the summary.

      Welcome to Slashdot 2.0 ...

      In before the inevitable Troll rating above this post.
      Not like it will make a difference, since what i say is true, and it is sickening what has become of this place.

    32. Re:There are plenty of hosts out there by pla · · Score: 1

      What's stupid about thinking that would be sufficient?

      Because things like this story happen.

      If you have something irreplaceable, you make copies, and lots of them... Code I've written, even "hello world" quality crap made 20 years ago, I have reproduced across no fewer than four machines at three physical sites, not to mention at least a dozen backups on DVD over the years (I try to burn my important files at least once a month).

      Now, my ripped CD collection, I have only one extra copy (it lives on two machines) because I could re-rip it (even if doing so would take a few weeks). Downloaded software, I keep only a single copy, because most of it I'll never need again, and I could re-download what I needed within a few hours, in a worst-case scenario. But for anything that matters to me - Copies, copies, and more copies.

    33. Re:There are plenty of hosts out there by empaler · · Score: 1

      Wow. That was so blindingly obvious, yet you're the first to actually bring that option up in the debate - kudos!
      (Nope, not sarcasm)

    34. Re:There are plenty of hosts out there by frieko · · Score: 1

      I just take exception to calling him too stupid to own a computer. Any number of backups can fail simultaneously. It's a tradeoff - the PITA of making backups vs the PITA of data loss divided by the product of MTBFs. There's no wrong answer, and my point is that 99% of people would pick the answer he picked. If 99% of people are too stupid to use a computer then the fault is with the computer.

    35. Re:There are plenty of hosts out there by johndmartiniii · · Score: 1

      Honestly, it is truly just irresponsible to not have more than one backup if you are doing something like this. Then, most people don't even use one backup. Let the lectures about backups begin anew, I guess.

      --
      If you don't know what you're doing, you can't make mistakes.
    36. Re:There are plenty of hosts out there by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      There's no wrong answer, and my point is that 99% of people would pick the answer he picked. If 99% of people are too stupid to use a computer then the fault is with the computer.

      Of course there's a wrong answer. Look, all one can do is protect oneself by taking reasonable precautions. If you have multiple non-volatile backups in different locations, odds are your data will survive everything but a nuclear holocaust. This guy didn't take even the most basic precautions to protect his livelihood. Saying that's the computer's fault is ridiculous: all machines built by the hand of Man fail, and anyone who isn't capable of grasping that is far too trusting, and deserves whatever happens.

      So yeah, he may not be too stupid to use a computer, but he's definitely too stupid to maintain one. It's really a funny artifact of human nature: people that will carefully make copies of important papers and store said copies safely offsite cheerfully expect their hard drive to last forever. Or never get stolen, or taken out by a line transient, or whatever.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  4. Stop the world by JohnnyGTO · · Score: 3, Funny

    I gotta get off. All hope is lost, sanity has fled us. Run for the hills everyone. It can't get stupider then this. Or can it?

    --
    Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
    1. Re:Stop the world by philspear · · Score: 1

      THAT was what broke your camel's back? Not, you know, politics, entertainment, police videos, scientology, or anything else, it was COPYRIGHT infringement that set you over the line? Seems odd. Copyright issues to me seem one of the less blatant examples of insanity I could think of.

    2. Re:Stop the world by JohnnyGTO · · Score: 1

      Well, remember it was a single straw...

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
    3. Re:Stop the world by ProfM · · Score: 1

      Don't forget ... there's an election in the US in 16 days ...

    4. Re:Stop the world by Majik+Sheff · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not the final blow of a stonecutters hammer that breaks the stone, it's the dozens of blows before.

      --
      Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
    5. Re:Stop the world by philspear · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Yeah, but usually, the last one is just as hard. It's kind of odd when you have a strong hammer stroke, let's call it "Election 2000" followed by a huge gigantic, nuclear powered one, let's call it "9/11," followed by some other still pretty significant ones, such as one I'd like to call "patriot act" and one I'd like to call "gitmo", then some ones that are even smaller but still pretty heavy, like a hammer blow I'd call "Paris Hilton" or "American idol." Somewhere in there was another huge one called "Let's attack Iraq and think up a reason later" And let's not forget the sizeable "Election 2004" strike. Then a bunch of smaller ones. But then a little kid named "some ISP" comes up with a "wierd copyright snafu" wiffle bat and swings, and that breaks the stone of JonnyGTO's mind? Totally possible, just bizzare.

    6. Re:Stop the world by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

      It's not the final blow of a stonecutters hammer that breaks the stone, it's the dozens of blows before.

      Who holds back the electric car? Who made Steve Gutenberg a star?

      --
      We are all just people.
    7. Re:Stop the world by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      NEVER EVER say "It can't get stupider than this", or "What else can go wrong".

      The Universe will conspire to see to it to show you JUST how much moreso it can be than you ever imagined...

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    8. Re:Stop the world by JohnnyGTO · · Score: 1

      Another reason... I think I will spend the election 90 miles north of the I40 near four corners and no reception.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
  5. The copyright notice by symbolset · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's right here

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:The copyright notice by stephanruby · · Score: 1, Funny

      Kind of difficult when your copyright takes the form of a Creative Commons license that cannot be verified unless its site is up.

      Except now, he can just send a link of his slashdot submission (and corresponding comments) to his ISP, there is no source that's considered more reliable for Techies and for most ISP employees.

    2. Re:The copyright notice by UncleMantis · · Score: 0

      I only see 6 bands on the copy and they all have links to outside profile sites. A donation based record label just will not work. MySpace and PayPal does just fine.

      --
      Uncle Mantis
  6. Might want to check that title... by n0dna · · Score: 3, Informative

    Copyright holders by definition cannot violate their own copyrights. They have the (copy)right to do with their own material as they see fit.

    1. Re:Might want to check that title... by philspear · · Score: 5, Funny

      Copyright holders by definition cannot violate their own copyrights.

      You say that, but I've violated my own copyrights several times. I can send you a video for $20, assuming you're over the age of 21.

    2. Re:Might want to check that title... by n0dna · · Score: 1

      Can you send me a new keyboard too?

    3. Re:Might want to check that title... by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Copyright holders by definition cannot violate their own copyrights.

      Tell that to the webhost.

    4. Re:Might want to check that title... by db32 · · Score: 1

      Wow, just wow. I mean I know people don't read the article, but you have outdone yourself by not even reading the summary. That is the whole point of the damned story and the summary seems to be fairly clear in indicating that.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    5. Re:Might want to check that title... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      And you have outdone yourself by not reading the subject of the comment you're responding to. His entire point was in reference to the article title, and it's a valid one.

    6. Re:Might want to check that title... by thejynxed · · Score: 1

      Apparently they can't, or else there wouldn't be legit copyright holders who can't stream their own songs over the internet or play them in a public venue without paying a ton of royalty fees to some RIAA-controlled muppet company named SoundExchange.

      --
      @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
    7. Re:Might want to check that title... by i_liek_turtles · · Score: 1

      Nobody on slashdot has ever distributed the data, though.

    8. Re:Might want to check that title... by X0563511 · · Score: 2

      And you (and the post in question) have outdone yourselves by assuming that the subject is a good place for comment text.

      Use the comment body, that's what it's fucking there for!

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  7. Not exactly copyright's fault... by TD-Linux · · Score: 3, Informative

    Their host chose to pull the plug on this website because they thought it was a risk, and because of their own lame policies. It's not like anyone actually sued for copyright infringement. The host, not the band, is who loses here. They can just go find another host who is more worthy of their service.

    1. Re:Not exactly copyright's fault... by NormalVisual · · Score: 5, Informative

      And in case anyone was wondering, it looks like their host is IX Web Hosting.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    2. Re:Not exactly copyright's fault... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their host chose to pull the plug on this website because they thought it was a risk.

      Sounds like the host is clueless, as they are protected by DMCA until they are served with an infringement notice (and fail to respond).

    3. Re:Not exactly copyright's fault... by dontmakemethink · · Score: 1

      How could they think hosting unregistered original music is a risk? Have they never seen a band's MySpace profile?

      I'm with Warll below, that they made up an excuse to dump a high bandwidth user.

      --

      War as we knew it was obsolete
      Nothing could beat complete denial
      - Emily Haines
    4. Re:Not exactly copyright's fault... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wow, that talking woman that pops up sure is annoying.

    5. Re:Not exactly copyright's fault... by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I hope that every Slashdotter who reads that will click on the link at least once. Maybe we can slashdot them...

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    6. Re:Not exactly copyright's fault... by corsec67 · · Score: 1

      If we can /. them from a link in a comment, they shouldn't be used by anyone to host pretty much anything.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    7. Re:Not exactly copyright's fault... by gravis777 · · Score: 1

      Who in their right mind would go with an ISP that has flash video on their front page? How annoying. Of course, mine uses cPanel, so who am I to judge?

    8. Re:Not exactly copyright's fault... by Dachannien · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hilarious! A website I co-maintain switched away from IX just last week, because when they last recompiled PHP, they set the register_globals setting to "on", thus allowing our site (and who knows how many others) to get hacked. When we asked them about it, they claimed that the default setting in PHP 4 and 5 is "on", which isn't true (the default has been "off" since 4.2.0, in 2002, and the setting is being done away with altogether in PHP 6).

      They have horrible service, with response time to service tickets measured in days. We've had numerous issues with the database servers being pegged as they've expanded their customer base without upgrading their servers. You can't restore from backups without contacting customer service. Sure, it's cheap, but as they say, you get what you pay for.

      The incident mentioned by the OP is apparently the frosting on the cake.

    9. Re:Not exactly copyright's fault... by roguetrick · · Score: 1

      You aren't if sings point to you knowing about the stuff and thinking its infringing.

      --
      -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
    10. Re:Not exactly copyright's fault... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If having register_globals turned on is a security risk for your scripts; then *you* are doing something wrong.

      Given, it should not have been on in the first place, but still ... initialize variables before using them, it's not that hard.

    11. Re:Not exactly copyright's fault... by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      The scripts we're using are all fine (mainly vBulletin, which has been redundantly turning register_globals off on a per-script basis for ages now), but you never know when someone else hosted on the same server is running something with a known vulnerability.

    12. Re:Not exactly copyright's fault... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you aware they have a live chat feature? Why not ask them what the situation is, personally?

      http://www.ixwebhosting.com/index.php/v2/pages.LiveChat

    13. Re:Not exactly copyright's fault... by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Because I don't care enough to spend any time on it and wouldn't consider them for hosting anyway?

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    14. Re:Not exactly copyright's fault... by Matt_R · · Score: 4, Informative

      If we can /. them from a link in a comment, they shouldn't be used by anyone to host pretty much anything.

      While trying to retrieve the URL:

      http://www.ixwebhosting.com/

      The following error was encountered:

      * Connection to 98.130.254.114 Failed

      The system returned:

      (111) Connection refused

      You were saying?

    15. Re:Not exactly copyright's fault... by corsec67 · · Score: 1

      Holy crap.
      As I was saying, "they shouldn't be used by anyone to host pretty much anything."

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    16. Re:Not exactly copyright's fault... by supernova_hq · · Score: 1

      Wow, not having flashblock sure is annoying.

      There, fixed that for you.

    17. Re:Not exactly copyright's fault... by Skapare · · Score: 1

      Yes, they should move on to a new host. Too bad their only copy of the data is at the hosting company that has held it hostage. So it's time to sue the bastards!

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    18. Re:Not exactly copyright's fault... by Tweenk · · Score: 1

      The talking woman is not an ad, it is a site element, so adblocker comments don't apply.

      --
      Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
    19. Re:Not exactly copyright's fault... by Two9A · · Score: 1

      The talking woman is not an ad, it is a site element, so adblocker comments don't apply.

      And was adblock mentioned even once? No.

      Flashblock blocks any Flash embed or object element, replacing it with a clickable button. If you wish to load a particular Flash element, you click the button and only then does it load. Hugely useful, especially in conjunction with Adblock.

      They're not the same thing.

      --
      xkcdsw: the unofficial archive of Making xkcd Slightly Worse
    20. Re:Not exactly copyright's fault... by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      when they last recompiled PHP, they set the register_globals setting to "on", thus allowing our site (and who knows how many others) to get hacked.

      I don't think it's fair for you to put all of the blame on the ISP and none on yourselves, especially if it's your belief that the only way to change the setting is to "recompile PHP".

    21. Re:Not exactly copyright's fault... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have flashblock installed.

      NoScript was enough to block the ad.

    22. Re:Not exactly copyright's fault... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for the reply.

      And that's true ... to be honest, I'm not entirely sure the scope of damage that is possible from just being able to run your own script on another's PHP interpreter. I would hope it'd limit the damage to only that user's account; but yeah, no sense risking that on a shared box.

      It just irked me a bit when my host arbitrarily turned RG off, and it broke an old script of mine. Of course, I should have written it the right way the first time. Only myself to blame there, but still not a nice thing to come home to.

    23. Re:Not exactly copyright's fault... by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      As a happy customer, I highly recommend Dreamhost. They've always gotten back to me within hours on any minor question, and I have yet to have them cause a major problem for me, and they have a policy of pretty much "live and let live", as long as you aren't doing anything to screw up service for everyone else on your shared box, you're free to do it. And if you have your own box, even more so.

      I'm not even gonna put a link with my reference code or anything like that, just because I like them that much :)

    24. Re:Not exactly copyright's fault... by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Well, the compile date on PHP was October 8, and our site got hacked October 9. I think it's a safe bet that the setting got altered at the same time that they last tinkered with PHP.

      By the way, we didn't have access to alter php.ini on that box, so I'm certainly not going to blame us for the setting getting changed.

    25. Re:Not exactly copyright's fault... by Dragoness+Eclectic · · Score: 1

      Ditto. I've been a happy customer of Dreamhost's for about 7-8 years now. Stumbled on them when they were new, like their rates and the fact that they used Linux server farms and had customer service that could answer technical questions coherently without trying to march you through a script.

      Caveat: I have one friend who was unhappy with them; she was sharing some music files privately with a largish handful of us ("Check out this folk singer, I think you'll like her!") and Dreamhost noticed the large MP3 downloads and cut her off until she cleaned the infringing files off her account. However, they did reinstate her afterwards with a warning not to do it again.

      So yes, reputable ISPs will pull your site if they think you are willfully infringing copyrights--they don't want to get a reputation as a warez or downloader's haven.

      --
      ---dragoness
    26. Re:Not exactly copyright's fault... by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      I have no doubt that if she had the copyright to those files, she could have told them that and they'd give it the all-clear. They wouldn't have caused the problems in this article.

  8. Well. by Warll · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wouldn't be all that surprised to hear that this is just the host's way of kicking off a heavy bandwidth user.

    1. Re:Well. by philspear · · Score: 1

      I would be suprised to actually HEAR that. I wouldn't be suprised to see evidence SUGGESTING that.

      Noob question: wouldn't they have it in their contract that you can't use more than a set amount of bandwidth if that is an issue? If not, why not? Or are ISPs kind of acting like all-you-can-eat buffets that SAY you can eat all you can, but cut you off at 20 pounds of taquitos... lying bastards at ponderosas...

    2. Re:Well. by Restil · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, most hosting providers actually expect their customers to use a significant amount of the bandwidth they provide, and enforce quotas when reached. If a customer used 100% of their allocated bandwidth they would at most be cut off for the duration of their payment period, or given the option to purchase additional bandwidth. This isn't like a cable company offering "unlimited" bandwidth and retroactively redefining the meaning of unlimited.

      --
      Play with my webcams and lights here
    3. Re:Well. by Cruciform · · Score: 2, Informative

      But then you get into resellers selling hosting as unlimited (which is quite common these days) when it's just a virtual server with no such lack of restrictions.
      And there's thousands of these guys out there now. Fly by nighters that disappear after they take in a few bucks and hit their limits.

    4. Re:Well. by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      And this is why I lease a dedicated box with clearly defined monthly transfer limits, overage charges, and uptime SLA. Yeah, it costs a tad more than $7.99/month, but it's always there and if I ever need to submit a support ticket, it's usually answered in less than a minute.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    5. Re:Well. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      And this is why I lease a dedicated box with clearly defined monthly transfer limits, overage charges, and uptime SLA. Yeah, it costs a tad more than $7.99/month, but it's always there and if I ever need to submit a support ticket, it's usually answered in less than a minute.

      I take it that's where your HLDS is running.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    6. Re:Well. by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      No, no gaming stuff. Just e-mail, the web sites I maintain, and some other odds and ends, with backup storage in a different data center on the other side of the country. :-)

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    7. Re:Well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, no, there are lots of providers offering "unlimited" hosting and then using various TOS tricks to keep customers from using much at all. It's a raging topic on webhostingtalk.com - drop in and ask about it ;)

    8. Re:Well. by mxs · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but this is simply not the case. Most hosting providers expect you to use a tiny fraction of what your plan says you are allowed to use; most hosting providers oversell their bandwidth, hdd space, server power, etc.
      Some providers will look for ways to get rid of you if you consistently hit just below your allowed quota; some will offer you additional services for a lot more money; some will just kick you for some made-up reason (especially the ones that claim "unlimited" of anything); some will change the ToS and make up rules so that they can point at them and kick you. (Dreamhost.com, hello !)

      It would not surprise me if ixwebhosting fell into the category of host who sees MP3s on an account and ban it citing copyright violations (without /EVER/ having received any DMCA notice or C&D, at that), with the true reason for it being that they do not like the bandwidth usage.

    9. Re:Well. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Just out of curiosity, how much does that run you a month?

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    10. Re:Well. by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      I'm paying $79/month for a 2.8 GHz P4 system with a gig of RAM and a 120 gig disk. I'm on a 100 megabit switch (and can actually use that bandwidth) and can transfer 2 terabytes each month. I also pay an additional $16/month for 100 gigs of space at another provider, since I don't want to have my backups at the same facility.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
  9. Find another host. by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Most websites will have copyrighted material on them. Most of the copyrighted material will not be registered. If they have this policy, and they require proof that most people won't have, it's a bit pointless arguing with them, and a lot easier to find a new host with more sensible policies.

    1. Re:Find another host. by sed+quid+in+infernos · · Score: 1

      In fact, EVERY web site that is not empty has copyrighted material on it. Copyright comes into being at the time of creation.

    2. Re:Find another host. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      In fact, EVERY web site that is not empty has copyrighted material on it. Copyright comes into being at the time of creation.

      Well, you could put up a website with only public-domain content on it.

  10. These guys need a good lawyer... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Funny

    And I think I've found the perfect guy for them.

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    1. Re:These guys need a good lawyer... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Funny

      And I think I've found the perfect guy for them.

      Huh ... looks like he sued himself in the foot.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  11. Sad by KasperMeerts · · Score: 1

    That's just sad. And their hosting service doesn't seem to be subject to any reason.
    They should sue them and meanwhile try to regain all content and host it somewhere else.

    --
    As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields.
  12. That's nothing by Atrox666 · · Score: 1

    Who cares about companies violating their own copyright? Last night I sexually molested myself. I must be stopped before it happens again.

    1. Re:That's nothing by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Who cares about companies violating their own copyright? Last night I sexually molested myself. I must be stopped before it happens again."

      Pics or it didn't happen.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:That's nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to put rubber bands around your balls and fist yourself, that's your thing, but don't tell us about it.

    3. Re:That's nothing by SpacePunk · · Score: 1

      Yet another person is left unsatisfied.

    4. Re:That's nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now that's a legal principle I haven't heard of...

    5. Re:That's nothing by Walpurgiss · · Score: 1

      Must not lurk much.

  13. And some people say by edalytical · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...publicity stunt.

    --
    Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
    1. Re:And some people say by Patchw0rk+F0g · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think it's more of a situation regarding idiots that don't understand the difference between A) Copyrights, B) Creative Common Licenses, and C) any other type of legal issue regarding ownership. If they really had a grasp on what their business model was setting out to achieve, they could have avoided this completely.

      RTA, and it basically outlines what ignorance will get you, ie. a swift kick from your own boot up your own ass.

      --
      When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. ~~ Hunter S. Thompson
    2. Re:And some people say by edalytical · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right, and he just happens to need people to download his content on P2P and send it to him. He never thought to make a backup or even to burn a CD. Get real.

      --
      Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
    3. Re:And some people say by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lol.. Creative commons is a license. A copyright is something completely different from a license. You need a license (read permission) to use someone else's copyrighted works.

      It doesn't matter that he needed others to store his music or whatever, he was required to snail mail proof of copyright to the ISP and instead attempted to rely on a license he offers with works he owns or controls the copyright to.

        It's like the GPL. I can put the GPL on any piece of software that I find. But unless I own or control the copyright to it, it is meaningless and I will be getting a lot of people into trouble. But it I can show that I own or control the copyright, then the GPL is valid for whoever obtains the software and uses it in a way that needs permission because of the copyright.

    4. Re:And some people say by penix1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It doesn't matter that he needed others to store his music or whatever, he was required to snail mail proof of copyright to the ISP and instead attempted to rely on a license he offers with works he owns or controls the copyright to.

      He claims he owns. Without the registration, the ISP has to assume he doesn't.

      More importantly, TFA doesn't say who made a complaint (if anyone). ISPs don't unilaterally decide something is infringing a copyright without a complaint. That's the double edge to the DMCA safe harbor provisions. Any ISP that does unilaterally remove content based on copyright is setting themselves up to lose that safe harbor. You can't have it both ways. Either you can tell if a file violates copyright or you can't.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    5. Re:And some people say by edalytical · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm making no claims about his copyright or license, frankly I don't care. All I'm saying is he claims he doesn't have the content he claims to own. Suspicious. That's all. Remember when people used to do publicity stunts, I sure do.

      I don't even care if his stuff was really taken down or not. I think he allowed it to go down for publicity. Or he was really an idiot and the ISP took his stuff down at which point he seized the opportunity.

      I don't even care if I'm right, I'm just pointing out my observation. When I start yelling about copyright -- you get ready and repost. Okay? Okay.

      --
      Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
    6. Re:And some people say by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, right, but I think we are going at two different ends of the problem. Unfortunately, it does look like the ISP acted unilaterally on this because there is no record of a complain in which a DMCA take down notice would require. Perhaps the ISP simply has a policy that you provide copyright validation of anything hosted or something.

      Either way, the guy seems to be wanting to rely on a license instead of an actual copyright for validation. I do however, think that a sworn affidavit pertaining to the ownership of the material should be enough to prove copyright ownership without a officially registered copyright. It probably wouldn't be enough to defend in a court against an infringement but it should be enough to provide an appropriate legal trail to absolve the ISP of any perceived liability. It's not like I have to provide receipts of purchase for items stolen from my home to convince a judge that I owned them before they were stolen or someone used them inappropriately and broke them.

    7. Re:And some people say by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, I took your sarcasm differently then you intended.

      Actually, after rereading your original post in the context of your reply, I realize the my comment was out of context with it. Your right, I had a completely different idea then you intended to convey. Just ignore my comment as it was reading something else into your comment.

    8. Re:And some people say by edalytical · · Score: 1

      No problem man. Sorry if I was harsh.

      --
      Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
    9. Re:And some people say by wiz_80 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In all fairness, I don't think the host deserves all the blame. They are running scared, since any mention of copyright tends to involve lots of scary lawyers, or at least the threat of them. It's a lot easier for the host to deal with potential copyright violations this way, especially as the chances are that the majority of content flagged in this way is in fact infringing.

      Also, Creative Commons licensing is not exactly mainstream, so I can understand why they might not have taken it into account.

      That said, a quick conversation with a customer service rep (or manager, if necessary) should be enough to sort this situation out. If not, then my opinion of this host would plummet, because that *is* part of their core business.

      --
      " There is a rational explanation for everything. There is also an irrational one. "
    10. Re:And some people say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Superficially you're right. But AFAIK, copyright is implicit, ie you need no piece of paper to prove a song you wrote is actually yours. If the original authors issued the Creative Commons license, instead of the Record Label, then there is no written proof of ownership and the license is the only legal document available.

      If the record label buys the songs from the artists then the contract is proof of ownership. But something tells me in this case they skipped the formalities and licenses directly from the artists.

    11. Re:And some people say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...publicity stunt.

      You nailed it. It seems to be working, too - at least at /.

    12. Re:And some people say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly my thought. Both the label and the new hosting party will get great publicity from this. Nonetheless a great initiative..

    13. Re:And some people say by mustafap · · Score: 2, Funny

      wow, you two should get married. :o)

      --
      Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
    14. Re:And some people say by DM9290 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He claims he owns. Without the registration, the ISP has to assume he doesn't.

      By that same logic the cops must assume a crime is in progress in your bedroom without proof to the contrary.

      imagine if you went into a store and tried to buy something and they store demanded proof that the 10$ bill you were carrying truly belonged to you?

      Imagine if every morning IRS agents showed up and demanded proof that you filed your taxes on time. Or the cops showed up demanding proof you weren't a fugitive on the run from the law?

      a society can't function unless people are able to take basic honesty and good faith as the default assumption, and leave the suspicion to cases where there is grounds for it.

      If someone claims to own something they are in possession of, most rational people assume that they DO own it, unless they have some reason to suspect otherwise.

      if people are criminals by default, then there is something extremely non democratic and tyrannical about the law which makes them so.

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    15. Re:And some people say by jp10558 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You need a license (read permission) to use someone else's copyrighted works.
      I'm pretty sure this isn't true for most copyrighted stuff (computers are funny here due to how they work). Specifically, I don't need a license to read a book, or look at a picture, or watch TV... I need a license to make copies legally however.

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    16. Re:And some people say by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Lol.. No, but the content provider, whether it is the book binder or the TV network needs the license in order to get the content to you in a way that you can access. Their license covers your use.

      I'm not sure however, why you are bringing it up. You obviously got the point with your copy comment. It is also true with distribution too. I can license my works to you and you can copy them all you want but I can forbid your distribution of it or how you distribute it too. Anyways, the rest of my comment was clear in what was being said.

  14. Record label dude is kinda asking for it by reynaert · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, the hosts asks for a copy of the registration records with the Copyright Office. That's stupid but it's not an impossible request. Record label dude can't give records because the copyright isn't registered. Fair enough. What I don't get is why record label dude doesn't simply register the music and say the registration is being processed? That makes a lot more sense than blathering about Creative Commons, and it's actually helpful if there ever are real legal problems.

    1. Re:Record label dude is kinda asking for it by SpacePunk · · Score: 2, Informative

      The advantage to copyright registration is to be able to prove ownership if questions arise. Anything created is immediately copyright by the creator, but that can be challenged by a thief if there's no record. The creative commons is just a license people stick on their material, but it's still not proof that they own the copyright. Someone can just come along, challenge the material in court as their own, and maybe win that challenge without a copyright registration. It's not all that expensive to do, and the owner can always release the work under creative commons. AFAIK, there's no restriction to that.

    2. Re:Record label dude is kinda asking for it by Walpurgiss · · Score: 1

      They don't have a copy of the material to submit to the Copyright office, their local machine crashed and the web host has the only copies of the content in question.

    3. Re:Record label dude is kinda asking for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please send me the copyright registration for your comment. If you do not, we will remove it.

    4. Re:Record label dude is kinda asking for it by IronClad · · Score: 3, Informative

      >Fair enough

      Not fair at all. First of all, if the blog and myspace post are accurate, then the ISP is citing their TOS as the agreement that requires this. The TOS here dated June 16:

      http://www.ixwebhosting.com/index.php/v2/pages.tos#q21

      says *nothing* about copyright registrations being required or any other provenance for hosted content. If they don't have some other reason for the service outage, I'd speculate that they're making up the "terms" as they go.

      >why record label dude doesn't simply register

      I see no indication of how many files we're talking about. Depending on how it's structured, $35/file could add up to cash that a struggling artist does not have. They probably would not be needed later either, as I think most folks are inclined to respect CC license provisions.

      Still, it's hardly a problem going forward. If the label's report bears scrutiny, then the IX brand is toxic.

    5. Re:Record label dude is kinda asking for it by Still+an+AC · · Score: 0

      He can register all the songs as one collection for one fee.

  15. Upside-down argument by mangu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    are you telling me they can't find an ISP that doesn't have their head up their ass?

    To use a Slashdot-approved car analogy, what you are telling us is that if you find a used-car salesman that offers stolen cars for sale that's no big deal because there are plenty of used cars for sale that aren't stolen.

    1. Re:Upside-down argument by GuldKalle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, he's saying sue/file a police report on the salesman and find another, instead of bitching about having no car

      --
      What?
  16. Get A Lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the sad truth of the matter that the main reason to get a law degree and pass the bar is that people will suddenly listen to you once you're a lawyer.

    For those who don't want to go to the trouble and expense of becoming a lawyer, the best you can do is hire one instead.

    I would wager that a lawyer could resolve this situation with just a few phone calls. The ISP won't listen to you, but if your lawyer says the exact same thing, suddenly the situation will resolve itself.

    1. Re:Get A Lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i'd be willing to help (IAAL) but the guy who owns the site wont even post his contact info up. hey dumbass - next time post contact info for people to help you out.

    2. Re:Get A Lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's quite easy to find the contact information you need in the WHOIS record. You probably shouldn't be throwing the "dumbass" insult around if you can't find such basic info yourself.

    3. Re:Get A Lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he's a lawyer not a computer geek idiot.

  17. Bastard Operator.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only copy you say?

    oops.

    What do you mean, What do I mean by oops?...

  18. Subject has been removed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This comment was removed due to a breach of copyright law.

  19. *AA Involvement? by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Are we sure the AA's aren't involved in some back room, pulling the strings to cause this guy more grief?

    He was in effect in direct competition to the 'industry'.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:*AA Involvement? by Joe+Jay+Bee · · Score: 1

      Yes. We are. I can't recall the RIAA ever suing or taking any action to kill off indie music. Can't get on mainstream radio? You can start your own. Not in the charts? Start your own. The RIAA isn't required to give you access to any of their charts, radio or any other shit really.

      Goddammit the paranoia on this site is so stupid sometimes.

    2. Re:*AA Involvement? by veganboyjosh · · Score: 1

      Speaking of hte industry, one of the bands on this label is called "Bomb the Music Industry!", no joke.

    3. Re:*AA Involvement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

    4. Re:*AA Involvement? by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Don't attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence?

    5. Re:*AA Involvement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The biggest band on the label, the one the founder fronts, is called "Bomb the Music Industry!" (with exclamation mark). Enough said.

  20. Only in America... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... literally, because the rest of the world has the Berne Convention. What are these "copyright registration forms" of which you speak?

    1. Re:Only in America... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell does the Berne Convention have to do with anything? Imagine this scenario.

      (1) I steal dudes recordings.
      (2) Put up a webpage with a bogus Creative Commons License. Say it's Copyright 2000. I made it seven years before he put up his website!
      (3) Sue the dude and shut him down. Profit.

      You can run through all kinds of scenarios that 'prove' the real copyright holder had the files first, and that I didn't really have the website up in 2000, but they don't necessarily stand up to legal scrutiny.

      Registration, although not required by Berne, provides pretty definitive proof, and registration is optional in most countries, just like the US. Google "copyright registration favorite_country"

      http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_copyright_law#Registration

      http://www.chinatechnews.com/2006/04/28/3773-beijing-launches-digital-works-copyright-registration-platform/

    2. Re:Only in America... by argent · · Score: 1

      The US has been following the Berne Convention since 1989.

      These "copyright forms" are bullshit, they're not required by law, they're just something the host pulled out of history to bullshit out of their screwup.

    3. Re:Only in America... by argent · · Score: 1

      Imagine this scenario.

      (1) I steal dudes recordings.
      (2) Put up a webpage with a bogus Creative Commons License. Say it's Copyright 2000. I made it seven years before he put up his website!

      (3) Checks of web caches don't show your copyright anywhere before 2008. You lose and pay court costs and legal fees.

    4. Re:Only in America... by Kalriath · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Incorrect. A web cache is not considered "evidence".

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    5. Re:Only in America... by argent · · Score: 1

      A web cache is not considered "evidence".

      Cite?

    6. Re:Only in America... by Garwulf · · Score: 1

      Canada has copyright registration forms too, and its copyright law is based on the Berne Convention. For that matter, pretty much every country has a copyright office, and needs one.

      The Berne Convention can only go so far, and here is why - let's say I write a story, and you decide that you're going to copy it, take my name off, and put yours on. I catch you, and I take you to court. The judge now has to decide who is the one who originally wrote the story.

      And that's where it gets tricky, because without a copyright office, it's your word against mine. You could use a "poor man's copyright," but that's very easy to fake - all you need to do is mail an unsealed envelope to yourself, and then put something in it and seal it later. With a copyright office, assuming that I've been smart enough to register the copyright, I can pull out the copyright registration, point out that you don't have one, or that mine predates yours, and win the case.

      So, even with the Berne Convention in place, a copyright office is necessary to settle the legal burden of proof.

      --
      Robert B. Marks
      Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
    7. Re:Only in America... by Garwulf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, no, copyright forms are very far from bullshit.

      As I just wrote in a previous comment, they're used for legal proof of ownership, and they are the only proof of ownership accepted in a court of law. Any other "proof," such as a "poor man's copyright," is too easy to fake.

      --
      Robert B. Marks
      Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
    8. Re:Only in America... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I say I just say I wrote the songs in 2000, but never put them on the web until 2008. They're copyrighted at the point of creation, right? What does the date I started a website have to do with anything?

      The point is, now we're in a gray area. It's not like you can just print out a page from some web archive and expect a judge to (1) understand what it is, and (2) accept it's validity. So now you need to fly in some 'expert witness' to attest to it's validity. And good luck getting someone from a web archive to swear, absolutely swear, that they're sure they've been capturing the entire web accurately without omissions, even accidental, for eight years. That it's 100% impossible that they missed your site somehow. And hope you get a judge who actually uses email. Ultimately you'll probably win, if you spend enough time and money.

      With copyright registration, it's black and white. You registered the materials at date X and the government has validated your claim. You'll get a lot less legal hassles and require a lot less legal maneuvering.

    9. Re:Only in America... by argent · · Score: 1

      So I say I just say I wrote the songs in 2000, but never put them on the web until 2008.

      Defense: "Where else did you publish them before 2008? Do you have any evidence of that?"

      It's not like you can just print out a page from some web archive and expect a judge to (1) understand what it is, and (2) accept it's validity.

      You'll still have to do that if you're going to use the grandparent's clever scheme.

      With copyright registration, it's black and white. You registered the materials at date X and the government has validated your claim. You'll get a lot less legal hassles and require a lot less legal maneuvering.

      Where did I suggest otherwise? I'm not the fella suggesting backdating a web page to fraudulently claim copyright on someone else's material. That's the grandparent article.

    10. Re:Only in America... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With copyright registration, it's black and white. You registered the materials at date X and the government has validated your claim. You'll get a lot less legal hassles and require a lot less legal maneuvering.

      Where did I suggest otherwise? I'm not the fella suggesting backdating a web page to fraudulently claim copyright on someone else's material. That's the grandparent article.

      All the same AC here. You suggested otherwise when you said it was a simple matter to go to some web archive to prove your innocence.

      My whole point is that some a-hole could easily shift the burden of proof to the real copyright holder without registration. The real copyright holder could be tied up in court for years without copyright registration. Not to mention his life savings. And even then there's no guarantee that he'll win his case.

      Even with the Berne Convention. Which is why pretty much every country that signed Berne still maintains a copyright office and registration. Which means the dude who started the thread probably shouldn't pull out the "stupid americans" argument.

    11. Re:Only in America... by argent · · Score: 1

      You suggested otherwise when you said it was a simple matter to go to some web archive to prove your innocence.

      No, I suggested that it's a hard matter for the asshole to establish any evidence that his fake copyright registration is valid.

      Which is why pretty much every country that signed Berne still maintains a copyright office and registration.

      Why, yes, I agree, this has nothing to do with the Berne Convention, especially since (as I noted elsewhere) the US has conformed to the Berne Convention in this respect since 1989. My point is not to support the idea that registration is optional, but rather that the scenario you're proposing isn't even vaguely possible.

    12. Re:Only in America... by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      I don't need to cite the obvious. Any court decision that considers a digital copy which can be easily tampered with as evidence should (and would!) be declared invalid by any sane person.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  21. sounds fishy by spir0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    the story does remind me of something eBay tried years ago -- they took down auctions of people selling their own software or software for linux because the auctioneers didn't have licenses from Microsoft.

    however, this story sounds a bit fishy. I believe that the ISP pulled his site because it's highly likely they're retards and see any online music as pirated, but I'm suspicious of his having lost his own copies of the files. Did the other musicians in any of the bands not have copies? Didn't any of them burn onto CDs to give to their friends, or to play in their cars?

    I think this is creative marketing. When the site goes back up, he'll get loads more hits to his site, and make a bunch of pity sales and more people have now heard of him and his bands. Epic Win.

    --
    The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
    1. Re:sounds fishy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he's just an alcoholic.

    2. Re:sounds fishy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about? He didn't blame the jews for taking his site down.

    3. Re:sounds fishy by sean22190 · · Score: 1

      Bomb The Music Industry isn't a typical band. It's more of "collective" (as lame as that sounds). Jeff, the songwriter and creator of the label does most of it, and it's not surprising that he doesn't have everything backed up. I'm sure he could get it all from people who are in the band, but why not just get it from everyone. The ASOB CD he had up there was a collectiong of B-Sides/Live recordings, nothing fancy.

  22. I listen to this band. by MetalSlugIV · · Score: 0

    Bomb The Music Industry! Is my favorite band! Jeff Rosenstock is an amazing musician. This article has a terrible summary. The hosting company took the site down. I guess there is one positive thing could come out of this. With all this publicity Bomb the Music Industry! could get some great exposure even if this whole incident is crap. Am I the only BTMI fan on Slashdot?

    --
    Z?
    1. Re:I listen to this band. by who's+got+my+nicknam · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      If you have their music, please host it somewhere so we can download it! The more people who can host this stuff the better.

      --
      "Apparatus dignosco occultus, satis non supernus."
  23. You got to be in the DMCA! by paniq · · Score: 1

    It's not going to take long until the hoster takes its own sites down for using their own copyrighted logo.

    More recursive infringement claims please! It's like kicking yourself out of a channel on IRC (that works!) :D

    --
    Do not trust this signature.
  24. Host giving up DMCA safe harbor? by jmac880n · · Score: 3, Insightful

    According to the article, the web hosting outfit "proactively" took it upon itself - with no complaints - to take down the site.

    IANAL, but.... (take the rest with a grain of salt)

    Since it did not follow DMCA provisions, I would presume that it left behind the DMCA safe-harbor provisions, and is open to a lawsuit...

    1. Re:Host giving up DMCA safe harbor? by tsstahl · · Score: 1

      DMCA does not apply here. So far it is a contract dispute between two parties. That is your legal advice from a geek for the day. ;)

    2. Re:Host giving up DMCA safe harbor? by roguetrick · · Score: 1

      You can't lose DMCA safe harbor by acting proactively, meaning you can censor whatever you want. You can only lose it by not acting when needed. Despite that, the ISP are idiots.

      --
      -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
  25. Sounds like pressure from the RIAA by gelfling · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It sounds like some suits from the RIAA worked over the weekend to study the nuances of the RoR and narc'd the company to its own host.

  26. Are CrystalTech.com users safe? by UncleMantis · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Where in the ToS of a website host does one need to look to be sure that this doesn't happen again? I run a website for a band and now I am concerned that it may get pulled since they are not signed to a major label. The host I use is CRYSTALTECH.COM. Am I safe?

    --
    Uncle Mantis
    1. Re:Are CrystalTech.com users safe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not if you dont register your copyright, idiot. do so and have the necessary paperwork on hand..

    2. Re:Are CrystalTech.com users safe? by Skye16 · · Score: 1

      He doesn't have to register his copyright, idiot. All registering your copyright means is the copyright office has it.

      Just burn CDs of the material as soon as they create it to yourself via certified mail and don't open the copies. That's all you need to prove when it was created.

      As far as who created it, you don't need to worry about it. Keep backups in multiple locations, and when someone pulls this, a: tell slashdot (so they get tremendous bad publicity) and b: go to a new webhost. It's no big deal.

    3. Re:Are CrystalTech.com users safe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      via certified mail and don't open the copies.

      Bogus advice. Everyone knows how to steam open envelopes and the feds know they know.

    4. Re:Are CrystalTech.com users safe? by osssmkatz · · Score: 1

      This isn't true. There is no such thing as a poor man's copyright.

  27. IX Web Hosting... by SmoothTom · · Score: 1

    The web hosting company is IX Hosting, and I certainly hope they get Slashdotted into a smoking crater, and that their support folks get a whole lot of input from various sources about the idiocy of their policy...

    http://www.ixwebhosting.com/index.php/v2/pages.customerCenter#top

    --
    Tomas

    1. Re:IX Web Hosting... by kachakaach · · Score: 1

      Better Business Bureau has lots on info (including email, phone, and add., as well as corp. officers), on ixwebhosting.com and ecommerce.com, which are same company. (only one complaint in last 3 yrs.?) http://tinyurl.com/5t8ftv

      you can also go to http://onewhois.com/ and enter
      =ixwebhosting.com
      into the search box to get what appears to be president's email as part of domain registration info.

      (do same search WITHOUT the = sign before domain to see a group of subdomains? all belonging to same company)

      Kachakaach

    2. Re:IX Web Hosting... by kachakaach · · Score: 1

      bad form to reply to my own post, but thought I would just post the info so if the sources get overwhelmed, the info will be here too, links to sources in prior post.

      IX Web Hosting ixwebhosting.com

      (614) 534-1961

      1774 Dividend Dr
      Columbus, OH 43228-3845

      Mr. Samir Said, CFO/President
      samir@ecommerce.com

      Ms. Amanda Walsh, CSR
      (614) 534-1961
      amanda.walsh@ecommerce.com

      Ms. Fatima Said - CEO

      Domain register info:

      samir@ecommerce.com
      247 Mitch Lane
      Hopkinsville, KY 42240
        +1.8003850450

      also DBA: Ecommerce Inc

  28. Evite once rejected my logo... by mi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There is a feature on Evite.com, which lets you associate your own icon with your "account". Obviously, using copyrighted images is prohibited.

    Well, the geniuses at Evite have deleted my logo, which I created in Paintbrush back in 1993 (before switching to Unix for good), because — they thought — it can't possibly be my own creation...

    Well, ass-covering, ignorant dimwits working for a corporation... Spit-spit-spit...

    Years later, the same image is forcibly deleted by Wikipedia — where it was only used on my own user-page.

    The idiocy spreads...

    Maybe, there is some artistic merit to that poorly-drawn cat on a castle wall? Should I try selling it or something?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Evite once rejected my logo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they were just trying to do you the favor of forcing you to stop using that pile of crap.

    2. Re:Evite once rejected my logo... by Skye16 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Wait, that's a cat? I thought it was an elephant that swallowed an airplane!

    3. Re:Evite once rejected my logo... by RockMFR · · Score: 2, Informative

      The deletion summary on Wikipedia says "GFDL presumed". All images on Wikipedia must have a proper license - in this case, it doesn't appear to have had a free license (it was tagged with {{logo}}, which at the time doesn't seem to have included any information regarding copyright). If you want to use it on Wikipedia, you'll have to release it under a free license.

    4. Re:Evite once rejected my logo... by mi · · Score: 1

      If you want to use it on Wikipedia, you'll have to release it under a free license.

      Right. Even if it is my own creation, I must allow everyone else to use it, or else even I can't use it — not even on my own user page.

      Indeed. Such is the Wikipedia's rulers' zeal — and to me, it is far more worrying, than that of the Evite employees...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    5. Re:Evite once rejected my logo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Years later, the same image is forcibly deleted by Wikipedia — where it was only used on my own user-page.

      The reason it was deleted was probably that the image was only included on your page. Wikipedia really isn't a place to store your own vanity images, images should always be encyclopedic. Any images that won't be used in articles will be removed.

      Also, from the deletion log comment it seems like you failed to give the image a proper license. Therefore the administrators had no choice but to remove the image.

    6. Re:Evite once rejected my logo... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      The current wikipedia page for IBM has the IBM logo on it, same for RedHat etc.

      So should those be removed for not being under a free license?

      The Wikipedia admins are just being a bunch of wankers as usual.

      WikiWankers (I guess that's probably someone's trademark or copyrighted phrase).

      --
    7. Re:Evite once rejected my logo... by TheLink · · Score: 3, Informative

      I looked up a few wikipedia pages on corporations and they had the company logos on them.

      I think wikipedia succeeds _despite_ the efforts of the admins.

      Maybe one day the admins will have the wikipedia exactly the way they want it to be. All the nonfree pictures removed, all the "not notable" information/pages deleted.

      And that's the day everyone else starts using something else.

      --
    8. Re:Evite once rejected my logo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You complain that you got 17 days notice before someone on WP deleted it for not having proper licensing information? Maybe you should have tagged it correctly in the first place.

    9. Re:Evite once rejected my logo... by AaronLawrence · · Score: 1

      For some reason images are very zealously pursued, and the logic is largely done by somebody you don't know running a bot you never heard of, rather than up front.
      This makes it an exercise in frustration to upload anything the first few times.

      By contrast, any text you like can be added and will only be removed much later if someone notices it's a direct copy of something important.

      --
      For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
    10. Re:Evite once rejected my logo... by crimperman · · Score: 1

      | If you want to use it on Wikipedia, you'll have to release it under a free license.

      Right. Even if it is my own creation, I must allow everyone else to use it, or else even I can't use it -- not even on my own user page.

      Whether it's your creation is irrelevant here - it's who owns the copyright. I could create an image for a client but it's not mine to do with as I please if I give the copyright to them.

      Also "Everyone else" does not come into it. Regardless of whether you own the copyright, *you* are not using it here , Wikipedia is and it is they whom the free licence protects. If you want *Wikipedia* to use it on *their* site then you have to permit them to. The nature of Wikipedia means content on their site is meant to be shared.

      Of course if you don't like or don't want to do that then you are free not to put it on Wikipedia.

    11. Re:Evite once rejected my logo... by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Well, they have company logos because (and I quote from the Google logo page's justification for using a non-fre image):

      "The entire logo is used to convey the meaning intended and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the intended image. The logo is a size and resolution sufficient to maintain the quality intended by the company or organization, without being unnecessarily high resolution. The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing Google, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey. Because it is a logo there is almost certainly no free equivalent. Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey the meaning intended, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary."

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    12. Re:Evite once rejected my logo... by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Yes, exactly, you can't have it on Wikipedia's servers unless it's a free-use, all-rights waived image or (if it's fair use or licenced) you provide a justication. One of the founding ideas of Wikipedia is that the whole project is licenced for wholesale reproduction, forking and mirroring as needed. So obviously they want explicit permission before they freely redistribute your artwork, even something as trivial as that logo. They're stricter about images than text (which is just subject to a clickwrap this-is-mine-and-I-release-it-on-GFDL) presumably because they're self contained and not edited after upload, and therefore easier to assess.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    13. Re:Evite once rejected my logo... by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      "So should those be removed for not being under a free license?"

      Although Wikipedia is almost exclusively GFDL or public domain, correctly licenced or fair use images are allowed where all the following criteria are met:

      The image has a strong need to be in the articles it is found in. If you take it away, the article would be missing something important.

      No free alternative could conceivably exist. A home-made version of the company logo, the only sensible alternative, would be a derivative work of that logo and therefore no more "free" than the original image of the logo.

      No ownership of the image is implied or assumed - the original copyright or licence is noted on the image info page.

      The image is only of sufficiently high quality to illustrate what it's illustrating.

      There is an explicit statement of the relevant licence or justification for fair use attached to the image info page. Wikipedia's ass is pre-covered.

      Basically, everything on Wikipedia is meant to be freely redistributable to anyone under the GFDL. Therefore everything on the encyclopedia must be explicitly public domain or GFDL, or Wikimedia have to provide proper fair-use justification the redistribution of someone else's copyrighted/licenced material to cover their asses. However note that fair-use images may not be permissible in many of the nations where Wikipedia mirrors (physical, disk or online) may be made and hosted. So even that's not ideal. It's not some bureaocratic triviality, it's a serious problem. If you upload just one of my photos, say, and it gets onto Wikipedia V0.5 on CD, then I would be well within my rights to get an injunction against its distribution until that's removed. It's not a stock image, and I would want the same remuneration I'd expect if I had sold it to a stock image site. Obviously Wikimedia do not want this to happen, and the GFDL-or-free-or-justify-your-ass-off requirement for images is a consequence of this.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    14. Re:Evite once rejected my logo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiocy with Wikipdeia admins? never.....

    15. Re:Evite once rejected my logo... by mi · · Score: 1

      or (if it's fair use or licenced) you provide a justication.

      Well, that's just what we are discussing here — a site hosting its own music forced to (and failing) to justify its ownership of it...

      One of the founding ideas of Wikipedia is that the whole project is licenced for wholesale reproduction

      Really? And I thought, it was to spread the knowledge... And yet, sadly, they deleted even the images, that were given to them for "free under the wikipedia.org domain"... They didn't need to do it to bring knowledge to millions of people. They did it, because of their not-so-secret anti-copyright agenda.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    16. Re:Evite once rejected my logo... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      So why delete his logo from his user page?

      Seems "fair use" to me.

      --
    17. Re:Evite once rejected my logo... by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      I believe because the whole project is licenced identically, from article space to the minuitae of deletion discussions in people's user page archives. It's odd, but that's how it works.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    18. Re:Evite once rejected my logo... by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      "free under the wikipedia.org domain" isn't compatible with the GFDL licence of the text, though. Anything on the project has to be licenced in such a way as to allow free redistribution (on other sites, as texts, as CDs, etc. by groups other than Wikimedia). Your user image didn't need to be spread to millions of people, and you forbade them to do so, so obviously it had to leave.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  29. Re:Fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    If you can't find your chargers, you can probably buy more at Radio Shack or on the manufacturer's website.

  30. Quote Unquote are actually really good! by Stormx2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The website was pretty well made, and they had Bomb The Music Industry! signed. Silly name aside, they are a really marvelous blend of punk, twee, and brass, something I could normally never appreciate

    They gave away stencils and cds at shows for free, so that fans could make their own t-shirts. They've got a brilliant DIY ethic going on, and they became something of an underground hit without even properly releasing a CD.

    So I don't know who tagged this "andnothingofvaluewaslost", but you don't know what you're talking about.

    It's very easy to complain about how the RIAA does things, but you need to think up solutions, as well as identifying problems, or you're just being annoying. Quote Unquote make the perfectly valid point that some artists aren't interested in wealth, and can get by on donations alone. Obviously it suits some bands better than others, but it's _a_ solution, not the only solution

    1. Re:Quote Unquote are actually really good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree! However Quote Unquote was actually founded by Bomb The Music Industry! front man Jeff Rosenstock.

  31. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN (then vote McCain) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They must serve up a different site to foreigners because I don't see any US flags (from here in .au).

  32. You cant really fight that kind of stupidity. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On your own anyway.

    Time to find a good nasty lawyer and sue the piss out of them for anything you can imagine.

    Whoever made that decision to pull the site might be one of the stupidest people on the internet. And that's saying alot................

  33. Copyright infringment continues by ramriot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It seems that the ISP ix is itself propagating copyright infringement. The landing page they put up for 'Quote Unquote' includes advert links to copyright infringing sites. Perhaps someone should find out if ix is a sub-hoster and then send a DMCA takedown notice to their host. As it turns out they own their own DNS server, so it seems unlikely.

    1. Re:Copyright infringment continues by dex22 · · Score: 1

      It appears they now own the smoking remains of their DNS server. Which is "just recompense" for their leaving smoking remains where a client's site used to be.

    2. Re:Copyright infringment continues by theNAM666 · · Score: 1

      As of now ixhosting's DNS server(s) look(s) to be up, but their main site's server is toasted. Those who live in glass houses...

  34. Nothing that a lawyer by gillbates · · Score: 1

    And a sworn affidavit can't fix.

    Even if his hosting company is brain-dead, they should at least recognize that a signed affidavit that he is, indeed, the copyright holder will get them off the hook if any litigation comes their way. Failing that, he could file charges against them for copyright infringement under the DMCA, and sue for statutory damages. I believe the going rate is around $168,000 per song...

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
    1. Re:Nothing that a lawyer by kachakaach · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even if his hosting company is brain-dead, they should at least recognize that a signed affidavit that he is, indeed, the copyright holder will get them off the hook if any litigation comes their way. Failing that, he could file charges against them for copyright infringement under the DMCA, and sue for statutory damages. I believe the going rate is around $168,000 per song...

      Send a official DMCA counter-notice.

      [512(g)] If a subscriber provides a proper counter-notice claiming that the material does not infringe copyrights, the service provider must then promptly notify the claiming party of the individuals objection. [512(g)(2)] If the copyright owner does not bring a lawsuit in district court within 14 days, the service provider is then required to restore the material to its location on its network. [512(g)(2)(C)]

      A proper counter-notice must contain the following information:

      The subscribers name, address, phone number and physical or electronic signature [512(g)(3)(A)]

      Identification of the material and its location before removal [512(g)(3)(B)]

      A statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed by mistake or misidentification [512(g)(3)(C)]

      Subscriber consent to local federal court jurisdiction, or if overseas, to an appropriate judicial body. [512(g)(3)(D)]

      here is a form that creates a counter notice for you, just fill in the blanks

      http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca/counter512.pdf

    2. Re:Nothing that a lawyer by xous · · Score: 2, Informative

      The problem is that there WAS no DMCA notice.

      What likely happened (I speak from experience as someone who did this) is that the server that they were hosted on was over X% of disk space usage.

      So the $8/h technician assigned to that server goes on the server and does a find for any files larger than X and maybe files matching some "bad" extensions like "mp3,avi,mpeg" etc.

      Technician finds ANY mp3 files on a account and immediately asks for "proof of copyright" (they mean proof of authorization to distribute). 'Quote Unquote Records' fails to provide "proof" and is suspended.

      This was part of my responsibilities as a level 3 tech at large shared hosting provider.

      The main issue here is IX is not being as "copyright" hero or even protecting their own legal ass; they are simply out to reduce the costs of their overselling.

      The practical solution to this problem when HOSTING any files that could possibility be considered "copyrighted content" by the dumbest moron you can find is to CONTACT YOUR HOST FIRST and have them note on the account that the content is YOURS.

      The ideal solution is to a) host your own shit b) go with a reputable provider.

  35. This has more to do with bandwidth than the DMCA by LukeCrawford · · Score: 1

    Many hosting providers give you ridiculously high bandwidth limits, counting on the fact that it's usually quite difficult to use much bandwidth without violating the AUP. So I'm guessing what happened was that these guys got popular and started costing the hosting company money (but were still within the stated limit) and that's the real reason they got disconnected.

    It's a lot like the 'unlimited dialup' popular in the mid 90s... it was unlimited, unless you used it a whole lot, in which case they billed you or disconnected you.

    If you look up my site on archive.org, you will see that my limits used to be much higher, comparable to my competitors. Being as my AUP is much less restrictive in the non-spam areas, it was a very expensive lesson for me to learn.

  36. Webhost CEO says... by macraig · · Score: 1

    This is rich: "I Will Guarantee You With My Own Money That You Will Not Be Dissatisfied."

    That is the arrogant boast of IX Webhosting's CEO, Fathi Said:
    http://www.ixwebhosting.com/index.php/v2/pages.ourPromiseToYou

    I'll wager I know of one customer who wants to take him up on that bet... after they've slapped him around a bit for good measure.

  37. IX Webhost Rep by lysergic.acid · · Score: 4, Informative

    here's a partial transcript from Live Chat with an IX Webhost Rep (be warned. there's a lot of incoherent rambling because the customer service rep is from Ukraine, and i think there was a slight communications barrier):

    you: ok, i just have one more question
    Evgen Voznyak: Sure please go on
    you: if we hosted our music on our site
    you: would you shut us down like you did Quote Unquote Records?
    Evgen Voznyak: We could suspend your account by Copyrights for your music if it is illegal
    you: but we own the copyrights to our music
    Evgen Voznyak: In this case everything is fine
    you: then why was Quote Unquote shut down?
    you: they held the copyrights to the music they put up
    you: or did someone file a complaint against their site?
    Evgen Voznyak: Please read about Our Terms of Service http://www.ixwebhosting.com/index.php/v2/pages.tos
    you: ok, i just read the section about IP and copyright
    you: but i still have qustions about how the Quate Unquote Records site came to be shut down
    you: are you allowed to discuss the details with me?
    Evgen Voznyak: Yes I am allowed
    you: ok
    Evgen Voznyak: Let me explain
    Evgen Voznyak: If we found some warez on Illegal information which is phishing material, we automatically suspend your account with request delete your content, also adult content is not allowed.
    you: is that what you found on their site?
    Evgen Voznyak: We search such content on our customers sites
    you: and what did you find on Quote Unquote Records's site?
    Evgen Voznyak: If we found that your domain getting many querries for users and it has been overloaded we suspend account
    you: you're not telling me anything about the Quote Unqoute site
    Evgen Voznyak: Please clarify what do you mean about Quote Unqoute
    you: ok, there was this new article recently about your company
    you: basically it talks about an Independent Record Label (like the one i work at) being shut down by you guys for "copyright violations"
    you: but the violations your company accused them of were for songs that they held the copyrights to
    you: so you basically shut down their site for posting their own songs up
    you: you can read the news article here: http://torrentfreak.com/record-label-infringes-own-copyright-site-pulled-081019/
    you: i don't want the same thing to happen to our website because we post our own copyrighted music and music videos on our site too.
    Evgen Voznyak: If you have your own copyright this will not happens with you
    you: but that's exactly what happened to Quote Unquote Records
    you: i just want to know how you determined that they were violating copyright laws
    Evgen Voznyak: I will give you example mail which you need to write for us
    Evgen Voznyak: Thank you for notifying us of a client who may be infringing on copyright materials. As we would like to work with you to resolve this issue, there may be several supporting documents we need in order to continue. All information must be received via Federal Postal mail and delivered to the following address:
    Evgen Voznyak: Company Name
    Evgen Voznyak: PO BOX 1599
    Evgen Voznyak: Hopkinsville,KY 42241
    Evgen Voznyak: Please send a copy of the registered copyrights from the USPTO or other governing legal entities for the concerned material. If the text or images are located in a certain area of our client's website, please let us know where we can find the resource as this will assist us in a quicker resolution.
    you: so who notified you that Quote Unquote was infringing on copyright materials?
    you: did they include proof that they held the copyright to the materials being infringed?
    you: did you investigate whether the claims were true?
    you: and was their a court ordered injunction that required you to shut down their site?
    you: or did you just shut down the site without verifying whether any law

    1. Re:IX Webhost Rep by YourExperiment · · Score: 4, Funny

      Jeez, they ought to put that guy in next year's Loebner Prize contest. If all the human participants were like him, even Eliza could win the gold medal.

    2. Re:IX Webhost Rep by totally+bogus+dude · · Score: 1

      What I think is particularly sad is that it sounds like IX Webhosting take it upon themselves to search their customer's files for possibly infringing content, i.e. We search such content on our customers sites.

      Also it's a little sad (in a "is this the web of the future?" kind of way) that they automatically play a video of some chick when you visit their homepage. But I do like how she shakes her head whenever she says something positive about the company.

    3. Re:IX Webhost Rep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And so begins the flooding of IX Web Host's inbox

    4. Re:IX Webhost Rep by UncleMantis · · Score: 0

      I am not surprised at the way the chat went. I deal with hosting companies at my job and one that I will mention is Start Logic and they really have no clue what to say other than what they read from an FAQ of sorts. They really have no brains. Makes one wonder how many of IX's customers are going to leave due to their untrusting of the company and their ToS.

      --
      Uncle Mantis
    5. Re:IX Webhost Rep by Un+quebecois · · Score: 0

      He fail the turing test I guess.

    6. Re:IX Webhost Rep by matrim99 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think that this is really two stories:

      1) Record label gets stung by not having any backups of any of it's own songs.

      2) Record Label finds out that $4.95/mo "Unlimited Bandwidth" hosting only has unlimited bandwidth if you don't use too much bandwidth.

      It really sounds like the host knocked them off for using too much bandwidth (reading between the lines here), and did what they normally do to sites that are hosting music files... pull the copyright card and take down the site. I'm sure that most sites that distribute music on cheap hosting are doing so illegally, so this profile is not unreasonable. It doesn't fit in this case, but the assumption on the host's part makes sense unless they actually took the time to check the facts.

      Lessons learned:
      * Back up your mission critical data! Jeesh...
      * Use real hosting for real websites.

      --
      Right. No, your other right. No, the other other right.
    7. Re:IX Webhost Rep by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1

      i agreee. you should always keep local backups. i make full file backups and MySQL dumps from our web server on a regular basis and burn them onto DVDs. and that does not even include the local folder tree i use for active development. still, the host has absolutely no right to withhold your data. that is the worst demonstration of customer service i have ever come across from a web host--and i've seen some pretty bad ones. in general, i find the companies with the "Live Chat" support generally don't have very knowledgeable staff or quality service.

      also, i didn't post the thirst part of the conversation, but in it i did touch on bandwidth issues. i asked them how much bandwidth is supplied by their "unlimited plan," to which the rep replied "unlimited uncourse." so then i asked if it'd be alright if we hosted hi-red videos and music on our site, because we've had problems with that before with in our current host.

      at that point, he contradicted himself and said that if we overload their servers our site will be pulled. but i could not get a precise figure for bandwidth usage from the rep. all i could verify was that with our 12 GB/month (this was after we pulled down our videos) monthly bandwidth transfers, they would not have any problems. still seems a little deceptive to call it "unlimited hosting/bandwidth" though.

      what troubles me most is that he seemed to suggest they received a copyright complaint which included USPTO documents to prove ownership of copyrights. if that was the case, then they would have legal and ethical grounds to pull the site. but how could the accuser obtain such documents when the copyright is clearly held by Quote Unquote records? it's obvious that no attempt was made to determine who actually owned the copyrights to the hosted material. which leads to my other suggestion: that slashdotters start sending DCMA takedown notices to random sites hosted by IX Webhosting.

      since they won't verify if the accusations are valie, they will just end up pissing off a lot of legitimate customers. of even if they realize that it's a prank, they'll see the problem with their policy on IP policing.

    8. Re:IX Webhost Rep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can fit infinite customers on a disk.

      It's the 90/10 rule.
      1. 10% of your customers use 90% of your storage.
      2. Boot the top 10%, bring in another 90% to fill the space.
      3. Wait a week and do it again.
      4. Profit!!!^H^H^H^W Get reamed on /.

  38. That's why I'd like to see ... by Skapare · · Score: 1

    ... the hosting provider sued for misapplication of DCMA. I'm sure it would never happen, but I'd sure love to see it happen.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  39. He's obviously afraid to ... by Skapare · · Score: 1

    ... post his email address (even if obscured from spammers) on that page.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  40. Quote UnQuote Records on MySpace by UncleMantis · · Score: 0

    I do not see the big deal here. Everthing that this label needs is on their MySpace page and they are doing everything a band can do on their own anyway. http://www.myspace.com/quoteunquoterecords Did the website in question actually host any music?

    --
    Uncle Mantis
  41. yeah, right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone sets up an independent record label who shares and licenses under the CC and when news hits that it's been nailed by the DCMA (or the side effects of), it gets tagged by fuckhead slashdot readers as "nothingofvaluewaslost."

    unbelievabl, reactionary assholes. you're as bad as the people you rally against. high five, kids!

  42. Benefits of copyright registration by Nerdposeur · · Score: 2, Informative

    The moment you write it, you have the copyright. If you want to extend your copyright, only then do you need to do something.

    You're partly right. As soon as you record something "in fixed form" (on paper, hard drive, CD, or whatever), the copyright is yours. But if you want to go to court over it, you'll want to have it registered.

    From the Copyright Office website:

    In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration. Among these advantages are the following:

    • Registration establishes a public record of the copyright claim.
    • Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U.S. origin.
    • If made before or within 5 years of publication, registration will establish prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.
    • If registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney's fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner.
  43. Circumvention by CrazedSanity · · Score: 1

    Why go through a web hosting company? It's pretty easy to host your own website:

    1. Get a broadband connection
    2. Buy a cheap desktop/server class computer from eBay
    3. Install Linux with Apache, PHP, etc
    4. For handling IP changes: setup DynDNS, get a static IP from ISP, or deal with changes manually

    I don't use DynDNS nor a static IP, and I host my own websites. I didn't bother setting up my own mailserver, as Google Apps more than fits the bill for that. So what's the problem?

    --
    Sanity is like a condom: rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.
    1. Re:Circumvention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bandwidth

  44. Exactly by khallow · · Score: 1

    Right. Even if it is my own creation, I must allow everyone else to use it, or else even I can't use it -- not even on my own user page.

    Wikipedia can't support images that aren't under a public copyright. It's not a matter of "zeal". All information on the site needs to be usable everywhere on the site. Images that appear in your user page can easily be used elsewhere in Wikipedia. That's how Wikipedia is designed to work.

  45. Licensing != copyright by shrikel · · Score: 1

    Kind of difficult when your copyright takes the form of a Creative Commons license...

    No, no, no. Ownership of copyright is fundamentally and completely separate from terms of licensing. If you own the copyright of a work, you can license it however you want. If the site in question required that media donors verify ownership of the copyright for the donated media, then that would mean that only the copyright owner is allowed to submit media.

    Licensing something under Creative Commons does not transfer the copyright to the public at large, it just grants certain rights to usage to the public at large. I thought that this audience in particular would understand the difference.

    --
    Any sufficiently simple magic can be passed off as mere advanced technology.
  46. Just contacted the online "live sales" people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IX Web Hosting online sales staff responded to my query.

    Seems the fellow I spoke to has no idea about this story or even Slashdot.

    At least he did not deny that it was IX Web Hosting.

    Anyway google cache shows IX Web Hosting having some spam on the record label site when they shut it down.

  47. How does anyone prove copyright? by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1

    I've created loads of copyright material - mostly computer code, some gaming material such as scenarios , a few pictures and doodles, but I'd never have any way of proving that I owned the copyright on any of them.

  48. unladen swallow by ihatethetv · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of the monty python sketch:

    Bridgekeeper: What... is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?
    King Arthur: What do you mean? An African or European swallow?
    Bridgekeeper: Huh? I... I don't know that. [he is thrown over]
    Bridgekeeper: Auuuuuuuugh.

  49. Actually by badpazzword · · Score: 1

    The website is currently up just fine.

    --
    When ideas fail, words become very handy.
  50. wow... by inerlogic · · Score: 1

    teh interwebz is retarded