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."

Comments

And people say

[kidde_valind]

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

Re:And people say

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:And people say

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:And people say

[gnuASM]

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.

Re:And people say

[CecilPL]

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?

Yawn

[Kjella]

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.

Re:Yawn

[thermian]

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.

Find another host.

[91degrees]

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.

And some people say

[edalytical]

...publicity stunt.

Re:And some people say

[edalytical]

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.

Re:And some people say

[sumdumass]

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.

Re:And some people say

[penix1]

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.

Re:And some people say

[sumdumass]

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.

Re:And some people say

[wiz_80]

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.

Re:And some people say

[DM9290]

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.

Re:And some people say

[jp10558]

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.

Record label dude is kinda asking for it

[reynaert]

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.

Upside-down argument

[mangu]

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.

Re:Upside-down argument

[GuldKalle]

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

Re:Not exactly copyright's fault...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

*AA Involvement?

[nurb432]

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'.

Only in America...

[Gordonjcp]

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

Re:Only in America...

[Kalriath]

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

Re:Only in America...

[Garwulf]

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.

Host giving up DMCA safe harbor?

[jmac880n]

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...

Re:Stop the world

[Majik Sheff]

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

Re:There are plenty of hosts out there

[Swampash]

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.

Re:There are plenty of hosts out there

[frieko]

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?

Re:There are plenty of hosts out there

[ScrewMaster]

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.

Re:Nothing that a lawyer

[kachakaach]

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

Re:There are plenty of hosts out there

[totally bogus dude]

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.

Re:IX Webhost Rep

[matrim99]

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.