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]

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.

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

[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.

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.

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.

Re:Not exactly copyright's fault...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

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?

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: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: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.