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

[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: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

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: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.