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."
I wouldn't be all that surprised to hear that this is just the host's way of kicking off a heavy bandwidth user.
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.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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...
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
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.
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