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."
...the copyright system works and is perfectly sane.
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
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/
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!
It's right here
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Copyright holders by definition cannot violate their own copyrights. They have the (copy)right to do with their own material as they see fit.
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.
I wouldn't be all that surprised to hear that this is just the host's way of kicking off a heavy bandwidth user.
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 I think I've found the perfect guy for them.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
...publicity stunt.
Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
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.
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.
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 ----
... literally, because the rest of the world has the Berne Convention. What are these "copyright registration forms" of which you speak?
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.
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...
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.
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.
If you can't find your chargers, you can probably buy more at Radio Shack or on the manufacturer's website.
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
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.
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
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.
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'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: