Slashdot Mirror
Overzealous Enforcement Means Even Legit Music Blogs Deleted
AnotherUsername writes "Recently, many [Google-hosted] music blogs were deleted for hosting mp3s of songs by various artists. The problem? The music blogs in question had been given permission to host the songs, and often, the older links to mp3s were often broken intentionally by the bloggers in order to save bandwidth. From the article: 'You're reading this right: Five years of Lipold's labor of love was deleted, in part, because he posted a track with full permission of a label, and the track apparently wasn't even online by the time the IFPI filed its complaint.'"
Is nothing compared to corporate interests.
I have a document that shows how to get under the Berlin wall, will i get arrested if i post it?
What? You thought this had anything to do with their "intellectual property"?
This has everything to do with crushing alternative distribution methods.
...as long as there are no repercussions for frivolous DMCA.
The only provision limiting the scope in DMCA is to own copyright on whatever you claim someone infringes upon.
So, I have copyright on MyDumbSong. And I am totally free to file DMCA against _anyone_ and everyone_ and _anything_ and _everything_, claiming it infringes on my rights to MyDumbSong. And then it's their burden to prove they don't. And taking content down is so much easier than proving its legality.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
... as apparently, "your rights online" do not really exist. What about "No rights online"? "Duties online"?
Well, I'm pretty sure we can come up with something that describes the situation a bit better.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
It's a shame the porn industry isn't as zealous as the music industry then maybe something meaningful would finally happen to end all this silliness that's been happening since Napster took off.
The laws in question are basically a way of saying 'the music industry controls music. There shall be no music without our say so' whilst appearing to be a justified set of rules to make the industry fair. Even if this were the first example (it really, really is not) then nobody ought to be at all surprised. Few service or hosting providers have the balls to actually look into the matter when a legal-sounding letter arrives; they just err on the side of not being taken to court and comply immediately, which is exactly the kind of environment the content industry has sought to create.
Rather than there being a presumption of innocence for those publishing on the web, and the rights holder having to prove guilt - there is a a presumption of guilt and the publisher has to prove innocence, normally with far fewer legal funds available than the rights holder. There is also no consequence to the service/hosting provider for taking content down.
In a society so thoroughly and openly corrupt, how can this be a surprise? If the entire government and legal system is open to the highest bidder (true in every western nation I can think of) then naturally the intent of all laws will be to keep entrenched elites in place.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Sigh. such a dialectic of profit, desire, and misdirection.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
The business model of the record labels is borken. They don't want to change and are swinging violently. Everyone must suffer. I know I recently got a new version of OpenOffice.org off of a p2p site, and I got a warning from my ISP that downloading (anything) off the internet is illegal. They didn't want to hear about the GNU GPL. I responded and they threatened to cut me off and were considering forwarding logs to their lawyer. Nice. Legal content isn't allowed either. I'm disgusted.
[This post deleted due to a copyright infringement complaint by the IFPI]
Keep backups of everything. If it isn't on your server you don't know when you'll lose it. If you keep backups you can just move elsewhere if there's a problem.
Let them continue to shoot themselves in their feet repeatedly. More and more, make it unbearable. I love it when the entertainment moguls are hysterical to the point of nonsense. Because it is only hastening the day when they are completely irrelevent because nobody listens to a stark raving lunatic. So, shout it to the rooftops whenever they are idiots: real people (as in not lawyers and corporates) already know they are full of it. Dig away media, you're almost dead and the hole will be conveniently there for you to keel over into when you're done digging. By the way, do your part: download from your own personal sense of fair-use until an actual rational one is established by a Unicorn in the fairy court. If penaties are ludicrous, join systems such as The Onion Router. make new systems if you can, and lie through your teeth conflating the issues as much as you have to the entire way. It's not my duty to cooperate in the slightest with them.
Shh.
Unless the law has changed recently, all DMCA notices must contain the signature of the complaining party. So it can't be an _anonymous_ robot. If Google has agreed to an expidited, unsigned, automated, takedown process, it's not the law's fault.
If they are signing them, the fact that the law doesn't make false DMCA notices explicitly illegal is the problem.
I am definitely no lawyer, but couldn't a class action defamation or fraud suit be brought back against the IFPI for the incorrect reports? People like this will continue to suffer overbearing copyright-related mistreatment as long as they do not take it to the courts as plaintiff. The RPAA has made aggressive moves that can only be countered with swift action when they overstep their own bounds.
By the way, I refuse to cooperate in the slightest until I get at least one thing: a functioning public domain. Not this pretend one where perhaps after I'm long dead, maybe, just maybe - assuming no more extensions: my grandchildren will get to copy Steamboat Willy. There is no public domain if it doesn't happen in my lifetime: fact. Without my public domain I unilaterally declare the whole of copyright null and void, "they" broke it first so no agreement until "they" come back and deal in good faith. Because apparently politicians do not believe that Citizens need to be consulted for their positions to bargain with at the copyright table. Guess they're just too damn busy stuffing the money into their pockets as fast as possible under the table. It's a Sonny situation. Heh.
Shh.
The music industries goal here is to reinforce the belief that ALL music sharing is illegal and ALL music must be paid for. It doesn't matter what the reality is, they are trying to force a mindset on people. Things like the creative commons are just as much a threat as downloading.
Everything must have an owner, that owner must be a big corp and you must pay. ALWAYS.
It's a propaganda war. Unfortunately one of the reasons it works is that when they actually do things which break the law to try and further this propaganda, the law won't come after them.
They can just point at absolutely anything and say "that's illegal" and immediately there is a presumption of guilt. Then you must prove you innocence.
I for one, do not welcome my corporate overlords.
Absolute statements are never true
If your data only exists in one place, you *are* going to lose it sooner or later. If it hadn't been a RIAA claim against Google, maybe it would have been a botched server move, or a data center outage.
Make fucking backups. Test fucking backups regularly. Automate the process. Run it after every time you add a new post. There are no excuses, none.
If your site is worth anything at all to you, make sure you can move it instantly to another host... Blogger goes down? Move to WordPress. Move to Dreamhost. Whatever. But don't put all your eggs in one basket, get them all broken, and then gripe that the basket had frayed wires.
Comment of the year
Want proof? Here it is! http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/realestate/article1072632.ece
If a human being had done this, we'd be charged with the felony crime of breaking and entering-BUT after all Bank of America isn't a human, are they? Personally, I think that when stuff like this is done they should arrest the President of the corporation, process him and then throw him in a cell with the derelicts (make sure you do it on a long holiday weekend so he suffers for a few days).
You might think that this is off topic, but it really isn't. Corporations have WAY TOO MUCH POWER-mainly because they have been able to BRIBE our corrupt government into letting them have it!
After seeing this news the other day and again today I have checked the 10+ google blogs that I subscribe to and am happy to see that none of them have gone down. Of course these sites don't post the commercialized garbage music that seems to be so popular these days but rather truly good and creative electronic music published by real artists who the mainstream rips off their hook lines and calls their own or pays the original artists peanuts to license while they turn around and make millions from their hard work. Sure google blogs and other sites may nuke things periodically but that will never stop people from simply re-creating their blog with a new name elsewhere and with awesome tools like the waybackmachine there is nothing stopping the bloggers from simply putting their content right back up on the cloud. muahahahaha! Epic fail here for the labels not recognizing free promotion when it is handed to them on a silver platter! xD lulz!
Score Bloggers: 1
Record Label Industry: 0 YOU DOUBLE FAIL!
All the DCMA takedown notices that I've seen, not received just seen, like the Open Office notice that was sent out a few years ago, contain an "Under Penalty of Perjury" clause. A few disbarment, and some jail terms for perjury might put a damper on that BS.
The only thing that would top going after the peons and lawyers sending out the notices would be RICO charges against the xAA; and member corporations for the crap that they're pulling.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Don't post anything related to a major music company to a blog -- it's that simple. If you don't agree with the takedown notices and the lawsuits, do some research and stop endorsing companies who do that type of thing. Stop sharing it and listening to it, because without sharing nothing can survive in the Internet age. The problem is people like music, but they've been so psychologically damaged into thinking that music making isn't a perfectly able to be learned iteratively that they feel they MUST consume music produced by these companies, and that simply isn't true. We need new musicians to make music and find ways to make money off of it through inclusion in other products such that they don't feel the need to be marketed by malicious record companies.
Ok, here goes: {entity} assumes it owns all of {video, music, or other media} and issues a {DMCA or Copyright notice} takedown that hits someone who actually owns {video, music, or other media} outside of the {entity}'s control, thus furthering its own goals two-fold, by removing competition and by "reducing piracy". News at 11
Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
Since it appears it is a case of labels saying it is ok and a lawyer or someone just blindly getting everything taken down then I think it is about time we do something to protect the blogger's work.
If music labels can get infinity billion dollars for copyright violation then surely the blogger should get similar compensation for having his website destroyed by careless lawyers. Everything is about having the right checks and balances and right now things are biased towards the companies. I definitely think it would be within reason for a blogger to expect a few hundred thousand lawyer or responsible party for having his site (and possibly only means of income) wiped out in an instant due to incompetence.
As unlikely as it is to happen, we (as in everybody, everywhere, - which is why it is unlikely) should stop buying music both online and off for the first week of every month for a year (or something similar). Nothing speaks to these people more than their pocketbooks.
*gasp!* They can take my blog!
BUT THEY CAN NEVER TAKE... MY BAAAAAAAAAAACOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Filter error my ass. Of course so many caps is like yelling. That's the fucking point of the quote.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
Or if they insist on property, why not property taxes like real property (RP) has? Why not abandonment laws and squatters rights like you have with RP? How about death duties and sales taxes and upkeep and zoning taxes (for commercial property: without which you don't get a police force patrolling the town centre where your shop is while you're in the suburbs where your home is)?
Why not?
If it's like your home, then why not get taxed like it (remembering that you can't undertake commercial work in your home if it's zoned residential only and you make more than so much a year).
Call their bluff! Counter sue if you get cut off. Heck, take 'em to small claims court if you have to, then it is just you against any non lawyer they might have, they can't bring a lawyer into court. A judge will read the GPL, and you win most likely, unless they have some really obscure thing in their TOS that says you can get cut off for any reason at all, like they don't like your hat or something.
Besides that, I am having a hard time believing that any ISP, with some geeks there, would be totally unfamiliar with the GPL and legal downloads of stuff. Maybe you are with some huge ISP that uses script reading "tech support", perhaps in a "foreign land", people who really can't deviate from their script and instructions. If so, bump it up a notch there to second tier or first tier support.
What-ever, just seems silly to immediately cave to such wrongness.
Google doesn't delete stuff as a result of a DMCA notice. They block access to it. Send a DMCA counterclaim, and Google will put your blog back up in a week or less.
Both named "WTF" with a logo "WTF" and first album and song titled "WTF"
Anyone want to join "WTF"?
Well there's a market right there. Set up your site with a company that has no connections to the USA
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Or rather YOU prove your innocence.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
And it's not as as if it is truly lost, it just gets arranged differently. Who knows- that part on the server that hosted the only copy of your thesis might now host someone else's lol-cat collection.
This is false. The DMCA does not require Google to do anything. It merely grants them immunity from a claim of copyright infringement if they comply with it in response to a legitimate, correctly formed and delivered takedown notice. If they ignore the notice they are in exactly the same position they would be in had the DMCA never been enacted. Furthermore, there are penalties for sending false DMCA takedown notices as well as a counter-notice procedure that permits the material to be put back up (with the service provider retaining immunity) and gives the copyright owner thirty days to file suit.
Absent the DMCA none of these blogs would exist as Google would be strictly liable for infringements.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Make fucking backups. Test fucking backups regularly.
Tiger Woods tried that...and lost half his fortune
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
There can be no legit copyright enforcement, because the very concept of copyright is immoral and nonsensical in the first place, and ought to be abolished.
Circumcision is child abuse.
I have heard copyright lobbyists argue that it should be illegal to distribute music for free - even if the distributor holds all rights. They say this is needed because the downloader cannot know if the uploader has the right to distribute
I can almost see the reason why someone in the mainstream music industry might say this. George Harrison wrote and recorded "My Sweet Lord", but it turned out he didn't have the right to distribute it because the song was too similar to an existing song written by Ronald Mack. Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music. Michael Bolton co-wrote and recorded "Love Is a Wonderful Thing", but it turned out he didn't have the right to distribute it because the song was too similar to an existing song written by the Isley Brothers. Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton. I still haven't got a straight answer of what precautions a reasonable person should take to keep this from happening to his own songs.
You have to download every MP3 on the Internet, and when you've finished, downloaded them all again.
When you get to the point where people are trembling in fear at the size of your MP3 collection, then you will be the one in control.
Have an artist file suit against whoever filed the DCMA paperwork.
The artist should be entitled to the "lost sales" of the artists work on the same level of damages the RIAA claim.
free sites will nuke your work too. then tell you 'go f yourself' when you ask for your data back.
I don't eat bacon for religious reasons, I eat bacon because it taste good.
I used dialup from 1995 until just recently, so I don't care about that, that's a non issue to me about something like this, it is still usable if you turn images off and use adblock plus and noscript. The other thing is..it's the principle. We keep having problems with ISPs and so on from them being dinks, if you get an opportunity to fight back and give 'em a bloody nose, from them being just slap wrong about things, it your duty as a netizen to do so-IMO.
I mean, heck with it, I have had to deal with lawsuits before, going up against "big names", etc..you just do it. If you are in the right..you just do it. I even acted as my own attorney, and have won every time. Ya, it took a lot of my "spare time" learning proper procedure and whatnot..still worth it. You just can't go through life getting pushed around by bullies. I'm a nerd, they tried that when I was a nerdling back in school..heck with it, learned to fight, that's it, put some big jocks down on the ground eventually, dudes who had near a foot in height and a hundred lbs on me, left them hurtin' bad with near flat faces and cracked ribs. Most satisfying...
Bullies never expect it, they expect you to roll over, cower, just take whatever they want to dish out, whether it's a physical bully or some corporation bully. Fight back!
Filter error my ass. Of course so many caps is like yelling. That's the fucking point of the quote.
Perhaps I could interest you in a more toned-down option?
Take my blog, take my 'net,
take away my mom's basement.
I don't care, I'm still free.
You can't take bacon from me.
That maybe you should not deal with music that is owned by labels that are looking to litigate against you after giving you permission.
The only part that is under penalty of perjury is that you own the copyright or represent the person that does. The rest is "good faith" and "best effort". The courts have always shown a reluctance to penalize anyone for bringing a court action. Even with anti-SLAPP laws.
Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
/signed
Have a Virgin Mobile USA smartphone? Give VMRoms.com a try!
Could you please indicate, even indirectly who the offending party is? Enough hints to merit consideration for future users' "avoid" or "embargo" decision. Pretty pls. The sooner any bad business goes teh way of the dodo bird, the better. We're tired of scam and hyperaggressive businesses, just cut them off at the knees, especially the middle one...
"If at any point during the process a human being actually clicked on the link and looked for the infringing content, then they would have realized it wasn't there," said Lipold. "Unfortunately, the bot the IFPI uses to flag piracy isn't that smart... This bot makes a report for security at the IFPI and they forward the whole list on to Google. Google seems to accept their list as is, no questions asked."
The thing is, Google doesn't have a choice.
Actually, Google does have a choice ... once they are aware that the party making the complain has a track record of knowingly making flawed and/or fraudulent complaints. Still, this will take a number of documented errors on the part of the IFPI. It is still the IFPI, not Google, that needs to be sued in civil court to recover losses, and pursued for prosecution in criminal court for making repeated fraudulent claims.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Can't do the time? Don't do the crime.
IP laws have been abused to stop critical opinions from being published.
A legal threat can simply allege Trademark violation even though fair use provisions legally protect such use in opinions and comment.
Legal threats serve the purpose, if the blog service provider (Google, Wordpress etc) responds by simply taking the blog offline. I think this is what usually happens ?
What verifications do Google or Wordpress do ? Do they even check ?
If they're saying take down a copy of Open Office; and they represent Microsoft. They do not actually represent the copyright holder.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.