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.'"

4 of 240 comments (clear)

  1. This will keep happening... by SharpFang · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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
    1. Re:This will keep happening... by gnasher719 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, contrary to your claim there will be very serious repercussions if the blogger takes this case to court.

      When you file a DMCA complaint, you declare that you are the copyright holder or an agent of the copyright holder, and that there has been a good reason to suspect copyright infringement. If that is not the case, then the DMCA complaint is actually a criminal act. And since the blogger claims that he had the permission of the copyright holder, it seems that a criminal act happened (assuming the blogger is telling the truth). And I think damages would be awarded against the complainant anyway if the complaint was not justified (that is if the complainant had good reason to believe there was copyright infringement, but turned out to be wrong).

  2. Achilles Heel. by headkase · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  3. Re:New tagline/category needed by rockNme2349 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You sir, do not understand Web x.0

    His blog was hosted in the Cloud! A super place where data is impervious to destruction and can never be lost!

    --
    Sewage Treatment Facilities - "Our duty is clear."