IMSLP Taken Down By UK Publishers Group

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IMSLP Taken Down By UK Publishers Group

Posted by timothy on Thursday April 21, 2011 @09:48PM from the so-there-were-these-four-consonants dept.

gacl writes "According to a post at the IMSLP Journal, the IMSLP, the largest site on the 'net providing public domain sheet music, has been taken down yet again. The UK-based Music Publisher's Association has sent GoDaddy, the IMSLP's domain registrar, a DMCA takedown notice. The IMSLP argues that the notice is bogus. More detailed discussions on the matter can be found at the IMSLP Forums."

117 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

joke by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-21 21:50 · Score: 0

what an effing joke
Ridiculous by Pricetx · 2011-04-21 21:54 · Score: 3

I have found the IMSLP to be a very useful source of scores whilst studying music, and all of the scores are in the open domain. I just don't understand what there can be to argue about?
1. Re:Ridiculous by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-04-21 22:04 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Distributing things for free is a crime against the sellers' divinely granted right to profit in perpetuity. If any commodity's price is allowed to reach its marginal cost of production, there are precious, precious rents going unextracted!
2. Re:Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-22 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  Because a pack of crooks want to rough up their competition. The copyright industry are little more than villains these days.
3. Re:Ridiculous by RockDoctor · 2011-04-22 21:14 · Score: 1
  
  I have found the IMSLP to be a very useful source [SNIP]. I just don't understand what there can be to argue about?
  To quote from the front page of their site :
  
  We at the IMSLP believe that music should be something that is easily accessible for everyone.
  You will notice the lack of express or concealed profit motive there ; to some people, music without a financial profit being made is a crime on a par with baby buggery.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Service restored by ustolemyname · 2011-04-21 21:55 · Score: 4, Informative

Seems to already be back up. Site already refers to the outage in the past tense, "The recent IMSLP outage was..."
1. Re:Service restored by ustolemyname · 2011-04-21 21:57 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  ... And the other half of that statement
  
  To MPA's credit, they have voluntarily retracted their claim. IMSLP will also be working on technical measures to prevent any future attacks.
2. Re:Service restored by jimicus · 2011-04-21 22:28 · Score: 2
  
  To MPA's credit, they have voluntarily retracted their claim. IMSLP will also be working on technical measures to prevent any future attacks.
  Love to know what they're going to be. Obviously they could run their own DNS, but the registrar can still pull the glue records pointing the world at their DNS servers.
  I guess you could use a registrar that doesn't have a tendency to roll over without at least reading the letters (that particular one didn't specifically mention the DMCA but other than that the tone was more-or-less the same), but I was under the impression that the whole point of the DMCA was to force the ISP to pull content first and ask questions later - essentially forcing the legal threat onto the person who's least equipped to deal with them. So really you'd want a registrar outside the US - and preferably outside any country with similar legislation.
3. Re:Service restored by Jason+Levine · 2011-04-22 01:51 · Score: 2
  
  I was under the impression that the whole point of the DMCA was to force the ISP to pull content first and ask questions later - essentially forcing the legal threat onto the person who's least equipped to deal with them.
  My understanding of the DMCA is that it charts a course of action for ISPs to take when they're accused of hosting copyrighted material without proper consent. First, the ISP takes down the content. Next, they send a note to the account holder who uploaded the content informing them of the DMCA action.
  At this point, the account holder (in this case IMSLP) can A) accept the takedown and move on or B) formally tell the ISP that the DMCA claim is without merit. Once the latter is done, the ISP has to restore the content and is relieved of any legal liability. The person/company that sent the DMCA notice then has to file suit with the person/company who uploaded the content and prove (in a court of law) that the DMCA notice *was* valid. If they don't (either losing the suit or not filing one), the content stays online. If they do (proving that a copyright violation occurred), the content is taken down again.
  Yes, this often leads to big companies suing individuals, but the alternative is big companies threatening ISPs with lawsuits if content they don't like isn't removed. Without the DMCA's removal of ISP legal liability, any person/company with enough power could claim copyright over any uploaded content and force its removal.
  On the flip side, without the DMCA, being an ISP (or a message board operator or running any service where users post content) would be extremely risky legally as any individual could post a copyrighted item leading to a fine against your company. The larger a service got, the greater the risk that one rogue (or copyright-lax) user would post something that earned the company a fine. And, of course, the larger a service got and the more money it made, the more likely big companies would try to find that copyrighted content to either A) stop the service from growing or B) tap into the service's revenue stream. In the face of a legal landscape like this, many online services would fold rather than risk legal action and fines.
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
4. Re:Service restored by tomthepom · 2011-04-22 01:53 · Score: 2
  
  To MPA's credit, they have voluntarily retracted their claim.
  And then, not so much to their credit, they demanded that the takedown email be removed from the IMSLP Journals website They then repeated the demand to 'takedown the takedown' even after the IMSLP informed them that they had written permission to reproduce it. The IMSLP's comment on this says it all;
  
  Seriously, you can't expect to take down a major website, with a bogus DMCA takedown notice, and then try and hide the evidence. Can you see that? It makes you look ridiculous.
5. Re:Service restored by russotto · 2011-04-22 02:26 · Score: 2
  
  My understanding of the DMCA is that it charts a course of action for ISPs to take when they're accused of hosting copyrighted material without proper consent. First, the ISP takes down the content. Next, they send a note to the account holder who uploaded the content informing them of the DMCA action.
  Right. Which points out one of the myriad problems with this particular notice; namely, that the registrar is not hosting any of the material.
  
  At this point, the account holder (in this case IMSLP) can A) accept the takedown and move on or B) formally tell the ISP that the DMCA claim is without merit. Once the latter is done, the ISP has to restore the content and is relieved of any legal liability.
  The "formally tell the ISP that the DMCA claim is without merit" is an invitation to sue. Literally; part of the counternotice is a statement that you accept jurisdiction in a particular US Federal Court. Furthermore, once notice is given, the material has to STAY DOWN to give the complaining party a chance to sue, or the safe harbor is lost.
  
  The person/company that sent the DMCA notice then has to file suit with the person/company who uploaded the content and prove (in a court of law) that the DMCA notice *was* valid. If they don't (either losing the suit or not filing one), the content stays online. If they do (proving that a copyright violation occurred), the content is taken down again.
  Which means that at best, the material stays down for the duration of the suit. Which can take years. It's like an automatic preliminary injunction in favor of the claimant. At worst, the copyright holder could notify the ISP that they are suing, and then not do so. The material remains restrained forever.
  
  Yes, this often leads to big companies suing individuals, but the alternative is big companies threatening ISPs with lawsuits if content they don't like isn't removed.
  They do that anyway. In fact, that's exactly what a DMCA notice is.
  
  On the flip side, without the DMCA, being an ISP (or a message board operator or running any service where users post content) would be extremely risky legally as any individual could post a copyrighted item leading to a fine against your company. The larger a service got, the greater the risk that one rogue (or copyright-lax) user would post something that earned the company a fine. And, of course, the larger a service got and the more money it made, the more likely big companies would try to find that copyrighted content to either A) stop the service from growing or B) tap into the service's revenue stream. In the face of a legal landscape like this, many online services would fold rather than risk legal action and fines.
  This was being litigated when the DMCA came around and made it all moot. And the decisions were not all in favor of copyright claimaints. See, for instance "Religious Technology Center v. Netcom"
6. Re:Service restored by MoonBuggy · 2011-04-22 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  I'd hardly say that's "to their credit"; they sent out a totally spurious claim and as soon as they saw that they could be taken apart in court, they 'graciously' decided to retract it. That's not doing the right thing, it's covering their own asses. Oh, and they tried to get the copy of the takedown message removed, too, of course...
7. Re:Service restored by memojuez · 2011-04-22 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  The recent IMSLP outage was due to an attack by the Music Publishers Association (UK). While IMSLP encourages open discussion of copyright issues, we have zero tolerance for underhanded tactics. To MPA's credit, they have voluntarily retracted their claim. IMSLP will also be working on technical measures to prevent any future attacks.
  
  --
  Signature applied for, Patent Pending
8. Re:Service restored by _0xd0ad · 2011-04-22 03:40 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Furthermore, once notice is given, the material has to STAY DOWN to give the complaining party a chance to sue, or the safe harbor is lost.
  Not exactly. The complaining party has 10 business days (14 days) to get an injunction to prevent the material from being reinstated; if they do not get the injunction in that time period, it must be promptly reinstated or the ISP actually becomes liable for damages if it is later found that the material did not in fact infringe on the complaining party's copyright.
  http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/06/03/7-common-questions-about-dmca-counter-notices/
  
  A host then passes along the counter-notice to the person who filed the original notice. The works remain offline for 10 business days, after which, if no additional action has been taken by the filer, the works can be restored.
  The copyright holder can petition the court for an injunction to prevent the restoration of the original works, but if it is not obtained within the time allotted, the works are restored to the site.
  http://www.chillingeffects.org/question.cgi?QuestionID=132
  
  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 individual's 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)]
9. Re:Service restored by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-22 03:41 · Score: 0
  
  To MPA's credit, they have voluntarily retracted their claim. IMSLP will also be working on technical measures to prevent any future attacks.
  Lets see, they blatantly lie under penalty of purgery and then we are supposed to give them credit for voluntarily retracting their claim?
  How about this - I'll give them credit when they plead guilty to the count of purgery in a court of law.
  Until then they are just as good as the kid who voluntarily removes their hand from the cookie jar because they got caught trying to steal a cookie.
10. Re:Service restored by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-04-22 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  How about this - I'll give them credit when they plead guilty to the count of purgery in a court of law.
  And pay damages. Actual, loss of reputation, and punitive.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
11. Re:Service restored by mysidia · 2011-04-22 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  First, the ISP takes down the content. Next, they send a note to the account holder who uploaded the content informing them of the DMCA action.
  First the content/hosting provider takes down content.
  Sometimes copyright owners will send letters to the ISP, but the ISP is not required to act to maintain DMCA 512(a) safe harbour protection related to the user's internet connection or traffic passing through their network not stored by the ISP.
  ISPs that only route packets, without storing or caching data, have a different safe harbor, the 512(a) safe harbour -- one that does not have a "DMCA letter" process, or require the ISP to perform a takedown to maintain liability protection; if the infringing content is not stored on the ISP's computers, the ISP is protected from liability under 512(a), even if they receive and don't act on DMCA takedown letters for content they do not cache.
  There are two different safe harbour provisions in the DMCA; one for ISPs, and one for hosting/information providers. 512(b) apply to providers that cache data and hosting providers that store data for users, and 512(c) takedown provisions apply to that second safe harbor.
12. Re:Service restored by russotto · 2011-04-22 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  Not exactly. The complaining party has 10 business days (14 days) to get an injunction to prevent the material from being reinstated; if they do not get the injunction in that time period, it must be promptly reinstated or the ISP actually becomes liable for damages if it is later found that the material did not in fact infringe on the complaining party's copyright.
  They don't have to get the injunction, merely to claim they have filed for it. See 17 USC 512(g)(C)
13. Re:Service restored by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-22 19:56 · Score: 0
  
  Or, alternatively, and far simpler is to just host your servers in Russia.
  
  Then you can tell the DMCA submitter to take his american based notice and F*CK OFF!
14. Re:Service restored by Ol+Olsoc · 2011-04-25 00:14 · Score: 1
  
  Seems they have a score to settle.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Mirror? by Sparx139 · 2011-04-21 21:56 · Score: 1

Please tell me that the site has backups

--
Our culture doesn't get smarter, it just finds new ways of being retarded.
1. Re:Mirror? by JCZwart · 2011-04-21 22:39 · Score: 2
  
  According to the statement on the IMSLP Journal, you could still reach the site through http://petruccilibrary.org/. It's up and running again though, but I still think I'll bookmark that one url as well.
  From the journal: Workaround: You can still reach the site by using either petruccilibrary.org or petruccimusiclibrary.org Note, however, that some links on the site that refer to IMSLP.ORG may be broken; you will have to manually replace IMSLP.ORG with one of the two above domain names manually in the URL bar.
2. Re:Mirror? by _0xd0ad · 2011-04-22 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  If their domain(s) get shut down, http://184.107.161.242/ should still work. The technical workaround would be a couple of lines in your hosts file.
Classic line in the 'Legal Notices' page by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-21 21:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

If you wish to add a link to mpaonline.org.uk from your own site, you may do so provided you agree to cease such link upon request from the MPA.
I LOL'ed.
1. Re:Classic line in the 'Legal Notices' page by Ant+P. · 2011-04-22 00:52 · Score: 2
  
  But it's fine if I link to those litigious bastards from someone else's site, right?
2. Re:Classic line in the 'Legal Notices' page by Bigjeff5 · 2011-04-22 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  That's exactly what it says to me. Besides, they'd never get a decent google rating otherwise.
  Gotta love loop-holes!
  
  --
  Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
i'm confused by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-04-21 21:57 · Score: 4, Interesting

Can the DMCA be used to take down whole domains immediately now?
Does that mean I can find one infringing film on youtbe and disable youtube for a week or two?
What exactly is the legal basis for what's happening here, and what technical method was used to stop access to the site? The article doesn't make it clear.
1. Re:i'm confused by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-21 22:03 · Score: 1
  
  It was not DMCA it was a british variant of the US organization responsible not for the recorded works of artists but rather the sheetmusic/scores of composers..
  Short version:
  The UK organization MSLP sent a takedown notice to a US Registrar asserting copyright claims being infringed by 2 by Russian Ex-patriots living in the US/Switzerland/Germany one of which was possibly published under german copyright but most likely not...
  Shorter Version: British organization gets protest from sheet music sellers claiming interwebs is killing their business.. and they try an end run around legality .. nothing new
2. Re:i'm confused by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-21 22:04 · Score: 1
  
  What exactly is the legal basis for what's happening here, and what technical method was used to stop access to the site? The article doesn't make it clear.
  Well they sent the DMCA notice to the domain registrar (GoDaddy) so presumably GoDaddy locked the nameservers to some generic takedown notice page.
3. Re:i'm confused by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-04-21 22:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Is that a legally stipulated procedure? You go straight to the registrar, which isn't even necessarily hosting any content? And the registrar itself is liable somehow if it doesn't comply?
4. Re:i'm confused by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-21 22:16 · Score: 1
  
  Well, you can take down anything that is hosted somewhere by sending a notice to the hoster. Youtube's doing their own hosting instead of relying on companies like GoDaddy, so you can't go to Youtube's hoster and have Youtube taken down simply because there isn't one.
5. Re:i'm confused by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-04-21 22:59 · Score: 2
  
  This appears to have been slightly different: The site never went down(it was accessible by IP or by an alternate URL); but the registrar handling their primary domain name responded to the DMCA request by changing the DNS entry for that name to no longer point to the correct IP.
  
  A 3rd party host is an additional point of vulnerability; but it was not the vulnerability exploited in this case.
6. Re:i'm confused by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-21 23:24 · Score: 1
  
  Except that Germany has no copyright. It's a common, and mostly deliberate, confusion. Even US Wikipedia fell for it. (I am a consultant on German Urheberrecht.)
  Germany has "Urheberrecht" which is more akin to a author's right, and is inalienable. (Translation of "Urheber")
  (Yes, that means all German sites having a "© Copyright..." in their footer are lying or fell for the lie.)
  The media mafia wants to make German law more like the US one. You can guess why. This is where the FUD is coming from.
7. Re:i'm confused by bluefoxlucid · 2011-04-22 00:48 · Score: 1
  
  In other words, you can sign your rights to your works away in the US, but not in Germany?
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
8. Re:i'm confused by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-22 01:38 · Score: 0
  
  Untrue.
  Youtube (Google) has the youtube.com domain, which most Certainly was purchased from a domain register such as GoDaddy.
  So a take down notice sent to the domain register that youtube.com is registered with would get the domain yanked no different than happened here.
  I don't know why you would bring up hosting, since neither youtube nor this website use any 3rd party, let alone GoDaddy, for hosting.
  Hosting and domain registration have very little to do with each other.
9. Re:i'm confused by Dan541 · 2011-04-22 01:51 · Score: 1
  
  The domain is hosted by godaddy. Is anyone surprised?
  
  --
  An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
10. Re:i'm confused by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-22 03:21 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, that means all German sites having a "© Copyright..." in their footer are lying or fell for the lie.
  Why would you say that? Just because something originates in Germany doesn't mean it loses its copyright protection outside of Germany or that German "Urheberrecht" law applies universally around the world. Saying so is just as disingenuous as anyone claiming that US copyright law applies universally. Any site, whether German or not, is free to assert US copyright protection to those in the US. And German creators are free to assign their US copyright to anyone, including German companies, regardless of the law in Germany. A creative work has a distinct legal status in every country that has laws on the subject.
11. Re:i'm confused by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-22 04:05 · Score: 0
  
  So a take down notice sent to the domain register that youtube.com is registered with would get the domain yanked no different than happened here.
  You've never heard of MarkMonitor, have you? Google pays a premium on domain registrations to ensure that stuff like this doesn't happen to them.
12. Re:i'm confused by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-04-22 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  Below-cost registrars seem to have decided it'll cost them less to hose their customers than to deal with complainants.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
13. Re:i'm confused by Bigjeff5 · 2011-04-22 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  I think it can be argued that way, and the DMCA doesn't leave any choice in the matter.
  If it can be successfully argued that they should have complied and did not, then they will be held legally liable for breaking the DMCA. The absolute only way you get safe harbor in a DMCA dispute is if you comply immediately and blindly. Only when the infringing party denies the claim (either by claim of ownership or fair use, doesn't matter) can you put it back up.
  
  --
  Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
WhoreDaddy. by unity100 · 2011-04-21 22:04 · Score: 4, Informative

The shittiest, slyest, most sinister hosting/domains provider on the internet (after 1&1 terror of course) that is the Godaddy.

so whorey that, they are STILL making losses every year since their founding by underselling, without a year in the black to show for their history.

on top of that, they have no ethics in regard to internet conduct, they can take down your site just like that from a dmca complaint without any possibility of objection from your side, and even before you are notified of the dmca. they can take away your domain name just like that too.

on top of that, the ceo is a egomaniac who is more into advertising himself than running a proper business serving people. and his latest stunt is below

http://youtube.com/watch?v=HXVH4OsfapI

disturbing video. shot by, and edited by bob parsons, ceo, godaddy himself. and uploaded to his blog. yes, such people exist.

so, you can say that this article doesnt come as a surprise to anyone who knows what whoredaddy is.

stay away from 2 provides on the internet even at the cost of your life : 1&1, and whoredaddy.

--
Read radical news here
1. Re:WhoreDaddy. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-21 22:25 · Score: 0
  
  Care to provide an alternative to those two?
2. Re:WhoreDaddy. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-21 22:33 · Score: 0
  
  Um, are you seriously asking for a name of another registrar? There are thousands of them.
3. Re:WhoreDaddy. by donatzsky · 2011-04-21 22:59 · Score: 1
  
  For domains you could try Gandi or Hover, both of which generally get high marks.
  Gandi is a French company, so that should give some protection against trigger-happy US companies.
  As for hosting there's certainly plenty to choose from, but I'm quite happy with WebFaction. It's even one of the few shared hosts that tells you how much memory you can use (upgradeable). As long as you don't intend to do reselling they're hard to go wrong with.
  It's a UK company, but their servers are in Texas (at The Planet).
  
  --
  VPS-like shared hosting, on under-crowded servers.
4. Re:WhoreDaddy. by unity100 · 2011-04-21 23:05 · Score: 1
  
  enomcentral.com is best alternative. it is enom.com 's retail outlet. enom normally only sells to wholesalers.
  
  for hosting, you can go with any other provider. dreamhost, lunarpages etc are not bad. at least, not as whore as godaddy. they are smaller hosts compared to them, so their service is still acceptable.
  
  --
  Read radical news here
5. Re:WhoreDaddy. by Rufty · 2011-04-21 23:21 · Score: 1
  
  Dunno about GoDaddy, but I'll second what he said about 1&1.
  
  --
  Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
6. Re:WhoreDaddy. by improfane · 2011-04-21 23:40 · Score: 1
  
  Friends don't let friends buy domains from GoDaddy, they put your details straight on WhoIs. It made me laugh when the personal details of my entire class was put online.
  
  --
  Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
7. Re:WhoreDaddy. by duk242 · 2011-04-22 00:24 · Score: 1
  
  The whole point of whois information is that your details are there. You can buy domain privacy too, but what's the point?
8. Re:WhoreDaddy. by raju1kabir · 2011-04-22 00:26 · Score: 1
  
  enomcentral.com is best alternative
  .com's for only $35/year. Pretty sweet.
  
  --
  "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
9. Re:WhoreDaddy. by unity100 · 2011-04-22 00:38 · Score: 1
  
  yes. enomcentral was an enom reseller which floundered. it had a lot of clients. so, not to leave them in the cold, enom stepped in and took it over. but, since they couldnt undersell their resellers of wholesale business, they had put the prices in retail enomcentral quite high.
  
  --
  Read radical news here
10. Re:WhoreDaddy. by raju1kabir · 2011-04-22 00:44 · Score: 1
  
  I totally don't get why you are recommending them. Why would I want to spend all that money to support the clients of some failed reseller? That's not my problem.
  
  --
  "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
11. Re:WhoreDaddy. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-22 00:58 · Score: 0
  
  Except the only detail that really needs to be there is an email address. I've never put my address and phone numbers on the whois database for a personal domain.
  In fact, the .uk registrar, Nominet, has a free option to suppress your details if you're a non-trading individual.
12. Re:WhoreDaddy. by unity100 · 2011-04-22 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  enomcentral is no more a failed reseller. it belongs to enom. enom is the biggest wholesale registrar that majority of web hosts and domain resellers use.
  
  --
  Read radical news here
13. Re:WhoreDaddy. by raju1kabir · 2011-04-22 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  But the rationale you gave for the high prices (over 3 times as high as the competition) was that they are somehow a consequence of keeping alive a formerly failed reseller for the benefit of its customers.
  It's certainly not for my benefit, or that of any other new potential customer. I see no rational reason why I should pay those insane prices, even if it is possible to construct an explanation for why they are so high.
  Why not just use name.com, gkg.net, or any of scores of other long-standing, reliable options?
  
  --
  "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
14. Re:WhoreDaddy. by unity100 · 2011-04-22 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  But the rationale you gave for the high prices (over 3 times as high as the competition) was that they are somehow a consequence of keeping alive a formerly failed reseller for the benefit of its customers. It's certainly not for my benefit, or that of any other new potential customer. I see no rational reason why I should pay those insane prices, even if it is possible to construct an explanation for why they are so high.
  
  you seem to be unable to follow chronological information.
  
  enomcentral was enom reseller. i flopped. it was too big. to save customers, enom took it over. enomcentral is now, therefore, enom's RETAIL outlet now, in practice.
  
  enom is the biggest wholesale reseller that ONLY sells to resellers (hosts, big and small, domain registrars and more). you CANT buy directly from enom, as a DIRECT customer. you have to become a reseller by paying big bucks. BUT, if you buy from enomcentral com, you will have technically bought from enom, since enomcentral is enom's.
  
  Why not just use name.com, gkg.net, or any of scores of other long-standing, reliable options?
  because, most of your 'long standing, reliable options' will in actuality be big resellers of wildwestdomains (godaddy's reselling outlet), or enom, or similar big registrars.
  
  --
  Read radical news here
15. Re:WhoreDaddy. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-22 02:21 · Score: 0
  
  Could you elaborate on the "1and1 terror*? I've been using them for 8 years and have been very happy, so I would be interested to know if there is something I have to worry about.
16. Re:WhoreDaddy. by unity100 · 2011-04-22 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.google.com/search?q=1%261+horror&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
  
  especially the below link, will open a door to a world of wonders for you :
  
  http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=NGI&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=+site:webhostingtalk.com+1%261+horror
  
  you are with them for 8 years ? try to leave them and see what happens.
  
  --
  Read radical news here
17. Re:WhoreDaddy. by raju1kabir · 2011-04-22 02:57 · Score: 1
  you seem to be unable to follow chronological information.
  
  I don't see why you've come to that conclusion. What you just wrote is exactly consistent with what I had written, and with my understanding of it all along.
  
  enomcentral flopped
  enom took it over, according to you in order to somehow aid the existing enomcentral customers, though I don't see why that would be necessary
  enom is currently charging over 3x market price for domains, whether or not enomcentral was charging such rates in the past
  
  because, most of your 'long standing, reliable options' will in actuality be big resellers of wildwestdomains (godaddy's reselling outlet), or enom, or similar big registrars.
  How is that an argument for why I should pay over 3x the price for domains? If www.ford.com were selling 2-door Ford Escorts for $150,000, would you be on here advising people to do that instead of getting them at a dealership?
  --
  "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
18. Re:WhoreDaddy. by b0bby · 2011-04-22 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  My fave for small sites is nearlyfreespeech.net. They have always done right by me, and I like their stance on free speech. I found them through a /. comment years ago & have used them since. I doubt that they'd respond to a takedown notice in the same way as godaddy, not that anyone would care enough about any of the sites I deal with to bother...
19. Re:WhoreDaddy. by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-04-22 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  I was helping a friend set up Google Apps that other day, and he needed a domain to go with it. It made so much sense to just register the domain with Google, until we saw they were just reselling for GoDaddy. So we spent an extra hour setting up a DynDNS account and pointing all the records over there. A real shame that they only have exclusive integration with GoDaddy.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
20. Re:WhoreDaddy. by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-04-22 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  Could you elaborate on the "1and1 terror*? I've been using them for 8 years and have been very happy, so I would be interested to know if there is something I have to worry about.
  They effectively shut down my business for 4 days c. 2006 when my co-lo'ed server needed a hardware reboot (the serial console got out of sync with the server some how). That's how long it took to get past their call center in the Philippines to a tech in the data center in White Plains, NY. In retrospect I should have just driven there and knocked on the door.
  In the meantime nobody with a clue would help me or even talk to me (though the "sir, sir, please understand sir" morons at the call center would talk to me forever). This is after having spent thousands with them. I tried calling their corporate number in PA and got a Verizon cell phone voicemail box.
  At the time there was a complaints e-mail address that got straight through to corporate, which I found on a webhosting forum. A complete log of events to there at least got me a call back from the data center, but not before the tech booted the machine into single user mode and screwed things up with an inappropriate fsck.
  At that point I got the most recent data off the machine and let them know them they'd lost my business. They continued to bill me anyway and sent the account to collections when I (obviously) didn't pay it (which I obviously still didn't pay). I've been in business for seven years and have only ever not paid two bills in full. This was one.
  I had previously praised their product (here even). But what I learned from the experience is that you don't really know if a company is good or not until you have a problem. When starting with a new company, it's a good idea to start slow, and then call them at some point to see how they handle problems before you invest time or money with them significantly.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
21. Re:WhoreDaddy. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-22 06:13 · Score: 0
  
  They used to charge extra for their privacy service (and putting details online is part of the requirements, make no mistake, privacy services are a workaround that technically violate the rules for the buyer's benefit). I should note by setting up a domain via Google a week ago it cost 10 USD and the site automatically had the privacy stuff added. Please note, Google registers domains via GoDaddy if you ask them to register a domain for you.
  I don't like everything about GoDaddy, but your beef is out of date if you're implying that's what happens all the time now.
22. Re:WhoreDaddy. by unity100 · 2011-04-22 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  no, you still havent understood why :
  
  almost all of the 'other reliable providers' you are going to use are RESELLERS already. either wild west domains (godaddy) OR, enom, or 2-3 other big wholesalers.
  
  if you go buy from such an independent private reseller, when they flop, your domain goes poof. enomcentral was taken over by enom, because they had too many domains, and the two reached agreements.
  
  enomcentral will not flop. its one of the top 4 domain registrars. and with 'top' i mean registrars who sells to everyone, resellers and end customers.
  bR with your car analogy - ford.com doesnt sell you ford escorts, unless you are a car dealer and buy 100 ford escorts in a shot. however, fordcentral.com does sell you 1 ford escort, at 3x the price. and, your service will never expire or degrade.
  
  --
  Read radical news here
23. Re:WhoreDaddy. by raju1kabir · 2011-04-22 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  if you go buy from such an independent private reseller, when they flop, your domain goes poof.
  That is absolutely not true. Who told you that? Your babysitter?
  There is an established mechanism for dealing with these situations; I've been through it a few times already and never had any problems. Feel free to read about it here: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-09nov07.htm
  
  --
  "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
24. Re:WhoreDaddy. by Bigjeff5 · 2011-04-22 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  they can take down your site just like that from a dmca complaint without any possibility of objection from your side, and even before you are notified of the dmca.
  That's how the DMCA works. Any entity that wishes to claim safe harbor must immediately remove the material in question. The DMCA notice goes to the party that is directly distributing the content, not the original infringing party, so there is no option to allow the infringing party to contest it before take-down.
  It is only after the infringing party notifies the distributing party that they have a right to distribute the material that the distributor can once again put the material back up for distribution.
  That is the procedure that was laid down by law, and yes it is disgusting.
  I have no idea whether or not GoDaddy is ethical, but in this case it is not their fault at all. It is the DMCA that is unethical, and numerous court cases have established that in order for someone like GoDaddy to maintain a Safe Harbor status under the law, they must remove the alleged infringing content immediately, with no consideration as to weather or not the party issuing the takedown notice has a legal right to issue such a notice.
  Personally, I would be fine with this part of the DMCA if it contained ramifications for filing fraudulent or frivolous DMCA take-down notices. As it is though, it is horribly one-sided.
  P.S. Would it kill you to capitalize? Not doing so makes you look twelve, despite the fact that you otherwise write reasonably coherently and punctuate reasonably well.
  
  --
  Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
25. Re:WhoreDaddy. by unity100 · 2011-04-22 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  excuse me, but you dont know shit.
  
  the document you linked, pertains to top level registrars. they do not pertain to resellers, which constitute almost all of what you call 'reliable other sources'. a reseller's domains are records that are just kept in the top level registrar's record that it is a reseller for. true, if the reseller you are buying from goes bust, your tld records wont suffer anything - but, when your domain's expiration date comes, and you are unable to pay the fee through your reseller, BUT, more importantly, if the reseller is unable to fill their account with credits/pay for your domain to the wholesaler, that domain will NATURALLY expire. this is not a problem of icann, and it is not covered by the agreement you are linking - a reseller of a top level registrar is just an account entry in that reseller's major account system.
  
  you wont lose your domain through deletion of tld records. it will just expire and get backordered by squatters.
  
  --
  Read radical news here
26. Re:WhoreDaddy. by unity100 · 2011-04-22 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  yes, immediately, as in before dmca is even filed. because this is how it happens with godaddy. you dont even get a notice after your site is taken down. however, other providers, even the ones that actually host clusters of servers as opposed to godaddy's half assed shared hosting accounts, give 24 hours time for takedown after any complaint, to YOU. ie, softlayer.
  
  yes, godaddy is a traded company, and it is registering millions of dollars in loss, and has lawyers. but, they are not good for defending their clients.
  
  --
  Read radical news here
Bright side! by flex941 · 2011-04-21 22:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

Look at the bright side of this. Now I know this site (with the very interesting content it has) exists! Thank you MPA of UK.
1. Re:Bright side! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-21 22:24 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Check out Mutopia as well. The Mutopia Project re-typeset the scores in lilypond and also has midi files available.
  http://www.mutopiaproject.org/
2. Re:Bright side! by VicDiesel · 2011-04-22 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  Also check out the Icking Archive http://icking-music-archive.org/index.php which has many many many scores (I believe about 16k). Main difference with Mutopia is that they do not necessarily come with sources. V.
3. Re:Bright side! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-22 04:05 · Score: 0
  
  Wow. Thank you for that link. A lot.
4. Re:Bright side! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-22 06:00 · Score: 0
  
  You might also like CPDL.org. Similar to IMSLP, but focuses on Choral music.
Frankly... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-21 22:20 · Score: 1

Anybody who would use GoDaddy as a provider must be fairly fucking stupid. Could a more disreputable outfit, with shittier customer service, ever be found?
1. Re:Frankly... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-21 22:32 · Score: 0
  
  Anybody who would use GoDaddy as a provider must be fairly fucking stupid. Could a more disreputable outfit, with shittier customer service, ever be found?
  But they're cheap. And who needs customer service, it's a fucking domain registrar? Disreputable? If you think you only buy shit from reputable companies I've got a big fucking surprise for you.
2. Re:Frankly... by MichaelSmith · 2011-04-21 22:34 · Score: 2
  
  I hear that their complaints department is the only part of the company which makes a profit, and that they will be first against the wall when the revolution comes. Can anybody confirm this?
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
3. Re:Frankly... by thebjorn · 2011-04-21 22:36 · Score: 1
  
  Anybody who would use GoDaddy as a provider must be fairly fucking stupid. Could a more disreputable outfit, with shittier customer service, ever be found?
  But they're cheap. And who needs customer service, it's a fucking domain registrar? Disreputable? If you think you only buy shit from reputable companies I've got a big fucking surprise for you.
  They should switch away from GoDaddy, so they don't have to share a server with 4000 other customers...
4. Re:Frankly... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-21 22:58 · Score: 0
  
  Share what server? A nameserver? I'm talking about using Godaddy as a domain registrar, not a hosting service,
5. Re:Frankly... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-04-21 23:03 · Score: 1
  
  If the only thing you are buying is a DNS record, I'm pretty sure that 1 server to 4000 customers would be heavily over-provisioned(unless that number was, literally, only one server, rather than a pool with some redundancies that worked out to 1/4000...)
  
  Especially with the number of DNS lookups that hit somebody else's cache, DNS is not terribly heavyweight.
6. Re:Frankly... by Internetuser1248 · 2011-04-21 23:54 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Interestingly enough, an edition of wikipedia that fell through a time-warp from 200 years in the future defines the Complaints Division of the Godaddy Corporation as: "A bunch of mindless jerks who were the first against the wall when the revolution came."
7. Re:Frankly... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-22 00:32 · Score: 0
  
  Go stick your head in a pig!
Registrats.... by MyrddinBach · 2011-04-21 22:38 · Score: 1

While godaddy is about the worst I've seen/heard complaints about many registrars regarding this kind of thing. So my question is who is a good registrar that won't immediately take down your site due to a DMCA or any similar notification without letting you have your say first?
1. Re:Registrats.... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-04-21 23:08 · Score: 1
  
  It limits your choice of TLDs; but the safest course of action is probably to go jurisdiction shopping, rather than provider shopping. There are certainly more and less helpful providers; but nobody in the US is likely to do anything that imperils their safe-harbor status, unless you are paying them fairly extraordinary rates to be your registrar, your lawyer, and your insurance agent all in one. GoDaddy appears to have rolled over even more compliantly than strictly necessary; but it's a difference of degree rather than kind.
  
  If you choose a registrar based in a country that doesn't care about what you are doing, all but the absolute bottom of the barrel will be fine. If you don't, you will have a very hard time finding somebody who will take on that amount of legal risk.
2. Re:Registrats.... by gpuk · 2011-04-21 23:13 · Score: 1
  
  I use and wholeheartedly recommend www.dyndns.com
  I've never had to deal with a DMCA takedown request but I'm pretty confident that the guys at Dyn would talk to me first before doing anything rash.
3. Re:Registrats.... by pspahn · 2011-04-22 00:06 · Score: 1
  
  Honestly, I'm not quite sure I get it.
  If Godaddy is a terrible host and registrar if you are afraid of getting a DMCA notice, then why wouldn't you find a different one if you're that worried about it?
  For the rest of us that are not afraid of getting a DMCA notice, what is so bad about Godaddy? Their customer service? I've had several calls to them to resolve some simple cname record issues, and each time I was talking to a knowledgeable human within a minute or so that was friendly and fixed my issue.
  That said, I will plug nexcess.net as being a fantastic host for higher traffic sites.
  
  --
  Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
4. Re:Registrats.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-22 01:04 · Score: 0
  
  We are talking registars not hosting providers so I don't think there is any liability/safe harbor even applies. Regardless there is no way I would leave go dady with registration and/or control of ns records.
5. Re:Registrats.... by russotto · 2011-04-22 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  There are certainly more and less helpful providers; but nobody in the US is likely to do anything that imperils their safe-harbor status, unless you are paying them fairly extraordinary rates to be your registrar, your lawyer, and your insurance agent all in one. GoDaddy appears to have rolled over even more compliantly than strictly necessary; but it's a difference of degree rather than kind.
  Not imperiling their safe harbor status is one thing. Rolling over for obviously defective notices is another. GoDaddy is big enough to have a legal department; if they had any care at all for their customer, they would have run this by them. This lawyer (with the assistance of technical staff) could have determined that GoDaddy was not hosting any of the material in question, and are therefore was not liable in any case. As far as I know, no case law exists indicating that merely maintaining a domain name for a site which contains copyright infringement is any form of secondary infringement.
6. Re:Registrats.... by Bigjeff5 · 2011-04-22 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  No registrar that wishes to remain legal will refuse a DMCA takedown notice. Ever.
  They don't get that right under the law.
  This is a problem with the DMCA, not GoDaddy (or any other registrar).
  
  --
  Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
7. Re:Registrats.... by Bigjeff5 · 2011-04-22 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  If Godaddy is a terrible host and registrar if you are afraid of getting a DMCA notice, then why wouldn't you find a different one if you're that worried about it?
  
  Because such a registrar does not exist. All registrars, ISP's, search engines, and anybody who could possibly be remotely considered a distribution channel for potentially copyrighted material, must abide by the DMCA or risk losing their "safe harbor" status. If they lose safe harbor, they are legally responsible for any and all copyrighted material that is distributed using their services. In other words, if they don't comply with the DMCA, they're fucked.
  The DMCA procedure is simple and clear: If you receive a DMCA take-down notice, you immediately cease distribution. In the case of a registrar, that means suspending the DNS hosting for that address. If they don't comply immediately, they're fucked. If they contact the infringing website first, they're fucked. The only option they have is to remove the service as soon as they receive the notice, then contact the website owners and notify them that the service has been suspended due to DMCA infringement. If the website owner replies that their use of the material is legal and they contest the claim, then the registrar (or anybody else) is free to resume the service as usual. At that point it is up to the copyright holder to sue the website owner, and the registrar (or anybody else) is in the clear until a judge tells them to stop service again.
  That's how the law is written, and there is nothing GoDaddy, an ISP, Google, or anybody can do about it. It is disgusting, but you have your representatives in Congress to thank for the nasty piece of work that is the DMCA, not GoDaddy.
  Point the blame where it belongs and quit letting Congress off the hook for this shit.
  
  --
  Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
8. Re:Registrats.... by Bigjeff5 · 2011-04-22 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  Incidentally, this wasn't in the US, but the EU's version is based on the US version, so it is effectively the same thing. Some technicalities might be different, but by and large it appears to work the same way as the US version.
  And it's still the fault of the US Congress, more than anybody.
  
  --
  Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
DMCA to domain registrar? by Compaqt · 2011-04-21 22:40 · Score: 1

That's the first time of heard of that.
I thought the content host (owner of the server/network) was supposed to be responsible for copyright notices.
The way it works is this: you get a DMCA notice, you pull (only) the offending content. If your host gets it, they pull the content if possible, or suspend the site if not. And then you pull the offending content, and ask them to re-enable your site.
But taking this to the domain registration level is an uncalled-for escalation.
Would it also be appropriate to ask for domain revocation if you Paypal.com does something you don't like? (Not under DMCA, but just talking about moral equivalencies.)

--
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
1. Re:DMCA to domain registrar? by Bigjeff5 · 2011-04-22 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  I thought the content host (owner of the server/network) was supposed to be responsible for copyright notices.
  They can go after anyone in the chain, it doesn't have to be the content host.
  For example, Google has to abide by DMCA notices regarding their searches.
  Anybody in the communications pipeline that is capable of denying access to the material is a potential target for a DMCA notice. It's usually smarter to go after either the website itself, or the ISP of the website, but search engines and registrars are certainly not off limits.
  And the DMCA leaves no option for a recipient of the DMCA notice. They must remove the material immediately or risk infringement themselves. It's only when the alleged infringing party contests the claim that the hosting service (or search engine or registrar or whoever) can put the content back up.
  That's exactly what happened here - dumbass company sends a DMCA notice to GoDaddy, GoDaddy shuts down IMSLP, IMSLP contests the claim, GoDaddy is now in the clear to re-enable IMSLP's domain name, and they do so.
  This is just how it works. It is an incredibly one-sided law, as the original poster has no right to contest before the content is removed, and there are zero ramifications for issuing a fraudulent DMCA notice. It's an obvious tool for shutting down stuff you don't like, even if you have no copyright to it.
  
  --
  Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
2. Re:DMCA to domain registrar? by Compaqt · 2011-04-22 15:05 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder how that would apply to youtube.com.
  Youtube's registered at MarkMonitor, as are most high-value sites. I wonder if the RCIAA would have the guts to file a DMCA notice to Youtube's registrars.
  I also wonder what MarkMonitor would do with such a notice.
  If the process is compulsory, that would mean the studios have an enormous amount of leverage over Google. But Google has never acted like that threat actually exists.
  
  --
  I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
3. Re:DMCA to domain registrar? by Compaqt · 2011-04-22 15:19 · Score: 1
  
  If the content mafia really want to play hardball with extreme interpretations of DMCA, I think someone should file a DMCA notice on the .com domain for some small piece of infringing content someplace.
  That's right: Everything, including nbc.com, abc.com, espn.com, whatever, would get caught in the net. After all, a user couldn't access the infringing content without the cooperation of the .com domain people, so they are enabling content theft.
  Too much? Well, they should have thought of that before they started their shoot-first, ask-questions-later methods.
  
  --
  I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Thank you MPA & Barbra Streisand by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-21 23:34 · Score: 0

Bookmarked.
How do we protect this? by improfane · 2011-04-21 23:41 · Score: 1

Sounds like a Ferengi law in the Rules of Acquisition.
The question is how do we defend against it? Can we donate to IMSLP?

--
Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
1. Re:How do we protect this? by clang_jangle · 2011-04-21 23:56 · Score: 1
  
  We are Ferengi of Borg. You will be assimilated. Or criminalized.
  
  --
  Caveat Utilitor
2. Re:How do we protect this? by Anon-Admin · 2011-04-22 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  My understanding is the when the get a DCMA take down notice the take it down, no questions asked. So, Why dont we ALL submit take down notices for all the major sites. Washington post, NY Times, and anyone else we can take down. Can we submit one for the domain whitehouse.gov? Maybe we can cause enough of a problem that they actually start looking at the take down notices to see if they are legit before they act on them.
3. Re:How do we protect this? by DMUTPeregrine · 2011-04-22 03:09 · Score: 0
  
  DMCA notices are sent under penalty of perjury. While the targets of most frivolous notices are small and can't afford to sue or press charges, the issuers (major corporations) can defend any suit against them easily. Also, corporations get fined, individuals get jail time.
  
  --
  Not a sentence!
4. Re:How do we protect this? by davester666 · 2011-04-22 04:24 · Score: 2
  
  DMCA notices are like tasers. When there is no penalty for misusing them, they are misused.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
5. Re:How do we protect this? by mysidia · 2011-04-22 04:54 · Score: 0
  
  The question is how do we defend against it? Can we donate to IMSLP?
  Can we start a class action suit against GoDaddy (by users of the site) for denial of service?
  Nothing really entitles a domain registrar to submit a domain to NSI for removal based on content of the domain, other than some shoddy "cover their ass" agreement, they make the registrant agree too -- but the network community hasn't agreed to it.
6. Re:How do we protect this? by mysidia · 2011-04-22 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  DMCA notices are sent under penalty of perjury. While the targets of most frivolous notices are small and can't afford to sue or press charges, the issuers (major corporations) can defend any suit against them easily. Also, corporations get fined, individuals get jail time.
  That's not clear. DMCA letters are supposed to be under penalty of perjury THAT THE AUTHOR owns rights to a work alleged to be infringed.
  But even if you remove the "penalty of perjury" part from the letter, I think there's still a chance that GoDaddy/et al. might mistake a "look alike" cease and decist for a real DMCA letter
7. Re:How do we protect this? by mysidia · 2011-04-22 05:00 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I have a good faith allegation that every site on the internet infringes upon my work. I call my work "a neat web page"
  It includes content such as: <html><head><title>A neat web page</title><body>Neat</body>
  I have it from a good source, that even sites like Slashdot contain parts of my work such as "<html><head><title>"
8. Re:How do we protect this? by mysidia · 2011-04-22 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  My understanding is the when the get a DCMA take down notice the take it down, no questions asked. So, Why dont we ALL submit take down notices for all the major sites. Washington post, NY Times, and anyone else we can take down.
  They may take it down no questions asked, for most sites, when notices are received from major organizations.
  But two things.. (1) They don't have to; they just lose the safe harbor.
  (2) They can be discriminatory. They may start asking questions when a takedown request comes in from some unknown organization to take down a large revenue-important customer who might sue them; they will probably be contacting the customer first, to give them the opportunity to file emergency counter notice as allowed by the DMCA.
9. Re:How do we protect this? by oliverthered · 2011-04-22 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like a Ferengi law in the Rules of Acquisition.
  If someone gives away something for free, either repackage it or find something else to sell.
  
  --
  thank God the internet isn't a human right.
OLGA by Curunir_wolf · 2011-04-22 00:26 · Score: 1

Still missing OLGA.

--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2011-04-22 01:34 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
UK Copyright? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-22 01:46 · Score: 0

What is the copyright on music in the UK? I know that the reason the Petrucci library gets by normally is that it's classical music. You really can't find much anything new there, but it's an amazing resource for classical works.
Additionally, it's not really competing with one of the main sources of revenue for music companies, which is selling pieces to performance groups. I perform for various orchestras, and orchestral scores are typically very expensive. However, almost all of the pieces on petrucci, even if they have an orchestra score, have the complete score. Any group that size is going to need the individual parts as well as the combined score, so they still have to buy music.
I suppose for me, I typically use IMSLP for casual music. When I buy classical music, it usually is because I want a edition that was done by a particularly good editor (I will pay absurd sums for the beauty that is the urtext editions of almost anything). Even if I can find it for free online, good editing can make a world of difference when learning a piece!
I wouldn't have expected anything less... by kyrio · 2011-04-22 02:15 · Score: 1

They use GoDaddy.
Misleading by langelgjm · 2011-04-22 02:49 · Score: 2

Sure, copyright is not a literal translation of Urheberrecht, just as it is not a literal translation of "droit d'auteur." But given that Germany was one of the original signatories of the Berne Convention, and also conforms to TRIPs, its "author's right" law provides in large part the same sort of protections that American copyright law provides. Yes, there are important differences, but to say that German sites using the English word "copyright" are lying is pretty misleading.

--
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
1. Re:Misleading by Bigjeff5 · 2011-04-22 05:53 · Score: 2
  
  Mod parent up.
  Germany is a member of the Berne Convention (a founding member, even - the US came very late to that party), which is the basis for our current copyright laws.
  While there might be slight differences, they are extremely similar, by necessity of complying with the treaty.
  The InfoSec Directive of the EU (to which Germany complies) is very similar to the DMCA, but I'm not entirely sure about whether or not US DMCA take-down tactics are possible under the EU directive or Germany's version of the law.
  As langelgjm said, German copyright is completely non-transferable (which is really, really nice, IMO), but there do exist exclusive licenses which are nearly as good as transferring copyright. It gives the licensee full control over the work. Since corporate ownership of copyright is not possible in this instance, they generally have agreements with their employees to grant exclusive licenses to the company. It works out about the same.
  
  --
  Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
In an age of abundance, business is about... by Paul+Fernhout · 2011-04-22 03:04 · Score: 2

http://www.artificialscarcity.com/ more and more...
(my site. :-)
Alternatives:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Economic_Transformation
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/4f49f5fc25b8b3e9
http://knol.google.com/k/beyond-a-jobless-recovery
We need to transition to a model where enterprise is more and more about dealing with real scarcities (either local or global).

--
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
You are part of the problem, if ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-22 03:05 · Score: 0

... you write shitload of abuse emails to registrars about trojans, spam, phishing and other stuff like that.
The result is that it is really hard to find a registrar these days that abides by ICANN rules and only them, and does not make up some fucking TOS or AUP that will include i-will-lock-your-domains-whenever-i-want clause.
MarkMonitor/WHOIS/What the hell is this? by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-04-22 04:12 · Score: 1

I was curious, so I looked up YouTube in WHOIS. They use MarkMonitor as their registrar. Not surprising - you pay a whole bunch for registrations and the registrar doesn't roll over at random DMCA requests.
But, here's what was in the WHOIS response, along with the other data. WnTF did this start happening?

Server Name: YOUTUBE.COM.ZZZZZ.GET.LAID.AT.WWW.SWINGINGCOMMUNITY.COM
IP Address: 69.41.185.205
Registrar: TUCOWS INC.
Whois Server: whois.tucows.com
Referral URL: http://domainhelp.opensrs.net/
Server Name: YOUTUBE.COM.ZEN.GET.ONE.MILLION.DOLLARS.AT.WWW.UNIMUNDI.COM
IP Address: 209.126.190.71
Registrar: DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. D/B/A PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.COM
Whois Server: whois.PublicDomainRegistry.com
Referral URL: http://www.publicdomainregistry.com/

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
1. Re:MarkMonitor/WHOIS/What the hell is this? by _0xd0ad · 2011-04-22 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  But, here's what was in the WHOIS response, along with the other data. WnTF did this start happening?
  Using what WHOIS service?
  Neither DNSStuff or DomainTools give anything of the sort.
  I'm guessing it started happening when you started using a WHOIS website that inserts shitty ads in its responses...
IMSLP should use a DMCA takedown on the MPA by kawabago · 2011-04-22 05:41 · Score: 1

See how they like it!
mod parent informative by unity100 · 2011-04-22 06:17 · Score: 1

thats a typical 1&1 horror story.

--
Read radical news here
"we all owe the MPA sincere thanks" by npsimons · 2011-04-23 03:12 · Score: 1

Title is a quote from an email I received yesterday from the Open Goldberg project. Here's the quote in full:

I wish to thank the Music Publishers Association of the UK for retracting their DMCA complaint to GoDaddy. GoDaddy's standard response to a DMCA copyright complaint of this nature is to freeze the domain for 10 days, instead of referring the complaint to the site owner. Thus we all owe the MPA-UK sincere thanks for their retraction.
WTF?! No, what MPA (and GoDaddy) /deserve/ are heaping helpings of scorn. That they realized their mistake and fixed it is just a token act in a tragedy that *they* caused, and shouldn't have happened in the first place.

--
Nathan's blog