Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IMSLP Taken Down By UK Publishers Group

Posted by timothy on 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."

10 of 117 comments (clear)

  1. Ridiculous by Pricetx · · 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 · · 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. Service restored by ustolemyname · · 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 · · 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 _0xd0ad · · 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)]

  3. i'm confused by Hazel+Bergeron · · 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 Hazel+Bergeron · · 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. WhoreDaddy. by unity100 · · 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
  5. Bright side! by flex941 · · 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.

  6. Re:Frankly... by Internetuser1248 · · 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."