UK Law Enforcement Starts Seizing Music Blogs

Grumbleduke writes "From Dajaz1 (a site that is no stranger to unjustified copyright takedowns) we learn that the popular R&B website rnbxclusive.com (warning: threatening message on site) has allegedly been seized by the Serious Organized Crime Agency, a UK law enforcement agency, and its operators arrested on fraud charges. Not only does the replacement message contain a number of factually dubious claims, it also shows the visitor's IP address, browser and operating system, and threatens to track and monitor them. At a time when copyright lobby groups are strongly pushing for even greater powers through laws such as SOPA and ACTA, one is left wondering why they think they need them, when police can shut down websites such as this at will."

Comments

Darknets

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to switch to the darknets. At least until their generation dies off and some reason returns.

Re:Darknets

[Penguinisto]

A nice thought, but the problem lies in the fact that it isn't just a single generation soaked with this particular poison.

If it were just a matter of waiting until Orrin Hatch died off, that would be easy. OTOH, the MPAA and RIAA likely employs an awful lot of 30-somethings, as well as a lot of duped people out there who swallowed their propaganda... and that's going to take at least half a century before they die off.

I'm afraid we're stuck with either fighting, or watching the whole thing get strangled.

There is no reliable means or method to hide anymore - no matter how many TOR nodes you traversed to get your packets here. If they cannot reach you now, they will find ways to insure that they can (a heavily-modified and enforced TPM on all devices, anyone?)

Better to fight them now than suffer under their burdens later.

Re:Darknets

[History's Coming To]

I actually found it rather useful to test a IP/user-agent switching plugin. (I use it to test environment sensitive sections of websites I write). All works fine, which IP address would they like me to come from?

The irony with this whol thing is I'm anti-piracy, I'm one of those weirdos who thinks artists deserve to get money for what they produce, however easy it is to copy bit for bit. But that SOCA message strikes me offensive and wildly accusatory that I'm starting to think my anti-piracy crusade needs to go on the back burner while I deal with the important thing, keeping the internet free.

Re:Darknets

[Nethemas the Great]

You're not weird. Most people believe artist should be compensated for their work. The trouble is the MPAA/RIAA, their ilk and their members do not.

Re:Darknets

[whoever57]

Yeah, well I noticed the U.K. serious sissy patrol neglected to leave any contact information so I could ridicule them about tracking me and offer them a taste of my stool

So leave a message in their logs, go to: http://rnbxclusive.com/SOCA_Are_Wankers or some similar URL

Re:Darknets

[gmack]

I understand your offense but I wonder if anyone has considered that this whole thing could be a hoax.

  Domain servers in listed order:
        SK.S7.ANS1.NS103.KLCZY.COM
        SK.S7.ANS2.NS103.KLCZY.COM

If a government agency had grabbed the domain wouldn't they have changed the hosting to something they control rather than some cheap name service whose homepage seems to only be an ad portal?

Re:Darknets

[sugarbomb]

Complain away!

http://www.soca.gov.uk/contact-soca/complaints

Complaints
We do our utmost to provide the public with the best possible service, and to act professionally and courteously at all times. However if you want to complain about SOCA or a SOCA officer, first please look at our complaints process

Then, if you wish to make a complaint, you can contact:

SOCA Counter Corruption Department
PO Box 58396,
London
NW1W 9SB

Telephone: 020 7238 2626
Email: publiccomplaints@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk

If you would rather complain to the Independent Police Complaints Commission or you are not happy with the way your complaint about a SOCA officer has been handled, you should contact:

The Independent Police Complaints Commission
90 High Holborn
London
WC1V 6BH

Telephone: 08453 002 002
Email: enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk

Re:Darknets

[Anonymous Coward]

I sent this:

Un. Fucking. Believable. That pro-music site is registered by the IFPI, and therefore the MAFIAA.
http://who.is/whois/pro-music.org/

Regarding the Domain Seziure at http://rnbxclusive.com/,

This is a complaint about whatever SOCA officer decided acting as a personal enforcer for the IFPI and RIAA was a remotely reasonable use of taxpayer’s dollars. I honestly don’t expect you to take this email seriously, but hey, miracles happen.

I am a Canadian Citizen. You are a British agency, and apparently logging information about my visit to that site and threatening prosecution, an unlimited fine and a 10 year prison sentence. . I have never been to this site before. I saw a news article about the seizure and clicked on a link. I am not happy to see your agency is logging (read spying) on other countries citizens.

I have a strong ethical issue with the notices on that site, so much so that I’ve wasted twenty minutes of my life to tell you how I feel.

The line “As a result of illegal downloads young, emerging artists may have had their careers damaged” That statement is anecdotal at best, and an outright lie at worst. The fact that you link to a page(pro-music) who’s whois information lists ross@ifpi.org as a tech and admin contact absolutely disgusts me. The IFPI, as I’m sure you’re aware is a global front for the RIAA. Has Sony, Warner, etc under guise of RIAA and IFPI bought out the British government too? See here for a list of RIAA members: http://www.riaa.com/aboutus.php?content_selector=who_we_are_board.

A government agency should absolutely not be promoting a private corporation in any way shape or form. To imply the only way to get “legal” music is from IFPI members is not only extremely dishonest, but completely untrue.

I think a few things need clarified about the nature of computerized data. Data is not “stolen,” it is copied. No physical or tangible object is taken, the owner is not deprived of anything. If anything it would be a copyright issue, which is a civil issue not criminal. Unfortunately the RIAA and IFPI have decided it’s a better strategy to litigate rather than innovate.

What these sentences imply is that it’s more damaging to society to download a copy of a copyrighted song than walking up to a random stranger and beaning them in the head with a baseball bat (a cricket bat for you English folks). I’m not well versed in British law, but in Canada at least it’s only a two year maximum for assault with a weapon.

But honestly, good luck with your “unlimited fines” and outrageous prison sentences. I’m sure any well informed member of the public appreciates your agency’s dedication to Corporate America.

Last but not least, a right-justified page, really??

Sincerely,

A pissed off Canadian.

Re:Darknets

[fatman22]

"We do our utmost to provide the public with the best possible service, and to act professionally and courteously at all times."

I beg to disagree with you. Have you read the nonsense on that replacement web page?

"... were stolen from the artists" - nothing was stolen. The authors and publishers still have possession of their property. They were only deprived of profits they had not yet earned. That is not a proper thing to do, but it is also not stealing. Change the text to read "were being distributed without the owners' permission".

"As a result of ... young, emerging artists may have had their careers damaged. If you have ... you will have damaged the future of the music industry." - The publishers have done far more to ruin or hinder the careers of young emerging artists than any illegal downloaders could have caused. Aim your sites in the right direction please.

Most of the Internet community already understand this. You apparently do not or do not want to. Do your credibility a favor and reword that page.

Re:Darknets

[Anonymous Coward]

err... they don't actually pay the upcoming star $100,00 for a year... its called an "advance" and that money would be spent on production (studio time / musicians / song writers ) and promotion (travel / hotels / record company execs / record company promos / in store posters / record company execs / pre-release cd's for radio stations / record company spruikers / music video / record company execs ). It's really just a loan. The artist see'd none of it.

As part of the advance the record company usually then own the copyright to the work (because they contracted the star to perform it for them).

The reason the record companies give advances is they then charge interest and fees on top of that (remember most of that money was spent by the record company doing things in house). Then with every sale the record company repays the advance (and charges more management fees on top for accounting). A tiny portion of what is left makes its way to the artist in cash.

The best part of it is, if that upcoming star becomes popular and tours, the record company still gets a cut as they own the copyright (just like a musical licenses its songs/music from the original writers).

Believe me an artist never really wants an advance - a up coming start can be extinguished with the debt. I have a friend who sold over 100,000 albums and ended up with $1,000,000 debt to the record companies and is still touring 4 years later trying to make any money.

Tee-hee

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone else giggle when they read "Serious Organized Crime Agency" with a deep voice?

Looks Fake

[Olipro]

whois indicates the original owner still controls the domain, the server itself is Rackspace owned whereas SOCA's own website is run themselves via Connect Internet Solutions Ltd. - throw in the fact that SOCA haven't made any announcement or press release regarding the alleged takedown and the whole thing looks like a setup, I call shenanigans.

Is that a real thing?

[mosb1000]

I can't believe there's actually a crime fighting organization called the Serious Organized Crime Agency. It's hard to imagine how they could have a sillier name, or who would feel threatened by something called that. Maybe they should upgrade it to the Super Serious Organized Crime Agency, or maybe even Super Serious Organized Crime Agency Plus.

It is my understanding...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I get the impression that, no matter how rosy the state of the industry or how sweeping the existing state powers, the push for harsher 'anti-piracy' legislation will continue until such time as the primary task of the world's security forces will be the summary execution of those suspected to be guilty of insufficient music purchase during the preceding fiscal year.

Analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, apparently the agency does care about IP href="http://http://www.soca.gov.uk/threats/intellectual-property-crime"> [soca.gov.uk]
The Whois shows it's still owned by 'Suheil Saiyed'; last update Jan 4.
The IP address the domain currently points to (83.138.166.114) is in San Antonio, Texas, and is owned by Rackspace.com, an American company.
The wording on the adver..erm..warning is over-the-top, and is unlikely to have originated from a real governmental agency.
also, it specifically references a commercial site (something a real government agency wouldn't do).
Here's an article on Ars Technica about a similar incident IP href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/06/no-the-feds-didnt-seize-your-domain-youve-just-been-punked.ars"> [Ars Technica]
All in all, I'm pretty sure it's a hoax.
And I'm suspecting the folks behind pro-music.org (the site referenced in the 'warning').