Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Music The Courts Technology

Overzealous Enforcement Means Even Legit Music Blogs Deleted 240

Posted by timothy
from the let-god-sort-'em-out dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Overzealous Enforcement Means Even Legit Music Blogs Deleted

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14, 2010 @02:46PM (#31135872)

    What? You thought this had anything to do with their "intellectual property"?

    This has everything to do with crushing alternative distribution methods.

  • by SharpFang (651121) on Sunday February 14, 2010 @02:46PM (#31135874) Homepage Journal

    ...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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ShieldW0lf (601553)
      That's what you get for delivering your message with other peoples computers instead of on your own. Would it have killed em to run their own server?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Darkness404 (1287218)
        For a lot of bloggers, yes. Especially the average blogger who might know some HTML, some CSS and perhaps a bit of JavaScript but knows very, very little about servers, PHP, and networking.
        • by NFN_NLN (633283)

          For a lot of bloggers, yes. Especially the average blogger who might know some HTML, some CSS and perhaps a bit of JavaScript but knows very, very little about servers, PHP, and networking.

          WTF are you talking about? HTML, CSS, Javascript and PHP no one said build a blog site from scratch? Just use wordpress, unzip files to folder... done.

          • by tepples (727027)
            Hosting a public WordPress site on your home PC is likely a contract violation unless you have business-class broadband.
        • by tomhudson (43916) <barbara...hudson@@@barbara-hudson...com> on Sunday February 14, 2010 @03:24PM (#31136114) Journal

          If you're going to invest years into something, there's no reason why you can't also invest a few dollars a month into a hosting plan.

          There are plenty of plans out there that let you do a one-click install of whatever sort of content management or blogging software you could reasonably need, and you get to customize it. And one-click backups and restores, for both the database backend and the site itself.

          Plus you get your own domain name.

          And you don't have to worry about "someone else already has that email / user name" crap.

          • by twidarkling (1537077) on Sunday February 14, 2010 @03:37PM (#31136198)

            If you run on someone else's hosting, they'll just send the DMCA to your host, who will then take down your content. They only way you'd be safe from being DMCA'd is if you had your own server sitting in your closet. And that's what GP was talking about with their post.

            • by tomhudson (43916)

              If you run on someone else's hosting, they'll just send the DMCA to your host, who will then take down your content. They only way you'd be safe from being DMCA'd is if you had your own server sitting in your closet. And that's what GP was talking about with their post.

              Look at your sig (for those whe aren't logged in, it says "I'm sorry, I'm Canadian.") and realize that what you say is only true for 5% of the worlds population. 95% of the world will not respond to a DMCA notice since it's outside their j

        • by Ihmhi (1206036)

          All you'd really have to learn is the bare, bare basics of MySQL, set up a box at your home, and install Wordpress. No need to learn PHP or Javascript.

      • by Hatta (162192)

        Then they file a DMCA complaint with your hosting provider/ISP.

        • by tomhudson (43916)

          Then they file a DMCA complaint with your hosting provider/ISP.

          Do like 95% of the world, get a hosting provider located outside the USofA, and not subject to the DMCA.

          A simple search for "Canada web hosting" will work. Here's one [iweb.com] that pretty much anyone can afford. The servers are located in Canada, not the US.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by sjames (1099)

        Considering that you can still get taken down by a DMCA notice unless you get your own Internet, I don't see your point.

    • by gnasher719 (869701) on Sunday February 14, 2010 @04:03PM (#31136422)
      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).
      • by Endo13 (1000782) on Sunday February 14, 2010 @05:03PM (#31136984)

        Which is all well and good if you have the money or influence to get a good lawyer on your case for you. Some of these bloggers may actually have the influence, if not the money. But how many of them don't? And how many other wrongful DMCA notices and take-downs occur each year that go unpunished?

        • by Yvanhoe (564877)
          I don't know how it is in US but in France, in some cases where damages can be awarded, I heard some lawyers accept to take on some cases "for free" in exchange of a percentage of the damages awarded.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by VShael (62735)

        If the legal system operated as intended, this would be true.

        However, ample evidence has shown that the legal system is well and truly broken, and that if you have sufficient money/power/political weight behind you, there will be no penalty regardless of the crime.

      • by sjames (1099) on Sunday February 14, 2010 @09:27PM (#31139352) Homepage

        If that is not the case, then the DMCA complaint is actually a criminal act.

        Which has never in the history of the DMCA seen a single enforcement in criminal or civil court.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Cyberllama (113628)

        Just FYI, the rights holder's did file the claims in this instance -- they also gave permission for the song to be hosted. In short, they have NFI what they're doing. One branch of the company says "Sure, use this for promotional purposes" and the other is doing random Google searches for their IP and sees the mp3 up and fires off the complaint without another thought. In other words, the complaint was filed in good, albeit very stupid, faith by the proper rights holder.

        Google could have handled the situ

  • by St.Creed (853824) on Sunday February 14, 2010 @02:46PM (#31135876)

    ... 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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Hadlock (143607)

      If you're going to host a blog for five years, why not upgrade to hosting it yourself? Even technically challenged simpletons can install wordpress on most large webhosts these days (mine was installed with the single press of a fat, green "install wordpress now" button). Surely you can handle that if you're capable of getting permission to host, and then upload and link to the MP3. Blog hosting through a 3rd party once you're old enough to afford it, particularly if you've been writing in it for years (wit

      • by rockNme2349 (1414329) on Sunday February 14, 2010 @03:14PM (#31136056)

        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!

        • by mellon (7048)

          Someone mod this post up: +1 insightful. The cloud is just wispy handcuffs for your data, if you don't keep a local copy.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Yvan256 (722131)

          I don't like hosting stuff in the Cloud. When it's too hot in the summer the data just evaporates.

          • I don't like hosting stuff in the Cloud. When it's too hot in the summer the data just evaporates.

            .. yes, but as soon as it cools down, your 1s and 0s will crystallize again, forming new data for someone else to enjoy. Or as one of these greek guys once said: Panta rei.- You can't log into the same sever twice.

            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 collec

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by couchslug (175151)

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

          Excellent post!

          Guess what, kiddies? You don't OWN the Cloud so you don't get to say shit about how it runs. What you host on the Cloud isn't a matter of your imaginary "rights" outside the TOS you ignore when you put your content on teh shiny intarweb.

          Suck on that when you consider surrendering your data to people who Don't Need You.

      • by Midnight Thunder (17205) on Sunday February 14, 2010 @03:24PM (#31136116) Homepage Journal

        If you're going to host a blog for five years, why not upgrade to hosting it yourself?

        Why host it yourself if using existing services works so well? Sure, the guy might change stance now, but until this point I doubt that he thought anyone would be so reckless and careless in how they approached copyright enforcement, especially when the guy had permission. The more extremist copyright holders try to stamp down, the more people will realise there is a force out there out of control. Sure there are plenty of people flaunting copyright, but every case has to be looked at on a individual basis otherwise its no better shutting down a whole city just because a few people were breaking the law.

        • by Hadlock (143607) on Sunday February 14, 2010 @03:43PM (#31136246) Homepage Journal

          Why host it yourself if using existing services works so well?

          Because hosting it yourself gives you infinitely better control of your content.I don't just mean against legal threats, I mean in presenting your information to the public/your readers. Blogger is pretty rudimentary compared to what you can do with something as basic as WordPress, and you can just go crazy with other free things like Drupal. The term control also conveniently includes backup and legal protection from the DCMA. If blogging about music is your hobby, which if he was doing it for five years, it probably was, then it's worth it to yourself to bite the bullet and buy the hosting/domain for 5-10 years. If you buy in bulk most registrars and hosting solutions will give you crazy good deals. I bought my domain on sale for $1/year and bought the maximum I could buy at the time (15 years) and bought 7 years worth of hosting for less than $200. That boils down to about $2.50 a month. Most people spend more on coffee in a morning. When you look at the cost of blogging as a hobby, it's almost free, even if you pay for it. If you've got enough viewers/bandwidth issues you can double or triple your bandwidth for only a dollar more a month usually.
           
          I'd been "blogging" since I was 16, but couldn't afford the domain name/hosting until college. I'm sure when my domain/hosting expires in five years I'll buy another 20 years worth of hosting. Not investing in a website for a blogger is like an author not investing in a typewriter/computer.

          • by tepples (727027)

            I bought my domain on sale for $1/year and bought the maximum I could buy at the time (15 years) and bought 7 years worth of hosting for less than $200.

            My web site is on a similarly cheap hosting plan, but guess what: they'll just send the DMCA notice to your hosting provider.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              Your hosting provider is more likely to send it off to you before deleting your stuff, though. If you're paying for the service, they can't just go and delete things without opening themselves up to potential lawsuits from their clients.
              • by tepples (727027)
                In the United States, you can't sue your hosting provider for taking things down in response to an OCILLA notice unless it stays down for more than 14 business days after you've filed a counter-notice. But Google's YouTube is known to respond even slower than that.
              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by Aranykai (1053846)

                Sadly thats not true either. I've had an entire account suspended and all my data deleted because there was a file on the server named mission_impossible.txt

                It was a document containing plans for summer trip to alaska...

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by tepples (727027)

        If you're going to host a blog for five years, why not upgrade to hosting it yourself?

        Because most people can't afford to upgrade from a residential ISP plan, which usually bans web servers visible to the public, to a business ISP plan.

        • by Hadlock (143607)

          I mean to host it at one of the many, many webhosting solutions out there. If bought in bulk, particularly on sale, 10 years worth of hosting + a domain name for the same period of time can be bought for less than $3.00 a month. No expensive commercial ISP connection required. Plus easy "push here to install blog software" button, free software updates, guaranteed uptime, etc etc. An initial layout of $200-300 will net you a blog for 10 years, plus you have the benefits of using all sorts of site statistics

          • by tepples (727027)

            I mean to host it at one of the many, many webhosting solutions out there.

            Paid web hosting solutions can still give "This Account Has Been Suspended" just as easily as free hosting solutions if the alleged copyright owner sends the OCILLA notice to the hosting company.

    • This is the Internet freedom protection special unit.

      *points botnet at St.Creed*

      *with a sweet robotic voice*
      Please explain why you spread the enemy’s mindset and ideology?

      ---

      The day when my online rights are gone, will be when the days when I’m dead.

  • 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.
    • by Yvan256 (722131)

      Actually the porn industry should sue the RIAA and MPAA since they keep screwing the end-users.

  • by damburger (981828) on Sunday February 14, 2010 @02:48PM (#31135884)

    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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Faylone (880739)
      They went above and beyond following both the letter and the spirit of the law. They had the label's permission to use it and songs has been taken down before the complaint was even filed. The labels attacked part of their own distribution method for something that would have been invalid even if they had not had permission!
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by vesuvana (1166821)
      I completely agree. A major problem is that our system rewards the most egregious control freaks with more and more power.

      We seem to operate out of a misplaced Puritan holdback of 'any freedom is evil' and 'humans are inherently evil and must be controlled lest they be themselves', which could only equal evil in this mindset. It's completely ass backwards and results in a total thwarting of creativity.

      Without an atmosphere of assumed trustworthiness, how can our society thrive and move forward at all?

      • by mellon (7048)

        I believe it needs to be fought against too, but how do you propose to do it? Whatever we're doing now doesn't seem to be having any impact.

      • by Thoreauly Nuts (1701246) on Sunday February 14, 2010 @04:02PM (#31136400)

        It's completely ass backwards and results in a total thwarting of creativity.

        I compiled some research recently to assess creative work ethic amongst musical artists from the 60s to the present. It had nothing to do with copyright originally, but the data can easily be arranged to show some interesting things about what effect increasing copyright lengths may or may not have on creativity.

        Using album lengths of studio albums for these artists I came up with a figure I called CPY, which just stands for content per year, which is measured in minutes. For this post, I took my data and divided the artists between 2 groups: Pre 1978 & Post 1978. Jan 1, 1978 is when the 1976 Copyright Act took effect BTW.

        The Pre 1978 group had an average CPY of 42.55 minutes
        The Post 1978 group had an average CPY of 30.6 minutes

        This is about a 28.1% reduction in creative output after the copyright act took effect. Now, correlation does not imply causation, so it can't necessarily be said that this dramatic drop was caused by the copyright act. However, it can certainly be said that the copyright act definitely is NOT causing an increase in creative output. There is no evidence of such in the data whatsoever. In fact, creative output has held close to the margin of error from the 80s onward in my data.

        • by radish (98371)

          The fact that the average amount of output per artist has gone down says nothing about the total output of all artists, as you make no statements as to the number of artists publishing music in that time. Thus the statements in your last paragraph have no evidence (as far as I can see) to back them up.

      • by vlm (69642)

        We seem to operate out of a misplaced Puritan holdback of ... 'humans are inherently evil and must be controlled lest they be themselves', which could only equal evil in this mindset ... Without an atmosphere of assumed trustworthiness, how can our society thrive and move forward at all? The music industry (and the film industry) are symptomatic of a much bigger problem.

        Are you saying society will be corrupted by the music industry?

        OK, it would be better if the music industry trusted us, and vice versa I suppose. Now, lets look at the rest of society and find me a trustworthy banker / mortgage broker / real estate agent / used car salesman / new car salesman / executive / anybody in marketing or sales / vehicle mechanic ...

        I'd say, the music industry is being corrupted by society. If all the "intelligent" or "hard working" jobs are outsourced to other companies, what is

        • by damburger (981828)

          What is left is a gatekeeper economy.

          A large amount of money is made in industries that exist purely to charge people for access to something that they likely would have access to anyway if it weren't for the strictures society places on them. Social conservatism and tooth-and-claw capitalism work together here; by depriving you of your basic pleasures and then making a fortune selling them back to you.

          The way things are set up right now, you are either a middleman or a complete mug. If you are driven purel

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dhasenan (758719)

      No, this is a way of saying the IFPI controls music distribution, and not the artists or recording labels that own the music. The rights holders aren't involved or consulted.

      • by damburger (981828)
        I should clarify my comments; when I say 'rights holders' I don't mean the artists themselves, I mean the companies and groups whose core competency is holding and aggressively enforcing rights. Its an important distinction, as artists such as Edwin Collins have found out.
  • by Ralph Spoilsport (673134) on Sunday February 14, 2010 @02:49PM (#31135886) Journal
    I thought that was some kind of guiding principle. Silly me. And when it comes to downloading, it seems that a friend's hard drive with hundreds of gigs of music in a taste you trust that can be copied in minutes is vastly more efficient than downloading anyway. So, it seems no matter what the IFPI, RIAA, etc. are still completely fucked. And Google, big, bloated, hard to steer Google, tramples on nimble little good guys as it "does no evil".

    Sigh. such a dialectic of profit, desire, and misdirection.

    RS

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Gabrosin (1688194)

      From TFA:

      the Digital Millennium Copyright Act forces Google to take these actions — otherwise, it would lose the protection of the DMCA’s “safe harbor” clause and could be found liable for any copyright infringement on its blogging networks.

      and

      after an unquantified number of complaints — valid or otherwise — the law forces Google (or any other blogging platform) to terminate the accounts of “repeat offenders,” even if their only mistake was not to file paperwork against the accusations of an anonymous robot — sad and wrong, but mandated by current law.

      So... why do you fault Google for this, rather than the IFPI/RIAA? Do you think that "don't be evil" translates to "knowingly violate the (admittedly crappy) law"? I can't imagine how Google opening itself to a RIAA lawsuit would be beneficial to anyone involved in this whole mess.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by twidarkling (1537077)

        So you're saying "take action" _has_ to be "nuke site from orbit?" "Take action" can't be "hey, you got a permit for that? Yeah? Okay, send it to these guys."?

        So yes, it's evil and it's fucking lazy. A corporation doing business with individuals should at least make a token effort at resolving the situation with the involvement of the individual.

        • by icebraining (1313345) on Sunday February 14, 2010 @04:10PM (#31136482) Homepage

          That's not how DMCA works. They have to take it down right away:

          Common Misunderstandings

          It is sometimes stated that the ISP needs to give the alleged infringer ten days notice before acting. This is incorrect: the ISP must act expeditiously. The ten day period refers to the counter notification procedure described in Section 512(g) after the infringing material has been removed, offering them an opportunity to counter the allegations presented to the ISP not during the stage of the so-called "take down" procedure.

          So Google is not at fault here.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Gabrosin (1688194)

          Once again, from TFA:

          In a statement issued to Wired.com, Google maintains that it warned the affected music bloggers after each of the complaints that led to deletion

          Google says every notice e-mailed to bloggers included the URLs of the posts in question, and the notices we’ve seen do include the URLs

          “Each e-mail includes information about the risks regarding repeat offenses and a link to our DMCA policy page with instructions on how to file a counter-claim,” Google spokeswoman Sara Jew-Lim told Wired.com. “The e-mail will also specifically identify the post or posts in question and will include a link to ChilingEffects.org so the blogger can view the actual complaint we received.”

          So, Google sent out notices to the offending blogs; they include a URL to the offending material; they include their DMCA policy; and they TELL THE BLOGGER WHAT TO DO NEXT. What more do you fucking want from them?

          This is like being issued a warning that you're parked in an illegal spot and if you keep doing it, your car will be towed. You get one warning and ignore it; you get another warning and ignore it; you get another warning and ignore it; then suddenly your car is towed and you

        • That's not how it works (from memory, so this may contain errors...).

          If they fail to comply with the takedown notice, then they lose their safe harbour protection and become liable for any and all infringing content that they host. The person whose content they removed my file a counter notice, and then they can reinstate it. If the person issuing the takedown notice believes that it was valid then they can pursue the claim in court. If the court issues an injunction then, once again, Google must take t

  • by JoshuaZ (1134087) on Sunday February 14, 2010 @02:55PM (#31135924) Homepage
    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.
    • 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. Whate

    • by nurb432 (527695)

      So the FBI can come and collect your backups and used them in court later.

      • by Kuroji (990107)

        Sure. Right after they get a warrant.

        You DID know that National Security Letters were found unconstitutional and can no longer be issued, thereby requiring a warrant and the due process behind it in order to get one's hands on such data, right?

  • 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
    • Achilles Heel. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by headkase (533448) on Sunday February 14, 2010 @03:05PM (#31135998)
      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.
      • by fyoder (857358)

        Yup. The term "intellectual property" is ridiculous, unless the property is understood to be that of the public. It's all public domain essentially, but authors of recently created stuff get a monopoly on what they've created for a limited duration as both reward and incentive, that was the deal. But as the duration is repeatedly extended, you are absolutely right, the deal has been broken, and it was they who broke it, not some citizen grabbing a copy of Steamboat Willy via bittorrent.

        That said, support

        • by headkase (533448)
          You are absolutely correct, no matter what the "law" says independent artists right now deserve to be supported because they are not corrupt. With corrupt being relative, I'm sure the RIAA disagree's with my definition of the meaning of "the best laws money can buy." So, now I have to find some independents to support. Know any good sites that of course will have samples of the music to help guide me?
          • by headkase (533448)
            Spoke too fast, it's not the artists that are corrupt independent or not: it's all the middle men kicking each other back in between. Movies or music and maybe written too.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Draek (916851)

            So, now I have to find some independents to support. Know any good sites that of course will have samples of the music to help guide me?

            Two websites that I know of: Magnatune [magnatune.com], as its been mentioned on Slashdot a few times, is a "do no evil" music label that actually does that. Their classical collection in particular is excellent, and added to the fact that they've got FLAC downloads alongside the usual lossy formats it's a must-have for any classical fan, though they've got some interesting stuff in their other genres as well. You can listen to the whole album for free (as a stream) before purchasing, and they've even got an all-you-can-ea

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by vivaelamor (1418031)

            Know any good sites that of course will have samples of the music to help guide me?

            Jamendo [jamendo.com], Magnatune [magnatune.com], Bandcamp [bandcamp.com], Amie Street [amiestreet.com], TheSixtyOne [thesixtyone.com] and Zunior [zunior.com]; to name a few.

  • Anonymous Robot? (Score:5, Informative)

    by russotto (537200) on Sunday February 14, 2010 @02:57PM (#31135942) Journal

    accused blogger must file a counter-claim or, after an unquantified number of complaints -- valid or otherwise -- the law forces Google (or any other blogging platform) to terminate the accounts of "repeat offenders," even if their only mistake was not to file paperwork against the accusations of an anonymous robot -- sad and wrong, but mandated by current law.

    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.

    • 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.

      Sure it can be an anonymous robot. Some random web spider crawls around, and when it gets a hit, it kicks it over to the automated DMCA generator, which has a digital signature of whoever it needs. At no point is the robot identified. Hell, it might not even belong to the complaintant. They might be contracting it out.

    • If they are signing them, the fact that the law doesn't make false DMCA notices explicitly illegal is the problem.

      Well, the law _does_ make them illegal.

      • Re:Anonymous Robot? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by russotto (537200) on Sunday February 14, 2010 @04:18PM (#31136548) Journal

        No. The only thing you are required to attest to under the penalty of perjury in a DMCA notice is that you own or represent the owner of the copyright of the work you are claiming was infringed. All the rest can be lies (including the part where you say it's true to the best of your knowledge). If you own just one copyright, you can, without committing perjury, send a DMCA notice to anyone's ISP demanding they take something down as an infringement of your copyright. Even if you know damn well it's false.

  • 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

    • by Husgaard (858362)

      You are head on.

      IFPI is scared shitless of the quickly growing amount of music under licenses like CC that allow free redistribution. 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, and that if money has to be paid this problem would be gone.

      Unfortunately one of the reasons it works is that when they actually do th

      • 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

  • by Newer Guy (520108) on Sunday February 14, 2010 @03:25PM (#31136122)
    Welcome to the Corporate States of America-where coroprations have all the RIGHTS of citizens-and more-with none of their RESPONSIBILITIES!

    Want proof? Here it is! http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/realestate/article1072632.ece [tampabay.com]

    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!

  • by Fujisawa Sensei (207127) on Sunday February 14, 2010 @03:39PM (#31136210) Journal

    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.

  • by blueworm (425290) on Sunday February 14, 2010 @03:40PM (#31136216) Homepage

    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
  • by thetoadwarrior (1268702) on Sunday February 14, 2010 @03:42PM (#31136234) Homepage
    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.
  • by wshs (602011) on Sunday February 14, 2010 @03:54PM (#31136346)

    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"?

  • Non US based hosting (Score:3, Interesting)

    by future assassin (639396) on Sunday February 14, 2010 @04:02PM (#31136402) Homepage
    Well there's a market right there. Set up your site with a company that has no connections to the USA
  • Or rather YOU prove your innocence.

  • Wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by John Hasler (414242) on Sunday February 14, 2010 @04:36PM (#31136752) Homepage

    ...the law forces Google (or any other blogging platform) to terminate the accounts of "repeat offenders," even if their only mistake was not to file paperwork against the accusations of an anonymous robot -- sad and wrong, but mandated by current law.

    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.

  • by Stormwatch (703920) <rodrigogirao@noSPaM.hotmail.com> on Sunday February 14, 2010 @05:07PM (#31137014) Homepage
    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. [ucla.edu]
  • 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.

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]

Working...