Overzealous Enforcement Means Even Legit Music Blogs Deleted 240
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.'"
Artificial Scarcity of Distribution models (Score:4, Insightful)
What? You thought this had anything to do with their "intellectual property"?
This has everything to do with crushing alternative distribution methods.
This will keep happening... (Score:5, Insightful)
...as long as there are no repercussions for frivolous DMCA.
The only provision limiting the scope in DMCA is to own copyright on whatever you claim someone infringes upon.
So, I have copyright on MyDumbSong. And I am totally free to file DMCA against _anyone_ and everyone_ and _anything_ and _everything_, claiming it infringes on my rights to MyDumbSong. And then it's their burden to prove they don't. And taking content down is so much easier than proving its legality.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
are you on the internet right now ? yes ? Then what's the problem to host it ? Just leave that device plugged in. Opera even has a web server built in now, where's the problem again ?
Re:This will keep happening... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:This will keep happening... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Then they file a DMCA complaint with your hosting provider/ISP.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Considering that you can still get taken down by a DMCA notice unless you get your own Internet, I don't see your point.
Re:This will keep happening... (Score:5, Informative)
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).
Re:This will keep happening... (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
and the air of someone who might actually pay for the reasonably difficult to perform professional services you receive
Which is all well and good if you have the money or influence to get a good lawyer on your case for you.
I've heard reading comprehension helps. Just sayin'.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:This will keep happening... (Score:4, Informative)
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)
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
Re:This will keep happening... (Score:4, Funny)
Only if the weapon is a xylophone.
New tagline/category needed (Score:3, Funny)
... 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)
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
Re:New tagline/category needed (Score:5, Insightful)
You sir, do not understand Web x.0
His blog was hosted in the Cloud! A super place where data is impervious to destruction and can never be lost!
Re: (Score:2)
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)
I don't like hosting stuff in the Cloud. When it's too hot in the summer the data just evaporates.
That way, the cloud is just like nature. (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
"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.
Re:New tagline/category needed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:New tagline/category needed (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:New tagline/category needed (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Music porn. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the porn industry should sue the RIAA and MPAA since they keep screwing the end-users.
This is exactly the spirit of the law (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:This is exactly the spirit of the law (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
what's this whole do no evil thing? (Score:3)
Sigh. such a dialectic of profit, desire, and misdirection.
RS
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:what's this whole do no evil thing? (Score:4, Informative)
That's not how DMCA works. They have to take it down right away:
So Google is not at fault here.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Another lesson from this (Score:5, Insightful)
No crap (Score:2)
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
Tiger Woods tried that... (Score:4, Funny)
Make fucking backups. Test fucking backups regularly.
Tiger Woods tried that...and lost half his fortune
Re: (Score:2)
So the FBI can come and collect your backups and used them in court later.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Would you like an extra shovel? (Score:2)
Achilles Heel. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I would settle for making it impossible for corporations to own copyrights. Copyrights are first and foremost the rights of the public licensed to individuals, for the creative work of an individual human, and only for their lifetime.
Anonymous Robot? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
IANAL, but if I understand US law correctly you can drag anyone's ass to court if they file a bogus take down notice.
You obviously aren't a lawyer, because if you were one, you'd know just how God-awful expensive it is to "drag someone's ass to (Federal) court".
Big Content knows that the probability that someone would think it worthwhile to countersue is minuscule. Probably even quite a bit less than the probability of being threatened to be sued for filesharing.
conflate the legal with the "illegal" (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Not having the right to distribute your own song (Score:2)
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
Welcome to the Corporate States of America (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Don't the take down notices have a perjury clause? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
stop endorsing these companies (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
What no "News at 11" posts? (Score:2)
One hand not knowing what the other is doing. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Send a DMCA counterclaim (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
start'in up a new label and band.. (Score:2)
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)
Guilty until proven innocent (Score:2)
Or rather YOU prove your innocence.
Wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
There is no legit enforcement... (Score:3, Interesting)
I want to see reverse RIAA on this (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also no lawyer, but maybe tortious interference with a contract. Thing is, it gets to court, the judge sees the IFPI as Authority and the defendants as a bunch of music-stealing whiners, throws out the complaints, and charges the defendants with the IFPIs legal fees. At least, that's what happened when people objected to DirecTV suing people who had bought certain lega
Re: (Score:2)
We are actually quite a few who legally download content from p2p networks. It is a very effective way of distributing.
For software you better have a file hash from a trusted source to avoid malware and backdoors in the software you are downloading.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, in some areas, you're LUCKY to have one (practical - I don't consider satellite, UMTS, or EVDO practical, because of latency and tight bandwidth caps for the former, and extremely tight bandwidth caps for the cellular methods) broadband provider.
So, if you lose them, it's dial-up for you.
And, sometimes, the one broadband provider is the phone company, meaning you STILL have to use them.
Re:Fake it until you make it? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
*gasp!* They can take my blog!
BUT THEY CAN NEVER TAKE... MY BAAAAAAAAAAACOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Filter error my ass. Of course so many caps is like yelling. That's the fucking point of the quote.
Re:Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
People have the insanely naive, stupid idea that when they have someone else host their content that they will still have control over that content.
You voluntarily surrender everything when you have someone else host your shit
The good side is that when they nuke it your poor planning becomes an example to others.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or just stop consuming RIAA music altogether.
I haven't even turned on the radio in my car in months. I don't know if it still works, honestly.