×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Overzealous Enforcement Means Even Legit Music Blogs Deleted

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the let-god-sort-'em-out dept.

Google 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.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

240 comments

Freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31135846)

Is nothing compared to corporate interests.

Re:Freedom (4, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136298)

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.

Fake it until you make it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31135848)

I have a document that shows how to get under the Berlin wall, will i get arrested if i post it?

Artificial Scarcity of Distribution models (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31135872)

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... (5, Insightful)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 4 years ago | (#31135874)

...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:This will keep happening... (2, Interesting)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136004)

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:This will keep happening... (2, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136048)

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.

Re:This will keep happening... (1)

NFN_NLN (633283) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136108)

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:This will keep happening... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31136188)

You kinda missed the point. Damn near *anyone* can build a site from scratch. It's fucking *hosting* it that's the bitch for most people.

Re:This will keep happening... (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136358)

Hosting a public WordPress site on your home PC is likely a contract violation unless you have business-class broadband.

Re:This will keep happening... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31136512)

Even then, unless you are paying the "static IP" premium, it is probably still a contract violation.

Re:This will keep happening... (3, Informative)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136114)

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... (3, Insightful)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

Re:This will keep happening... (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136674)

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 jurisdiction. They just have to look north of the US border.

Also, there's nothing to prevent anyone from self-hosting in a server sitting in their closet. A good cable-modem and either an existing dyndns or create a redirect from a cheap hosting provider along the lines of "<?php header('location:12.34.56.78:8000'); ?> Add #Listen 8000 to apache and then apache2clt restart and you're good to go. Multiple computers at home? Configure your wireless router to port-forward all external requests to the internal ip of your server. $50 routers have a nice web interface for doing this.

This way, all your content is safe and sound at home.

The point being that using a real provider, and not google, gives you lots of options, including the ability to just dump everything on another machine if you find your hosting provider is acting stupid.

Re:This will keep happening... (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136270)

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

Re:This will keep happening... (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136814)

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:This will keep happening... (5, Informative)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 4 years ago | (#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).

New tagline/category needed (2, Funny)

St.Creed (853824) | more than 4 years ago | (#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:New tagline/category needed (3, Interesting)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 4 years ago | (#31135980)

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 (with no backup??? wtf?) is just asking for trouble.

Re:New tagline/category needed (5, Insightful)

rockNme2349 (1414329) | more than 4 years ago | (#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!

Re:New tagline/category needed (1)

mellon (7048) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136110)

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:New tagline/category needed (2, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136182)

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. (2, Insightful)

formfeed (703859) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136554)

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 collection.

Re:New tagline/category needed (2, Funny)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136360)

"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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31136098)

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

Because you don't want to?

Re:New tagline/category needed (3, Insightful)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136116)

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 (3, Insightful)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136246)

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.

Re:New tagline/category needed (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136382)

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:New tagline/category needed (2, Insightful)

PrimaryConsult (1546585) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136634)

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.

Re:New tagline/category needed (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136734)

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:New tagline/category needed (2, Interesting)

Aranykai (1053846) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136766)

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:New tagline/category needed (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136370)

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:New tagline/category needed (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136768)

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 software not available on basic "free" blogs.

Re:New tagline/category needed (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136352)

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. (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 4 years ago | (#31135882)

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.

Re:Music porn. (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136192)

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 (4, Insightful)

damburger (981828) | more than 4 years ago | (#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:This is exactly the spirit of the law (2, Insightful)

Faylone (880739) | more than 4 years ago | (#31135982)

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:This is exactly the spirit of the law (2, Insightful)

vesuvana (1166821) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136014)

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? The music industry (and the film industry) are symptomatic of a much bigger problem. I believe it needs to be fought against aggressively and nipped in the bud before government usurps any more control by crushing individual freedom and creativity. But I don't have any good ideas of how to stop this nauseating trend.

Re:This is exactly the spirit of the law (1)

mellon (7048) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136126)

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 (4, Interesting)

Thoreauly Nuts (1701246) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

Re:This is exactly the spirit of the law (1)

vesuvana (1166821) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136780)

Very interesting massage of data. What strikes me is that this decrease shows up despite the greater ease in "sampling" from other artists that modern technology has afforded. You would think that there would be a greater CPY or at least that the practice of sampling would eliminate the decrease seen since copyright law took effect. So the damping effect of copyright on creativity may be even greater than your estimate.

And it may be reasonable to conclude that the more government tightens its control of who can play or listen to music, and certainly over who can modify it, the greater the decline in creativity in society as a whole. Not good, grim outlook in fact.

I suppose it will take someone well funded enough to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court. Given their surprising interpretation of the First Amendment recently, I suspect they would rule in favor of creative freedom.

Re:This is exactly the spirit of the law (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136778)

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 left but some combination of illegal / immoral / unethical or living in the margin?

Re:This is exactly the spirit of the law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31136306)

they just err on the side of not being taken to court and comply immediately
 
Not true, they can still be taken to court for business lost by the group whose MP3s they took down. I'm sure this is the next step.

Re:This is exactly the spirit of the law (2, Interesting)

dhasenan (758719) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136794)

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.

what's this whole do no evil thing? (2)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 4 years ago | (#31135886)

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:what's this whole do no evil thing? (3, Insightful)

Gabrosin (1688194) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136006)

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:what's this whole do no evil thing? (1, Insightful)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136230)

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? (3, Informative)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136482)

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:what's this whole do no evil thing? (2, Informative)

Gabrosin (1688194) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136592)

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 start bitching and moaning. You were told what would happen!

I sympathize with the bloggers who lost their sites, but I echo the comments made by others: it's YOUR responsibility to back up anything that's precious to you. The bloggers that keep their own archive of their sites are protected from losing all their hard work due to legal problems, server troubles, or any other lost data disaster.

Anyone who is using this incident to further their own hatred of Google is doing everyone a disservice; aim that hatred at the corrupt music industry where it belongs. If you're going to raise hell over this, raise hell to the lawmakers who can do something about the state of copyright law in the US. I agree with the prevailing sentiment in these comments: until there are penalties instituted for issuing a false DMCA takedown notice, NOTHING will improve.

Re:what's this whole do no evil thing? (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136630)

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 the content down.

This is where it gets interesting, however. Both the takedown notice and the counter notice are issued under penalty of perjury. If you knowingly provide incorrect information on either then you are guilty of perjury. If you just made stuff up and didn't check whether it was true, you may also be guilt of barratry, fraud, or possibly both. I wouldn't like to be the IFPI at this point. I would love to be their lawyers though; they just charged their client for something that is going to generate them a lot more revenue in legal fees.

Not really a surprise (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31135894)

The business model of the record labels is borken. They don't want to change and are swinging violently. Everyone must suffer. I know I recently got a new version of OpenOffice.org off of a p2p site, and I got a warning from my ISP that downloading (anything) off the internet is illegal. They didn't want to hear about the GNU GPL. I responded and they threatened to cut me off and were considering forwarding logs to their lawyer. Nice. Legal content isn't allowed either. I'm disgusted.

Re:Not really a surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31135990)

If you only downloaded OpenOffice.org and nothing else from that p2p then play the game. Let them forward the logs to their lawyers, make it public and see how far the rabbit hole goes...

Re:Not really a surprise (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31136000)

Nice troll idiot. We here are all just SO sure you got a warning from your ISP that downloading OpenOffice is illegal. Dork.

Re:Not really a surprise (1)

Husgaard (858362) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136078)

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:Not really a surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31136174)

PGP and BitTorrent are both common ways of doing that.

With BitTorrent, all data is automatically checked. With PGP, the data is signed with a private key and can be checked with a public key.

I don't know why any of my large downloads are still HTTP. Must be the lack of a bittorrent support on a fresh windows installation/browser. Seriously though, everything is automatically managed by the protocol. You can setup seeds all across the world (you don't even need your clients to seed) and they're all automatically managed. Almost absolutely fault proof, as the publishers are finding out. We don't even need trackers anymore!

As for all of this, well, Freenet/something like it will just release an easy to use (I mean really simple, Limewire level) client and then its all out the door (for ANY kind of content). You'd have to criminalize encryption at that point, a scary thought indeed.

I dare say media "industry" lobbyists are going to make it easier for terrorists and pedophiles to operate online.

Let 'em! (1)

zogger (617870) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136338)

Call their bluff! Counter sue if you get cut off. Heck, take 'em to small claims court if you have to, then it is just you against any non lawyer they might have, they can't bring a lawyer into court. A judge will read the GPL, and you win most likely, unless they have some really obscure thing in their TOS that says you can get cut off for any reason at all, like they don't like your hat or something.

Besides that, I am having a hard time believing that any ISP, with some geeks there, would be totally unfamiliar with the GPL and legal downloads of stuff. Maybe you are with some huge ISP that uses script reading "tech support", perhaps in a "foreign land", people who really can't deviate from their script and instructions. If so, bump it up a notch there to second tier or first tier support.

What-ever, just seems silly to immediately cave to such wrongness.

Re:Let 'em! (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136578)

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.

Nothing to see here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31135908)

[This post deleted due to a copyright infringement complaint by the IFPI]

Another lesson from this (4, Insightful)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 4 years ago | (#31135924)

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.

No crap (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136036)

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. Whatever. But don't put all your eggs in one basket, get them all broken, and then gripe that the basket had frayed wires.

Re:Another lesson from this (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136550)

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

Re:Another lesson from this (1)

Kuroji (990107) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136806)

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?

That's nothing compared to (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31135930)

the fact that some religions outlaw... BACON.

Re:That's nothing compared to (1)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136258)

*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.

Would you like an extra shovel? (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31135934)

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 there for you to keel over into when you're done digging. By the way, do your part: download from your own personal sense of fair-use until an actual rational one is established by a Unicorn in the fairy court. If penaties are ludicrous, join systems such as The Onion Router. make new systems if you can, and lie through your teeth conflating the issues as much as you have to the entire way. It's not my duty to cooperate in the slightest with them.

Achilles Heel. (5, Interesting)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

Re:Achilles Heel. (1)

fyoder (857358) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136196)

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 independent artists, not because some broken copyright laws say you have to, but because you should.

Or if they insist on property (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31136334)

Or if they insist on property, why not property taxes like real property (RP) has? Why not abandonment laws and squatters rights like you have with RP? How about death duties and sales taxes and upkeep and zoning taxes (for commercial property: without which you don't get a police force patrolling the town centre where your shop is while you're in the suburbs where your home is)?

Why not?

If it's like your home, then why not get taxed like it (remembering that you can't undertake commercial work in your home if it's zoned residential only and you make more than so much a year).

Re:Achilles Heel. (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136344)

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?

Re:Achilles Heel. (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136362)

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.

Anonymous Robot? (4, Informative)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#31135942)

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.

Re:Anonymous Robot? (1)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136288)

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:Anonymous Robot? (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136456)

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? (3, Interesting)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136548)

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:Anonymous Robot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31136510)

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

I thought a take down notice was filed under the penalty of perjury http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf [copyright.gov] (see "TITLE II: ONLINE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LIABILITY LIMITATION" Section "Limitation for Information Residing on Systems or Networks at the Direction of Users" on page 12)

IANAL, but if I understand US law correctly you can drag anyone's ass to court if they file a bogus take down notice.

Class Action Defamation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31135978)

I am definitely no lawyer, but couldn't a class action defamation or fraud suit be brought back against the IFPI for the incorrect reports? People like this will continue to suffer overbearing copyright-related mistreatment as long as they do not take it to the courts as plaintiff. The RPAA has made aggressive moves that can only be countered with swift action when they overstep their own bounds.

Re:Class Action Defamation? (2, Interesting)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136052)

I am definitely no lawyer, but couldn't a class action defamation or fraud suit be brought back against the IFPI for the incorrect reports?

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 legal pieces of hardware which could be used for decoding DirecTV among other purposes.

conflate the legal with the "illegal" (2, Insightful)

cats-paw (34890) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136028)

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 this propaganda, the law won't come after them.

They can just point at absolutely anything and say "that's illegal" and immediately there is a presumption of guilt. Then you must prove you innocence.

I for one, do not welcome my corporate overlords.

Re:conflate the legal with the "illegal" (1)

Husgaard (858362) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136184)

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 things which break the law to try and further this propaganda, the law won't come after them.

This is a major problem with copyright enforcement today.There are no penalties at all for claiming copyright violations where no copyright has been violated. So organizations like IFPI can do a lot of damage without fear of repercussions. This is a political problem - write your local politician about it.

Welcome to the Corporate States of America (4, Insightful)

Newer Guy (520108) | more than 4 years ago | (#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!

Not everything nuked (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31136178)

After seeing this news the other day and again today I have checked the 10+ google blogs that I subscribe to and am happy to see that none of them have gone down. Of course these sites don't post the commercialized garbage music that seems to be so popular these days but rather truly good and creative electronic music published by real artists who the mainstream rips off their hook lines and calls their own or pays the original artists peanuts to license while they turn around and make millions from their hard work. Sure google blogs and other sites may nuke things periodically but that will never stop people from simply re-creating their blog with a new name elsewhere and with awesome tools like the waybackmachine there is nothing stopping the bloggers from simply putting their content right back up on the cloud. muahahahaha! Epic fail here for the labels not recognizing free promotion when it is handed to them on a silver platter! xD lulz!
Score Bloggers: 1
Record Label Industry: 0 YOU DOUBLE FAIL!

Don't the take down notices have a perjury clause? (2, Insightful)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136210)

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 (2, Insightful)

blueworm (425290) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136216)

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? (1)

TinBromide (921574) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136222)

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

One hand not knowing what the other is doing. (3, Interesting)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136234)

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.

In Protest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31136256)

As unlikely as it is to happen, we (as in everybody, everywhere, - which is why it is unlikely) should stop buying music both online and off for the first week of every month for a year (or something similar). Nothing speaks to these people more than their pocketbooks.

Re:In Protest (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136710)

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.

Re:In Protest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31136772)

All that does is prove their hypothesis that Pirates (Somalian?) downloading songs are resulting in lost sales: see, our figures for the last 6 months show that sales are down $XXX due to (Somalian?) Pirates downloading copyrighted data.

Welcome to the world of spin.

Send a DMCA counterclaim (3, Interesting)

wshs (602011) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

start'in up a new label and band.. (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136364)

Both named "WTF" with a logo "WTF" and first album and song titled "WTF"

Anyone want to join "WTF"?

Non US based hosting (2, Interesting)

future assassin (639396) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136402)

Well there's a market right there. Set up your site with a company that has no connections to the USA

Wrong. (2, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136752)

...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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...