Beta
×

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!

PayPal Joins London Police Effort

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the state-vs-man dept.

Piracy 117

derGoldstein writes this excerpt from Ars Technica: "PayPal has joined a music copyright association and the City of London police department's bid to financially starve websites deemed 'illegal.' When presented with sufficient evidence of unlicensed downloading from a site, the United Kingdom's PayPal branch 'will require the retailer to submit proof of licensing for the music offered by the retailer,' said the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry's latest press release." The press release can be found here.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

No surprise here. (4, Insightful)

siddesu (698447) | more than 2 years ago | (#36855578)

The monopoly is the economic nature of copyright. And, like pringles, it is addictive. Once you pop, you can't stop.

Feels good man (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36855672)

Ahhh, I fucking love piracy. It's nicer than nice.

Re:Feels good man (3, Funny)

siddesu (698447) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856446)

Yes, it is. The salty breeze, the port whores, the rum and the adrenaline, you won’t believe how good it feels, anonymous coward.

Re:No surprise here. (0)

JavaBear (9872) | more than 2 years ago | (#36855718)

The real addicts is the media industry. They have managed to get the good stuff when they persuaded the authorities to do their dirty work for them, and now they just can't stop till they get the next "fix"

I don't get it (2)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#36855582)

There are people who actually pay for "pirated music" via paypal instead of, say, downloading it for free?

Re:I don't get it (3, Interesting)

myurr (468709) | more than 2 years ago | (#36855610)

Without having read TFA I would imagine that this is aimed more at people who pirate music and sell it as genuine. Their customers think they're buying from a legitimate source.

So in a way this is a good thing, but is likely to be the thin end of a wedge where once people accept PayPal policing their users in this way then you'll start to see people having their PayPal accounts disabled for unrelated activities that someone or other doesn't approve of.

Re:I don't get it (3, Informative)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#36855626)

I'm given to understand that this happens anyway. In fact, Paypal is famous for suspending peoples' accounts for 180 days when they have a large balance, for example. No appeal. So really this isn't news IMO. Yeah ok maybe finally the music industry has cottoned on to the fact that their target should be people who make a living by ripping them off instead of 13 year olds, grandmothers, and cats because after all that's what copyright was originally designed to prevent, but apart from that I just don't see a story.

Re:I don't get it (either) (-1, Offtopic)

Tasha26 (1613349) | more than 2 years ago | (#36855638)

Rapidshare, Megaupload, Filesonic & Fileserve etc... are all involved in the illegal file sharing business. How come nothing has been done against them?

Re:I don't get it (either) (0)

djsmiley (752149) | more than 2 years ago | (#36855664)

No money to be made here, move along.

-----

I'm serious. They wont waste the time suing places which have nothing to give up.

Re:I don't get it (either) (1)

ego centrik (1971902) | more than 2 years ago | (#36855722)

_ there are already under heavy fire + it is not friendly. Hotfile, rapidshare etc. are deleting probably more files than they get uploads. You pay them for file hosting + file sharing. They don't bill you for files and they don't say the files are legal. But a word about the phrase "... by selling music without paying artists, songwriters or producers for their work." from the artical above. A Artist, songwriter + producer, the creative, gets under 10 per cent of every record/cd sell. The music industries revenue is 90 per cent.

Re:I don't get it (either) (2, Funny)

mestar (121800) | more than 2 years ago | (#36855862)

"are deleting probably more files than they get uploads"

So, not only are they deleting every single file somebody uploads, they also delete a random system file once in a while?

Re:I don't get it (either) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36855908)

A long time ago, at an installation far, far away...
      It is a time of intra-system war, as forces of the User Alliance
struggle to break the iron grip of the evil Admin Empire. Now, striking
from a hidden directory, they win their first victory.
      During the battle, User spies manage to snarf source of the Empire's
ultimate weapon; the dreaded "rm-star", a privileged root program with the
power to destroy an entire file system at a keystroke.

To be continued... [area.com]

Re:I don't get it (either) (0, Offtopic)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#36855764)

You're kidding, right? Both Rapidshare [torrentfreak.com] and Megaupload [torrentfreak.com] have been sued, and the former was ordered by a court to pay a fine [torrentfreak.com] .

But there's an huge difference between offering personal file hosting and selling identified music files. The latter can't allege ignorance about the contents of the file.

Re:I don't get it (either) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36856350)

There has. You just had to work for eBay to know about it.

Short answer: Those with the fattest wallets speak the loudest. They basically have the same claim as any other ISP, and have DMCA takedown provisions, so eBay has very little incentive to take action. RapidShare/Megaupload also send their own DMCA takedowns on resellers of their services to eBay/PayPal.

What this is more likely aimed at are the loads of russian and chinese sites that basically do nothing but sell the mp3's they got off Napster back in 2002, winmx, emule, piratebay, etc. Many of these sites are thinly disguised as ringtone sites.

Longer answer: Europe's copyright has a much stronger burden of proof and frequently Germany is the wet blanket resulting in inaction. Paypal/eBay Europe is based out of Germany. France has the weakest burden of proof and is the loudest barking dog when it comes to copyright. So trying to get something taken down in Europe is an extreme pain in the arse. What's actually happening here is that instead of going after the sites, they are going directly after their PayPal accounts since they can basically claim fraud and win. This will just cause them to go back to Western Union, and eGold, but very few lazy pirates use these.

As for the file directdownload share sites. Facebook is frequently abused for picture and video sharing.

Large transaction volume (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#36855802)

In fact, Paypal is famous for suspending peoples' accounts for 180 days when they have a large balance, for example.

If you're doing such a large transaction volume that PayPal will start holding funds, you can probably afford a real Internet merchant account with a bank.

Re:Large transaction volume (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36855918)

Yeah but that probably requires paying taxes, as well as selling legitimate merchandise and stuff.

Re:Large transaction volume (2)

julesh (229690) | more than 2 years ago | (#36855990)

If you're doing such a large transaction volume that PayPal will start holding funds, you can probably afford a real Internet merchant account with a bank.

When dealing with a vendor I don't trust, I'd rather work through PayPal. PayPal offers a friendlier and easier-to-use dispute resolution system than my bank does, so if my goods don't turn up I'd rather be able to dispute the transaction with PayPal. Therefore, presented with two merchants, one of whom takes PayPal and the other doesn't, and little else to choose between them, I'll take PayPal every time.

So in my other hat as a not-very-well-known retailer, it's to my advantage to accept paypal, even if their terms of business are less friendly to vendors than, say, RBS WorldPay (to pick a merchant processor I've worked with before).

Re:Large transaction volume (3, Interesting)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856138)

When dealing with a vendor I don't trust, I'd rather use the one with a real merchant account. My bank offers a bullet proof dispute resolution system compared to paypal.

Presented with the choice, I'll go with the site which has proper card processing setup. Paypal is just ghetto.

Re:Large transaction volume (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856926)

You have obviously never tried to dispute a charge with your bank. I have. There is almost no one to talk to, no one to appeal to. With Paypal, after a long telephone wait I can speak to a human with a southern American accent and explain my position. One hour later my funds are back in the account while the dispute is settled.

I've fought with banks, I've fought with merchants, I've fought with Ebay, and I've fought with Paypal. I prefer to deal with Paypal.

Yes, I also hate Paypal for what they did to wikileaks, by the way.

Re:Large transaction volume (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 2 years ago | (#36857846)

I've fought with Ebay, and I've fought with Paypal.

Now, though, you're being redundant.

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36856014)

In fact, Paypal is famous for suspending peoples' accounts for 180 days when they have a large balance, for example. No appeal.

I've heard that, from the US based operation, but hey the invisible hand of the market will regulate such behaviour in the long run so you don't need to worry about it.. but over in Europe we do things differently and Paypal is required to follow banking regulations, so I'm doubting they can freeze UK accounts in such a way?

Re:I don't get it (3, Interesting)

datapharmer (1099455) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856280)

Seriously forget "illegal" websites. I could go on for an hour rant about how paypal has given my customers (legitimate registered 501c3 not for profit groups) the runaround freezing their legally earned money seemingly at random with the explanation of "maintaining compliance". They have required fax and email after letter and voided check to "verify" the account because the not-for-profit was not comfortable tying paypal to their bank account (with good reason it seems). In the end they had to tie it to a bank account, and are uncomfortable with the arrangement to this day. Paypal needs independent oversight, not arrangements with MAFIAA and police.

Re:I don't get it (1)

bzipitidoo (647217) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856858)

Paypal needs independent oversight, not arrangements with MAFIAA and police.

The part I don't get is what's in this for Paypal? TFA says this will show they're serious about fighting copyright infringement. Why so eager to do law enforcement work? We have police for that. What happened, the MAFIAA threatened to sue them and they folded like a wet paper bag? The police are always looking for more power to, uh, do their jobs, maybe that's it? Seems there's even common ground between the police and the MAFIAA. Both hate recording devices being used on them and theirs.

Re:I don't get it (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856888)

I'm guessing that they get to hold on to that money indefinitely while they "investigate" this is really just the continuation of that BS that they pulled on Notch and others where they refuse to refund or pass on the funds because they aren't a real banking institution.

I'm just surprised that they're trying this outside the US where they're apparently supposed to be a bank.

Re:I don't get it (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#36857408)

The 'threatened to sue them' sounds plausible. Paypal is a company - their first duty is to their shareholders, not any ideological campaign. They probably just calculated the cost of fighting potential legal action verses the profit they can gain from possibly pirate websites and decided it'd be more economical to avoid the legal problems.

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36855644)

Indeed, and starving organised crime of funds is to be commended. The concern in this case is the application of penalties (in the form of removal of service) without judicial oversight. A false positive could be subject to civil action, which might expose the Met to yet more embarrassment.

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Cowpat (788193) | more than 2 years ago | (#36855782)

This is City of London Police. They're a tiny force who police only the Square Mile (and are not to be confused with the Metropolitan Police). It was one of their officers who seized that chap's anti-scientology placard a few years ago.

Re:I don't get it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36857396)

>chap

I bet you also spell "rumor", "humor", and "color" incorrectly too.

Re:I don't get it (2)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#36855658)

Without reading the article I would say it is about getting money from one part and not giving it to the other party. Just blocking accounts, so business as usual.

And this being a good things? PayPal accounts are already disabled for unrelated activities. Money is blocked by them for almost random reasons.

This makes it legal for them to steal your money. Or do you think it gets returned to the original person?

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36856128)

This is why we should be using systems like bitcoin to decentralise the "money pipes".

Re:I don't get it (2)

Sinthet (2081954) | more than 2 years ago | (#36855702)

I agree that the idea is good! However, no oversight + a company with a bad track record: What could go wrong?

This will turn into another "guilty until proven innocent" scenario for everyone who has funds seized. I'm sure they'll manage to nab some of the "bad guys", but given their track record, I foresee more than one legitimate business having to produce tons of receipts and deal with bad PR because of this.

Re:I don't get it (1)

_Shad0w_ (127912) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856050)

That would make sense. The City of London Police's territorial area is the just the City of London, which is 1sq mile in the middle of London. They are, however, also the primary force for heading fraud investigations in the UK, because the City of London is the home of finance in the UK.

Re:I don't get it (1)

Nikker (749551) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856424)

This is likely a wide brush they are tarring people with. I would imagine any torrent site that takes donations would have just as much trouble as anyone else. From what I have seen from PayPals actions they figure if they can accuse both sides of the transaction with something they get to keep the money for themselves. I hope if the really do try to get any bigger than they are they are regulated tightly.

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36856946)

> Without having read TFA I would imagine

I should have stopped reading your comment after reading that.

Re:I don't get it (1)

DaveHowe (51510) | more than 2 years ago | (#36855790)

Not sure if this is applicable, but - many torrent trackers accept donations via paypal....

Re:I don't get it (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#36855826)

deemed illegal.

In other words, whatever the RIAA deems illegal should be cut off from funds. Now take a wild guess what's the target.

Re:I don't get it (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856934)

deemed illegal.

In other words, whatever the RIAA deems illegal should be cut off from funds. Now take a wild guess what's the target.

Right, the golden rule. The RIAA has the gold.

Re:I don't get it (1)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856010)

Yep.
Although I wonder if I could string together a few notes and name it for example "Dark side of the mooon* and see if I can't get any lawsuit happening if I get refused payment.

OT: Murdoch misled London Police/UK Parliament (-1, Flamebait)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 2 years ago | (#36855592)

OT: Murdoch apparently misled London Police/UK Parliament:

"News Corp. heir apparent James Murdoch is now in the crosshairs of critics who charge he misled Parliament about Britain's phone-hacking scandal.

The allegations against the 38-year-old Murdoch, long considered the successor to his father Rupert, raised questions about his credibility - and his future.

Murdoch, under questioning this week, said he was unaware the invasions of privacy at the now-shuttered News of the World went beyond a single reporter.

But a pair of former Murdoch top staffers contradicted the media scion, insisting he was informed years ago about an email suggesting the hacking was far more prevalent.

The incriminating missive was uncovered during a lawsuit filed by British soccer association chief Gordon Taylor over alleged hacking of his phone.

The email, which included a transcript of an illegally obtained conversation, seemed to implicate others at the muckraking tabloid."

Read more at http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2011/07/23/2011-07-23_murdoch_son_sinks_deeper_amid_cries_he_misled_probe.html [nydailynews.com]

Re:OT: Murdoch misled London Police/UK Parliament (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36855628)

Breaking news: Media CEO a Lying Sack of Shit!

Who would have thought ...

Re:OT: Murdoch misled London Police/UK Parliament (1, Informative)

myurr (468709) | more than 2 years ago | (#36855682)

And in other news every major newspaper in the UK engaged in the same practices, with the information commissioners previous investigation showing that News International was a much smaller infringer than both the Trinity Mirror Group and Associated Newspapers (Daily Mail).

Re:OT: Murdoch misled London Police/UK Parliament (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36855804)

Really? [citation needed]

Re:OT: Murdoch misled London Police/UK Parliament (1)

myurr (468709) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856084)

Guido Fawkes Blog [order-order.com]

Handy graph for you showing the number of offences the Information Commissioners Office recorded for each of the papers. You can verify the numbers yourself via the ICO's website.

Re:OT: Murdoch misled London Police/UK Parliament (0)

makomk (752139) | more than 2 years ago | (#36855916)

Not every newspaper, certainly - the Guardian didn't, despite Rebecca Brooks' attempts to smear them to a parlimentary committee. Also I'm not aware of any evidence the other papers interfered with police investigations in the same way as the News of the World did, and they certainly didn't have the same close ties to the Government.

Re:OT: Murdoch misled London Police/UK Parliament (1)

myurr (468709) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856126)

They most certainly did. Here's a helpful graph for you that shows the number of offenses by each paper as recorded by the Information Commissioners Office: Guido Fawkes Blog [order-order.com]

Whilst not on the same scale as the Trinitiy Mirror group the Guardian Media Group are in the same ballpark as News International when compared to the overall number of offenses.

The Guardian are famous for their holier than though, do as we say not as we do, approach to their reporting. For example they campaign consistently against tax evasion yet the Guardian Group itself has used numerous loopholes to avoid taxes, using the same mechanisms they criticise others for using.

What you're witnessing in the media and politics at the moment is a bunch of hypocritical self servers sniping at their competitors and idealogical enemies totally disregarding their own failings and involvement in the same or similar activities. They're all at it, the entire establishment is corrupt, and they all have their own agendas that they're trying to advance.

Boycott the bastards (4, Insightful)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 2 years ago | (#36855606)

I'd boycott PayPal, but sadly, I can't boycott them any more than I already do.

Re:Boycott the bastards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36855634)

Raise pressure with you lawmaker for them to be treated as a bank. They really do not like that idea at all.

Re:Boycott the bastards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36855688)

Paypal already is a bank in the EU. Fat lot of good that did.

Re:Boycott the bastards (1)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856038)

Bank of America is a bank only in 40 countries (2010) so only 13 more than PayPal.
OTOH PayPal has 3 times their clients and they have bank-like structures in India and China which have over 2 billion potential clients.

Re:Boycott the bastards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36856342)

WTF are you on about?

Re:Boycott the bastards (1)

Tasha26 (1613349) | more than 2 years ago | (#36855640)

You could try winning the lottery and start your own checkout business? :)

Re:Boycott the bastards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36858012)

Yes, I too recommend winning the lottery immediately.

Re:Boycott the bastards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36855878)

Is google checkout an alternative?

Auctions where instead of eBay? (3, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#36855896)

Then what's the alternative to the online trading venue run by PayPal's parent company, famous for its auction-style listings? This venue banned Google Checkout last time I checked.

Re:Auctions where instead of eBay? (4, Informative)

julesh (229690) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856052)

Move to the EU. The behaviour you describe is almost certainly illegal under EU competition law, and eBay UK does not have this restriction:

Sellers with their own merchant credit card processing account, and those who use a third-party credit card processor, may also offer their buyers the option of paying directly with a credit card online or by phone.

(http://pages.ebay.co.uk/help/policies/accepted-payments-policy.html)

Re:Auctions where instead of eBay? (2)

robably (1044462) | more than 2 years ago | (#36857292)

may also offer their buyers the option

That's in addition to Paypal. You still HAVE to offer Paypal on your listings as well, and that's what most buyers will choose because that's what they're familiar with. It doesn't solve the problem at all.

Re:Auctions where instead of eBay? (2)

dunkelfalke (91624) | more than 2 years ago | (#36858494)

In Germany, you have to offer paypal as one of the payment methods only if you've got less than 50 feedback points. And ebay is already under an investigation for that.

Re:Auctions where instead of eBay? (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#36857710)

Move to the EU.

People keep recommending this. I just wonder how a U.S. resident should go about qualifying for legal immigrant status.

Re:Boycott the bastards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36856224)

Sure you can. Use and promote an alternative which nobody can control: Bitcoin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin

Re:Boycott the bastards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36857948)

Mutter mutter bitcoin *ducks*

Any day now.. (0)

Darth Hamsy (1432187) | more than 2 years ago | (#36855680)

As soon as the decision is made to classify PayPal as a bank, we'll stop having to put up with this. It's a pity I can't use them any less than I do currently.

Re:Any day now.. (0)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#36855786)

Paypal is classified as a bank in the EU (of which the UK is part of) since 2007.

http://www.neilshearing.com/2007/05/15/paypal-changes-european-base-to-luxembourg/ [neilshearing.com]

Re:Any day now.. (0)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856978)

this helps us, in the US, how, again?

oh right. it doesn't.

Re:Any day now.. (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#36857472)

Have you read the fucking title?

PayPal Joins London Police Effort

Not everything revolves around your country, you know?

What is proof? And who's proof? (5, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#36855684)

We have seen numerous times in the past where the recording industry will seek to charge for works they have no power over. Specifically independent works. We have seen cases go to court where elements of the case were discarded because the plaintiffs didn't actually own the copyright over some of the material in question. So I am guessing, that under this arrangement, the big music publishers will not be required to show they have ownership or authority over any specific works at all and that a mere accusation will result in damaging actions against another party who may be operating in a completely legal manner.

The article only says "sufficient evidence" is needed to start the action and doesn't say what is required. I suspect it will only be their word that infringement is occurring and we already know that the view music publishers have of infringement does not match that of the rest of the world as "fair use" and other such things simply do not exist in their minds.

And just as in the case of the DMCA, we are seeing more and more skipping over the use of the courts system. We are seeing essentially police and others operating at the request of private industry. Only recently, we have seen the tragic result that come of that sort of situation where Cisco was involved in the arrest of a former executive who happened to be suing them at the time.

The influence of business over government is damaging to the rest of the world. And this only seems to be getting worse.

Dulang, dulang, dulang (1, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#36855824)

So I am guessing, that under this arrangement, the big music publishers will not be required to show they have ownership or authority over any specific works at all

Even if the alleged infringer countersues for slander of title?

I suspect it will only be their word that infringement is occurring

Not necessarily. For any given song by an independent songwriter, I suspect the incumbent music publishers will be able to dig up an older song that the songwriter is likely to have heard back in grade school. For example, after it was discovered that George Harrison had accidentally reused four measures from "He's So Fine" in his song "My Sweet Lord", Harrison lost a lawsuit for roughly a million dollars. Yet Lady Gaga gets away with reusing much more of that: four measures from "Waterfalls" and six from "Express Yourself" in "Born This Way".

Re:Dulang, dulang, dulang (0)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#36855954)

For example, after it was discovered that George Harrison had accidentally reused four measures from "He's So Fine" in his song "My Sweet Lord", Harrison lost a lawsuit for roughly a million dollars. Yet Lady Gaga gets away with reusing much more of that: four measures from "Waterfalls" and six from "Express Yourself" in "Born This Way".

I damn near did a spit-take when I first heard "Born This Way". I honestly thought it was some sort of cover of "Express Yourself" until I listened to the lyrics.

I'm surprised that there wasn't a lawsuit over it, honestly. Michael Jackson was sued regularly for much more tenuous connections to other songs around the world and it really seems like Lady Gaga is getting a complete pass on the fact that she's pretty much built her entire career on being Madonna.

Re:Dulang, dulang, dulang (2)

jimicus (737525) | more than 2 years ago | (#36855958)

Not necessarily. For any given song by an independent songwriter, I suspect the incumbent music publishers will be able to dig up an older song that the songwriter is likely to have heard back in grade school. For example, after it was discovered that George Harrison had accidentally reused four measures from "He's So Fine" in his song "My Sweet Lord", Harrison lost a lawsuit for roughly a million dollars. Yet Lady Gaga gets away with reusing much more of that: four measures from "Waterfalls" and six from "Express Yourself" in "Born This Way".

There's no need to suspect, it's a dead cert.

I can't find the actual paper (I'm sure someone else will find it...), but someone's done the arithmetic based on the back catalogue of the major record labels, the number of different musical notes (and hence possible permutations of (IIRC) 7 notes, the minimum number held by many courts to constitute "infringement"), the various rules that must be applied so you wind up with something that sounds good and the upshot is it is mathematically impossible to create a wholly original piece of music. You're guaranteed to match something that already exists, the best you can hope for is it'll be sufficiently buried in the music that nobody will notice.

Re:Dulang, dulang, dulang (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#36857486)

Doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations here... assuming that there are seven notes in a repeating theme, and that a theme may span one octave (On the grounds that anything shifted up or down an integral number of octaves would probably be considered identical for legal purposes), and twelve semitones per octave, that's 12^7 possible songs... 36 million. Now how many pieces of music have been written over the course of history? If you include all the amateurs, talentless wannabes, medieval minstrals, probably several million at least. So collisions are going to happen. Birthday thing. Exactly how may would take better math than my - I greatly simplified the concept of music to just determine, completly ignoring the issue of different genres, instruments, variable legal concepts of simularity and the relative size of the subset of that music which might actually be pleasant to listen to.

Re:Dulang, dulang, dulang (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 2 years ago | (#36858308)

That's more or less the size of it.

Most of the big record labels claim to have back catalogs (still under copyright) on the order of millions, if not tens of millions of records; remember this includes all the album filler tracks that were never released as singles and if you didn't buy the album, you've never heard of; it includes specific genres that don't tend to be top ten hits but nevertheless did at some point get published, music by artists that got signed by some small company that's owned by the huge conglomerate but never really achieved anything, music that was recorded fifty years ago and has never even been released on CD. I daresay most of those millions of records will never see the light of day again, but they're still under copyright.

There's the obvious homages, of course, but on more than one occasion an artist has been sued for plagiarism only to swear blind that they never heard of the song they're accused of ripping off.

Re:Dulang, dulang, dulang (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36856478)

Even if the alleged infringer countersues for slander of title?

Not everyone has the money or time required to sue other people (especially if those other "people" are big businesses).

Dont need proof (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856058)

As long as this stuff is happening ( and being driven by ) in the private sector, there is no requirement of proof.

paypal is too embedded... (1)

Vernes (720223) | more than 2 years ago | (#36855714)

...to boycott it to a sufficient degree. Unless Google pulls a facebook on paypal.

Re:paypal is too embedded... (1)

dominious (1077089) | more than 2 years ago | (#36855752)

Unless Google pulls a facebook on paypal.

Fuck. This sentence just facebooked my google.

Re:paypal is too embedded... (1)

Noughmad (1044096) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856906)

You were just googling your twitter, and that sentence made you yahoo?

Re:paypal is too embedded... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36855822)

I seem to manage just fine without a PayPal account. Are you really trying?

Re:paypal is too embedded... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36856054)

I agree, I've never had an account with paypal and never felt I "lacked" anything of value.

Re:paypal is too embedded... (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#36855870)

Well, there's Google Checkout, but I'd say that's more an Orkut than a Google+.

Re:paypal is too embedded... (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856910)

It's sort of a catch 22, people won't use Google Check out because it's extremely limited and not offered by many merchants and merchants by and large won't offer it as long as people are fine using PayPal. Additionally, PayPal is one of the few options out there that's international.

PayPal has a tremendous amount of power in the US because we don't get free wires the way that it's apparently common in the EU. Which means that we need a service like PayPal otherwise we're stuck paying large fees for what should be an included service.

Re:paypal is too embedded... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36855874)

I'd love them if they did. But fuck, I cannot not use Paypal, even if they do disgust me. I know Google has a similar service, but its presence compared with that of Paypal is virtual non-presence.

Good old City Of London Police (3, Informative)

TAZ6416 (584004) | more than 2 years ago | (#36855756)

This is the force that harassed Ian Puddick http://www.ianpuddick.com/?p=492 [ianpuddick.com] and withheld evidence from IPCC over the death of Ian Tomlinson http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/09/ian-tomlinson-evidence-held-back [guardian.co.uk]

Having worked in the City Of London, I can tell you that all they are good for is helping drunk Bankers find the way back to Liverpool Street Station for the last train home.

Re:Good old City Of London Police (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36857844)

"...helping drunk Bankers find the way back to Liverpool Street Station for the last train home."

"The Vomit Comet": good times.

Paypal is a TBTF accident waiting to happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36855772)

Ain't there something fucking better for the London Police to do, like I don't know, maybe the financial terrorists.

Turn About Is Fair Play (1)

magusxxx (751600) | more than 2 years ago | (#36855796)

So, I'm an independent artist whose music was sampled on a Top 10 hit. I go to PayPal and the police and say, "Hey, here is my song and my copyright. Stop these people from selling my property." You know what the answer is going to be? "Sorry, sir. That's a civil matter, move along."

Re:Turn About Is Fair Play (1)

starkat2k (2353628) | more than 2 years ago | (#36855888)

The problem with this is that (at least here in the USA) "fair use" applies, so while your music was sampled by another artist, the blurry line between copyright and fair use is often very confusing and complex. This is especially the case when that artist who sampled your work is from outside of the USA, where such fair use rules may or may not apply, or when said artist has made a lot more money on their work that includes your sample than you did on the original work. But for all intents and purposes, the court system here in the USA will always follow the money.

Re:Turn About Is Fair Play (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36856070)

Seems the best thing for you to do is to resample the bits in the top 10 hit that originally came from your song and release a new song based around them.. then wait for the RIAA to come knocking and say 'hey boys, see you in court'.. with a bit of luck you can just stand there and watch as the judge says that the money they are demanding you pay is the actual amount that they need to pay to you.

Whatographic Industry? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36855812)

Why do I keep seeing Pornographic Industry?

paypal the new and crooked morality police (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36855902)

It's been quite the trend lately to have bankers police their customers. While it's perhaps excusable to want that for want of other ways to poke at criminal governments like, oh, various crackpot dictators around the word, it goes a bit far to employ it as a weapon in yet another war on stuff. To say nothing about lack of due process, innocent citizens becoming colateral damage has no way of redress, something you at least have a fleeting chance of with the regular judicial system. That or you have to be somewhat known in the blogosphere for a cause good enough to spark outrage.

That is to say, this isn't very democratic or much about justice at all. We ought to stop having anybody but the police act like the police. We might need laws to enforce that.

Bitcoin is answer (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36855972)

Do and end-run around the gatekeepers of finance. Use bitcoin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin

Within rights (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#36855994)

I know paypal is a private company and can do business with anyone they please, or not do business... But still, f-em for trying to impose their concepts of morality on their customers.

If they want to ban *convicted* criminals, sure.. but *suspected*.. they can kiss my business good bye.

Starving money supply (1)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856112)

Ironic that Paypal should be looking to starve others of funds, I boycot Paypay for NOT being a bank*, for taking money from users accounts depending on what the weather is, for their disgraceful terms and conditions which affect your privacy and give them the right to do what they like, and generally getting away with scummy anti-competitive practices. The consumer councils here do not want to take on Paypal, and as people might of noticed in the recent news, the UK police are institutionally corrupt.

Two can play the game of cutting off money supply, and from my perspective, I hurt far more companies than Paypal, and have no sympathy for their "only pay" or "must pay" using Paypal", for example Ebay,

Two fingers to the RIAA and MPAA, should have sold recent music / films, not the garbage you've been rolling out for years. Your industry is dying, don't expect me to prop it up. Time to find your coke fund from somewhere else.

*Basing yourself in a European country with the least regulations to get away with what they do to users.

Bitcoin? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36856196)

A large political blog, that has had problems with accepting donation due antipathy from payment processors now accepts bit coin payments. So should you

Design a payment service that is incapable to... (1)

Vernes (720223) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856294)

...recognize illegal sales. Only allow a numeric value to be placed with the product description. No matter what, nobody can claim copyrighted material has been transferred.

So let me get this... (1)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856762)

"Paypal joins London Police efforts"... Does that mean that PayPal will entertain in activities like harassing and arresting people for taking pictures, brutally beating innocent bystanders for being in the wrong place, murdering dark-skinned foreigners on the tube and then sell information to Murdoch? Bring on the letter bombs!

It Makes Sense for the Police to use PayPal (2)

Catmeat (20653) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856878)

PayPal Joins London Police Effort

It's a good idea. It's much more sensible for London police officers to take their regular payments from tabloid journalists via PayPal. The alternative - frequently meeting up in a dodgy pub to hand over an envelope of used bank notes - is just an big inconvienence for everybody concerned.

Re:It Makes Sense for the Police to use PayPal (1)

admiralranga (2007120) | more than 2 years ago | (#36857126)

damn, hit over rated not funny.there goes my mod points

There's always ... (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#36857698)

... Bitcoin.

So long, PayPal.

Fuck PayPal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36858122)

Fuckers

What do you wanna bet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36858166)

that those trying to pay via paypal will still be responsible for their charges, which paypal will conveniently keep, until this whole thing is resolved, or h_ll freezes over? Which ever comes first.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?