Slashdot Log In
Record Label Infringes Own Copyright, Site Pulled
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Oct 19, 2008 04:49 PM
from the wonder-who-filed-the-complaint dept.
from the wonder-who-filed-the-complaint dept.
AnonCow sends in a peculiar story from TorrentFreak, which describes the plight of a free-download music site that has been summarily evicted from the Internet for violating its own copyright. The problem seems to revolve around the host's insistence that proof of copyright be snail-mailed to them. Kind of difficult when your copyright takes the form of a Creative Commons license that cannot be verified unless its site is up. "The website of an Internet-based record label which offers completely free music downloads has been taken down by its host for copyright infringement, even though it only offers its own music. Quote Unquote Records calls itself 'The First Ever Donation Based Record Label,' but is currently homeless after its host pulled the plug."
Related Stories
Submission: Record Label Infringes Own Copyright, Site Pulled by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
And people say (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And people say (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
And some people say (Score:4, Insightful)
...publicity stunt.
Parent
Re:And some people say (Score:4, Insightful)
In all fairness, I don't think the host deserves all the blame. They are running scared, since any mention of copyright tends to involve lots of scary lawyers, or at least the threat of them. It's a lot easier for the host to deal with potential copyright violations this way, especially as the chances are that the majority of content flagged in this way is in fact infringing.
Also, Creative Commons licensing is not exactly mainstream, so I can understand why they might not have taken it into account.
That said, a quick conversation with a customer service rep (or manager, if necessary) should be enough to sort this situation out. If not, then my opinion of this host would plummet, because that *is* part of their core business.
Parent
Re:And some people say (Score:5, Insightful)
Lol.. Creative commons is a license. A copyright is something completely different from a license. You need a license (read permission) to use someone else's copyrighted works.
It doesn't matter that he needed others to store his music or whatever, he was required to snail mail proof of copyright to the ISP and instead attempted to rely on a license he offers with works he owns or controls the copyright to.
It's like the GPL. I can put the GPL on any piece of software that I find. But unless I own or control the copyright to it, it is meaningless and I will be getting a lot of people into trouble. But it I can show that I own or control the copyright, then the GPL is valid for whoever obtains the software and uses it in a way that needs permission because of the copyright.
Parent
Re:And some people say (Score:5, Insightful)
He claims he owns. Without the registration, the ISP has to assume he doesn't.
More importantly, TFA doesn't say who made a complaint (if anyone). ISPs don't unilaterally decide something is infringing a copyright without a complaint. That's the double edge to the DMCA safe harbor provisions. Any ISP that does unilaterally remove content based on copyright is setting themselves up to lose that safe harbor. You can't have it both ways. Either you can tell if a file violates copyright or you can't.
Parent
Re:And some people say (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, right, but I think we are going at two different ends of the problem. Unfortunately, it does look like the ISP acted unilaterally on this because there is no record of a complain in which a DMCA take down notice would require. Perhaps the ISP simply has a policy that you provide copyright validation of anything hosted or something.
Either way, the guy seems to be wanting to rely on a license instead of an actual copyright for validation. I do however, think that a sworn affidavit pertaining to the ownership of the material should be enough to prove copyright ownership without a officially registered copyright. It probably wouldn't be enough to defend in a court against an infringement but it should be enough to provide an appropriate legal trail to absolve the ISP of any perceived liability. It's not like I have to provide receipts of purchase for items stolen from my home to convince a judge that I owned them before they were stolen or someone used them inappropriately and broke them.
Parent
Re:And people say (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It does have to do with the state of the copyright system being based with the assumption that all copies are unauthorized, unless proven otherwise, and the DMCA(among other legislation) not specifying non-snail-mail proof as acceptable just exacerbates the problem. However, in the main, you're right, this is a stupid ISP problem, not a copyright problem.
Re:And people say (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm wondering if the RIAA told on him. I'm wondering if I decide to write a poem and post it on my Website; will I then have to pay to have a lawyer formally copyright it for me. I suppose it would be useless for me to even start a blog in that case.
Parent
Re:And people say (Score:4, Informative)
The moment you write it, you have the copyright. If you want to extend your copyright, only then do you need to do something.
Copyright is a default.
Parent
Re:And people say (Score:5, Insightful)
Your friend should go read the OCILLA section of the DMCA. There is nothing there against being proactive, and if anything, an ISP that independently discovers infringing behavior is liable if it does not end the infringing behavior.
I would dare to say that there has been no copyright infringement and therefore this ISP has done a legal wrong. Their behavior well may make them liable for a number of possible actionable complaints by the copyright holder.
The only way being proactive can get an ISP in trouble is if it allows the ISP to end a contract on a bogus reason not supported by the contract.
Or if it materially and/or intentionally interferes with a copyright holder's copyright. Not to mention the possible libel involved here, as well as other possible criminal charges that may come along with such. Any affiliation this ISP would have in ANY way with the RIAA could also lead to some conspiracy investigations as well.
It all depends on how anal the wronged company decides it wants to be about the situation.
Parent
Yawn (Score:3, Insightful)
When even pink contract spammers can find a way online, are you telling me they can't find an ISP that doesn't have their head up their ass? File a breach of contract lawsuit if you got good reason to and if not just move on.
Upside-down argument (Score:3, Insightful)
To use a Slashdot-approved car analogy, what you are telling us is that if you find a used-car salesman that offers stolen cars for sale that's no big deal because there are plenty of used cars for sale that aren't stolen.
Re:Upside-down argument (Score:5, Insightful)
No, he's saying sue/file a police report on the salesman and find another, instead of bitching about having no car
Parent
Re:Yawn (Score:4, Insightful)
When even pink contract spammers can find a way online, are you telling me they can't find an ISP that doesn't have their head up their ass? File a breach of contract lawsuit if you got good reason to and if not just move on.
The problem is one of perception. There is a perception that spammers (and other internet denizens of a dodgy nature) are primarily a Russian and Chinese problem (a lie, but there we are), and that the US, with its 'clean' internet must crack down on the currently hot, if in reality extremely unimportant, issue of copyright enforcement (not that it isn't important, but no way is it as important as is being ranted in the halls of power).
Its an assumption that all the big problems on the internet are 'somebody elses problem', so they focus on silly things like music copyright, often mindlessly following 'the rules' so that only the big labels get a say.
Its classic disassociation, and it can't last. I'm not being all 'ooh look at me, I'm a liberal', I'm being realistic.
The old economic and copyright models are collapsing. Not into anarchy, that's far too pessimistic an assessment. No, they're falling in the face of different models. In the case of Internet and copyright the people who run things (businesses, not regulatory bodies) aren't quite as up with the trends as they need to be.
Parent
There are plenty of hosts out there (Score:5, Informative)
Re:There are plenty of hosts out there (Score:5, Informative)
If you RTFA, then you would know that the ISP is denying him access to his data, and he has no other copies because his local hard drive died. Summary: Murphy struck and his ISP is holding the only copy of his data hostage until he can prove that he owns the copyright on the files.
One could argue that his local hard drive was the backup to his ISP and vice versa. I have a co-worker who says you should always keep three copies of important data in different places. This lends weight to the three copies idea.
Parent
Re:There are plenty of hosts out there (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't see any reason that the site owner couldn't contact the feds, and charge the ISP for data theft. If it were me, I'd look into something like trademark dilution also since the ISP is hosting ads on the domain name.
Parent
Re:There are plenty of hosts out there (Score:5, Insightful)
See, that's the point where I stopped caring. This guy is too stupid to own a computer, let alone run a record label.
Parent
Re:There are plenty of hosts out there (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:There are plenty of hosts out there (Score:5, Insightful)
Hold on now. He contracted the storage of his data to professionals (the ISP) and retained a personal backup. What's stupid about thinking that would be sufficient? What's wrong with thinking that the people you contracted and paid to store and serve your data would actually do those things?
Any data not stored on equipment or media under your direct control should be considered expendable. Period. That means that the owner of that data should have maintained multiple backups (preferably incremental so he'd have a history of changes) with off-site copies. Unless that ISP specified that it would provide backup and loss indemnification services (some do, but I'm betting this one doesn't) he's responsible if that data gets lost.
In the meantime, assuming that this goofy ISP still has his site, he really should contact law enforcement, or a good lawyer at minimum. This is insane.
The OP is correct: the guy screwed up.
Parent
Re:There are plenty of hosts out there (Score:4, Informative)
According to ecommerce.com's website, ixwebhosting is their service.
Ask for Samir.
Domain name: IXWEBHOSTING.COM
Administrative Contact:
Master, Domain samir@ecommerce.com
247 Mitch Lane
Hopkinsville, KY 42240
US
+1.8003850450
Technical Contact:
Master, Domain samir@ecommerce.com
247 Mitch Lane
Hopkinsville, KY 42240
US
+1.8003850450
Parent
Stop the world (Score:4, Funny)
The copyright notice (Score:5, Informative)
It's right here [archive.org]
Might want to check that title... (Score:4, Informative)
Copyright holders by definition cannot violate their own copyrights. They have the (copy)right to do with their own material as they see fit.
Re:Might want to check that title... (Score:5, Funny)
Copyright holders by definition cannot violate their own copyrights.
You say that, but I've violated my own copyrights several times. I can send you a video for $20, assuming you're over the age of 21.
Parent
Not exactly copyright's fault... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not exactly copyright's fault... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Not exactly copyright's fault... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, that talking woman that pops up sure is annoying.
Parent
Re:Not exactly copyright's fault... (Score:5, Informative)
Hilarious! A website I co-maintain switched away from IX just last week, because when they last recompiled PHP, they set the register_globals setting to "on", thus allowing our site (and who knows how many others) to get hacked. When we asked them about it, they claimed that the default setting in PHP 4 and 5 is "on", which isn't true (the default has been "off" since 4.2.0, in 2002, and the setting is being done away with altogether in PHP 6).
They have horrible service, with response time to service tickets measured in days. We've had numerous issues with the database servers being pegged as they've expanded their customer base without upgrading their servers. You can't restore from backups without contacting customer service. Sure, it's cheap, but as they say, you get what you pay for.
The incident mentioned by the OP is apparently the frosting on the cake.
Parent
Re:Not exactly copyright's fault... (Score:5, Informative)
If we can /. them from a link in a comment, they shouldn't be used by anyone to host pretty much anything.
While trying to retrieve the URL:
http://www.ixwebhosting.com/ [ixwebhosting.com]
The following error was encountered:
* Connection to 98.130.254.114 Failed
The system returned:
(111) Connection refused
You were saying?
Parent
Well. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Well. (Score:5, Informative)
Well, most hosting providers actually expect their customers to use a significant amount of the bandwidth they provide, and enforce quotas when reached. If a customer used 100% of their allocated bandwidth they would at most be cut off for the duration of their payment period, or given the option to purchase additional bandwidth. This isn't like a cable company offering "unlimited" bandwidth and retroactively redefining the meaning of unlimited.
Parent
Find another host. (Score:3, Insightful)
These guys need a good lawyer... (Score:5, Funny)
And I think I've found the perfect guy for them [madisonrecord.com].
Re:These guys need a good lawyer... (Score:4, Funny)
And I think I've found the perfect guy for them [madisonrecord.com].
Huh ... looks like he sued himself in the foot.
Parent
Record label dude is kinda asking for it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The advantage to copyright registration is to be able to prove ownership if questions arise. Anything created is immediately copyright by the creator, but that can be challenged by a thief if there's no record. The creative commons is just a license people stick on their material, but it's still not proof that they own the copyright. Someone can just come along, challenge the material in court as their own, and maybe win that challenge without a copyright registration. It's not all that expensive to do,
Re:Record label dude is kinda asking for it (Score:4, Informative)
>Fair enough
Not fair at all. First of all, if the blog and myspace post are accurate, then the ISP is citing their TOS as the agreement that requires this. The TOS here dated June 16:
http://www.ixwebhosting.com/index.php/v2/pages.tos#q21 [ixwebhosting.com]
says *nothing* about copyright registrations being required or any other provenance for hosted content. If they don't have some other reason for the service outage, I'd speculate that they're making up the "terms" as they go.
>why record label dude doesn't simply register
I see no indication of how many files we're talking about. Depending on how it's structured, $35/file could add up to cash that a struggling artist does not have. They probably would not be needed later either, as I think most folks are inclined to respect CC license provisions.
Still, it's hardly a problem going forward. If the label's report bears scrutiny, then the IX brand is toxic.
Parent
Only in America... (Score:4, Insightful)
... literally, because the rest of the world has the Berne Convention. What are these "copyright registration forms" of which you speak?
sounds fishy (Score:5, Interesting)
the story does remind me of something eBay tried years ago -- they took down auctions of people selling their own software or software for linux because the auctioneers didn't have licenses from Microsoft.
however, this story sounds a bit fishy. I believe that the ISP pulled his site because it's highly likely they're retards and see any online music as pirated, but I'm suspicious of his having lost his own copies of the files. Did the other musicians in any of the bands not have copies? Didn't any of them burn onto CDs to give to their friends, or to play in their cars?
I think this is creative marketing. When the site goes back up, he'll get loads more hits to his site, and make a bunch of pity sales and more people have now heard of him and his bands. Epic Win.
Host giving up DMCA safe harbor? (Score:4, Insightful)
According to the article, the web hosting outfit "proactively" took it upon itself - with no complaints - to take down the site.
IANAL, but.... (take the rest with a grain of salt)
Since it did not follow DMCA provisions, I would presume that it left behind the DMCA safe-harbor provisions, and is open to a lawsuit...
Sounds like pressure from the RIAA (Score:4, Interesting)
It sounds like some suits from the RIAA worked over the weekend to study the nuances of the RoR and narc'd the company to its own host.
Evite once rejected my logo... (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a feature on Evite.com, which lets you associate your own icon with your "account". Obviously, using copyrighted images is prohibited.
Well, the geniuses at Evite have deleted my logo [algebra.com], which I created in Paintbrush [wikipedia.org] back in 1993 (before switching to Unix for good), because — they thought — it can't possibly be my own creation...
Well, ass-covering, ignorant dimwits working for a corporation... Spit-spit-spit...
Years later, the same image is forcibly deleted by Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] — where it was only used on my own user-page [wikipedia.org].
The idiocy spreads...
Maybe, there is some artistic merit to that poorly-drawn cat on a castle wall? Should I try selling it or something?
Re:Evite once rejected my logo... (Score:4, Informative)
I think wikipedia succeeds _despite_ the efforts of the admins.
Maybe one day the admins will have the wikipedia exactly the way they want it to be. All the nonfree pictures removed, all the "not notable" information/pages deleted.
And that's the day everyone else starts using something else.
Parent
Quote Unquote are actually really good! (Score:5, Informative)
They gave away stencils and cds at shows for free, so that fans could make their own t-shirts. They've got a brilliant DIY ethic going on, and they became something of an underground hit without even properly releasing a CD.
So I don't know who tagged this "andnothingofvaluewaslost", but you don't know what you're talking about.
It's very easy to complain about how the RIAA does things, but you need to think up solutions, as well as identifying problems, or you're just being annoying. Quote Unquote make the perfectly valid point that some artists aren't interested in wealth, and can get by on donations alone. Obviously it suits some bands better than others, but it's _a_ solution, not the only solution
IX Webhost Rep (Score:5, Informative)
here's a partial transcript from Live Chat with an IX Webhost Rep (be warned. there's a lot of incoherent rambling because the customer service rep is from Ukraine, and i think there was a slight communications barrier):
Parent
Re:IX Webhost Rep (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:IX Webhost Rep (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that this is really two stories:
1) Record label gets stung by not having any backups of any of it's own songs.
2) Record Label finds out that $4.95/mo "Unlimited Bandwidth" hosting only has unlimited bandwidth if you don't use too much bandwidth.
It really sounds like the host knocked them off for using too much bandwidth (reading between the lines here), and did what they normally do to sites that are hosting music files... pull the copyright card and take down the site. I'm sure that most sites that distribute music on cheap hosting are doing so illegally, so this profile is not unreasonable. It doesn't fit in this case, but the assumption on the host's part makes sense unless they actually took the time to check the facts.
Lessons learned:
* Back up your mission critical data! Jeesh...
* Use real hosting for real websites.
Parent