UK Law Enforcement Starts Seizing Music Blogs 310
Grumbleduke writes "From Dajaz1 (a site that is no stranger to unjustified copyright takedowns) we learn that the popular R&B website rnbxclusive.com (warning: threatening message on site) has allegedly been seized by the Serious Organized Crime Agency, a UK law enforcement agency, and its operators arrested on fraud charges. Not only does the replacement message contain a number of factually dubious claims, it also shows the visitor's IP address, browser and operating system, and threatens to track and monitor them. At a time when copyright lobby groups are strongly pushing for even greater powers through laws such as SOPA and ACTA, one is left wondering why they think they need them, when police can shut down websites such as this at will."
Is that a real thing? (Score:5, Informative)
I can't believe there's actually a crime fighting organization called the Serious Organized Crime Agency [wikipedia.org]. It's hard to imagine how they could have a sillier name, or who would feel threatened by something called that. Maybe they should upgrade it to the Super Serious Organized Crime Agency, or maybe even Super Serious Organized Crime Agency Plus.
Analysis (Score:5, Informative)
Well, apparently the agency does care about IP href="http://http://www.soca.gov.uk/threats/intellectual-property-crime"> [soca.gov.uk]
The Whois shows it's still owned by 'Suheil Saiyed'; last update Jan 4.
The IP address the domain currently points to (83.138.166.114) is in San Antonio, Texas, and is owned by Rackspace.com, an American company.
The wording on the adver..erm..warning is over-the-top, and is unlikely to have originated from a real governmental agency.
also, it specifically references a commercial site (something a real government agency wouldn't do).
Here's an article on Ars Technica about a similar incident IP href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/06/no-the-feds-didnt-seize-your-domain-youve-just-been-punked.ars"> [Ars Technica]
All in all, I'm pretty sure it's a hoax.
And I'm suspecting the folks behind pro-music.org (the site referenced in the 'warning').
Re:Time to Slashdot them... (Score:5, Informative)
Hilarious.
A perfect union of government law enforcement and lying, deceitful, dishonest, morally corrupt shysters (called the music industry) in operation. Zero facts. Zero credibility and destroying the credibility of SOCA's serious work with the alienating, dishohonest hyperbole the seized website now displays.
Every major study published independently has suggested that the opposite of what they say is true. So where the hell do they get off nakedly lying like that? I guess all pretence at independence is gone and they don't mind being seen to be little more that RIAA, BMI (et all) shills.
Makes you realise who's really running government and their institutions in this day and age.
Re:Darknets (Score:5, Informative)
Complain away!
http://www.soca.gov.uk/contact-soca/complaints [soca.gov.uk]
Complaints
We do our utmost to provide the public with the best possible service, and to act professionally and courteously at all times. However if you want to complain about SOCA or a SOCA officer, first please look at our complaints process
Then, if you wish to make a complaint, you can contact:
SOCA Counter Corruption Department
PO Box 58396,
London
NW1W 9SB
Telephone: 020 7238 2626
Email: publiccomplaints@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk
If you would rather complain to the Independent Police Complaints Commission or you are not happy with the way your complaint about a SOCA officer has been handled, you should contact:
The Independent Police Complaints Commission
90 High Holborn
London
WC1V 6BH
Telephone: 08453 002 002
Email: enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
Re:Darknets (Score:5, Informative)
After buying tons of CDs where it was obvious that the production quality was vastly different on the radio singles compared to the rest of the $20-fucking-dollar CDs a lot of the time (especially bad during the 90's), when Napster came around, I was done throwing money at the record industry.
That's not to say I don't support artists, I just refuse to give them money through their label. I've gone to many live shows, bought a lot of merchandise, even donated directly to some. I'll support an artist in any way that is possible without some Record Industry vampire fuck standing in between us.
Granted, my musical tastes have completely changed and I listen to very little major label music anymore, and thanks to the internet, there are tons of people out there giving great music away completely for free; you have to wade through some shit to find it, but then again, most of the stuff coming out of major labels these days is shit anyway. The RIAA is quickly becoming irrelevant, not because of piracy, but because artists don't need them anymore. People are getting huge online due to word of mouth. A friend forwarded me a video of a duo doing a cover of a Chris Brown song [youtube.com] 9 months or so ago, and they were the musical guests on Saturday Night Live this past weekend. In less than a year they've gone from Youtube to NBC...it's not really my kind of music but it's impressive regardless.
Humanity was making music for thousands of years before the concept of a fucking record label even existed. I have a feeling that people will continue to make music long after they're gone. The only people terrified of a MAFIAA-less future is the MAFIAA itself.
Music sales had their best year ever (Score:2, Informative)
"No, they don't. They have possession of _one_ copy. They have lost possession of all the other copies"
*All* other copies? If the existence of 1 pirated version was enough to kill all sales, then there would be no sales of music, none. US music track sales had their best ever year last year, again showing strong growth:
http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/cue-the-music-driven-by-digital-music-sales-up-in-2011/
RIAA's share of that market continues to plummet, now 30%. I don't subscribe to the idea that piracy drives sales, but it certainly doesn't prevent *all* sales as you claim. The technology that make pirating possible, also more than *doubled* sales of music tracks since 2005, and strongly increased the profit made on those tracks by artists.
It's not theft, its copyright infringement. It's the reduction in potential earnings from selling the work under copyright. A different lesser law. It's less than theft, because if they stole the master copy, then all potential sales would be lost, including all those 1.5 billion tracks *sold* in the US last year.
SOCA could not propagandize like that, it would make them appear to be a political campaigning group, not a police enforcement group. It would also undermine their own case. So this must be a joke or spoof.
Really the two extreme views are the problem here, copyright could easily be fixed if RIAA & MPAA didn't keep lobbying for extreme laws, and SOCA can't possibly be at the fringe of legality (or illegality in this case since if they seized the site outside of the law then they themselves would be doing an illegal act).
Re:Darknets (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, but how can I write a song with "purple monkey dishwasher"?
Talent! - The Beatles managed to get 'custard', 'walrus', and 'egg-man' all into one song.
Re:Darknets (Score:5, Informative)
err... they don't actually pay the upcoming star $100,00 for a year... its called an "advance" and that money would be spent on production (studio time / musicians / song writers ) and promotion (travel / hotels / record company execs / record company promos / in store posters / record company execs / pre-release cd's for radio stations / record company spruikers / music video / record company execs ). It's really just a loan. The artist see'd none of it.
As part of the advance the record company usually then own the copyright to the work (because they contracted the star to perform it for them).
The reason the record companies give advances is they then charge interest and fees on top of that (remember most of that money was spent by the record company doing things in house). Then with every sale the record company repays the advance (and charges more management fees on top for accounting). A tiny portion of what is left makes its way to the artist in cash.
The best part of it is, if that upcoming star becomes popular and tours, the record company still gets a cut as they own the copyright (just like a musical licenses its songs/music from the original writers).
Believe me an artist never really wants an advance - a up coming start can be extinguished with the debt. I have a friend who sold over 100,000 albums and ended up with $1,000,000 debt to the record companies and is still touring 4 years later trying to make any money.