Bryan Adams Sends Copyright Bullies After Fan Sites
from the how-anti-fan-can-you-be? dept
One of Prince's more absurd moments of fan abuse came when he threatened various fansites for hosting photos of him and including images of album covers on their sites. Yes, these were fansites, promoting Prince and his music... and Prince threatened them. It appears that musician Bryan Adams is now doing the same, hiring WebSheriff (one of the companies that tries to track down file sharing) to bully and threaten Bryan Adams' fansites for daring to help promote Adams. Now, I know what you're thinking: Bryan Adams has fansites? But, beyond that, it does seem like WebSheriff is going beyond legal boundaries in its threats. Its big complaint seems to be that some of these sites link to unauthorized versions of Adams' music. But linking isn't illegal in most places, so it's difficult to see what sort of legal leg they have to stand on. If I ran a fansite helping to promote a musician for free, and then started receiving legal threats over it, my instincts would be to simply stop helping promote that musician's work for free -- and let the musician know that if they wanted me to continue promoting his work, he should pay up.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bryan adams, copyright, fans
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Copyright Lawyers 1: Masnick: 0
For a guy writing a legal blog, you sure don't seem to understand the law. Patent, trademark and copyright laws protect the owners of ideas against businesses--generally larger ones--from stealing from them and not paying consequences.
If a patent, trademark or copyright isn't strong enough, it loses in court. If it is, it prevails.
Simple as that.
We get the Ron Paul-esque of the blog. But your view clearly is in the minority. And from what I've read, isn't legally sound in any way whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RE: Copyright Lawyers 1: Masnick: 0
Who doesn't get it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Copyright Lawyers 1: Masnick: 0
Thanks for pointing out one of the biggest flaws in the system. Yes, *if* it loses in court, but these sites are usually run as hobbies by ordinary people who don't have the time and/or resources to fight multinational corporations in court, especially over something as relatively trivial as some music they like. Even if they're ultimately right, they can't afford to prove it.
Besides, as ever, you prove again that you are the one who doesn't "get it". Mike has not said a word about the legal aspects, but rather about the business and common sense aspects. What sense does it make to sue your own fans? People who have put their own time and resources into creating free advertising and a community based around your music? It makes little sense, and is guaranteed to lose both existing fans and a new resource for bringing fans old and new together. Yet, the claim is that this is to "help" the artist?
Whether or not it's legally correct, it's extremely stupid and counter-productive. That's what's being criticised here. Feel free if you disagree, but try and at least attack the point being discussed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Only asking to take down links to illegal copies?
I would hope that if people were REALLY his fans, they would do so because he asked. If not, they really aren't his fans now, are they?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
not sure their really "fan" sites....
I just don't buy the whole argument that these sites are innocently promoting the artist. It sounds to me like they're using Bryan Adam's name to drive traffic to a site with little valuable content of their own, and in doing so are making a profit without adding any value to the true fans that would look for a site like that. I'm pretty sure that's called leaching.
The other thing that's mentioned in the register article is something about "illegal aps" I'm not sure what this refers to as there is no clarification of what that means, but if there were aps on there that were potentially crapware or spyware...perhaps Bryan Adams didn't want to be associated with them, and was protecting his brand? just a thought, although you didn't mention the aps either...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: not sure their really
IANAL but I hope we don't need permission from anybody to mention a famous (OK Bryan Adams jokes aside) person and also host applications on the same web site. If I decide to write about Bryan Adams or Prince, then they get to decide what software I can and cannot have on my site? Screw that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: not sure their really
Bryan Adams also has a charitable foundation and so he's doubly under the microscope. Torrent sites aren't exactly known for being "family friendly" either...which was probably part of his concern in linking to them. It wasn't discussed but I wouldn't be surprised...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The two examples don't compare
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Copyright Lawyers 1: Masnick: 0
Whereas:
Patents protect inventions.
Trademarks protect signs or indicia.
Copyrights protect original works.
Nothing protects ideas.
Further, it doesn't seem to me that Mike says that Bryan Adams doesn't have a legal claim or argument -- just that at face-value it seems counter-productive. Its unclear what you mean by "if a trademark... isn't strong enough it loses in court" but you are probably referencing (poorly) the concept of dilution. In this case, there is no dilution as using pictures of Bryan Adams or of his album covers do not lessen their uniqueness.
Therefore, be it resolved: you are an idiot. QED.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Seriously, Bryan Adams has fansites? Real sites run by real fans?! I don't believe it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jim thinks lawsuit is counter productive?
Obviously, the Bryan Adams people don't feel the same way. And since there is no "Jim The Paint Guy From Home Depot" fan website--at least at the moment--let's allow the affected parties in question to hammer it out.
Which, of course, is entirely the point behind owning a patent, copyright, or trademark. Right?
It's a rhetorical question, simp.
Tell you what, Jim: When you become king of the world, you can decide what is counter-productive and what is not.
Until then, let the legal system handle it.
Thanks, pal. Now back to your XBox.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jim: Is my Grandma's Wrongful Dealth lawsuit counter productive?
Since you and Mike have the best perspective of which lawsuits are relevant and which ones aren't, I'd figure I'd ask you about my Grandma's Wrongful Death lawsuit is of merit--at least in your eyes, Jim.
I would provide details for you, Jim, but that would only get in the way of your profound opinions regarding others.
And no one wants to get in the way of Jim.
Except, perhaps, his employers at Home Depot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jim: my baby was poisoned. Should I sue drug company?
My baby was poisoned by a drug company that encourages to promote its blood thinner off label to pediatricians, claiming it can help with certain disorders.
Mind you, the FDA prohibits off label marketing of the drug. I didn't know that, as I trusted the doctor and drug company.
My baby was poisened. Now all it does is read so-called legal technology blogs written by non-attorneys. Her condition is terminal. She will not have a social life whatsoever.
Jim: shall I sue the drug company for off label marketing fraud? Or is it not counter-productive.
I value your opinion, Jim. As you know all things legal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Copyright Lawyers 1: Masnick: 0
Copyright Lawyers 1, Masnick 1, Bryan Adams 0
I admit freely that I cant stand Bryan Adams (Ever since my Radio Days, listening to that awful "Everything I Do" song). Stop a minute and think what is going on here. How come we dont see people who are very successful in music (at the present time anyway) do much of this same thing? Prince, Bryan Adams? They fell off the map years ago.
Bad press is still press. These guys are exploiting the court system to get press from it. Even if it may be bad press. Bryan Adams is taking time to personally attack the handful of people who still care about his songs? It dont make sense unless you see what the real motive is.
This of course is a huge waste of taxpayer money by going to court over absolute absurd motives with a very weak legal leg to stand on...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
screw Adams
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Copyright Lawyers 1: Masnick: 0
Simple as that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wagers anyone? When he gets home is he going to;
a) Beat his wife.
b) Beat his kid.
c) Post more under a new name.
d) All of the above.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: not sure their really "fan" sites....
KJ, Adams is going after his own tribute bands. To quote Masnick, "Bryan Adams has a tribute band"? Yup... He sure does. Called the The Bryan Adams experience.. Yeah they sell junk, But how else is a band going to make money? I mean musicians have to eat to right? You can't compliment someone any more then dedicating every piece of music you do to an artist. But Bryan Adams choose to take em to court. Come on.. What a joke..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hey mike
Anyone who tries to throw this off as "what if they install spyware" or acting like this is to protect the artist is 100% working for websheriff. This is common tactics, and well documented from mediasentry too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt: Stick w your day job circlejerking Anon Coward
Matt: Just because Mike's paranoid doesn't mean I'm NOT out to get Techdirt.
It's a reality-lite legal blog, written by a Ron Paul For President nitwit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
you're not very perceptive...
Torrent sites are plenty family friendly, they're just not very greed-driven-idiot friendly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: RE: Copyright Lawyers 1: Masnick: 0
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Only asking to take down links to illegal copies?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Copyright Lawyers 1: Masnick: 0
For a guy reading a business blog, you sure don't seem to understand business.
Patent, trademark and copyright laws protect the owners of ideas against businesses--generally larger ones--from stealing from them and not paying consequences.
Actually, that's incorrect, both in the law and in reality. Patent and copyright laws are designed to encourage the creation of new inventions and creative works. They're supposed to be about incentives to create, not about protectionism.
Trademarks are entirely different and are based around consumer protection, to avoid confusion.
If a patent, trademark or copyright isn't strong enough, it loses in court. If it is, it prevails.
The post itself had nothing to do with the legal issues, but was focused on why this was a dumb *business* move by Adams.
But you knew that, right?
Simple as that.
Not quite. But you can rest assured that when someone says "simple as that" it's usually because they don't understand the complexity of what they're talking about.
We get the Ron Paul-esque of the blog
I have no idea what that means.
But your view clearly is in the minority.
This isn't a popularity contest. I'd rather be correct and in the minority than wrong and in the majority. My point is to highlight the actual issues -- none of which you responded to.
And from what I've read, isn't legally sound in any way whatsoever.
It's not legally sound to suggest business practices that might make you more money, as opposed to pissing off your fans and shrinking your market?
You live in a weird legal world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Abra Cadabra
Since the courts have recently established that "sucks" sites are just peachy and acceptable, maybe the best answer is to directly convert. That seems to be what Adams desires, after all.
Now, I know what you're thinking: Bryan Adams has fansites?
Hey, 'Reckless' is still a damn good album. So what if it's 25 years old?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Must be nice to constantly respond to people criticizing your crappy blog
One can see why you're a blogger and not a "real journalist."
I love a guy who comes out of the woodwork to constantly defend his poorly written legal positions. Kinda like taking numerous mulligans to improve your golf score, wouldn't you say?
Looking forward to your half-baked thoughts to this post as well, small change.
And another thing...
Oh yeah...what I meant was...
You are wrong because...
Whatever Mike.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Copyright Lawyers 1: Masnick: 0
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Only asking to take down links to illegal copies?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: not sure their really "fan" sites....
I think you've went off the deep end when you say "It sounds to me like they're using Bryan Adam's name to drive traffic to a site with little valuable content of their own."
Honestly? HONESTLY? In less than a minute I could probably name dozens of artists that would be more viable than Bryan Adams.
As for the rest of it, I'd like to see the exact content of these sites rather than pass judgment and immediately say all 3 of them are in the wrong. Unfortunately it seems they've already shutdown.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Must be nice to constantly respond to people criticizing your crappy blog
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anon Coward: Shouldn't you get back to work?
Or are you on break between classes at the community college?
Dude looks like a troller...dah, dah, dah, dah, dah, dah.
Dude looks like a troller...dah, dah, dah, dah
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Litigation doesn't affect business????????
Litigation doesn't affect how a company conducts business?
Perhaps not while babysitting. But where the adults live, it's very important.
Dare I say, critical?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Must be nice to constantly respond to people criticizing your crappy blog
You would prefer that I not discuss my views and not explain the logic behind them to folks such as yourself who seem unable to understand basic concepts?
Why?
I love a guy who comes out of the woodwork to constantly defend his poorly written legal positions
Which part of the fact that these are business and economic discussions do you not understand?
Kinda like taking numerous mulligans to improve your golf score, wouldn't you say?
Um. No.
Pointing out logical inconsistencies or outright falsehoods spread by critics is hardly asking for a do-over.
Oh yeah...what I meant was...
You are wrong because...
Whatever Mike.
Ah, proving that you have no argument at all.
Very cute.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: not sure their really
But that action would be to denounce it from his own platform.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bryan is just trying to reclaim his name
Bryan has also said he can't stop bootlegging or file trading and has never even tried to, he can, however, try and make a better page on YouTube so all of this stuff ends up in one place - that is the plan.
He has also said what isn't acceptable is for someone to take someone's name, trade on it, sell advertising, etc., without even asking.
Bryan is not trying to stop the internet, nor does he think he can stop illegal file trading, but the rights to an artist ultimately belongs to the artist, not the general public and he owns his name.
Pure and simple: Bryan is just trying to reclaim his name.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oh and when he is not trying to stop illegal file trading, why i'm hearing about disappearing Bryan Adams files from miniova.org ? This sounds like an illegal source. Way more illegal then the contents of the Pages the Web Sheriff shut down. The Ooh so evil bryanadams.nu-Page mostly hosted rare audio & video files. Nothing official. Now it's lost for everyone, but most of his former Fans maybe not caring about that loss any more.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
---------------------------------------------------------
I just don't buy the whole argument that these sites are innocently promoting the artist. It sounds to me like they're using Bryan Adam's name to drive traffic to a site with little valuable content of their own, and in doing so are making a profit without adding any value to the true fans that would look for a site like that. I'm pretty sure that's called leaching.
------------------------------------------------------------
I hope, you're not serious with this. Maybe you want to talk to some of the (former) fans about the value of the now closed pages ? If people really thought these pages had no value, no one would have noticed them disappear.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Some (most?) believe they ought to be ultra-rich just because they sing some cheesy un-inventive recycled crap.
Like if they were saving lives, or educating the youth.
Troll a day keeps the doctor away
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bryan Adams has fans?
Are you sure that these sites are serious and not the result of another series of senseless drinking and web publishing incidents?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: not sure their really
Rose is right on, but I'm sure you mean legal action. On what grounds? Defamation? Libel? That would seem like a tough case to prove, at best. Maybe if you claimed to actually be Mike Masnick, but I don't know how the law would view that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Only asking to take down links to illegal copies?
I'm not upset about this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Web Sheriff is an SCAM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Bryan is just trying to reclaim his name
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I coulda sworn we had it all worked out
You had this boy believin'
Way beyond the shadow of a doubt
Then I heard it on the street
I heard you mighta posted a new fansite
Well I called the sheriff baby - Web Sheriff Baby
When the takedown comes, what are you gonna do.
I took it all for granted
But how was I to know
That you'd be stealing from me!
Copyright cuts like a knife
But it feels so right
It cuts like a knife
But it feels so right
[ link to this | view in thread ]
deeper reality
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It seems to be true that none of the fanpage owners is allowed to speak about this topic. Because fact is: Nobody does and this all started 5 or 6 weeks ago, AFAIK. One fanpage was shut down by the owner claiming it had nothing to do with the Websheriff. It was just for "personal reasons". Uhuh.
I guess this procedure is what the Websheriff calling “need to play ball”. Or was it "very fair and straightforward guidelines that the sites and artists can live by.” ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Bryan is just trying to reclaim his name
Bryan does not own his name anymore than I own my name. Or anymore that Apple Computers owns the name "Apple."
Let's say you're a fan of Bryan Adams. You want to honor him so you decide to create a myspace fan page. You notice that the name Byran Adams is not taken. So of course that's the name you use. If Bryan wanted it for himself, he should have got it sooner.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bryan, Prince and other who have to go after 'fan' sites
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Clarification On This Thing
I'm a Bryan Adams fan and I was really surprised when I heard about this recently. Your blog has been informative in clarifying some of what happened, but I have a question for you guys. I understand Adams or any other artist wanting to shut down a site that is blatantly selling bootlegs or similar copyrighted material. But how far exactly, are they taking this? I mean, if I want to create a Bryan Adams fansite where I'm NOT selling anything, not making money on his hard work, then I wouldn't think this websherif would have much of a leg to stand on, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]