RIAA Sending DMCA Takedowns On *FREE* Music Being Distributed Directly Off Universal Music Website & Promoted By The Artist
from the left-hand,-right-hand? dept
A week or so ago, we wrote about how Twitter had suspended accounts of a bunch of hip hop bloggers, after receiving DMCA takedown notices because the twitter accounts of those bloggers linked to blog posts about music that was sent by promoters working for the labels themselves. Anyone familiar with the hip hop promotion world knows that this is how it works. Hip hop blogs are the new radio for that genre, and the way you get your artist noticed is by sending a track to one of those blogs. So then issuing a takedown is kind of like having the promoter you hire ask a radio station to play a song... and then sending a legal threat letter when they do. Just another day in the major label world, however.In asking questions about these takedowns, Twitter sent over some recent links to Chilling Effects showing the details of the takedown, which leads us to some interesting discoveries. First, the party actually sending the takedowns is the RIAA. All of the letters in question say they come from "Job title: Online Anti-Piracy, RIAA." Elsewhere it says that the takedown notices are from Universal Music... but sent by the RIAA.
Kinda makes you wonder what the RIAA actually knows about what the marketing folks are doing. Or, hell, what the actual artists and execs at Universal Music are doing. In some cases, the evidence suggests not much at all. Let's take just a few examples. If you start looking at some of the takedown notices -- try this one and this one and this one for starters, you see that a bunch of the takedowns were over the following:
Description of original work: Sound and video recordings as performed by the artist known as The Dream.As you may know, The-Dream, also known as Terius Youngdell Nash, is one of the top producers, song writers and performers out there today. Take a look at the list of songs he has his fingerprints on. He wrote Beyonce's "Single Ladies." He wrote Justin Bieber's "Baby." He's written songs for pretty much every top artist. Rihanna, Usher, Mary J. Blige, Mariah Carey, Janet Jackson, Britney Spears. Even Celine Dion.
He works for Def Jam, which is owned by Universal Music, as one of their key moneymaking songwriters. He's at the top of the game here. So, clearly, when he puts out his own work, you could understand why the RIAA would rush around demanding that everyone take down tweets linking to the music.
Except... He also has his own label under the Def Jam label, known as Radio Killa. And if you go to the front page of Radio Killa Records right now, as we speak, you see that The Dream's new EP, 1977 is being given away free. Here's a screenshot of the front page. Note it says "THE NEW FREE ALBUM."
Meanwhile, The Dream himself was tweeting up a storm, telling people to download the tracks. And while he joked at one point that the lawyers might crack down and force him to take down the music, it's still up on a Universal Music website, and it seems quite reasonable for anyone linking to it to recognize that it's been authorized by Universal Music for distribution. Not only that, but he talks up the importance of giving the music away and jokes about all the "freeloaders" who are "flooding" his site with downloads. From there, he talks up how awesome it is that "everyone's playin'" the album and how much he loves and thanks his fans. When asked about it, he even stated that it's "free literally and figuratively."
And... for those of his fans who promote the work that he's giving away for free directly on his label's website by linking to that free music on a Universal Music website... the RIAA sends takedown notices, and people risk completely losing their Twitter accounts.
Yup. This is the RIAA. Protecting the interests of the "artists" right?
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: copyright, dmca, takedowns, terius youngdell nash, the dream
Companies: riaa, universal music
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
THIS right here is why PRO IP and ACTA and all the other stupid fucking acronym laws need to die in a fire. HARD. It's not about the fucking artists. It's all about the middlemen's pockets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So Universal Music is a rogue site?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So Universal Music is a rogue site?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So Universal Music is a rogue site?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So Universal Music is a rogue site?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, that has me wondering too.
Why would the RIAA be the one issuing takedowns - I thought they were simply a trade group that claims to represent the U.S. recording industry. Wouldn't the label need to transfer the copyright of the offending song to the RIAA in order for them to issue a DMCA takedown notice? And if they didn't, wouldn't that be a fraudulent notice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There was a time when the "civilized" encountered "savages" and were unable to comprehend that a person cannot own land and that it is in the best interest of this world to have everyone take care of the land as if it was their own by nourishing it and allowing it to grow for the benefit of all.
That "civilization" has progressed to value "ownership" of far more than the most basic claims on land. To think that you can own an idea, a process, a song or dance, an expression or any form of these regardless of the technology used requires you to have an enormously inflated and misguided sense of self worth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or are you implying that someone is giving something away for free to help further build his career as a hit songwriter? Even thought that model has already worked for him, that business model could never work! FUD I say, FUD!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He's obviously too lazy to come up with his own stuff that he has to steal from the RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only answer?
Is this what it comes down to? Moving artists out of the US so they can do what they want, with their OWN stuff? Oh wait, that's right, they sign contracts, which pretty much gives artists no rights to their own music. Doh. How could I forget that? OH, I know how. I keep thinking artists are who we "give" money to when we buy their music.. right.. Right? Doh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The only answer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The only answer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The only answer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The only answer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The only answer?
There go use Baidu.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The only answer?
http://www.baidu.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The only answer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's going to put a dent in the christmas charity donations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If he just wants to give his music away, why did he do that?
The fact that none of you can answer that question says all that needs to said about this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Then Universal's lawyers go around having links to that fully-authorized, label-supported free material taken down. Why did they do that?
The fact that you can't answer that says all that needs to be said about this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But I'm sure no one noticed that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And you want an answer to your question of why he signed? Simple: because record labels are NOT USELESS. They have LOTS to offer an artist, and Techdirt has never claimed otherwise. There are plenty of reasons for an artist to want the services of a large label, and it CAN be a mutually beneficial arrangement.
But when a record label's two hands don't know what each other are doing, you clearly have a problem.
Do you deny that Universal supports him having his album up for download? They clearly do - it wouldn't be there otherwise. And yet the RIAA lawyers fight against it anyway, even though the company that they are supposed to be defending actually wants the downloads there.
You really think that makes sense? How about YOU start answering some questions instead of dodging them, and explain to me how this benefits ANYONE involved, and how it is anything less than total hypocrisy on the RIAA's part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> explain to me what you think happened and how
> it is different.
This is the point where TAM typically goes silent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Quite the opposite. He seems to have a huge crush on me, and whenever I respond to him I am pretty sure he leaves and spends several hours blissfully masturbating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and now we know how he gets the stupidity to pour so well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Or wait..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Through his partnership with Universal, he may now be able to reach radio and retail partners that on his own he would not have been able to. Even if your goal is to just give away your music, which I don't think is his goal, the added name recognition and resources are hugely beneficial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If he just wants to give his music away, why did he do that?"
From what I understand, he didn't sign with Universal, he sent some tracks over to them so they could promote them. He didn't "sell" them to Universal, he asked them/paid them, to promote the music.
Maybe he used his influence with Universal, see'ing as how he's one of their top song producers and a major cash cow for them, to get them to help him out. Doesn't mean they own his work or have the right to tell him/others that they can't link to his site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
2: that's completely fucking irrelevant
3: get fucked
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If he just wants to give his music away, why did he do that?"
Apparently he doesn't need their help with promotion or connecting with fans. So, im guessing he signed so he can have access to the bags of money they have laying around and so they let their other artists buy the songs he writes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If he just wants to give his music away, why did he do that?
I don't believe that anyone has argued that the labels aren't good to use for promotion and support.
I am of the mind that is EXACTLY what the labels should shifting their business models towards, instead of trying to keep the dinosaur model of selling physical containers for music. Just my opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
fuck, I argue that. They suck at promotion, they only ones they promote are the top 1% while jacking the rest who they suck dry. And support? You mean like ripping us using their 'creative' accounting? Fuck them, they were never good at promotion, support or anything else, they were just the only game in town.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Did I say that slowly enough for you? Hmmm?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Universal wants the traffic to come only from the website after people have seen the promotion, not from direct hotlinks to the download. The links on twitter and such should be to the page, and not directly to the files.
If the files are not intended to be directly linked, they certainly would be in scope to say that they are infringing on their rights (to promote the file).
I trust that you can go to the site in question and download the file, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I downloaded it and listened to it quickly (skipping song to song) and it sounds like B-roll slow jam R&B with too much swearing in it. I guess he has a new album coming up, and this could be part of the buzz building. Clearly having people just shortcut the system and just give away the music defeats the marketing purposes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Those who are interested in viewing the promotion and the rest of the Universal site probably still do so and those who just downloaded the song likely would not have gone to the Universal site in the first place, but may be more inclined to buy additional songs or even visit the website and share it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When you get there, you will see some fairly large text reading: "CLICK ALBUM COVER FOR DOWNLOAD"
When you do so, you will be prompted to download a zip file with all the tracks inside.
With all that said, does it really matter if someone is linking to the page or the zip file directly? I would say no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As I mentioned, I downloaded the file (and I don't care for the combination of slow jam R&B and cussing, but that is just me).
As for "does it really matter", consider that someone downloading directly would not be exposed to anything else on that page, would not see the links to itunes for other stuff, and would not get a link inside to the official site.
So yeah, I can see the difference, and I can see where from a marketing standpoint it would matter. I am shocked you can't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If anyone got to that link, they were exposed to it by word of mouth that it is more powerful than any marketing ploy on the website in question.
And again if people like it, most people I know try to Google something about that artist and probably would return to the page to see if there is something more.
How hard is that to understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There are other options too. They could have included some marketing material in the zip file - perhaps some desktop wallpapers, and a coupon for some iTunes purchases of other material.
Those are all great ways to deal with the "problem" of direct downloads - DMCA takedown notices are not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Analogously, show me where the law states that it's illegal to walk out of the room during a commercial on TV but still watch the show being broadcast.
Would you also argue that browser addons like adblockplus are illegal because they allow website visitors to not see advertisements that marketers intended for them to watch?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, you're saying people can't link to a file being offered for free (Note FOR FREE) unless they do it thru an unsecure link of your creation?
Why not just create a secure link that can only be accessed thru your website?
D'Oh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If that is their intention then they can make the download require that the HTTP referrer is their own site. If they don't do that and then start chucking around DMCA takedowns they haven't got a leg to stand on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm starting to think...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm starting to think...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not surprising but it did provide some good lulz. It's with these examples of stupidity, flawed laws and greed that copyright will be forced into review and humanization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doesn't the law..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hear Fox News almost sued the regular Fox channel for slander to (which would be suing itself), because of their cartoon shows like the Simpsons that frequently attack Fox News for being ultra biased.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is nothing...
Literally nothing. What's the point of the RIAA if they can't even get this basic crap right? (Yes, that's a rhetorical question)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA
- Mrs. Gump
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Never Ending Story Of RIAA Customer Abuse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Never Ending Story Of RIAA Customer Abuse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Samples!
This mystical predator-prey relationship is called "mass market advertising" and it is strangely effective.
Perhaps someone would forward my study notes to the UMG tribe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
heres a fun game
Then (as Principal Skinner would say) try to break that record!
Would be funny as hell to see almost every single corporation site in the US have a DMCA filed against it....hundreds of times....PER DAY.......EVERY DAY......FOR A YEAR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DMCANOW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DMCANOW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:))
[ link to this | view in chronology ]