RIAA Doesn't Apologize For Year-Long Blog Censorship; Just Stands By Its Claim That The Site Broke The Law
from the well,-look-at-that dept
Following our story this morning about the government censoring a popular blog for over a year and denying them basic due process, before finally failing to find probable cause and returning the domain, it appears that the RIAA is trying to quickly absolve itself of responsibility for the whole thing. As we noted in our post, the government relied on an executive at the RIAA to claim that the works it used as evidence to seize the domain were infringing -- despite the fact that the RIAA was in no position to know if the rightsholders had authorized the music sent to the site (and, in one case, despite the fact that the musician was not affiliated with the RIAA).News.com now has a story about the whole mess as well, with a quote from the RIAA that ignores the lack of due process, the lack of probable cause, and just sorta shrugs its shoulders with a "well, we thought it was infringing."
For a year and a half, we monitored the site, identifying instances where its operators had uploaded music to unauthorized file-sharing services where the recordings could be freely downloaded -- music that artists had created with the expectation that they would have a chance to sell before it was leaked. Dajaz1 profited from its reputation for providing links to pre-release copies, and during that time nearly 2300 recordings linked to the site were removed from various file-sharing services. We are unaware of a single instance where the site operator objected by saying that the distribution was somehow authorized.I'm not even entirely sure what that means. Considering that the music was sent by representatives of the label itself for the express purpose of having it promoted, it's unclear how or why the RIAA believes Dajaz1 was infringing. And whether or not Dajaz1 objected to the RIAA throwing around DMCA notices really has nothing to do with what happened to the site. If there really was such evidence, wouldn't the government have actually used it in court, rather than stalling for a year and finally admitting that there was no probable cause?
Either way, this response from the RIAA appears to ignore the horror that they helped allow the US government to flat out censor a web site that was used to promote their works. You'd think they'd be a little more careful and at least apologize. Either way, the RIAA might want to reconsider claiming that freedom of speech is a core RIAA value. Its "statement" here certainly suggests otherwise.
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: censorship, dajaz1, domain seizures
Companies: riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
site operator never objected = they never read our emails
how about "the RIAA never once put in effort into reaching the site operator of Dajaz1"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I mean, come on -- the RIAA always thinks it's in the right; did anyone expect them to admit they fucked up?
You won't see an apology for this until a decade later, when someone who used to work for the RIAA will say "we probably...maybe...sort of...kinda made a teensy-weensy tiny error when we...y'know...uh...censoredalegalblog OKAY NEXT TOPIC PLEASE".
The RIAA doesn't believe it has to answer to anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are you suggesting that all 2300 recordings that they had to have pulled were actually authorized to be there?
LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Where's your evidence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know for a fact that you are Pedo Bear. By your apparent logic, you should now have to provide evidence that you are not, in fact, Pedo Bear. Also, should you choose not to provide evidence, we will be taking that as proof that I am correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where's your evidence?
All over the fucking internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's your exact bad logic that has resulted in so many restaurants and other venues being deterred from hosing independent performers. If so many independent performers perform, surely something must be infringing. Therefore, the venues either must pay up or not host. This results in so much non-infringing content not being heard just because a song or two might be infringing and the liability for that is too high. While this is the intended result of evil collection societies and the RIAA, to banish all competition whatsoever, it is a socially unacceptable one. It's too bad the DOJ won't do anything about it by charging these collection societies for anti-competitive behavior. No, these collection societies get the high court treatment.
Not to mention, it's more difficult for content distributors to know what's infringing than IP holders, so the punishment for making bogus takedown requests should be greater than the punishment for hosting infringing content. If it's so difficult for those making the takedown requests to not make a takedown request that they aren't authorized to make, how the heck is a third party who doesn't 'own' the protections supposed to know that something is infringing? Third parties should be held to a lower standard. It maybe difficult or impossible for content hosts (be it online or a physical venue like a restaurant) to know if something is infringing, since copy protection is opt out and there is no centralized database to look it up and so almost all of the burden is placed on the non-IP holders to magically know that which an IP holder is in a much better position to know, which is even more reason why these venues shouldn't be liable for accidentally hosting infringing content. Placing that liability on them deters them from hosting any content, including non-infringing content, because of the wrongful risk that the law places on them. This is a socially unacceptable result just to serve the privileges of a few IP holders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Simply shutting down an entire website with no adversarial hearing or reasonable due process for an entire year under the pretext that 'they host too much content, surely something is infringing' is unacceptable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Secondly the RIAA don't even claim that any of the music uploaded was unauthorised, they claim that the site operators "uploaded music to unauthorised file sharing services". That is a massively disingenuous statement, the RIAA knows full well there is no such thing as an "unauthorised file sharing service". Setting up and running a file sharing service does not require any authorisation from anyone. It is the sharing and duplication of the files that requires authorisation and if is that is what happened they could have said "the operators of the site uploaded music to file sharing sites without authorisation of the copyright holder", however they make no such claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The government has said nothing of the sort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
PLEASE !!!
There are many cool Indie Artists to support who would never sell out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're simply hard of understanding, Mike.
Record companies for decades have sent "radio play only" discs out (don't recall the term, but I have a couple...). IF Dajaz uploaded those for PUBLIC download as stated, then they violated the control given by copyright, NO QUESTION.
If you're not familiar with HOW tunes are promoted, that's just exposes another area of your ignorance and chutzpah.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're simply hard of understanding, Mike.
Apparently, you're not familiar with HOW tunes are promoted in the 21st century.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You're simply hard of understanding, Mike.
So that got you one more vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're simply hard of understanding, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're simply hard of understanding, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're simply hard of understanding, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're simply hard of understanding, Mike.
Man that felt good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're simply hard of understanding, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You're simply hard of understanding, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're simply hard of understanding, Mike.
IF there is so much evidence against dajaz, why is the government dropping everything. Why did it take so long to make these announcements?
Why all the SECRECY?
That is what is seriously troubling. Dajaz is a FUCKING WEB SITE.
If RIAA and US were in the right, there would be no need for the secrecy.
"nothing to hide, nothing to fear"
RIAA/US have nothing and should fear.
As far as they're concerned, Dajaz might as well be choir boys.
our right to free speech, to privacy, to not having someone look over our shoulders, to not be tagged and logged all outweigh your copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You're simply hard of understanding, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're simply hard of understanding, Mike.
"radio play only"(don't recall the term, but I have a couple...) Soo you stole them? Purchased them illegally? Because they clearly state NOT FOR RESALE? They do say FOR PROMOTION ONLY NOT FOR RESALE. Hence FOR PROMOTION ONLY. Get it S for brains. I have these also when I worked for a local promoter. FOR PROMOTION ONLY. If I chose to promote them on my website, that was their intended purpose. FOR PROMOTION ONLY. Thats why it is not mentioned, nor could they prosecute. You should call yourself:
out_of_my_ass
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're simply hard of understanding, Mike.
The term is PAYOLA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're simply hard of understanding, Mike.
OOTB is a fucking freetard he ADMITS it
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're simply hard of understanding, Mike.
As much as you want to say this is about piracy its so much bigger than piracy and that is what you have to realize.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You're simply hard of understanding, Mike.
Is that clear enough?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're simply hard of understanding, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're simply hard of understanding, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're simply hard of understanding, Mike.
A lot of the time the all night DJs spent part of their shifts making cassette copies of the good stuff and it was out the next morning.
Everyone knew this was happening and no one really made a fuss about it unless the all night DJ backed a cube truck to the door in the morning loaded crates filled with cassettes onto it. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're simply hard of understanding, Mike.
Due process says, criminal, civil or common law that when authorities seize something they are obligated to tell those they seized it from the reasons for it within a reasonable period of time (usually within 72 hours) and if there is a court hearing that the person whose assets have been seized have the RIGHT to be there or their appointed representative (aka lawyer) has the RIGHT to be there and has since Magna Charta.
Star Chamber courts went out with the Middle Ages, though they seem to be making a comeback and what makes me nervous is that people like you see nothing at all wrong with that.
While there may be an alleged instance of infringement, never judges in a court of law so it's still alleged and not legal fact, it's about due process. And that you don't see that shows not only chutzpah but a predilection to the approval of tyranny all in the name of a civil matter.
You may think the price is worth it. I don't and I don't see many people who would. No matter how well founded the RIAA's claims were.
As the site has been returned to its owner without a public court appearance by the government, RIAA or anyone else my suspicion is that the seizure was unreasonable, illegal and without cause.
And no, I don't for one instant believe the 23,000 number. No one sends 23,000 records, CDs or audio clips to one station, website or anywhere for promotional purposes. They send one. Ans in 1. If said entity produces more the usual response is to cut them off not sieze assests.
Nor do I believe your previous protestations that you don't like or support the RIAA, MPAA or government excess. It appears to me that not only do you but you're quite prepared to cheerlead it.
Actions, young fella, me lad, speak louder than words and your actions brand up as supporter of tyranny.
Have fun. The goosestepping class is down the corner and two the left, and turn right at the urinal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're simply hard of understanding, Mike.
If you're not familiar with HOW tunes were promoted in the 19th century, that just exposes another area of your ignorance a chutzpah...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're simply hard of understanding, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Where's the statement from the government themselves that they had no probable cause?
If dajaz1 is so innocent, why aren't they suing the government for damages?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Rest assured that is on its way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
now that the streisand effect will begin in full swing, expect a lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
False dilemma.
and you assume that suing the government could plausibly result in compensation even if Dajaz1 did nothing wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And the owner of that business will not get damages, imagine craiglist going out of business for a year all their competitors would be ahead of them if they even come back, of course it wouldn't happen to Craiglist which is big, but to all the other Craiglist likes that are honest and are not this is real, just like a little blog can be held for a year without do process and not even an apology for all their troubles caused by whatever reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And they site has lawyers working on that. Read the story again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
b) be prepared for many more such incidents as soon as SOPA/PIPA or something similar gets into law.
c) dont for one second think that the alternative bill posted about on TD earlier will even get a chance. too much money paid out by the entertainment industries to allow that to happen!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wording
Maybe reading too much into it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't mind that the Justice Department refused to comment on ongoing investigations.
But the secret courts and secret rulings etc lead me to believe the government really does believe there is more to it than copyright infringement. I think perhaps they are using infringement enforcement as cover for another kind of battle.
Is it possible spies or terrorists are using links on blogs to send messages to agents through music files with steganography? Does anyone but NSA really bother to compare the least significant bits of uploaded music files? Suppose they learned from a raid that moles are instructed to download certain files that meet a pattern, say P. Diddy files posted every 17th of the month? That would explain the secrecy.
Then, when the communication link has been idle long enough, say after a year, and is no longer useful, they just return the site.
I'm not saying it's right, but it would make them look a little more intelligent than the complete morons one assumes them to be at first blush.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I am not bashing you btw but your right if they had some sort of explanation like what you theorized then it would make them look less foolish.
My opinion is the government has no reasonable explanation and that it is a lot of fabrication but I hope and pray that I am proven wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's an interesting thought but I can't for the life of me buy it, much as I'd love to cause any decent spy would have a backup communications channel and even a half brain dead terrorist probably would too.
Hold on a moment. I'll retract the half brain dead terrorist part. Having seen the intelligence level of some of the IP maximalists around here I'm not at all sure of that. Never, ever underestimate the stupidity of "true believers" --- fundamentalist religious folk, IP maximalists or aliens/mayan 2012 disaster folks. It has no end,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Everyone knows that that the terrorist communications are encoded in the Justin Bieber video's and comments on youtube...
Play the track backwards and at the appropriate spot, there will be a packet of recorded info, to find the appropriate spot look for a comment somewhere in the thread like this one:
@JBJDJS i love him ♥
eden44224 43 seconds ago
GAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By careful combination of the numeric digits in the user ID, and the number of Y's (36) and !'s (19)in the GAYYY!!! we can determine that at 2:36:19 in the video there is an encoded terrorist transmission...
Now get off my lawn and give me back my foil hat....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Follow up
Is the US Government guilty of the violation of Freedom of Speech? No.
Is the US Government guilty of the violation of Freedom of the Press? Yes.
That alone should be a good enough retainer for any attorney with the gumption to sue the US Government for infringement of any form of media, be it the news or a blog on an artists website, domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Follow up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]