UK Now Seizing Music Blogs (With American Domains) Over Copyright Claims
from the how-nice dept
Last year, we wrote about how the UK was following in the footsteps of the US's Homeland Security/ICE domain seizures. As we noted, the process there is even less rigorous than in the US -- often without a court being involved at all. Law enforcement just had to ask, and Nominet would take down the domain. Still, we hadn't heard about any specific domains that were seized -- and we hadn't heard of any non-Nominet (which handle .co.uk domains) being subject to UK claims.Until now.
Dajaz1 -- who, of course, had its own issues with bogus domain seizures -- has a story up about how the site rnbxclusive.com appears to have been seized via UK law enforcement, who put up a splash page even more ridiculous (though with fewer eagles) than the ICE splash page:
- First and foremost, as mentioned, this is the first time we've heard of a foreign country seizing a .com -- which the US DOJ/DHS appear to claim as their own jurisdiction. While perhaps this was done in concert with US law enforcement, it seems pretty questionable that the US would allow what they insist are "domestic" domains to be seized by foreign countries. Think of the precedent that sets for... say... Iran. The operators of the site appear to have been in the UK, so that may be the reasoning behind this, but it still raises significant jurisdictional questions about just who can seize a .com.
- Second, the big red warning at the top is insane. Merely downloading music wouldn't be a criminal offense with a possibility of 10 years imprisonment. While I'm not as familiar with the differences between civil and criminal infringement when it comes to UK copyright law, I believe it's not that different than the US, where merely downloading is going to be civil, not criminal. A quick review of UK law suggests that it can only be a criminal issue if it's done at commercial scale, and doesn't seem to apply at all to personal downloads. In fact, the UK explicitly fought the idea of expanding criminal sanctions to file sharing. So, SOCA is basically lying.
- Next, the splash page claims that the music was "stolen" from artists. While the copies may be infringing, it's doubtful that the music was literally stolen.
- The scare tactic of displaying your IP address and pretending that this suggests they're coming after any visitor to the site. This is, again, insane. The RIAA tried this years ago when it got the Grokster site and it was just as silly then as it is now. Merely visiting a site is not breaking the law, and splashing your IP address next to a message suggesting visitors are about to be put in jail is insane hyperbole.
- Further, claiming that SOCA has the ability to "monitor" you is also an exaggeration. While it may be able to monitor certain transactions, it seems to be implying that it's watching your every move.
- Claiming that "young, emerging artists may have had their careers damaged" because of this site is pretty silly. Most young, emerging artists are actively leaking their works to such sites so they can emerge. They know that obscurity is a much bigger threat than piracy ever was or will be.
- Saying that downloading music means you have (absolutley) "damaged the future of the music industry" is again insane hyperbole. The music industry has continued to grow pretty consistently over the past decade. It's just one segment -- the direct sales of music -- that has stumbled, and that was the part that rarely pays artists very much anyway.
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, criminal infringement, domain seizures, domains, soca, uk, us
Companies: rnbxclusive
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
LOL @ AC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Henlons Razor
"Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Henlons Razor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Henlons Razor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"you don't actually need the facts to form your opinions"
a real troll would not have used that phrasing.
A real troll would have used what the below AC said
"What you are missing Mike is this is the knock on effects of piracy at the basic level....Do you honestly think that this site was legal? Are you suggesting that law enforcement should NOT go after a pirate site in the same manner that it would go after a pirate selling product on the street or at a flea market, example?"
The fake troll only insulted Mike once and made no real attacks against the article. The real troll on the other hand only insinuates that Mike does not know anything. Also completely misses the point that it is a foreign entity seizing an "America" domain. Which is the point, this brings the internet into a dangerous state where it is limited by the strictest laws. So much for the freedom of expression.
You are next.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Plus last I checked Techdirt was a private entity that can choose to censor or not censor as they please, you always have the ability to go to another forum to state your opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I love the irony as well. Pirate Mike can't stand the thought of censorship when someone else does it, but then he has censorship buttons built in to the comments section for users to censor posts with. What a fucking idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
All other worlds censorship: Shit is just GONE. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200, cause that shit is in Alcatraz, and it will never be seen again.
See the difference?
[ 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: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Last I heard TechDirt was NOT a part of the US Congress which most likely makes Congress extremely happy.
Under your own Constitution only Congress and by extension the State cannot breach First Amendment rights. Private entities on the other hand have absolutely no obligation to let you spout anything and if you do they can ask you to leave, if you don't well Trespass laws are there for a reason!
As for the flagging of the comment This is self reporting by the actual community of Techdirt that is taking responsibility and ownership of their community and reporting on behaviours that they find distasteful and sometimes obnoxious.
Personally I think the hiding of it makes no sense and there should be a separate button that allows a troll symbol to appear (maybe the whole post highlighted in dull red would work too, with a counter on how many think it's a wrongful post. That way people can see and make up their own minds.
But stating that you have a Freedom to speak whatever you want in a private forum is not only wrong it shows your ignorance towards your own constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or was that some other Anonymous Coward who was bashing the United States in another thread and stating "the best thing about America is that I don't live there."?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also: Freedom of Speach?
Lern 2 spel (or,at the very least, to spellcheck, MORON).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Weren't you supposed to become magically unanonymous?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Note that the post you're complaining about is accessible with a single mouse click. Even given how idiotic your post was, it hasn't been removed and indeed remains easily accessible.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say Mike never debates "opposers like you", as I've seen him refute some pretty stupid posts. Granted yours are pretty near the bottom of the heap, but that you've actually been reported for your stupidity should be validation enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And with all this you expect him to debate some wag who opposes the vast majority of everything that is posted here and can't even take the time to make up a pseudonym AND STICK WITH IT, but need to instead whine and sob about "Mikey wont play with me"
Needy much?
[ 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:
Grow some balls and register an account.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you to his level and beat you with experience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Depending on the issue being discussed it's a near run between AC trolls saying nasty, silly and ignorant things about the post or Mike or all of us and the posts actually discussing the post.
So it's hard to say that Techdirt censors views that are different than Techdirt's. Almost impossible, in fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"If you censor this guys comment you have no business bitching about SOPA/PIPA taking sites down."
Hiding a comment is exactly the same as taking an entire domain off the internet with no recourse to its owner nor due process in a court of law, even if legal in its country of business. Gotcha.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That said, Nominet has been working semi-secretly (under pressure from police forces) to implement a domain-name seizure process, but that would only apply to .uk domain names. For SOCA (basically the UK's FBI, but not nearly as old or powerful) to decide to shut down a site... without a trial (I assume), is quite a step.
One wonders why the Hollywood studios bothered taking BT (and now TalkTalk) to court to get Newzbin blocked, if they could just set SOCA on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Music being stolen
Also, for those interested, the relevant laws on criminal copyright infringement are s107 and s198 of the CDPA 1988, although it seems the site operators have been arrested for Fraud (despite there being case law going against them - the OiNK trial).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The music is "ripped" from CD or other sources. It becomes a pirate copy, posted on a file locker or streaming audio site. The blogs, intentionally or not embed it into their sites. If the original songs were not pirated and put up, the blogs themselves would likely never actually rip and publish.
They are operating on the (dangerous) principal that "the other guy" has the rights to put the music up, so they are working from it.
Simple question: Do you honestly think these blogs had a license or were paying licensing fees to distribute music or have musical performance on their sites?
I don't think so.
Example?
"01. Sean Paul – Got 2 Luv U (Feat. Alexis Jordan)
02. Eminem & Royce Da 59 Ft Bruno Mars – Lighters
03. Brandy – I Don’t Care
04. QWOTE F. RICK ROSS – I WANT YOU
05. Drake – Marvins Room
06. Wynter Gordon – Rumba (feat. Kevin Mccall)
07. Verse Simmonds Ft. Kelly Rowland – Boo Thang
08. Kelly Rowland Feat. Busta Rhymes, Fabolous & Trey Songz – Motivation (Remix)
09. Rebstar ft. Drake & Rock City – Good Life (Prod. Boi-1da & T-Minus)
10. Tyga feat. Chris Brown – Snapback Back
11. Joe Jonas – See No More
12. DJ Khaled ft Fabolous, Jadakiss & Mary J Blige – It Ain’t Over Til It’s Over (No Tags)
13. Beyonce – Dance For You
14. Corey Chorus – Stumblin
15. Git Fresh – Jump Off (Prod. by Blackout) (Official Version)
16. DJ Noodles – Everyday Allday (Dirty)
17. Pitbull – Took My Love (Feat. Red Foo, Vein & David Rush)
18. David Guetta Ft. Taio Cruz & Ludacris – Little Bad Girl (Mastered)
19. Jackie Boyz – Memory (feat. Christina Milian)
20. Jagged Edge – When The Bed Shakes
Download
View the full tracklist and download links by clicking the link below.
Read the rest of this entry »
Do you honestly think that this site was legal? Are you suggesting that law enforcement should NOT go after a pirate site in the same manner that it would go after a pirate selling product on the street or at a flea market, example?
Is online that special that the laws just don't apply?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The biggest issue here is not that the operators were apparently arrested, not even that the site is no longer available, it's servers may well have been in the jurisdiction.
It's the bizarre claims on the page.
Personally, I'm kind of hoping it's some kind of attention attracting scam, because if it's real then law enforcement's understanding of the law is so weak it's scary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.soca.gov.uk/news/press-office-contacts
and the person who answered did confirm that the rnbxclusive.com warning page claiming to be from SOCA is genuine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I contacted SOCA, to get confirmation that the rnbxclusive.com warning was genuinely from SOCA and they did confirm that it was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Other posts go through, but each time I try this one, it seems to get held in moderation.
I contacted SOCA, rang the wrong number actually and called the press office rather than the number for the general public.
I wanted to just get confirmation that they warning on the site did in fact come from SOCA, they confirmed that it did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Held in moderation" doesn't mean "post three more times in hopes of getting through right away" it means "wait for the moderator to post it, because it's not spam and he will let it through".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You should note that the wording was different in each of the posts in an attempt to discover what was tripping the moderation trap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not making any statement about whether or not the site was legal, but it at least deserves its day in court before its censored, don't you think?
Either way the claims that visiting the site could get you 10 years in jail is complete bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Present Tense
FTFY
;-P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They will get their day in court. It NEVER ceases to amaze me how obsessed you are with the pirates' rights, but you couldn't care less about artists' rights--the very artists you pretend to care about. You're so transparent, it literally makes me sick.
Either way the claims that visiting the site could get you 10 years in jail is complete bullshit.
It says: "If you have downloaded music using this website you may have committed a criminal offence which carries a maximum penalty of up to 10 years imprisonment and an unlimited fine under UK law."
How is that not true? The link you provided shows a possible 10 year sentence for certain offenses that those who downloaded music from that site might qualify for.
The real story here is your INCESSANT need to defend pirates at all cost, while showing absolutely no concern for those who are having their rights violated by your pirate friends. You are truly a disgusting human being.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Gradient
Good, could be better. Less transparent logical fallacies would be an improvement. Spacing and italics are good. I look forward to seeing your next bit of work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Also who is more disgusting as a person, someone who espouses a view because they believe it or someone who espouses a view because they are paid to? Ill let you think about that one, shill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
just checking..
because i too like to shoot first and ask questions later (it's a lot easier that way)
[ 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:
Um, no. Of course they get due process. The assumption--which hasn't been proved, but has only be assumed (and assumed without having much if any facts, no less), is that their due process rights were violated. You, nor Mike, can show that they were.
My point is that Mike will OBSESS about a hypothetical rights violation when it comes to his pirate friends, but he couldn't give a rat's ass about the actual rights violations that pirates do with alarming regularity.
My conclusion is that Mike is a worthless, pirate-loving sack of shit. YMMV.
[ 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:
[ 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:
You don't have a right to sell your content. If you think something's been taken from you illegally, use the court system.
"My conclusion is that Mike is a worthless, pirate-loving sack of shit. "
That's a mirror you're launching insults into, be careful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Welcome to the wonderful world of community. The site was a blog, complete with comments and interactions from fans and artists (have a shufti at their facebook page, that's still up, apparently Usher is a fan), all of whom have been censored without due process. It's not just the site owners who've been affected.
"My conclusion is that Mike is a worthless, pirate-loving sack of shit. YMMV."
You're right, my milage does vary, in two years of reading this blog I've never seen Mike endorse illegal file-sharing. What I have seen is him demonstrating more options to minimise its adverse affects than anything from the major rights-holders.
All without the need for prior restraint or the presumption of guilt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And who gives a sh!t about you? Tough luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And Psychopath? wow.. Ad hominem attacks for you are not subtle at all are they?
Still needy I see
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Dajaz1 NEVER got a day in court and it took a YEAR before they were given it back without so much as an apology.
No, we're not defending pirates...
We're defending people who have been accused.
Innocent until proven guilty, remember?
Know what that means?
Of course you don't, you assume everyone's a pirate and therefore guilty.
It's better to let a guilty man walk free than put an innocent man behind bars.
Of course, you can't see that.
[ 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:
I'm literally imagining you writhing on the floor in intestinal pain when you say this. I hope Mike continues whatever he's doing if you're literally so susceptible to psychosomatic illness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
isn't that actually more time than most child molesters get?
So the rights to imaginary items trumps the rights of children?
Just to add a little comparison of scale. Heck some people get attempted murder charges with less time, so one might have to actually accept that the alleged "crime" in piracy is being distorted to be much worse than the actual facts.
I am always amazed at all of this screaming how this is killing the industry, and not one of them is dead yet. Infact they are making even more than before. While they might be keeping their income inflated by screwing the artists over even more and blaming piracy does not actually make the problem piracy. It makes for a nice scapegoat, but if you could bring yourself to look at any outside research not funded and edited for the content industry you would see that piracy isn't the problem.
It is and remains the fault of a business model bent on ruining itself by not adapting to consumer demand.
People want to pay for things, despite you crying they all want it for free. People who download things are more often than not consumers denied access to the material they would have gladly paid for. There will always be some people who will download and never purchase, to focus all energy and research in chasing dollars THEY NEVER WOULD HAVE GIVEN YOU ANYWAYS, means your screwing over the paying customer thinking the grass is always greener if we just jump this fence.
dajaz1 had a really hard time getting their day in court, then their lawyer was barred from seeing documents. It really is sad that you support the world moving to a police state where media corps get all the rights and the everyone else is guilty until proven innocent. Maybe it is high time we start looking at the record keeping, and contracts used by the industry to make sure they are not using their monopoly status to screw over consumers and artists. If they want to look into all of our communications, it is only fair that they be first to be completely open and transparent.
The real story here is how without any actual evidence you accept charges as 100% truthful when it has been shown time and time again the content industry lies to get its way and leaves the Government to quietly settle the dust after the fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Record executive: "Children don't pay for my Bugatti Veyron."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Really, when you think your "right" to own some ones and zeros trumps my rights to free speech, to due process, to anything and every stupid douche idea in the likes of SOPA/PIPA/ACTA, I stop trying to find any common ground and say FUCK YOU... YOUR RIGHTS DO NOT TRUMP MINE... and until the f-tards come to the table honestly GO BROKE AND GO AWAY! others will find away to replace you,
The industry's said after Sopa/PIPA "we are listening" and we are going to find out what the "customers" want... yet same shit different day....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This cant be true as their is no law in the UK that gives anyone 10 years jail for this offense but the police do like spreading such penalties thick to try to scare people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"They will get their day in court. It NEVER ceases to amaze me how obsessed you are with the *internet user* rights, but you couldn't care less about *content providers rights*--the very artists you pretend to care about. You're so transparent, it literally makes me sick."
You work in politics?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're under the mistaken impression that all rights are of equal value. You're wrong. In case you haven't noticed, the public's respect for copyright is at an all-time low and trending downwards. Chalk it up to decades of abuse of copyright laws at the expense of both the public and artists. So spare us your moral indignity, because the rights to free (legal) speech and due process are more important than copyright.
"You're so transparent, it literally makes me sick."
Then see a doctor, you have other issues. Ignoring important physical symptoms now could be something you regret later.
"The real story here is your INCESSANT need to defend pirates at all cost, while showing absolutely no concern for those who are having their rights violated by your pirate friends."
Actually at no point did Mike defend anyone; the issue was the grossly false info provided by SOCA. But don't let facts spoil your little rant. And it's telling that you have no issue with a government agency using gross exaggerations and outright lies to scare people into compliance. That says a lot about you as a person.
"You are truly a disgusting human being."
That you view copyright as being more important than other more fundamental rights, and support government lies, makes me feel something similar about you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Law enforcement seizes things that are used for illegal activities all the time. Think about equipment used in meth labs, or copiers used to counterfit money, or entire buildings for example. This is no different than those other situations. If they are proved not guilty they will get the site back - notice I said "not guilty" the burden of proof is on the prosecution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Not enough evidence to support our claims, here's your site back, it's been over a year, no hard feelings, right?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I understand that this article is about an UK site, but what you described doesn't really happen that way in the US. Law enforcement can use the in rem civil seizure processes to seize your property without ever filing criminal charges against anybody. It then falls to the property owner to prove their own property's innocence in order to have it returned. It basically has turned "innocent until proven guilty" on it's ear because property has no Constitutional rights. It's also become law enforcement's favorite type of fundraising too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Err..oops..I should say this was an action by UK law enforcement since it was a .com.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Good boy, you've been told its illegal, they've given you a *non biased explanation of why THEY think, this should be illegal, and corruption is perfectly acceptable in our governcorps......be proud, you're government loves you, contend providers love you, they want to butt fuck you up the ass, congratulations, for sticking up for those in power, enjoy the butt sex
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Call me crazy, but I think that the site should be deemed illegal BEFORE seizure, not be taken down because someone accuses it of wrongdoing. Would you like it if I got the police to come round your workplace, take all the equipment and lock the building just because someone said you were doing something illegal?
"Think about equipment used in meth labs, or copiers used to counterfit money, or entire buildings for example."
Meth causes actual harm, and there's no legitimate reason to produce it. Fine. Counterfeiting currency is illegal, has no legitimate purpose and causes demonstrable harm. Fine
Copying music files? Not so much, and it can be done for numerous legitimate reasons. Therein lies the difference. Try following due process with actual evidence once in a while, you might find more support.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, of course not. If he was capable of thinking, he wouldn't have made the comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Because you're a willfully blind douchebag that is too much of a little man to admit he supports piracy.
[ 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:
Maybe. It doesn't exist within any legal jurisdiction, yet it exists within all of them (and in some cases, outside any of them). It has no physical form, although physical objects are used in its operation. It can be replicated ad infinitum. It's a data abstraction, and at any given moment it can be expressed as a (very large) state vector.
I'm not sufficiently educated in jurisprudence to answer this question fully; but I think it should be on the table for discussion. Many have blithely presumed that the US or the UK or other countries have jurisdiction over the Internet, and I think that presumption should be questioned, explored, debated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's what the facts show. Do you have facts/evidence that they DID NOT pay licensing fees?
Cause if not, it sort of falls under the "innocent UNTIL proven guilty" thing. Which is kind of the point. The site was just seized under the assumption everything there was illegal. Which kind of ignores due process and all that.
Also, Mike hasn't suggested any of what you're implying he's suggested. Nor has he stated that this site was legal or not.
He's merely pointing out the facts as they relate to the message left on the site. Nothing more, nothing less.
Then, he's pointing out how we can't quite know what was or wasn't going on one way or another without there being some kind of trial where, you know, evidence is presented showing the site was clearing committing copyright infringement or wasn't committing copyright.
No one's saying online is that special that the laws just don't apply. In fact, point to the contrary, Mike is pointing out that the laws SHOULD still apply, particularly in regards to the claims being made by the message on the site (claims that are in fact, contrary to actual law) and again, due process should be followed entirely before the seizure was made.
Are you that big a troll that somehow you of all people just know everything that is illegally happening (in regards to copyright infringement) all over the world without actually being presented any facts/evidence? Are you psychic? Can you predict the future? Tomorrow's Wednesday, one of the Lotto nights locally. Can you give me the numbers that are going to come up? Pretty please. Here, if it helps, "Bad ol' Mike! Questioning the legality of such a seizure and pointing out misinformation left behind to scare people. Who do you think you are? Some kind of person who follows and knows the law?! For shame, Mike. For shame." (That last part in quotes is all complete sarcasm on my part, for those who are wondering.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I went and looked. Most of the stuff they had on their site was on "file locker" sites, or uploaded locally on their site. Clearly, if they were paying a license for the content, they wouldn't be the subject of legal action. I take the legal action as an indication that they MIGHT be operating illegally, and I see nothing on the site to suggest that the music was licensed in any manner.
"Also, Mike hasn't suggested any of what you're implying he's suggested. Nor has he stated that this site was legal or not."
What Mike did was pick apart a message by taking it in one way, and in doing so attempt to make a mockery of the legal action taken. Yet, each of the statements made on the site are factual.
Let's look at Mike's points:
1 - Seizure of the domain is no different in a legal sense than issuing a warrant to seize a vehicle or other used in a crime. Not much more to it. That it was used to conduct business in the UK should be enough for the deal.
2 - The big red warning is correct. The maximum penalty under UK law for certain types of copyright violations is 10 years. Mike doesn't like the wording, but it is factual.
3 - word games. The music was used without license, without permission, etc. "stolen" is a nice word that covers what is a longer explanation. Get over it.
4 - Displaying the IP is a scare tactic, a clear indication to those who do not realize that they are leaving pretty big footprints everywhere they go.
5 - SOCA can look at all of the information provided by your browser as it related to that visit, and can correlate that information to any other site that they have access to. So yes, the can monitor your activities as it relates to these sites.
6 - If young emerging artists are unable to get funding for their releases because the records labels don't have as much money to invest, then yes, their careers can be hurt.
7 - considering that the music industry is down 58% in sales of recorded music since the dawn of Napster, the argument is pretty easy to support.
They key here is when you look at most of the items, it's Mike's talking points at work again, trying to justify piracy.
The problem isn't the SOCA notice. The problem is people making an excuse for piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What the hell?!
Music industry is DOWN 58%?!
Since when?!
Last I heard, there was more music being made today, more sales all over the place, more artists getting noticed, ect.
OH, wait, I get it now!
You're confusing RECORD SALES with total sales such as iTunes, concert sales and other stuff.
*Rolls up a paper*
Bad, shill. *Whaps you with the paper* Bad. No cookie after dinner tonight for you, young man. Now go outside and think about the lie you just told.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Music industry is DOWN 58%?!
Since when?!"
Sales of recorded music, including digital are down 58% since from 2000 to 2009. That includes Itunes, Amazon, and every other legal music retail source out there.
Concert sales? We have already debunked that one repeatedly, showing how a 4 fold increase in ticket costs for major acts is covering up for the idea of a true increase.
You know what is bad? Falling for Mike's shit hook line and sinker!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes we know, recorded music sale are down since the FTC charged the labels with illegal price fixing. What does that have to do with supposed illegal websites?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Music Sales
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I used industry figures for ALL sales of recorded material, singles, albums, and digital downloads. ALL SALES OF RECORDED MATERIALS. No "albums or singles".
Nice deflection, but incorrect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, I'm glad we agree, shill.
I'm sorry to say, but you're quite wrong.
As others have pointed out, time and time again, the only reason "profits" are down is because the RIAA can no longer do the price fixing it wanted to.
Here's a little history lesson for you, and why people pirate.
You see, up until Napster, there were a LOT of people who lived in small-to-mid-sized cities across the country. The selection of music and movies was rather small and it was always censored (if it had a lot of swearing in it). Not to mention horribly over-priced.
However, there was no choice, we couldn't go to their concerts when we wanted to, so we either had to do without and listen to the radio or deal with the RIAA's crap when it came to music.
Same problem for movies.
Suddenly, Napster came along...
And, oh my goodness! Would you look at that, we could get the songs we wanted! We could hear them the way they were meant to be heard! Uncensored!
Oh! Look at that! There's also tunes from movies and TV series that never got put into an album that I can download and listen to!
So, think about that, RIAA shill, the next time you bitch about "piracy", remember that for the LONGEST time, we put up with the RIAA's BS and couldn't get what WE wanted.
Now we can, and you can't stand it, can you?
Turn about is fair play.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let them die, for all I care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I didn't say digital was down. Where did I say that? I DIDN'T SAY DIGITAL WAS DOWN.
Fuck me.
Overall, the sales of recorded music (albums, singles, CDs, physical product, digital product, and all other forms of music sales) are off 58%.
Any increase in the digital market (which was effectively 0 a decade ago) are not big enough to stem the tide.
As for your free speech, you always have it. You just exercised it to prove you can't read.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Clearly, if dajaz1 was innocent, they wouldn't be the subject of legal action.
Clearly, if the McMartin family was innocent, they wouldn't be the subject of legal action.
Clearly, if Interscope Records was innocent of drug trafficking, they wouldn't be the subject of legal action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If they were licensed, there wouldn't be legal action, because there would not be a complaint.
That is clear.
"Clearly, if someone is innocent, they wouldn't be the subject of legal action."
See, here is how you get it wrong. Clearly, if there is nothing questionable going on, someone might not be subject to a criminal investigation. They might not be brought before a grand jury. The grand jury might not find there is cause for legal action. The legal action may find them... innocent. Are you saying the legal system is defective because not everyone investigated or charged is found guilty?
dajaz1? A decision not to prosecute doesn't mean there wasn't bad things going on, only no simple legal way to link the bad activities to the site owners specifically.
The rest of your "clearly" items is an attempt to warp the term. Nice try, tard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah, so as long as a site is accused of something, they must be guilty, even if not prosecuted?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That means absolutely positively nothing. Artists, Managers and even the major labels often send music out to blogs using the very same file lockers. There is absolutely nothing clear about it.
"3 - word games. The music was used without license, without permission, etc. "stolen" is a nice word that covers what is a longer explanation. Get over it."
You have no way of knowing this. It's entirely possible they were sent music directly from the labels, artists and representatives. That's for the courts to decide. Issuing the equivalent of the death sentence before you've even been given the opportunity to defend yourself is wrong on every level.
"6 - If young emerging artists are unable to get funding for their releases because the records labels don't have as much money to invest, then yes, their careers can be hurt."
Stop It. These labels don't give out budgets like that, they expect you to get hot yourself then they jump on board. Young new artists rely on these type of blogs to get enough of a buzz for the majors to actually work their project and invest in it.
"7 - considering that the music industry is down 58% in sales of recorded music since the dawn of Napster, the argument is pretty easy to support."
The music industry is up on every level. The independent music market has risen over 40%. It's down in numbers since they had to stop their illegal pricing practices. All you are doing is spreading unsupported propaganda, and when people don't buy into it you stomp your feet like a 2 year old.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If they commit the crime then you can have your argument as to whether things were stolen or not...until a court has said its so anything you say is alleged or suspected. That is why people are upset with the word stolen in this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And unless Jay-Z had sex with an Islamist kid, that's pretty unlikely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just because a pathological liar like Mike Masnick says so, most certainly doesn't make it true.
Any working musician, manager, producer, etc. will tell you that the music business is making less money all the way around.
You pirate types are utter morons. I hope you all get sued or end up in jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bullshit. Several have gone on the record about it stating just the opposite. The artists are fine. It's the gatekeepers losing control that's the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then how come I keep hearing about artists who are saying that they're doing better and better year after year?
Oh right, they're reporting about concert sales, which keep getting sold out around the country and around the world, and people buying records from them directly.
"I'm a complete and utter moron."
Wow, how truthful of you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[citation needed].
There is no way to explain how fewer and fewer people attending concerts, venues closing down, and recorded music sales collapsing is making it better overall.
There will always be exceptional cases. But if the music industry was doing as well as Mike Masnick claims, the US wouldn't be enjoying the 3rd or 4th year of a major recession.
Something just doesn't add up. Oh, look, it's Mike's numbers. They just don't match up with reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What's the overall losees then? Not the recorded industry, but the industry as a whole? Cite your figures.
"But if the music industry was doing as well as Mike Masnick claims, the US wouldn't be enjoying the 3rd or 4th year of a major recession."
What? You're asserting that if a single industry is doing well, then there can not possibly be a recession? Are you that stupid?
"Something just doesn't add up. Oh, look, it's Mike's numbers. They just don't match up with reality."
Cite your version of reality, please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Go back to TorrentFreak, Anon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So?
"I take the legal action as an indication that they MIGHT be operating illegally"
Which is exactly the objection being raised, dumbass. The RIAA has attacked people for uploading content they asked them to upload in the first place in the past. Their say-so is not good enough to shut competitors down.
"They key here is when you look at most of the items, it's Mike's talking points at work again, trying to justify piracy. "
Yet again, you have to lie and distort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Who gives a shit what YOU looked at, boy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I see now, we don't need the justice system we just need your word because you said somebody is a criminal everybody else should just accept that as the truth right?
Here is what happens, eventually you type of people just screw up and keep screwing up until everybody is pissed.
http://boingboing.net/2012/02/13/white-grandfather-detained-cu.html
It looks illegal but is it really illegal?
You can't answer that.
Just like the cops arresting a grandfather on suspicion of child kidnapping because he is white and his granddaughter is black.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The blogs don't "rip and publish".
They link.
Are you technologically-illiterate as well as generally-stupid, boy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You want to assume that it was all illegal but some evidence or proof would be appreciated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous Apologist
Dear Apologist Fool: If a stall is seized at the flea market it is not replaced with riot squad van full of policemen writing down the names and addresses of anybody who looks their way, is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mind you, I liked the fact that they claimed I was accessing it from UNIX when I wasn't (it was Linux). Isn't UNIX a trademark? So why do they mis-use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://pro-music.org/Content/questions/FreeMusicMyths.php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"The music industry wants the advances technology brings, but does not want that technology abused at the expense of a whole industry. From the Edison cylinder, through vinyl, tape and the CD, to the MP3 file, the music industry has embraced new forms and new ideas and is doing so more than ever before and faster than other 'content' industries."
Embracing new technologies?
Should be stated "dragged kicking and screaming to use the new technologies because they don't understand how they work".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ted Stevens
[ 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:
You know that saying about how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing? Case in point, thus the mockery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Or, at least they did when they were finally forced to compete because they didn't manage to get those formats banned and their previous "waah home taping" campaign didn't work.
They must think we're truly stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"The real problem is that the music industry wants to stop the advance of technology."
The music industry wants the advances technology brings, but does not want that technology abused at the expense of a whole industry. From the Edison cylinder, through vinyl, tape and the CD, to the MP3 file, the music industry has embraced new forms and new ideas and is doing so more than ever before and faster than other 'content' industries.
"None of the money from online sales goes to the artist anyway."
Record companies pay artists royalties on sales of downloads in the same way as for sales of CDs.
"It's the record companies' fault for not getting their artists' tracks online quickly enough."
While it is very easy for anyone to upload an MP3 music file onto the net and give it away for nothing, what takes time is to do so in such a way that the online product is tracked through the process, with the artists, publishers, record companies, third party retailers all being paid their share.
i like how every answer has the artist first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No they don't. They pay royalties based on "sales" and then tell consumers it's a "license". Sales = .005 License = 50% (figures according to contract) - It's whatever benefits them at the time.
Then there's the black box were non-label artists are NEVER paid.
And to get any money, most have to hire lawyers and accountants to sue and audit.
The labels represent corporations. Not artisit's. The labels charge the band for everything they "invest" in a group.
One thing labels always say is that these blogs are making money off someone elses work - isn't that what the labels and studios do too?
I think the most anti-piracy policy would be to buy direct/used (pirate) and send the band a $1/download since that's more than they'd probably see from the label.
Once musicians and writers realized they could make it without the faulty "distributors" then it would stop at the root - with no more musicians signing up with them.
I looked up some numbers and > the last 5 years, 60%-70% of all NEW music came from independents. Not counting reissues, remasters, best off etc. And that number is soft because it's not including music from self-publishing bands, just those with independent labels.
Nobody is listening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Right, they're ripping them off. Just ask Eminem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or maybe i'll keep using the unlisted sites like bandcamp and soundcloud so that the artists maybe actually see some of the money...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this serious?
http://www.soca.gov.uk/
But I guess it's not a joke, and now downloading music is organized crime. Amazing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is this serious?
I wonder sometimes if the UK government is aware of people laughing at those type of names.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is this serious?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is this serious?
For some reason I can't get the image out of my head of Snape punishing students for having their magic potion explode after singing an unlicensed tune to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is this serious?
That should tell you how "Important" they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is this serious?
To me this is an interesting case since they were charged for fraud. Wonder if SOCA will enact the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and if there are no criminal charges proved still take civil action to remove all assets etc.
I really have a problem with the wording of their web notice though. "The majority of music files that were available via this site were stolen from the artists." This is only alleged at moment.
I suspect the defendants barristers are going to have fun with this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this serious?
Seems like at multiple law enforcement bodies in the UK are copying those in the US and effectively working for representatives of a parts of an the entertainment industries.
This is deeply concerning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this serious?
it should have read
"and effectively working for some representatives of some very specific parts of the entertainment industries"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this serious?
And I knew what you meant I'm psychic like that... Or is that psycho ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is this serious?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is this serious?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is this serious?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is this serious?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Odd...
As for the issue of the seizure, I would really like to see what evidence they had to not only seize the website but also arrest the owners of the site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Odd...
This whole business just seems so bizarre though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Kids, don't do music."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't want my taxes being wasted in helping prop up legacy industries that don't want to innovate.
SOCA seems like a complete joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just waiting on China now.
That'll be fun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just waiting on China now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess they weren't able to find the "Insert Hyperlink" button in whatever HTML editor they used to make that page.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please return stolen songs
It has come to my attention that you have seized a website which held a number of song that were stolen from artists.
Those artists must have been very distressed ever since their songs went missing and I am sure they will be overjoyed to receive back their property.
Hence inquiry: when will you be returning said songs to their rightful owners?
Regards,
Fuzzy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Every time they do this, they just encourage for distributed DNS where there is no domain registry service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
46.19.137.76 - 46.19.137.79
46.19.139.28 - 46.19.139.31
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Enjoy the show
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Enjoy the show
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fraud?
I'm not terribly familiar with the law in this area, but can anyone speculate what SOCA's thought process is here? Are they suggesting that those visiting the site were deceived into believing that the songs they downloaded were in fact authorised copies? And if so, how does that sit with their claim that downloading this music may be a criminal offence?
For distribution to be a criminal offence, The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 says
(2A) A person who infringes copyright in a work by communicating the work to the public—
(a)in the course of a business, or
(b)otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,
commits an offence if he knows or has reason to believe that, by doing so, he is infringing copyright in that work.
Fraud Act 2006
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fraud?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fraud?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I mean -- arrested for fraud? Since when did copyright infringement == fraud?
And UK law enforcement are usually very keen to avoid any statements that could be seen as prejudicial to a fair trial: and "the majority of music files that were available via this site were stolen from the artists" would seem to fall squarely into that category.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The first level is Copyright Infringement which is handled in Civil court and overlooking home use then this happens like when you put on a public show without the right license.
Copyright Fraud is a matter for Criminal courts. This deals in much more serious cases when your business is based on infringing artists works.
This is a crude summery but the 10 years they mention is actually the maximum conviction for Copyright Fraud which of course applies none to site visitors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://pro-music.org/Content/GetMusicOnline/stores-us.php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
rather ruining the point of having a whitelist of "good" websites.
"The list is compiled by IFPI based on information supplied by its national groups and is not and does not purport to be exhaustive. IFPI endeavours to keep the information on this website updated, but IFPI does not guarantee the accuracy of the information supplied."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
seems to me that just about any person, in any country, running a website in any country, registered in any country, can be arrested in any country, without proof from any country, extradited to any country, put on trial in any country, found guilty in any country, sentenced in any country and be sent to any country to serve that sentence.
phew! seems like all 'criminals' are going to be extremely well traveled! no wonder infringement sentences are more severe than murder etc. there wouldn't be enough time to do all this!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You only get 4 years in jail for killing someone, after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wonderful sense of priorities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wtf kind of false info
There needs to be a law against maliciously giving bad legal advice by a "professional" company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In regards to ACTA stories...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The domain is resolving to what appears to be a Rackspace server in northern England (thank you whatismyipaddress.com): the GoDaddy entry lists Rackspace nameservers, so I'd guess this is the original rnbxclusive server rather than a SOCA box.
It looks like "SOCA has taken control of this domain name" means "SOCA has taken control of this server", which would explain the apparent paradox of a UK agency seizing a US domain.
SOCA has had little good press and a fair bit of criticism in its five or six years of operation, and is due to be binned in favour of a new National Crime Agency next year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This holds up no better with the US than with UK when dealing with the internet that has no national boundaries. It lays open a possible of nation shopping for the worst of the worst laws as the place to attempt enforcement at, all while no one has ever proven anything beyond a claim.
This lack of oversight and lack of public input has directly resulted in the recent protests over ACTA in the EU. It will again explode in their faces with this little maneuver.
But they don't have to worry about me taking music through piracy. I want nothing to do with such business that act this way and will not finance them through purchases. Count me out as a customer nor or later in these sorts of businesses. I don't like how they operate. My money is mine to chose where I spend it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The domain is resolving to what appears to be a Rackspace server in northern England: the GoDaddy entry lists Rackspace nameservers, so I'd guess this is the site's original server rather than a SOCA box.
It looks like "SOCA has taken control of this domain name" means "SOCA has taken control of this server", which would explain the apparent paradox of a UK agency seizing a US domain.
SOCA has had little good press and a fair bit of criticism in its five or six years of operation, and is due to be binned in favour of a new National Crime Agency next year.
[Entry edited and reposted to remove URLs, as they seem to trigger a moderation trap.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seizing a server != seizing a domain name.
Copyright infringment != fraud.
Declaring most of a site's music downloads to be illegal != a fair trial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unfortunately though, it's completely true, so I'll just have to be angry about it :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ridiculous
I was just dealing with the is it genuine question as it was the same reaction I had.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: ridiculous
I've already made contact with my MP about this, as apparently, the original server was in the local area.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ridiculous
If you've visited the SOCA take-down page being discussed here then you've just experienced one of these works.
Welcome to the UK education system and a society that is dumbing down quicker than UK media can pump out trash like Eastenders, Coronation Street, The Only Way is Essex, The Sun, etc etc etc.
As most of the UK populace is so dumb now they will read that message and think it's a really worrying and well drafted. They'll instantly start worrying that the police will batter their door down any minute, confiscate their iPod, those two mix CD's their nephew did for them and their entire fraudulent DVD collection of one crap Chinese rip-off of Jurassic Park that's only ever been watched for 3 minutes because its so bad. They'll also confiscate every bit of legal music and DVDs, all computers and anything that looks suspiciously 'electronic' toasters and microwaves included.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Such as why SOCA appears to be making false claims of fact,
seem to be misunderstanding the basics of copyright as the law applies to individual downloaders as opposed to those who distribute infringing files.
And why they are making unsupported, unproven, hyperbolic claims about the effects of infringement on the industry quite gratuitously.
If enough MPs realise that this is an issue, they may actually start demanding some answers.
As an addendum why are SOCA directing people to pro-music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Check here.
http://www.writetothem.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But!
So I was curious if they will get in trouble with the law for an illegal download.
Such silliness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But!
...maybe it isn't so bad. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A domain provider provides domains for internet users.
Have a special type of domain, essentially a certified domain that specifically allows you to share copyrighted material, and the domain is pre configured to easilly allow ads or gives very easy specific intructions to special ads
Now these ads are a special type of ads, where depending on what you claim to be sharing i.e. music, movies etc etc .... a percentage of the revenue goes specifically to said media companies representative...........i.e. 50% to ad company, 30% to media company, 20% to internet user
Now revenue wise, imagine hundreds of people legally starting Media certified sites
Politcians can have their cake with those who dont use certified domains to share copyrighted material, those who are looking to pocket all profit, although anyone who shares for no profit should be exempt, as you should be able to get the same content from certified sites, and im sure users will go to certified sites purely to support the free business model, as long as the corps dont hinder inovation in web designs or efficiency, or try to apply extreme amounts of control, let the internet do what it does
Free stuff, the possibility is there, not necesary the one i mentioned above, but its there, both parties can have their cake, corps, and gov's by proxy, should embrace
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who is best to complain to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The heart of the matter
That's a lot of mouths for one pie...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From the SOCA website:
"Globally, IPC occurs on a vast scale. More open borders and increased international trade make it easier for fake goods to flow across continents. Advances in technology have also made it easier to mass produce fake items. The best of them are of such high quality that they’re hard to tell from the real thing.
While no proven figures are available, the December 2006 Gowers Review of Intellectual Property estimated that criminal gain from IPC in the UK was worth £1.3 billion. Organised crime was responsible for £900 million of this. Up to half of the total was accounted for by digital media, particularly software and film."
So, IPC occurs on a vast scale, but we have no proven figures. No wonder people don't trust government anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, I want to base all my actions on the internet as it was 5 years ago too! I hear this site MySpace is the way to go for music, and it's a shame Amazon don't sell MP3s...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I didn't know you could run some organized crime just for fun. Good to know, if the cops catch me I'll tell it wasn't serious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOCA not SFO?
What the hell is the Serious Fraud Office for then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SOCA not SFO?
SOCA seems to be a kinda joke agency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A joke
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOCA
Shutting down sites, threatening people, seizing domains, stiffling free speech, spying... Do they also deal in extortion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
to complain about the wording ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Either way RIAA/MPAA - up yours, while you do this BS, I'm again boycotting your crap. While I'll keep paying for my cable, I think I'll drop the last of my movie channels and no on-demand. Your failed laws WILL NOT force me to buy more.
It will leave me plenty of time and money for home repairs, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't this what government does best?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet it has resources to pull off stunts like this.
No wonder the whole place is in economic and social free-fall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New Music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]