SoundCloud Has Given Universal Music Group The Ability To Directly Remove Content

from the more-power,-less-accountability dept

As Mike recently covered, SoundCloud's infringement takedown system has more than a few issues. The EFF's Parker Higgins had uploaded a recording of the Apollo 13 astronauts, something clearly in the public domain, but SoundCloud took it down and the "remedies" available to Higgins all assumed the removed content was covered by someone's copyright. And, like many takedown notices, there was no indication who had requested the removal, or if it was simply SoundCloud's automated infringement bot making bad assumptions.

Now, there's more bad news for users of SoundCloud's service. Apparently, Universal Music Group has the power to directly pull tracks without issuing a takedown request to SoundCloud. This has resulted in a paying customer of SoundCloud having his account deleted for copyright violations with the only recourse available being to contact Universal directly to dispute the takedown.

The user, Mr Brainz, pointed out to SoundCloud that he sees some inconsistencies in its copyright enforcement. His account is being targeted but other mixes from other users are being left alone, despite their inclusion of copyrighted tracks.

[click through for a larger versions of these screenshots]

SoundCloud's response to his complaints was basically, "It's out of our hands."

Your uploads were removed directly by Universal. This means that SoundCloud had no control over it, and they don't tell us which part of your upload was infringing. If you look at your tracklist it may help you find the Universal content they wanted blocked.

The control of removing content is completely with Universal. This means I can't tell you why they removed your uploads and not others, and you would really need to ask them that question.

I don't know what method they use to find infringing material unfortunately. Their anti-piracy team are based in the US.

SoundCloud now has a YouTube problem. In an agreement reached in 2011, YouTube gave UMG the same sort of direct access, which has resulted in abusive, bogus takedowns by the label. This looks like more of the same. While SoundCloud is certainly under a lot of pressure to police uploads for infringing content, handing direct control over to an entity that once declared SoundCloud to be a "pirate site" was never going to work out well.

Now that Mr Brainz's problems have gone public, SoundCloud has issued a statement in response… and it doesn't add anything to the discussion.

As a responsible hosting platform, we work hard to ensure that everyone's rights are respected. In the case of rights holders, that means having processes in place to ensure that any content posted without authorisation is removed quickly and efficiently.

In the case of users, that means having separate processes in place to ensure that any content removed in error can be reinstated equally quickly. If any user believes that content has been removed in error - for example, because they had the necessary permissions from Universal Music and/or any other rights holder - then they are free to dispute the takedown.

Translated from PR speak, the statement basically says that the end user is out of luck, especially in the case of Universal's direct takedowns. Does anyone seriously believe Universal will look into challenged takedowns? There's nothing in this unfortunate partnership that indicates Universal can be held accountable for bogus takedowns. Beyond that, there's nothing in the long history of the DMCA that indicates any rights holder will be held responsible for bogus takedowns, much less be willing to engage in a useful discussion about fair use or other edge cases.

If Universal orders a takedown, the content is gone and the user's account is one step closer to being shut down. End of story. In Universal's case, there's no consideration given ever for fair use. Other takedowns, some of them the result of a misfiring algorithm, can still be disputed, but the process SoundCloud has provided doesn't factor in fair use, public domain or other instances that aren't clearly cases of infringement. And if you get enough bogus takedowns, your account -- even your paid Pro account -- is dead and SoundCloud won't be handing out refunds.

When a service becomes popular enough that infringement detection needs to be automated, problems are necessarily going to arise. Bots aren't perfect, but that's the reality of the situation if you're going to retain your safe harbors. But giving rights holders the ability to directly pull the plug on content is a bad idea and providing no real avenue for dispute only makes it worse.

Filed Under: audio, copyright, direct access, dmca, fair use, music, removals, takedowns
Companies: soundcloud, universal music

Iran's Latest Aggressive Censorship Plan: Block All Audio & Video Files

from the seems-a-bit-excessive dept

It's no secret that the Iranian government has a bit of an uncomfortable relationship with the internet. First of all, it's trying to build its own internet, at which point it supposedly would like to block out that "other" internet completely. It's also pretty aggressive in censoring various sites it doesn't like. Over the past few days, it's apparently gone a step further. While there were plenty of reports about it blocking YouTube, someone who prefers to remain anonymous sent over this story, saying that Iran's Filtering Committee (IFC) has started blocking all kinds of audio-visual files, based on filetype:

Then, on October 4, 2012, the IFC began preventing files hosted on servers outside Iran from entering the country by blocking specific file extensions. At the time of writing, this policy applies to all MP3, MP4, AVI and SWF files. This kind of filtering was used after the controversial presidential elections of 2009, amidst harsh crackdowns on freedom of information, and coincides with Iran's current economic crisis and the ensuing protests.

Apparently, those blocks do not apply to those files hosted within the country -- just those from foreign sites. Still, that's a pretty extreme move: blocking all of those files takes away a significant part of the audio-visual part of the web. The article highlights a number of Iranians complaining on Twitter about how these blocks are having a severe negative impact on what they do. Still, it's yet another warning for what happens when a government can aggressively filter the internet in extreme ways.

Filed Under: audio, avi, blocks, censorship, iran, mp3, mp4, swf, video

UMG Watermarks Audiophile Files, Pisses Off Paying Customers

from the hisssssssssssssssss dept

Let's say, just for analogy's sake, you had a defense contractor that supplied weapons and ammunition to Earth's army. Let's say that army was going to war with the evil pod people from the planet Dah-Rull. And let's say that this defense contractor, named Universal Munitions Group, supplied the good guys with new bullet rounds that they promised would completely obliterate the Dah-Rull pod people and make everyone on Earth happy again.

Now let's say that when Earth's army confronted their enemy and fired their weapons...the bullets, instead of firing, simply blew up, taking the limbs of Earth's infantry with them. As a result, the pod people were free to take over the world. You'd be pretty pissed, wouldn't you? Unless you're a pod-person, I mean?

Yet that's about how effective Universal Music Group's latest attempt at watermarking is. You can read the fascinating exchange on the message board of Hydrogenaudio.com, but here's the skinny. A customer of Passionato, a site dedicated to bringing audiophiles high quality recordings of classical music, notices that he was getting an odd thrumming noise on his FLAC file of Tchaikovsky's 5th Symphony that he got from Passionato (the file was advertised as lossless), a noise that wasn't present on the file he got directly from UMG. There's some back and forth between helpful board members about some technical issues that could have been the problem, but eventually, after multiple users go and test files similarly, they arrive at the conclusion that it must be watermarking. It culminates with someone from Passionato showing up and indicating that the file received was faithfully translated from whatever UMG supplied the site, meaning that any sound artifacts would have been the result of UMG's file, not a technical issue resulting from compression or file extension switches. Basically, UMG watermarked files being distributed through their partners. Files which are being advertised as lossless recordings for audiophiles.

A couple of things were clear in that board exchange:

First, nice try, UMG, but this isn't going to accomplish what you want it to. You're talking about a dedicated group of audiophiles here. There were all manner of suggestions for nixing the watermarking, from pirating an un-watermarked file (keeping in mind that it was already purchased in what was supposed to be lossless format), to doing a cut and paste remixing of the file from a clean one to cut out the artifact. Either way, it can be done away with.

Second, these are your damned customers! Seriously, as ridiculous as my opening analogy was, this is equally stupid. Your watermarking is only pissing off paying customers. Now they have to, in addition to... you know... giving you money, go around and figure out a way to fix what you screwed up for them. And that's going to make them buy from you in the future? And that did what exactly to keep the files from being pirated elsewhere?

I can't believe I have to say this to an established company, but: UMG, customers are people, too. Stop screwing with people and sell the product as advertised, or you'll find you'll have no more customers left to piss off.

Filed Under: audio, audiophiles, customers, watermark
Companies: universal music

Michael Robertson Tempts Copyright Fate Yet Again With DAR.fm

from the power-of-the-possible dept

I used to joke that every company founded by Michael Robertson had a very simple "marketing plan": get sued by someone big. So many of his startups ended up in lawsuits with big names, which helped generate even more attention for them. But, of course, part of the reason for that is that he continually stretches the technology to do what it obviously can and should be able to do, well before the law (and legacy companies) adapt to handle such things. It's why many people have been pointing out that for all the hype around Apple's new "Music Match" service, it sounds remarkably like what Robertson did a decade ago with MP3.com.

Speaking of Robertson and lawsuits, Robertson's MP3tunes.com is still engaged in its big legal fight with EMI, which may help determine the legality of online music locker services, but Robertson clearly isn't waiting around for that. Built on top of MP3tunes.com, he's also launched DAR.fm, which is effectively an online DVR for all internet audio/radio. You can just set up what you want to record, and the site records it and stores it in an MP3tunes locker. At first I didn't think there was all that much interesting here -- the world already has podcasts, and did it really need a way to record online radio separately? However, things get a bit more interesting when you dig into the details, and you realize there's an interesting copyright situation... and a potential lawsuit waiting to happen.

As David Pogue pointed out in his review of DAR.fm, beyond just recording the shows, it has an interesting feature:

Actually, maybe this part is even better: Many radio stations transmit the names of the songs and bands they’re playing. DAR.fm captures that information and detects song breaks. In other words, if you record a day or so of a music station, you’ve suddenly got a tidy list of songs, identified (and sortable) by title or band. You can listen to individual songs, skip the turkeys and otherwise enjoy your totally free song collection. It’s crazy cool, like a hybrid of iTunes and satellite radio.

Of course, there have been desktop software products that have done the same thing for ages. But automatically dumping the mp3s into a music locker, which -- unlike the Google's and Amazon music locker that have launched recently -- actually lets you download the mp3s in your locker, is something the labels surely won't like. In fact, lots of folks are predicting that lawsuits are on the way:

Internet entrepreneur Michael Robertson has just launched his own economic stimulus program. He’s going to provide jobs for a lot of lawyers.

That’s because Robertson has created a new online service called DAR.fm, which delivers a new way to listen to Internet radio streams. DAR.fm is a digital recorder for audio streams, capturing your favorite Internet radio shows whenever they’re broadcast so you can listen to them later. It works, it’s wonderful, and it’s very possibly doomed, because the world’s leading music recording companies will probably come after it with every attorney they have.

But, here's the thing: does such a service actually infringe? It's pretty clearly established that basic time shifting, such as with a TiVo, is considered legal. Separately, with the Second Circuit's Cablevision ruling (and the Supreme Court's refusal to hear the appeal), many consider the idea of a remote DVR to now be legal as well.

What it really comes down to is that such a service has the potential to upset the record labels (and radio broadcasters as well), but that, by itself, shouldn't be illegal. Instead this is Robertson demonstrating, yet again, what the technology makes possible, even if it's disruptive to those who don't realize that the distinction between a stream and a download and local and remote storage is basically irrelevant in an era of widespread broadband connectivity. But, being disruptive and demonstrating the power of technology doesn't make you immune from lawsuits... and judges often aren't so savvy on these issues.

Filed Under: audio, dvr, internet radio, michael robertson
Companies: dar.fm, mp3tunes

YouTube Taking Feature Advice From XKCD

from the ok,-that's-just-awesome dept

While any open online forum has its share of trolls and poorly written comments, YouTube is infamous for having a quality level below pretty much everywhere else. The (absolutely worth reading) online comic strip, xkcd ran a strip recently joking about one possible "cure" for this: having a virus written that would read a YouTuber's comment outloud before requesting final approval to post it. The idea was that any sane person would recognize how idiotic their comments sounded: Apparently, the folks at YouTube/Google thought it was such a good idea that they've actually created just such a button. Of course, those who need to use it most probably won't do so. At least with the xkcd version, the virus forced people to listen to their comments.

Filed Under: audio, comments, features, xkcd
Companies: google, youtube

Audio Streaming: Probably Not What Your Mobile Carrier Had In Mind

from the so-much-for-that-unlimited-plan dept

Regardless of what you think of his ideas about net neutrality, Tim Wu is unequivocally right about one thing: Ziphone is downright magical. Thanks to it I've been in possession of an unlocked iPhone for the past few weeks, and I've been quite pleased with it. The variety of things this little gadget can do is truly amazing.

But for the mobile carriers the sensation it prompts is probably closer to worry. These newfound apps are bandwidth-hungry, and not only for WiFi packets. iPhone Bittorrent is a rather extreme example; EDGE-capable podcatchers are a more plausible threat. But perhaps most striking -- and therefore menacing -- is iRadio, a native application that brings Shoutcast-based streaming audio to the platform. It's easy to imagine a lot of users wanting this functionality and using it heavily, particularly given how often I forget that I've left it playing.

Of course, the percentage of jailbroken handsets isn't likely to ever get particularly high. But that won't be enough to stop these applications. For one thing, most observers think that the SDK -- which is expected to be announced today -- will allow developers access to both the phone's EDGE and WiFi capabilities. For another, streaming audio has already come to the platform without the need for any new code at all. FlyTunes offers a number of radio channels through an iPhone web interface; it works great. Similarly, WFMU offers a specialized domain for listening to the station on your mobile. More of these apps are almost certainly on the way.

It's true that this is just one device, but it's already setting a standard for what consumers expect from a smartphone -- and proving that users and savvy developers will use every bit of bandwidth they can get to. This demand will only grow as Android arrives and the carriers' grip on the mobile platform inevitably loosens. I'm hardly longing for the days of per-kilobyte data charges, but it seems likely that many carriers will soon be faced with choosing between a return to metering or a flood of customers upset by unexpected transfer caps on their allegedly-unlimited data plans.

Filed Under: audio, data plans, streaming, wireless