I've Been Deleted
-
I did - I got a slightly shirty email from them saying that I was a bad boy and that if I did it again, my blog would be deleted permanently. Took about four hours to respond, by the way. If it's your first offence, they should let you off with a warning. They'll delete the mp3 themselves.
I'm going to request a copy of the DMCA notice so I can follow up. I'm also writing an angry screed so I can vent my fury in the wilderness that is the Internet. -
It's been over 12 hours since I sent my first message to WP, so they're obviously taking their time today! It is my first offence so it shouldn't be a problem. The fact that I'm the second person (that we know of) to have this issue might make them sit up. Unfortunately.
Thanks a lot for the info - here's hoping they get moving on this soon! I think I'm just gonna delete the whole post actually - once they allow me to access my blog again properly, that is. I can't say I feel like having it sitting on my page any more. -
Aha, the Band of Horses track "Compliments" has been removed from the Hype Machine listings. Anthony?
-
I've been granted access by WP again. No shirty email though, logged in this morning and all was well again.
-
I asked Wordpress for the DMCA and they sent me it. The key bit is this:
4. Infringed Artist(s) : BAND OF HORSES
5. Infringed Title(s) : INFINITE ARMS (PIRATE UNRELEASED MATERIAL)
Errr....I didn't post Infinite Arms.
Anthony, have you had specific instructions to remove "Compliments" from the listings? -
Band of Horses' "Compliments" was never offered as a free MP3 download from their site; they did offer a downloadable M4V video of it, but it required registering for their mailing list in order to download it. With that in mind, it's easy to see how they viewed it as infringement, since not only was it "ripped" from their preferred format (video), but it also bypassed their widget-- thus skirting their requirement that people submit an email address in exchange for the download.
-
I specifically asked for an mp3 for my podcast from a PR guy who really likes us, and he couldn't do it, so I never ended up posting about it. I'm pretty relieved about that now.
-
Thanks catbirdseat; it's a bit of a funny way of doing business though. "Here's a free track, but you can only have it in this format, and sign up to stuff". This is the Internet - as soon as you release anything for free, it's out there, and it'll get distributed. Agreed that they could see it another way, but they've fundamentally misunderstood the Internet, and how it should be used to promote your band. And if I'd posted another track from the album, then fair enough, I'd have been an idiot, but this is a tune that was released for free.
I might contact Websheriff to ask for further clarification, but do you folk think that making more of an issue will be a bad idea?
In any case I will not be posting anything by them ever again. (he says pompously). -
Crap - I misunderstood that too. Honestly thought I downloaded that free from the website - couldn't remember by the time I got around to posting about it. Should've double checked I suppose but because 'Factory' was a free download I'd got just the day before, I assumed both were ok for posting. Very very strange that 'Compliments' is not ok to post, but 'Factory' is. I took them both down anyway.
Re: Loftandlost
"I asked Wordpress for the DMCA and they sent me it. The key bit is this:
4. Infringed Artist(s) : BAND OF HORSES
5. Infringed Title(s) : INFINITE ARMS (PIRATE UNRELEASED MATERIAL)
Errr....I didn't post Infinite Arms."
I didn't bother asking for the notice, but this seems weird to me. They must mean a part of Infinite Arms, but 'Compliments' isn't 'unreleased' as such - they put the song out there themselves. Granted it was in video form, but seriously, what did they expect? Of course as soon as they put it out there people would rip a copy of it. I'm not saying this gives us the right to post away at free will necessarily, but releasing it in video format and then jumping up and down when people rip it and pass it around... I mean surely they should've known this would happen? Either release one song to the public - free, with no strings - and leave it at that or don't bother, I reckon. -
Well, last night I posted this: http://loftandlost.com/2010/04/28/complaints/
And the Websheriff came and commented! Which, to be honest, I'm very pleased with. One thing I've noticed is the major disconnect with those who want to promote music and those who own the rights to it; having a communication channel other than "YOU HAVE TAKEN OUR PROPERTY AND YOU ARE GOING TO JAIL" is a positive step.
Oh, and Akismet (Wordpress.com's spam filter) blocked the Websheriff comment!
And Agnes, my thoughts exactly! 'Tis a bizarre situation. With my optimist hat on, I could say that maybe everyone will learn from this (and the Vampire Weekend and MGMT) incident and that tracks released by labels become much more free to use. -
Well at my most optimistic I'd say that it was big labels learning from the promotional tricks of small ones, just not quite understanding a couple of key points.
At my most cynical I might say something different however. -
@loft: yeah, I wrote about the BoH thing in my BoH post after the Web Sheriff thing and he commented positively on mine too. And yeah, he always get caught in my spam. lol. He actually wrote me back on our correspondence to tell me that it's there in the spam! hehehe..
-
It's "Rawkblog." We're back, yes. No more Russian techno for us!
-
Keep on "Rawkingblogging In The Free World"
-
@Tim Apparently not. I posted it as part of a mix. Sloppy work on my part.
-
-
Damn Tsuru Bro, you are like the "AP Breaking News" version of the music blogosphere!
-
Glaswegian.
Glazz-WEE-jan.
That is a bit of an issue, if Jason's down. Fucking hell. -
I thought it was Raw K. Blog?
-
Got a DMCA notification from blogger over the weekend regarding a 6 year-old post. Was sort of tired and didn't really care so here's my response to them:
Hello,
Just a heads up: I have no real interest in wasting my time with these sort of things but all mp3 links on mookamotel.blogspot.com have been inactive for over more than 3 years. If you're going to proceed eating down blog archives please try to do at least a one click research on the allegedly offending content before proceeding with this sort of DMCA nonsense. I like to visit my blog solely for nostalgic purposes, a warm belly sensation of simpler times, otherwise I'd have deleted it myself years ago... I know in the end, though, you're the real owners of my content, so feel free to burn the whole place down for all it's worth.
Thank you,
Moka
I honestly don't know what to expect them to respond... either be good sports and admit they were wrong and apologize or take my word and take down the whole thing. They obviously don't care and neither do I. Will let you know if they ever answer. -
Beautiful response Moka, perfect!!
Though, I wouldn't have been as polite and would have answered with just two words - FUCK OFF.
This is just another example showing how clueless and complete idiots these guys are. A six year old post with mp3's that have been inactive for 3 years. Basically a "dead' blog for years. There is no sense in what they are doing. And there is still an abundance of blogspot full album blogs out there. Obviously the situation is way out of control or better yet no control at all. This stuff is beyond ridiculous....
-
http://wyblog.us/blog/tech/first-use-of-website-kill-switch.html
though the names might not be frequently visited by many users here (I haven't heard of the the latter two until now), this is another interesting turn in the matter:
http://onsmash.com/
http://www.rapgodfathers.com/
http://dajaz1.com/
via @antiquiet - "In the case of OnSmash specifically, the labels themselves gave the site the song links which OS provided to the public."
sounds familiar, doesn't it? -
Yup, it not only sounds familiar but is exactly what happened with the past blog "Googlecide". Which, of course, is your point and a valid one at that.
Also, this latest ICE crackdown is very bad. The site Torrent-Finder was taken down. They only provided links not content. What is the difference between Torrent-Finder and the Google search engine? NOTHING! I would even argue that Google is way more powerful. So, why aren't they going after Google? Big money, big politics.
These Fuckers are out of control and it's only going to get worse. -
Which label is this? anybody knows? (probably def jam, wmg) type of stuff.
-
I'm currently hosting my site with NearlyFreeSpeech, which is cheap shared hosting (i.e. not very fast), but one thing they do have really good is their DMCA - fills me with confidence.
https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/help/dmca
https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/about/faq#DMCAResponse
"Notifications must clearly and specifically identify the exact copyrighted material that is being infringed. If you cannot clearly identify the copyrighted work being infringed, it is likely your claim involves another sort of intellectual property right and the DMCA process is not applicable. If your notification does not meet all the legal requirements, processing may be delayed until the requirements are met, or it may not be possible to process it at all"
"We adhere to the entire law very closely. We do not generally pull the plug on an entire site if, for example, someone claims that a single graphic is infringing. We do our best to remove only the content that the copyright owner specifically identifies as allegedly infringing."
Slow my site may be, but at least it won't be taken down for DMCA :) -
lol - http://deerhuntertheband.blogspot.com/2010/11/your-files-have-been-deleted.html
-
Sooner or later the entire internet will be fed up and pull the nuclear trigger on their ass online. It'll be amusing scene to see those labels have their server nuked by anonymous.
tho' personally, they deserve something more, like their entire corporate internal published online. And everybody finds out the crook that they are and start suing. that would be delicious.
hmmm... speaking of delicious...*run to the kitchen* -
Don't have a huge amount of sympathy for that one. In these times, it's pretty much a guarantee that will happen when you post major label stuff like Sony.
Anyways these major labels are going the way of the dinosaur, so really no need to nuke their servers. They will explode on their own. -
This looks real. And they do it without passing laws. sort of behind door agreement.
http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/06/23/isps.may.take.graduated.response.under.riaa.heat/
American Internet service providers were reported late Wednesday as near giving into pressure from the MPAA and RIAA into adopting a graduated response system to alleged piracy. AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and others are believed to be near deals that could be made public in July that would toughen responses with each successive discovery. The White House as well as the National Cable and Telecommunications Association were claimed by CNET to have helped broker the deal.
The approach would be less extreme than the French three-strikes law, where a court has the authority to ban a user from the Internet, but would follow a similar pattern. Those accused of infringing would first get written copyright alerts with follow-ups should they ignore the warnings. Eventually, an ISP would have to take one of several possible actions, including limiting users to the 200 most popular Internet sites, speed throttling, or a mandatory copyright 'education' program.
To offset the burden, copyright holders would share some of the expenses.
Such plans have drawn criticism and threatened legal action. Internet providers have usually resisted such measures and would risk losing their safe harbor principles, or the arguments that they can't be punished for acts committed on their networks without their clear knowledge. The system would theoretically invite the MPAA or RIAA to sue if they thought an ISP ignored an instance of piracy.
The approach also deliberately ignores the authenticity of the claims. Known instances have emerged of Internet users being falsely accused of piracy or other crimes, either because they ran unprotected Wi-Fi access points or because a child was downloading bootlegged material that had been kept secret. If the new proposal is true as-is, it wouldn't make a distinction between individual people using an account and wouldn't give them a recourse if they were genuinely innocent.
-
You use several different tools.
- to browse/search, you use one clean browser. (eg. opera/tor/no cookie/no flash/nothing) . separate all these from your normal browser.
- then after you find out the download links you use different tools to download. or use different site/method/software.
I mean if you are a total paranoid.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Discussions3,267
- General2,523
- Band Promotion217
- Blog Promotion259
- MP3 Blog Tips148
- MP3 Blog Tools120
- Private Messages0