Wordpress.com deleting music blogs?
  • I was just looking for a track earlier and discovered that Eclectic Eavesdropping (who admittedly, I'd never heard of until just now) had been deleted by Wordpress.com. The guy who runs the site said on his Facebook page - http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=119335231420468&v=wall - that what killed the blog was posting a couple of streams for some Adele songs. And he also mentioned it's the second time it's happened on three years - but I'm not sure whether both deletions were on Wordpress.



    Obviously there was that massive uproar last year when Google deleted a string of music blogs on Blogger but I hadn't heard about Wordpress deleting music blogs until today. The emphasis there being on "music" blogs. Is it a common occurence?

  • Distributing Mp3s without express permission is illegal, and that is exactly what most of us do. If people are getting after your host for it, they may scrap you. I've had a couple run ins with the internet police but since I'm selfhosted with wordpress.org it's to my hoster's advantage to keep me online($$). For this reason is makes sense that Wordpress.com and Blogger blogs are getting discontinued. It's not to Wordpress or Google's advantage to host something for free that is causing them legal trouble.
  • Well, posting MP3s is a gray area at the very least. There's obviously a lot of debate about the fair use doctrine and how it applies, but until that's tested in a court it's all hypothetical.

    I've heard of deletions on Wordpress.com before. Any service that doesn't involve self-hosting is going to be susceptible to deletions. There are very poor systems in place for responding to DMCA notices, and frankly most hosting providers are not going to risk legal action from the RIAA or IFPI by giving a blogger the benefit of the doubt. That's the honest, albeit unfortunate, reality.
  • @ Sean - The Fair Use Doctrine has been tested in court and is not "hypothetical" at all.


  • @nullity

    As I understand it, the Napster decision would not necessarily apply to an MP3 blog. The pertinent paragraph from Chilling Effects would actually be this one:

    The language used by Congress in Title 17, Section 107 specifically lists criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research as examples of uses that might be protected under fair use. However, this list is non-exhaustive, and therefore a use not covered in one of the categories could nonetheless be successfully defended as a fair use. Conversely, not every use that falls within the listed categories will necessarily be found by a court to be fair. For example, not every use of another's work for research or educational purposes will be held to be a fair use. See Encyclopaedia Britannica Educational Corp. v. Crooks, 542 F.Supp. 1156 (W.D.N.Y.1982).


    To the best of my knowledge, this has never been tested in court with relation to an MP3 blog. That's what I was referring to in my first comment. Since the Napster decision was handed down in 2001, the world has changed substantially. Major labels now court MP3 blogs and offer exclusive streams/downloads. A peer-to-peer network offers no commentary or criticism of the MP3 it is sharing, whereas a decent MP3 blog would (theoretically, obviously we know there are plenty out there that don't bother). This post on the Harvard Law blog is worth reading, and was published some time after the Napster decision ----> http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ugasser/2005/08/03/legal-outlook-for-mp3-blogs-revisited/

    Until a label or artist decides to take an MP3 blog to court, this will likely remain murky territory.
  • Once again, I stand lay curled in a fetal position, corrected.

  • David, I am pretty conflicted/annoyed by this question at the moment and my multiple hat situation might give me at least moral right to comment if not legal.

    A blog posting a couple of mp3s with a review is legally in violation of the law, since on any mp3 site you can purchase individual mp3s, which means that one free mp3 is preventing the label or band in question from making money from selling that mp3.  By itself, this is sensible enough.

    The thing is, most mp3s exist as fragments of a larger work, like an album or an EP, so if you want to criticise or commment upon that album, then fair use as Sean quotes above absolutely applies.  So when I am reviewing an album (or when another blogger reviews one of the albums we release) I see their right to post a portion of that album (i.e. roughly one, two or three songs) as being covered by fair use: the right to reproduce a part of a copyright work for the means of criticism or evaluation.

    The problem is that as far as I remember (disclaimer, disclaimer, etc etc..) there is a very specific clause in the fair use exemption which stipulates that fair use cases must not impact on the commercial viability of the product in question. 

    So if a song is treated as being part of an album, then a blog posting two songs without permission is perfectly legal, and protected by fair use.  But now that almost all songs can be purchased individually, if you post any song in its entirety, then you are impacting on the label or band in question's ability to sell that copyrighted work as a commercial product, and hence violating fair use (as I understand it).

    So the fact that individual songs exist both as a part of a larger work and simultaneously as a single copyrighted commercial entity rather muddies the water of fair use. But I do have to emphasise that I am not a lawyer, nor an expert, so please take my thoughts with a very large pinch of salt indeed.

    For the record, as an independent record label, I couldn't care less which songs someone might choose to post in order to review one of our albums.  As long as they don't post the whole thing then I am pretty much fine with it.
  • it's all muddied and gray
  • So this discussion went off in a different direction than I expected...I'll throw my thoughts into the mix anyway.

    I don't really consider posting copyrighted mp3s for download (without permission) as anything other than illegal myself - although I'm not entirely sure about fair use law in the UK, where I reside.

    The streaming issue is something that I find it more of a grey area. Labels however seem to see streaming links as just as "damaging" as download links. Maybe there'll eventually be some sort of paid for licence to allow music bloggers to post streams of tracks.
  • I should point out that I'm not sure I agree that MP3 blogs would qualify as fair use, it's just that some people that study law and/or have law degrees seem to think they might be.
  • mp3 blogs legal? mp3 blogs fair use? wish we could ask this guy....


    image
  • saamFG said:


    The streaming issue is something that I find it more of a grey area. Labels however seem to see streaming links as just as "damaging" as download links. Maybe there'll eventually be some sort of paid for licence to allow music bloggers to post streams of tracks.



    Yeah, why is this?  I would think that if I owned a label/was an artist I'd be much more inclined to have my songs available for streaming.  How is hosting an mp3 file for listening purposes any different than the song being played on the radio?  (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the royalties from music played on commercial/independent radio goes to the publishing companies, not the labels and artists.)  So a band might be pysched to have their song on XMU, but if it shows up on a blog without a download link it's a bad thing?  
    I know there are those people who can go into the code and extract/download the mp3 even on a streaming player.  But I'd imagine the percentage of people who take the time to do that are negligible.   When talking about album-exclusive tracks I can kind of understand, but when the song is a single: what's the fuss?  Streaming seems more or less like the answer to the problem.
  • at this point, it's really academic.

    satellite radio will bankrupt soon, same with large radio network. So there won't be any other channel to push music. (clear channel just issued $1B new debt.) glossy magazines will all die now.

    at the same time, big box store will shut down CD section soon, as double dip hit full force. All suburban and smaller cities in america will die.

    On the other hand, distributing mp3 online will be easier (provided fiber optic/internet don't collapse )

    all in all, big economic crash is now not a question of if, but when and how big. This will kill a lot of discretionary businesses, including music industry.  I wonder how many indie labels will survive (this is the most pressing question.)

    The double dip will be worst than nuclear winter, economically speaking.
  • Merz, less than 5 years from now, you will be organizing country wide riot from this very spot if things keep going the same trajectory.

    The Italian already pays $8/gallon, huge swat of US will starve if gas goes that high.
  • Merz - Daavid

    Yeah, with that Libya shit going down, it does look like we are heading back in time to the 70s oil/gas crisis.  With unemployment as it is and a record number of home foreclosures/people living on the streets or in their cars - it will be the end of millions of people (me included).  Can't disagree, it does fucking suck.
  • Libya is small potatoes compared to Saudi Arabia. Wait till they see these kinds of protests/revolts. 20% of the world's oil reserves! Just imagine what that will do to gas prices.
  • squashed has already and extensively covered saudi arabia.....


    image
  • Sean R said:

    Libya is small potatoes compared to Saudi Arabia. Wait till they see these kinds of protests/revolts. 20% of the world's oil reserves! Just imagine what that will do to gas prices.




    Overall, yes. But Libya supplies is concentrated in Europe, particularly Italy. And Italian economy is a basket case. And the entire european economy is still not recovering from '08 crisis.

    One reason nobody can't react against Libya is that they own huge stash of property in the market, I am willing to bet the mini crash yesterday was the Libyan moving around their money.

    Then there is the contagion effect. after libya is Algeria, right next to it. That country is bigger oil producer than Libya and already having riot problem. So now you have Libya and Algeria. That's nearly 2 million barrel a day before the big show even begin in the gulf. (kuwait, bahrain, Iraq, Iran, Saudi.)

    And we have one of the most corrupt and incompetent secretary of state since the revolution. She won't have a clue what hit her and will flail around. Eaten alive by event.

    And another thing, no one knows what becomes of all those libyan weapons. It's surface to air missile galore for everybody.

     
  • U.S. oil soars as high as $100 on Libya unrest

    Yup, it's what's called the "contagion effect" or "ripple effect"
  • Well, the nuclear question is one reason why I doubt the US is going to do a whole lot other than wag a finger at Gaddafi. The Italian thing is interesting, as Berlusconi was one of Gaddafi's buddies (as was Sarcozy and Putin).
  • whatever it is, we are living in one of the most amazing time in history. It's one of those "hmm, I can see where all these is going" type of event. Not in precise detail maybe, but the general direction is highly predictable. This will change global geopolitical landscape permanently. It will at least destroy the US dollar as global reserve status, if not US economy itself.

    not nuclear, libya doesn't have nuclear. but short range portable missiles.  Of course Gadaffi was european buddy, he was the only oil source left that US has no control, due to long Reagan-Pan Am bombing boycott.

    As for Russia, the entire north africa was in soviet sphere, due to UK/Italy colonial era backlash. (Yes, the allies are the bad guys there.)
  • Gaddafi has had a nuclear program for a long time. He said they'd abandon it, but he changed his mind (big surprise). No inspectors have been in there for at least 5 years, so who knows what he has. Last time they were there, they confirmed the program. They also had a massive stockpile of chemical weapons. The guy has had 40 years to do whatever he wanted, so who knows what's there.
  • He bought nuclear kit from north korea, the idea is to use it to bargain off the general embargo resulting from pan am bombing. Who knows if the kit is actually fully functioning or if Libya is capable of producing complete line. There never was a report.

    Libya is only 6 million in size with no strong science and industrial base. Unlike North Korea who has fairly large industrial base. North Korea is the smallest country to have nuclear program, with heavy help from china and russia. population 24m vs. Libya's 6m.

    the chemical and biological weapon are US report. Nobody takes that seriously except in connection with US wanting to liberate some oil. the end of embargo was based on complete UN inspection. When it comes to Libya, US credibility is completely damaged. No one in the world can hold a chuckle when a US president says he cares about "Libyan people"/freedom.  That's why current administration can't say much, without the entire region suspect this or that scheme. Not to mention Libyans are the only country who ever retaliate against US aggression successfully post vietnam.

    anybody even remember what was Reagan excuse to bomb libya that result in locherbee bombing retaliation? me neither....
  • CONFRONTATION: 1970 - 86




    The US severed all diplomatic relations with Libya in
    1980, branding Col Gaddafi's government a sponsor of terrorism. Months
    earlier, the US embassy in Tripoli was ransacked by people demonstrating
    in support of the Iranian revolution.


    The move capped a decade of steady deterioration in US-Libyan relations.


    Since seizing power in 1970, Col Gadaffi had pursued Arab
    nationalist policies. Resources were brought under state control and
    alliances forged with nearby Arab nations.


    Col Gaddafi also expelled US oil firms that had invested in the country and banned US military vessels from Libyan waters.


    In 1981, two Libyan fighter aircraft were shot down by
    the US over the Gulf of Sirte. Libya said US jets had violated its
    airspace.


    In 1986, the US tightened its economic sanctions against
    Tripoli, freezing Libyan assets in US banks. A naval clash with US
    forces in the Gulf of Sirte left 58 Libyans dead, according to Tripoli.




    HOSTILITY: 1986 - 99







    On 15 April 1986, US President Ronald Reagan ordered his
    aircraft to bomb Tripoli, the town of Benghazi and bases used by the
    Libyan military.


    At least 100 people died in the attacks, many of them civilians - including Col Gaddafi's adopted daughter.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4774355.stm

    I still can't find what was the basic scenario of gulf of sidra clash in 80's


    ----------------

    Gulf of Sidra


    In 1973, Libya claimed the Gulf of Sidra to be within Libyan
    territorial waters by drawing a straight line between a point near
    Benghazi and the western headland of the gulf at Misratah This claim
    was not generally accepted, although only the United States presented a
    direct challenge by declaring that its ships would continue to regard
    all areas beyond a distance of 12 nautical miles from the coast as
    international waters. In response the President authorized Naval
    exercises in the Gulf of Sidra to conduct Freedom of Navigation (FON)
    operations. On several occasions, Libyan fighter planes harassed United
    States planes from carriers maneuvering in the area.

    When the United States Sixth Fleet began exercises in August
    1981, Libyan fighter planes were assembled from elsewhere in the country
    to fly patrols near the American ships. On August 19, two Su-22
    fighter-bombers were intercepted by two F-14 Tomcat fighters from the
    aircraft carrier Nimitz. While trying to escort the Libyans out of the
    exercise area, one of the American planes was the target of an
    air-to-air Atoll missile but was able to evade it. Both Libyan planes
    were then shot down with Sidewinder missiles launched by the Tomcats.
    The two Libyan pilots managed to eject and were rescued from the sea.
    The ease with which the American planes disposed of their attackers
    demonstrated that the earlier generation Su-22 and its Atoll missile
    could not prevail against more sophisticated United States equipment.

  • We've kind of derailed this entire thread, but the chemical weapons were confirmed by UN and international inspectors, not the US. 


  • Sean R said:

    We've kind of derailed this entire thread, but the chemical weapons were confirmed by UN and international inspectors, not the US. 





    Yes, they had chemical weapon. But under 2003 agreement, UN entered and did whatever they suppose to do.

    http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20110223_8953.php

    What I was trying to say, it is not possible for US at this moment to use biochem weapon as an excuse for military intervention in Libya. Nobody is buying it. (I know what you mean, preventing death, etc. But nobody is buying it. And it seems Obama advisers get this part and ask Germany to send patrol boat instead.)

    US military intervention in Libya will inflame the entire region for sure, making it worst than already is. On top of that, how do you suppose the troop knows who is pro-Gadaffi and who is anti Gadaffi? One wrong bomb and it's over. The situation is too fluid. And last, Libya is a very ancient place, it's a classic dessert battlefield, everybody has been doing war since before the roman. We are talking about Rommel and Saladin here, If Afghanistan is a place where empire goes to die, north africa is a place where empire bleeds from fast laceration.  It's no man's land all the way to chad and Sudan. the Sahara. Open desert cavalry war. See map, the open area is bigger than Iraq or afghanistan combined.

    North africa campaign. Rommel whopped montgomery's ass.


  • wtf happened to this thread?

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!