Concerning the False Copyright Infringement Mess with the IFPI
I decided I should make a dedicated post that contains all of the information concerning this mess and a time-line of events therein. Here is a summary of what has happened:
Apparently the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) is on a crusade to rid Blogger of links to downloadable songs. On the 20th of September, 2010 I received notice that one of my posts was supposedly in violation of copyright law; they gave no other information about it, just that it was in violation of copyright law. To be careful I temporarily removed the links to the YouTube videos and the link to the album cover artwork before re-publishing it. Fast-forward to 9/28/2010 and I received a notice that seven more of my posts had been flagged. On 10/11/2010 I received another false accusation of copyright infringement concerning another one of my posts; I have added links to all of the flagged posts in the list at the bottom of this post.
After doing some digging I found a copy of one of the complaints that alleged that I provided download links to audio files. As I have stated on numerous occasions: all of the links to songs in my posts are to YouTube videos, except for a few that were on services like iLike.com or the now-defunct LaLa.com. On these sites that I link to, which are "view only" sites not offering downloads, the copyright holders are reimbursed for the use of their material through ad revenue, so THEY ARE GETTING PAID. Funny enough, forcing me to take down the links have actually deprived the copyright holders of money.
Never were any of the links in my posts directed to any downloadable sound files and nowhere did I ever instruct anyone to break copyright law. All the allegations that have been brought against my Song a Day blog are complete falsehoods and lies by an industry that is more focused on squeezing money from where ever they can than the product they are supposed to be creating. In actuality the IFPI have committed perjury due to their assertion that my site did, in fact, have links to downloadable files in their legal complaint:
My open letter to the IFPI and to whom else it concerns.
Here is a list of my posts that were flagged. None of these post ever contained any download links to a sound file, like what was alleged, just a link to a YouTube video with the song. In fact the videos that I linked to are still available for viewing on YouTube.
9/20/2010
Jethro Tull - My Sunday Feeling
9/28/2010
Neil Young - After The Gold Rush
+
Jethro Tull - Ring Out Solstice Bells
+
INXS - Disappear
+
Rush - Fly By Night
+
John Lennon - Instant Karma! (We All Shine On)
+
Rush - Caravan
+
Jethro Tull - Beggar's Farm
10/11/2010
Wilson Pickett - In the Midnight Hour
+
Apparently the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) is on a crusade to rid Blogger of links to downloadable songs. On the 20th of September, 2010 I received notice that one of my posts was supposedly in violation of copyright law; they gave no other information about it, just that it was in violation of copyright law. To be careful I temporarily removed the links to the YouTube videos and the link to the album cover artwork before re-publishing it. Fast-forward to 9/28/2010 and I received a notice that seven more of my posts had been flagged. On 10/11/2010 I received another false accusation of copyright infringement concerning another one of my posts; I have added links to all of the flagged posts in the list at the bottom of this post.
After doing some digging I found a copy of one of the complaints that alleged that I provided download links to audio files. As I have stated on numerous occasions: all of the links to songs in my posts are to YouTube videos, except for a few that were on services like iLike.com or the now-defunct LaLa.com. On these sites that I link to, which are "view only" sites not offering downloads, the copyright holders are reimbursed for the use of their material through ad revenue, so THEY ARE GETTING PAID. Funny enough, forcing me to take down the links have actually deprived the copyright holders of money.
Never were any of the links in my posts directed to any downloadable sound files and nowhere did I ever instruct anyone to break copyright law. All the allegations that have been brought against my Song a Day blog are complete falsehoods and lies by an industry that is more focused on squeezing money from where ever they can than the product they are supposed to be creating. In actuality the IFPI have committed perjury due to their assertion that my site did, in fact, have links to downloadable files in their legal complaint:
"Under penalty of perjury, we submit that we are authorized to act on behalf of the IFPI Represented Companies in matters involving the infringement of their sound recordings, including enforcing their copyrights and common law rights on the Internet.
We have learned that your service is hosting the above web sites on your network. These sites are offering direct links to files containing sound recordings for other users to download. The copyright in these sound recordings is owned or exclusively controlled by certain IFPI Represented Companies."
Here are copies of the complaints that were sent to Google; in these electronic documents it can be seen that the IFPI have perjured themselves by accusing my blog of providing links to downloadable files:
The First complaint that was sent to Google in which they falsely flagged one of my posts.
+
The Second complaint that was sent to Google in which they falsely flagged seven of my posts.
+
The Third complaint that was sent to Google where they falsely flagged one of my posts.
We have learned that your service is hosting the above web sites on your network. These sites are offering direct links to files containing sound recordings for other users to download. The copyright in these sound recordings is owned or exclusively controlled by certain IFPI Represented Companies."
Here are copies of the complaints that were sent to Google; in these electronic documents it can be seen that the IFPI have perjured themselves by accusing my blog of providing links to downloadable files:
The First complaint that was sent to Google in which they falsely flagged one of my posts.
+
The Second complaint that was sent to Google in which they falsely flagged seven of my posts.
+
The Third complaint that was sent to Google where they falsely flagged one of my posts.
My open letter to the IFPI and to whom else it concerns.
Here is a list of my posts that were flagged. None of these post ever contained any download links to a sound file, like what was alleged, just a link to a YouTube video with the song. In fact the videos that I linked to are still available for viewing on YouTube.
9/20/2010
Jethro Tull - My Sunday Feeling
9/28/2010
Neil Young - After The Gold Rush
+
Jethro Tull - Ring Out Solstice Bells
+
INXS - Disappear
+
Rush - Fly By Night
+
John Lennon - Instant Karma! (We All Shine On)
+
Rush - Caravan
+
Jethro Tull - Beggar's Farm
10/11/2010
Wilson Pickett - In the Midnight Hour
+
You know, something just struck me about this whole thing: Google owns YouTube. Why would they sanction you putting links to one of their own subsidiaries? Seems like a bit of research into the uses of YouTube links via YouTube's/Google's terms of service might be in order, and then shoot a strongly worded e-mail to Google HQ. Something's fishy here. Are they still demanding you take down the links?
ReplyDeleteThey are demanding it only on the videos that they have flagged; for instance I had one flagged this week.
ReplyDeleteI could probably fight them and win, but in my opinion it's just not worth the hassle. If their flagging on a post counted as a Terms of Use violation, then I definitely would. At least Google is being quite gracious through all of this. The problem is whenever Google receives one of these nastygrams they immediately hit the panic button and assume it is infringement just so they can protect themselves from legal action.
I really think that I am either dealing with a complete idiot working for the IFPI or a poorly written computer program. Since it would seem that the other song blogs haven't been hit, even the ones on blogger, I have to assume that there is something about my links that are getting their attention. So far since I have changed the wording of my links none of them have been taken down thus far. The only other logical assumptions I might make is that either my blog has gotten big enough to garner their attention or someone has it in for my blog.
When going over the complaint I found the countless other blogs flagged did, in fact, have links to actual downloadable files. However, since I have never linked to a downloadable file their assertion is a baldface lie and if it did go to court they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
I just really don't know if it would be worth it going to Google with this, it might end up doing harm than good. However, I do agree I should take some time to pour over Google's TOS.