Open Letter To The Person(s) Who Filed a Copyright Infringement and to Any Readers it might Concern:
Today I received notice that a blog post, number 100 to be exact, allegedly infringed upon someone's copyright. I have not been given any other information other than just that. What is odd here is that no one Else's actual "intellectual property" is even on my blog; I am unsure as to what it is referring to because everything in the post was either written by me, therefore my intellectual property, or is linked to another website. I am assuming that they are either mad about my links to the YouTube video with the song, (which belongs to someone Else's Google YouTube account), or perhaps the album artwork, which was hosted by another website. SINCE NO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY NOT BELONGING TO ME EXISTS IN THE POST IN QUESTION OR ON MY BLOGGER ACCOUNT, I fully intend to file a counter-claim. Whatever the case I have decided to temporarily removed the links to the song on YouTube from the post in question.
To these copyright holders: I hope some day you wake up and stop your harassment of law-abiding fans of your art. We are the ones who pay your bills and have paid for your posh abode and quite frankly your greed has gotten out of hand.
It is really sad that you record companies have become so heavy handed and greedy that you would attack a blog that actually contains no actual copyrighted content. Where was your over-inflated sense of right and wrong when you misled artists into signing bogus contracts and laughed all the way to the bank? Where was it when you milk long deceased artists' back catalogues and tell us to support the artist so they can make new material? Yeah right! I hope your greed consumes you.
It's not the fan's fault that that you have an outdated business model. You like to squeeze every penny at any potential opportunity and blame the "evil infringers" and pirates as the reason for your utter failure. Copying and sharing of music is not a new thing that just happened to pop up in the last 15 years like you have asserted; it has been going on ever since the availability of consumer level recording equipment. The sad truth that you are ignoring is that most kids and teens have found other places to spend their money: video games. Another nasty fact is that most adults have already upgraded their music library to CDs a long time ago, and guess what? The successor to CDs is digital copy (mp3s and such), which is taken off of what medium? That's right, CDs! No one has to re-buy anything to put the music on their iPods! As for those new artists' music, that is a tired subject; all I will say is that the good ones are few and far between. Personally, I find most of the old artists newer albums' to be complete rubbish; if they would have released their albums from the last 15 or so years back when they were breaking out they would all be working the last 20-40+ years at the corner Kwikie Mart. Anyway, enough of my rant about the industry; I have made my point of view apparent throughout many of my posts.
The problem that I have here is that I have over 1100 other posts where I have posted in the same way as the post in question; with the same YouTube links and linked album art. So if they are starting to be this draconian, (or stupid), it's merely a matter of time before my blogger account might be suspended and my blog taken down.
The bottom line here is that I have been at this blog for over three years and 1127 songs picked and I am not stopping anytime soon. At 1127 X 15 minutes, (the average time to make a post), that would be about 12 days of my life dedicated to it, it would be a shame if these stupid, greedy a-holes cause my blog to be taken down. If they do I plan to just create another account and pick up where I left off.
*Continuation*
I was falsely flagged again.
Whoever you are that is flagging my posts under copyright infringement, I do not host songs or videos on this blog. One of those seven posts did not even have a link to a video on YouTube, so what are you getting at? You can't even talk about music anymore without your righteous crusade coming down on us consumers of your product?
I believe that I might be dealing with a computer programme here that scans Blogger for certain things online and automatically flags matches.
It's really quite sad when you can't talk about a song on the internet anymore without the copyright Nazis coming unglued. You know, this is making it very difficult to continue being a consumer of music....
I have, for the time being, turned off the "Let Search Engines Find Your Blog" to maybe keep under the radar whilst they are on their crusade.
*UPDATE* I have closely read what Google has sent me in an email; it seems all they will apparently do is put a post into draft form; I only get in trouble if I re-post it without editing it. In other words they made maintaining my blog a little bit more of a hassle, oh joy. So, I guess I shouldn't need to take any measures.
After some digging I found a copy of the actual complaint about the posts. What really gets me is that they claim: "These sites are offering direct links to files containing sound recordings[sic] for other users to download." which is a complete lie; while the links are to sound recordings, they are not direct download links. If you click on them you are taken to a YouTube video that you are able to listen to it. Now, I know you can download off of YouTube, but the service itself is actually a view only service when use as intended. Nowhere ever have I instructed anyone to illegally download a song, given a link to a direct download or instructed someone to break copyright law or broken a copyright law myself. In essence the IFPI has made wild, and completely false accusations against my site. If this is the way that they conduct themselves in business then I don't know if I will continue to do any business with the music industry in the future. Thanks for all but removing the modicum of respect and faith I had in your industry.
Here is a post where I have chronicled this ongoing issue with IFPI.
+
To these copyright holders: I hope some day you wake up and stop your harassment of law-abiding fans of your art. We are the ones who pay your bills and have paid for your posh abode and quite frankly your greed has gotten out of hand.
It is really sad that you record companies have become so heavy handed and greedy that you would attack a blog that actually contains no actual copyrighted content. Where was your over-inflated sense of right and wrong when you misled artists into signing bogus contracts and laughed all the way to the bank? Where was it when you milk long deceased artists' back catalogues and tell us to support the artist so they can make new material? Yeah right! I hope your greed consumes you.
It's not the fan's fault that that you have an outdated business model. You like to squeeze every penny at any potential opportunity and blame the "evil infringers" and pirates as the reason for your utter failure. Copying and sharing of music is not a new thing that just happened to pop up in the last 15 years like you have asserted; it has been going on ever since the availability of consumer level recording equipment. The sad truth that you are ignoring is that most kids and teens have found other places to spend their money: video games. Another nasty fact is that most adults have already upgraded their music library to CDs a long time ago, and guess what? The successor to CDs is digital copy (mp3s and such), which is taken off of what medium? That's right, CDs! No one has to re-buy anything to put the music on their iPods! As for those new artists' music, that is a tired subject; all I will say is that the good ones are few and far between. Personally, I find most of the old artists newer albums' to be complete rubbish; if they would have released their albums from the last 15 or so years back when they were breaking out they would all be working the last 20-40+ years at the corner Kwikie Mart. Anyway, enough of my rant about the industry; I have made my point of view apparent throughout many of my posts.
The problem that I have here is that I have over 1100 other posts where I have posted in the same way as the post in question; with the same YouTube links and linked album art. So if they are starting to be this draconian, (or stupid), it's merely a matter of time before my blogger account might be suspended and my blog taken down.
The bottom line here is that I have been at this blog for over three years and 1127 songs picked and I am not stopping anytime soon. At 1127 X 15 minutes, (the average time to make a post), that would be about 12 days of my life dedicated to it, it would be a shame if these stupid, greedy a-holes cause my blog to be taken down. If they do I plan to just create another account and pick up where I left off.
*Continuation*
I was falsely flagged again.
Whoever you are that is flagging my posts under copyright infringement, I do not host songs or videos on this blog. One of those seven posts did not even have a link to a video on YouTube, so what are you getting at? You can't even talk about music anymore without your righteous crusade coming down on us consumers of your product?
I believe that I might be dealing with a computer programme here that scans Blogger for certain things online and automatically flags matches.
It's really quite sad when you can't talk about a song on the internet anymore without the copyright Nazis coming unglued. You know, this is making it very difficult to continue being a consumer of music....
I have, for the time being, turned off the "Let Search Engines Find Your Blog" to maybe keep under the radar whilst they are on their crusade.
*UPDATE* I have closely read what Google has sent me in an email; it seems all they will apparently do is put a post into draft form; I only get in trouble if I re-post it without editing it. In other words they made maintaining my blog a little bit more of a hassle, oh joy. So, I guess I shouldn't need to take any measures.
After some digging I found a copy of the actual complaint about the posts. What really gets me is that they claim: "These sites are offering direct links to files containing sound recordings[sic] for other users to download." which is a complete lie; while the links are to sound recordings, they are not direct download links. If you click on them you are taken to a YouTube video that you are able to listen to it. Now, I know you can download off of YouTube, but the service itself is actually a view only service when use as intended. Nowhere ever have I instructed anyone to illegally download a song, given a link to a direct download or instructed someone to break copyright law or broken a copyright law myself. In essence the IFPI has made wild, and completely false accusations against my site. If this is the way that they conduct themselves in business then I don't know if I will continue to do any business with the music industry in the future. Thanks for all but removing the modicum of respect and faith I had in your industry.
Here is a post where I have chronicled this ongoing issue with IFPI.
+
To Whom it May Concern-
ReplyDeleteI represent the Fox Broadcasting company. I am hereby issuing a cease-and-desist order over your unauthorized use of the term "Kwikie Mart." We feel it is much too similar to the term "Kwik-E-Mart", a registered trademark of our company. Please remove all instances of this and other such material immediately. Failure to comply will compel us to seek further legal action.
Thank you for your attention.
------
In all seriousness, I can't help but think that what really gets under the skin of these record companies is that the Internet has effectively taken away their ability to make money on our disappointment. In the past, if you wanted to hear an album in its entirety, what could you do? Either buy or borrow it. If no one you knew had it, you were forced to fork over the cash for a copy of your own. If you ended up hating it, you were SOL. And the record company didn't care because they'd pocketed your money already.
Now it's pretty easy for us to listen to an album first before dropping a single cent. The Internet lets us become much more informed music consumers - and the companies hate it. So instead of trying to create a product worth paying for and actually owning, they do shit like this.
I heard Dream Theater's Black Clouds and Silver Linings in its entirety on YouTube during a work day. I liked it so much I picked up the 3-disc set THAT EVENING. Holy crap, guys, that was a kick-ass record. Here. I WANT to give you my money. I think your product is worth it.
Having the record company poochscrew those YouTube posts might very well have cost them that sale.
But anyway, yeah, I reckon you've already backed up all your posts (you must have some sort of export feature). I have a hard time believing they can legally force you to take your blog down, but then again, I'm no lawyer...
Max
LOL, very true. Yeah, I am looking into backing up my blog posts just in case.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that Google will always hit the panic button any time anyone files one of these complaints and immediately remove what ever the offending item is even if it is later found to be a false claim. I don't know how many "strikes" an account gets before it gets suspended; that is why I'm intending to file a counter-complaint. I guess we will see what we will see.
I just read an article in a search engine optimization newsletter I subscribe to that said that there was actually some sort of legal dispute going on in regards to linking. There's a Wikipedia article on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act#Linking_to_infringing_content
ReplyDeleteThat apparently says that if the content you're linking to infringes on the copyright, then you technically could be held accountable for also infringing on the copyright. In the case of many YouTube videos, the songs are, sorry to say - I don't agree with it - infringing on copyright. You can tape songs from content on the Internet pretty much all you want to (so long as it's only for you and the sound is "degraded" a bit, as it would be if you taped from a radio broadcast; and the sound almost always is degraded: try to maintain all the nuances of professional mastering using a standard computer's comsumer sound card. It's not possible)... but the moment you "distribute" it, you're probably gonna get a "cease and desist" notice either from your web host or from some corporate a-hole who wouldn't understand art if it bit him/her on the ass. What these corporate types are doing is claiming that linking to content they "own" infringes on their sole copyright to distribute it. Unfortunately, technically, that's the way the law reads.
Setting aside for a moment the FACT that, if it weren't for fans spreading the word about artists, songs, and music in general (ESPECIALLY in the age of the Internet, where we're literally deluged with crap daily), no one along the chain of the music "business" would make one red cent, this crap goes on daily to people like you and me. A few years ago, I posted a home video of my band performing two Van Morrison songs at a bar. First, some corporate Nazi one-starred the videos (haha... so what), and then I got "cease and desist" letters from Morrison's management company. YouTube yanked the videos before I could respond.
Think about this: the bar where the band performed the songs pays both ASCAP and BMI fees every year so that cover bands can perform songs in their establishment. So, Morrison got paid, and, I would assume, so did his management company, assuming he pays his bills. I wasn't making any money on the video, and, ultimately, after I pointed this out to their management company, I got permission to post the videos (so long as I put in a caveat that I had permission) but why would I ever promote Van Morrison again?
Copyrights, like everything else, has been skewed by corporate dickweeds toward profit margins. Copyrights were intended to keep people from making money on other people's work and/or claiming it as their own. While it still serves that purpose, in the end, there isn't much you can do about the money-grubbing companies. Look what insurance companies do to the sick.
@C. Anne Morgan:
ReplyDeleteIf that's true, they are taking their Haussier Scheiße train to a whole new level of absurdity. You would think that they would go after the videos on YouTube, but the one I linked to are all still up and running. They are going to really keep eroding away all of their fanbases until there isn't one left. The problem is that most of us music connoisseurs are not the focus of marketing by the record company. One aspect of this that is not even thought of is the lesser-known acts that have been forgotten. For instance I have been wanting to pick a track from Lobo, who was a '70s Folk/Pop artist. The problem is that his music belongs to the WMG catalogue and thus hardly has any songs on sites like YouTube. So, because of this he will be essentially forever stuck where he is at.
The hypocrisy of the industry just pisses me off; how many artists have been literally screwed over time and time again by the industry and yet they always say: "Support the Artist." If I remember right out of a $1 song purchased on iTunes, I believe it was less than 3¢ that transaction the songwriter received, that's not counting the musicians who get even less.
The record companies have been trying many other ways to get their profits up. I know in the last 10-15 years I have heard more artist's music being used in commercials, movies, and video games, which would have meant death to a band's career back prior to the '90s; they would be labeled as sellouts.
I think that a lot of us are just too naïve at times when we think that the industry is failing. When and when one of the Big Four, (EMI, SONY, WMG, UMG), were to falter one of the other three would be there to snatch it up. At this point, at least last time I checked, EMI was was the least solvent and WMG was the most. What I personally see happening is that it will eventually come down to two companies "competing." You think the industry sucks now, just wait until then; it's going to get worse before it might become better.
You hit the nail on the head. That's the problem with media convergence. Twenty-five years ago, there were about 30 companies that distributed mainstream content (music, TV, movies, newspapers, books, magazines). Today, there are seven. I made a whole video about it for a media literacy class at Gonzaga, and, ironically for this conversation, posted it on YouTube.
ReplyDeleteThe FCC re-regulations that occurred in 1996 essentially eliminated the "Fairness Doctrine" and the 12-12-12 rule (prior to 1986, it was the 7-7-7 rule) that allowed one owner to only only seven (later, 12) of any kind of media outlet in any given market. the 1996 law states that the content can't reach more than just over 36% of the population. What with cable and television content (alone) having an 85% market penetration, it would seem that the 36% "rule" is moot. Anyway, this deregulation that allowed an owner to have more outlets was "supposed" to create market competion. it did the opposite. It created a marketplace controlled by the biggest corporations who could now buy out the little guys.
So, what happens when one company eventually controls all content? We only get one view, a dictatorship of the airwaves. There will be no diversity of voices in the marketplace.
It's really no wonder that most musicians are going indie. They've been screwed over for years so that corporate fat cats could make money off of art they don't understand.
Well written. My blog was slapped with the same bogus Copyright infringement claim. It looks like I was linking to two "un-licensed" YouTube videos. I'm now linking to an official artist video from the artist's own YouTube channel. The video's "embed" feature is not disabled so hopefully there won't be any issue going forward. So frustrating!
ReplyDelete@Jamie. Thanks a lot for the info, while it is not cool what they did to your blog it's nice to know that I'm not being targeted alone. What I find weird is that the videos that I linked to are still up on YouTube; you would think that they would want the videos themselves down rather than a link to them.
ReplyDeleteThanks again for your comment!