12.Feb.2010 The Great Copyright Fight of 2010 Continues

In the past couple days, the Great Copyright Fight of 2010 has really exploded in the news.  You may have seen it referred to as Musicblogocide 2010, but I like my name better.  That’s just me.

I wish I could give you an update, but I have yet to hear anything from the IFPI or Google.  Their official stance is that I should file a counter claim.  Hmm…file a counter claim and wait 3 months for it all to get sorted out and risk a court fight and maybe get my old site back, or…accept the absurdity of the situation.  And make no mistake, this whole thing is absurd.  Of all the claims filed against me in the past year, each and every one of them were for tracks provided by the record label with permission to use that track for promotional purposes.

The latest claim, the one which may have ultimately led to the deletion of the original I Rock Cleveland on blogger, may have been this one.  You have to search a bit for it — it’s in there with hundreds of other claims simultaneously filed by the IFPI, but it’s in there.  The absurdity of this claim, and again this is absurd, is that once again it was for a label supplied track (This time Mute Records) and the link in question is more than two years old.  Now, regular visitors know that I routinely rotate the mp3s on this site in an effort to control bandwidth.  Typically, any mp3 link is only active for one month, two months at most.  Consequently, the claim which led to my deletion was for an mp3 which had been removed from my server two years ago!

If at this point you’re drawing the conclusion that neither the IFPI nor google know exactly what they’re doing in these matters, you’re not alone.  If at any point during the DMCA claim process a human being had clicked on the link and looked for the infringing content they wouldn’t have found an mp3, but a 404 with the message, “Sorry, dude. The rockin’ has stopped. Please be aware that downloads from I Rock Cleveland are only available for a limited time. You can find more Rock ‘N’ Roll at I Rock Cleveland.”  Not only is the IFPI’s piracy bot not sophisticated enough to distinguish between approved and non-approved content, it’s not smart enough to validate the links it has flagged as containing pirated material.

Personally, I’m about ready to put this all behind me and move on with this new site.  Come Monday, you’ll see no further mentions of IFPI, DMCA, google, or any of that business.  Come Monday, we’ll be back in the business of talking about music.

Hopefully, something good will come out of this.  Hopefully, we — the bloggers, pr firms, labels, artists, trade groups, and hosts — can all get on the same page and set up procedures whereby trusted sites and pre-approved promo tracks are removed from the IFPI’s piracy bot;  A system where bloggers who maintain good working relationships with the labels and artists can avoid going through all the hassles I’ve gone through in the past few days.  And hopefully, the IFPI fires the guy who wrote  that sh*tty code.  If there’s one person I blame for this fiasco, it’s him.

Comment Pages

There are 9 Comments to "The Great Copyright Fight of 2010 Continues"

  • brucini says:

    thanks for the update.
    freakin crazy situation indeed.
    pleased I Rock Cleveland is still out there and doing what it does best

  • Pablo says:

    Crazy situation, I wouldn´t so much blame IFPI this time but put the blame on google. That they do not check the complains. That they do not follow the rules by informing the blog in question of the exact problem. When Amazon removed the book 1984 from Kindles the whole world criticized them. Now when google does something like this, nobody really cares?

  • Bill Lipold says:

    Dumb Labels, Laws (Not Google) To Blame for Music Blog Deletions

    Eliot van Buskirk of Wired did an excellent job describing the whole situation at the preceding link.

    One of the questions which always seems to come up is why didn’t I file a counter claim as google instructed?

    Part of the reason was that as of the fall of 2009 google/blogger appeared to be taking a more nuanced stance towards DMCA infractions. Instead of deleting posts and/or blogs outright, they’d move the infringing content back to draft status where one could make the necessary edits and re-publish.

    Even in my case, where I was very much confident I wasn’t an infringer, this seemed harmless enough. Since, as you know I routinely rotate the mp3 links anyway. And if the link in question was already dead, as was the case more than once, then I hardly cared at all.

    Additionally, as google themselves have noted, the process is far more easier for someone to file a claim than for someone to counter. As the current process stands, pen, paper and postage are needed to file a counter. Absurd for 2010.

    Also to be considered is that the wording of the law seemed to indicate that the act of countering a claim could result in legal action should the claimant decide to re-affirm their rights. Who here would like to take their chances against a music industry lawyer?

    Lastly, despite google’s assertion that I was warned about being a “repeat infringer” there was no indication that I was sitting on a time bomb. Had I known that the situation was one more strike and I’m gone, then, yes, certainly I would have taken all of those old claims, all of those claims where I did have rights, and start the counter claim process.

    As for blame, well, read the Wired article, and you’ll see that all of us — the labels, the IFPI, the laws, myself, and yes, google, could have taken actions to avoid this situation.

  • Frank C says:

    I think this whole copyright situation will get worse before it gets better. It seems like something could be worked out where it would be like radio stations playing music with a reasonable royalty schedule and so forth. But then the big record execs who’ve never played a note of music themselves wouldn’t be about to throw million dollar sweet sixteen parties for the wannabe starlet brats.

    Anyway, congrats on the new site. Media Temple is a good place to host a higher bandwidth site so you’ve made a good choice there.

  • brice says:

    you’re not doing anything wrong, fuck the haters and move on with your head held high.

  • Kyra says:

    Just one little thing: Don’t be too mad at the person who wrote the sh*tty code. As a developer myself, I cannot tell you how many times I’ve said “This is a bad idea, and this is why” only to get over-ruled by the manager/CEO/etc above me who think they know better than I do about these sort of things.

    If a client (be it your boss or whomever you’re contracting with at the moment) demands something despite you pointing out the stupid, you grit your teeth and do it anyway because in most cases, you need your job / the money. It’s possible this was a case of a bad developer — but it’s also possible it was a case of a developer just doing what they were told.

  • Bill Lipold says:

    Very good point, Kyra.

    My other job is a database developer, and like you, I’ve had to write many, many procedures I didn’t necessarily agree with — procedures which I ultimately had no power in stopping or altering.

    If I was writing anti-piracy code I’d at least check to see if the material in question could be pirated, i.e., the links linked to what I thought they linked to. I’d also be interested if the pirate in question had a legal claim to the material. For the person who designed the code in this case, that may or may not have been a concern.

    So, sh*tty IFPI code person, you may or may not be off the hook, but, your boss on the other hand, well…

  • Charles says:

    Wow, what an awful mess. Pretty alarming too since I just started my own music blog. It’s pretty crappy that you can get into a situation like that when you’re trying to be responsible and help the artists. I never wanted to run one of those “Here’s the the Rapidshare link, educational purposes only, wink wink” kind of blogs, and it looks like you have similar feelings, but apparently you don’t have to do that to get zapped. You’ve taken it with a lot of grace, considering. Keep up the good work and good luck, to both of us.

Write a Comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

My Front Pages