Homeland Security's 'Evidence' For Domain Seizures Also Included Songs Sent By Labels
from the this-gets-worse-and-worse dept
We’ve already covered some of the serious problems with the “affidavit” filed by Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) unit, highlighting confusion about both how the internet works and the law itself. The affidavit was written by a recent college grad who appears to have little experience in the subject matter. What we had seen so far was only a partial version of the affidavit, covering the reasons for seizing Torrent Finder’s domain. It was full of both technical and legal inaccuracies, which are troubling. The NY Times apparently got its hands on the entire affidavit (though, oddly, doesn’t appear to offer it for download, as far as I can tell), and showed part of it to the operator of dajaz1.com, one of the sites that was taken down. The operator of the site notes that many of the examples used in the affidavit of infringing content were sent by the record labels themselves, and he showed the NY Times reporter the emails from labels sending the songs that were named in the affidavit. Hopefully the guy who operates the site has lined up competent legal help, because the more evidence that comes out in this case, the worse and worse Homeland Security/ICE is looking.
Filed Under: blogs, domain names, first amendment, homeland security, ice, promotions, seizures
Comments on “Homeland Security's 'Evidence' For Domain Seizures Also Included Songs Sent By Labels”
To everyone who thinks that having “significant infringing content” is reason enough to seize a domain, this should make it clear why things don’t work that way. This is exactly why the DMCA deals only with specific infringing items – broad strokes are all-but-guaranteed to censor legitimate content.
Re: Re:
Trouble is the law does not work like that, you are not allowed to conduct an illegal business, even if you have a legal business as your ‘front’ operation.
Surly, you must allready know this right ?
Like its common sense, what you are trying to say is, as long as you have ‘SOME’ legal content on your web site, you should be forever immune from legal action for the rest of the content that is illegal.
Do you really think the world works like that ?
Do you think if you sold watches, as long as you also sold legal casio watches, you would be allowed to sell Rolex knockoffs ?
Police “we can arrest him for selling fake Roxes watches, because he also sells legal non-fake watches as well”.
We cant bust that drug dealer, because he also sells used cars !!!.
Just because you do SOME things that are legal, that does not make what you do that is illegal, any more legal than before.
Mike, why dont you explain it, you know, how the law really works, instead of trying to create a army of people with just as little of a clue to reality as yourself..
Why cant you explain to them, that just because you do one thing legally, does not give you a pass to then do other things that are illegal..
We all know you hate the law, and want to promote people to break it, but do you honestly think that is the right thing to do.. to spend your life appoligising for criminals ?
Not liking a law is no excuse for breaking it, or for inciting other to break it.
Incitement is just as bad as the crime itself, and that is what you do Mike, you incite people to break the law, by providing ‘justification’ for their actions..
its sad really, especially when you complain about people who have real jobs, and how have made a bigger difference in a short time, than you appear to have done in your entire career.. talking about you Mike..
Re: Re: Re:
Trouble is the law doesn’t work the way you think it does. If you’re a mob boss and have a front as a dry cleaners, you don’t get in trouble for the dry cleaning you did.
You do not get this list of charges;
money laundering
extortion
dry cleaning
selling detergent
Re: Re: Re:
If only we could create an algorithm that turns legalese into a common language that could be understand by everyone. Gather up the world’s smartest, have it open source and easily searched by the proletariat.
What? Lawyers and jobs and freedom and shit.
Well, never mind then. I’m sure bickering about it on the internet will help, am I right, Darryl?
Re: Re: Re:
Trouble is the law does not work like that, you are not allowed to conduct an illegal business, even if you have a legal business as your ‘front’ operation.
What illegal business were the hip-hop blogs running, exactly? And what judge presided over their trial?
Like its common sense, what you are trying to say is, as long as you have ‘SOME’ legal content on your web site, you should be forever immune from legal action for the rest of the content that is illegal.
No, what we’re saying is that as long as you have content that’s arguably speech, you deserve a trial. I realize that you’re not American, and free speech rights don’t mean the same thing elsewhere, but get a clue. Seriously.
Do you think if you sold watches, as long as you also sold legal casio watches, you would be allowed to sell Rolex knockoffs ?
I think that if you sold fake Rolexes, officers would have to show actual probable cause that a crime has been committed, get a warrant, serve the warrant (which means allowing the person being served to see it in it’s entirety at the time of seizure), being charged with a crime, and then getting a trial.
Just because you do SOME things that are legal, that does not make what you do that is illegal, any more legal than before.
That’s absolutely correct, and that’s why it’s so important for due process to be allowed. That’s in our Bill of Rights, you know. It’s kind of important.
Mike, why dont you explain it, you know, how the law really works, instead of trying to create a army of people with just as little of a clue to reality as yourself.. Why cant you explain to them, that just because you do one thing legally, does not give you a pass to then do other things that are illegal..
I explained, already. What law enforcement is doing isn’t legal. And it’s not right to ignore the illegal things that law enforcement is doing just because some of the things that they do are legal.
We all know you hate the law, and want to promote people to break it, but do you honestly think that is the right thing to do.. to spend your life appoligising for criminals ?
Which criminals are that, exactly? I don’t see any criminals. Hell, I don’t even see any charges.
Not liking a law is no excuse for breaking it, or for inciting other to break it.
What law is that, exactly? It’s hard to tell, because this seizure occurred illegally.
Incitement is just as bad as the crime itself, and that is what you do Mike, you incite people to break the law, by providing ‘justification’ for their actions..
First, incitement is not ‘just as bad’. Next, Mike has made it very clear, repeatedly, that he doesn’t pirate and doesn’t encourage anyone else to do so. Last, your description of Mike’s ‘incitement’ doesn’t meet the legal standard of incitement.
More importantly, this post has nothing to do with pirating. It has to do with an illegal seizure made upon people who weren’t pirating.
its sad really, especially when you complain about people who have real jobs, and how have made a bigger difference in a short time, than you appear to have done in your entire career.. talking about you Mike..
Taking orders from Hollywood on the taxpayer’s dime is a real job? I mean, you’re right that it makes a difference, but… so did Hitler.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Rose are you a Saint?
You have much more patience than I do. Very nice post.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Saint? No. Masochist? Probably.
No, seriously, the point isn’t to change Darryl (Never gonna happen.) but to refute Darryl’s outraged statements for any other folks who wander by and happen to think a bit of what he says makes sense.
Re: Re: Re:
Darryl, you again show your ignorance. The Affidavit lists the LEGAL CONTENT as the reasons for taking the site down. Please go learn to read, ok?
Sure, they were doing something illegal (well depending on what your definition of illegal is) However that wasn’t listed but what was listed were things sent TO THE SITE from the record companies.
So lets say I am dealing drugs. I deal drugs out of the back of my computer store. I am a certified HP reseller. HP sent me this new laptop to sell, I sell it to an undercover cop who buys the laptop HP asked me to sell. I get arrested for selling that laptop? That proves I was selling drugs in the back of the store? I can’t wait to see how you try and argue this point.
Re: Re: Re:
I’m confused, are you talking about the public or the RIAA/MPAA….
So they put music out there for people to download, even send ti to some places to post specifically so other people can get it (the ‘legal’ thing), then they turn around and claim ‘copyright infringement’ on the legal material that they put out there in the first place.
I agree, the one minor ‘legal’ thing doesn’t make all of their illegal underhanded extortion tactic valid or legal, and only makes them look like as much of an A$$ as their shills (yourself included).
Re: Re:
And you need to re-read the DMCA act…
IP Thicket
Because the big media companies can hide their dodgy actions behind the complexity of the IP thicket — the hugely complex set of laws around intellectual property — they don’t really see it as a problem. But here’s a case where the complexity is going to come back and bite them in the ass. The left hand (the legal department) sues a website for infringing content that the right hand (the marketing department) sent to the site in the first place. Hopefully, the dajaz1.com case will get more attention by the mainstream press and will be used as an example of how the problem has more to do with the business itself than a simple law enforcement issue.
Re: IP Thicket - unfortunately...
Unfortunately, we can all guess how this will turn out…
dajaz1 will get a nice humble letter of apology from ICE, get their domain back, get their legal fees paid and that will be the end of it. It will be done quietly, on a late Friday afternoon and a host of non-disclosure agreements for all so that nobody can talk about it. We’ll all just the dajaz1 come back online with no ICE banner pretending that nothing ever happened.
/cynical, but half believe it will happen that way.
Re: Re: IP Thicket - unfortunately...
I’d be surprised if they covered dajaz1’s legal fees, myself.
Re: Re: IP Thicket - unfortunately...
Unfortunately, we can all guess how this will turn out…
Yeah, you’re probably right, but there’s a reason that I’m hopeful. The average person may not understand all of the intricacies of IP law, but what is happening dajaz1 can be exlained in very easy-to-understand terms. And once you understand it, you know it’s wrong.
Re: Re: IP Thicket - unfortunately...
That’s a way more optimistic prediction than I would give. I’m betting the domains stay seized forever, nobody gets any legal fees, the whole matter remains ignored by the press, and these seizures end up cited as precedent for the next round of seizures, facts be damned.
Re: Re: Re: IP Thicket - unfortunately...
Eventually one of these sites will get this before a judge. More than likely Torrent-finder. This will be ruled unconstitutaional (amendments 1,4, and 14). Lately judges seem to understand copyright a little better, they have been siding on the side of the law and the constitution, and not big media.
This will get seriously slapped down.
Re: Re: IP Thicket - unfortunately...
Unfortunately, we can all guess how this will turn out…
Yes, the RIAA will say that they listed those songs by accident, but that it doesn’t matter since there was plenty of other content that they didn’t send. Nothing will change.
Re: Re: IP Thicket - unfortunately...
a host of non-disclosure agreements
That’s something I’ve never understood. If they were honestly wronged, why would dajaz1 (or anyone) sign an NDA?
Re: Re: Re: IP Thicket - unfortunately...
I can’t imagine they would.
Re: IP "The Thicket of misunderstanding", and if you dont understand it,, its complex !!.. no.
the hugely complex set of laws around intellectual property
Might be hugely complex for you, or Mike, or anyone else who does not understand simple things, but to say copyright is hugely complex apart from being personal opinion, and irrevalent, is not even true.
I can see alot of people here have a great deal of trouble understanding IP law, but complex it IS NOT.
Its even common sense..
maybe you would like to explain why you find it complex that you are not allowed to copy something, you do not have the legal right to copy ?
Is that ‘hugely complex’, does it even require any thinking ?
Do you have to think hard about paying at the shop when you buy a burger ? is that ‘hugely complex’ too ?
Is it hugely complex for you to understand that you pay for something like your burger, to pay the people who make that burger, who supply the shop, and who employ burget flippers and so on.
Is that, THAT HARD ?? or hugely complex ?
Then if that is not hard, how can you find it hard that even though you understand shoplifting is wrong, and you are supposed to pay for what you consume.
You can not work out that steal, in other forms is not illegal. yes, i know how ‘some’ of you could find that complex.. I guess some people are just stupid !!!
Something is “thick” there, but its not IP..
Re: Re: IP "The Thicket of misunderstanding", and if you dont understand it,, its complex !!.. no.
Mike, I’d request a Darryl shirt, but I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t fit on anything except an Extra Large.
Re: Re: Re: IP "The Thicket of misunderstanding", and if you dont understand it,, its complex !!.. no.
Tie to a gondola and wait for the hot air to fill the t-shirt bag. No burner necessary. The hot air is constantly created.
Re: Re: IP "The Thicket of misunderstanding", and if you dont understand it,, its complex !!.. no.
Your skull is if you actually think anyone takes your bullshit seriously.
Re: Re: Re: IP "The Thicket of misunderstanding", and if you dont understand it,, its complex !!.. no.
please see my avatar 🙂
Re: Re: IP "The Thicket of misunderstanding", and if you dont understand it,, its complex !!.. no.
Might be hugely complex for you, or Mike, or anyone else who does not understand simple things, but to say copyright is hugely complex apart from being personal opinion, and irrevalent, is not even true.
Wow. I think you’re clearly in the minority with this opinion. Even proponants of stronger IP laws don’t assert that this system is simple.
maybe you would like to explain why you find it complex that you are not allowed to copy something, you do not have the legal right to copy ?
Perhaps you think the I and the rest of the readers are too stupid to notice how you conflated the complexity of overall IP laws with the concept of a “right to copy”, but we’re not. The two concepts are clearly distinct and it shows the weakness of your argument if you have to resort to rhetorical tricks.
As for the complexity of IP law, just do a search on “thicket” on TechDirt and you’ll see quite a few examples of how complext IP law is. For a particular example with a graphical representation, look here…
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20101007/22591311328/meet-the-patent-thicket-who-s-suing-who-for-smartphone-patents.shtml
Do you have to think hard about paying at the shop when you buy a burger ? is that ‘hugely complex’ too ?
Of course not, but in that case, you’re dealing with a physical good. The complexity comes about when you’re dealing with intangible goods. Obviously.
You can not work out that steal, in other forms is not illegal.
Of course theft should be illegal. But I thought we were talking about infringment, not theft.
yes, i know how ‘some’ of you could find that complex.. I guess some people are just stupid !!!
Ah, yes. The ad hominem attack. Another indicator of the soundness of your argument.
Re: Re: IP "The Thicket of misunderstanding", and if you dont understand it,, its complex !!.. no.
Stop relating physical removal of goods with copying of digital information. You are comparing apples to a picture of oranges.
If I take a hamburger without paying you are out the cost of the item because it is now gone and cannot be sold to someone else. If I take a picture of your hamburger you lose nothing ever.
You can argue until you are blue in the face about potential revenue but there was nothing of value taken from you.
Re: Re: IP "The Thicket of misunderstanding", and if you dont understand it,, its complex !!.. no.
Might be hugely complex for you, or Mike, or anyone else who does not understand simple things, but to say copyright is hugely complex apart from being personal opinion, and irrevalent, is not even true.
Judges, IP attorneys, content owners, and the general public disagree with you.
I can see alot of people here have a great deal of trouble understanding IP law, but complex it IS NOT.
Its even common sense..
maybe you would like to explain why you find it complex that you are not allowed to copy something, you do not have the legal right to copy ?
Maybe because we do have the legal right to copy? Expression generally trumps copyright, so parodies, fair use, and so on are all valid and legal reasons to copying.
Is that ‘hugely complex’, does it even require any thinking ?
Not from you, hon. Not from you.
I’d like to point out, however, that at the beginning of your post, you copied Hulser’s words, which were copyrighted the moment that he pressed Submit. You are now a pirate in your own eyes.
Of course, in the eyes of the law, your copying was for the intent of commentary, which is a legal and valid reason to copy.
Do you have to think hard about paying at the shop when you buy a burger ? is that ‘hugely complex’ too ? Is it hugely complex for you to understand that you pay for something like your burger, to pay the people who make that burger, who supply the shop, and who employ burget flippers and so on. Is that, THAT HARD ?? or hugely complex ?
So I should pay before the use the name Burger King in a review of that burger then, right? Because to do otherwise is theft. Got it.
Wait, what?
Then if that is not hard, how can you find it hard that even though you understand shoplifting is wrong, and you are supposed to pay for what you consume.
You pay for what you consume because you literally consume it. It’s gone. The seller no longer has it to sell. Can you explain how digital goods are ‘consumed’ by pirates, so that none are left for legitimate buyers?
If you can, I have a picture of a spider for you. It’s worth $233.95, so it’s very valuable.
You can not work out that steal, in other forms is not illegal.
What I can’t work out is your sentence. Lolwut?
yes, i know how ‘some’ of you could find that complex.. I guess some people are just stupid !!!
Yes, some people are. Some people are, Darryl.
Something is “thick” there, but its not IP..
Agreed, Darryl. Agreed.
Re: Re: IP "The Thicket of misunderstanding", and if you dont understand it,, its complex !!.. no.
Here is the facts:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported
by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
This was clearly not followed.
Re: Re: Re: IP "The Thicket of misunderstanding", and if you dont understand it,, its complex !!.. no.
BUT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!!!
Re: Re: IP "The Thicket of misunderstanding", and if you dont understand it,, its complex !!.. no.
All law is complex. That’s why we have legal scholars. It’s quite childish, and quite arrogant, of you to suggest that any field of law is simple – and any judge on any side of any legal debate would tell you the same thing.
No Hands At All
Remember how YouTube removes videos from artists due to a complaint from the copyright holder when it was the artist or the official account for that artist posting them?
How can anyone expect one hand to talk to the other?
The RIAA and MPAA must be the biggest ponzi scheme of them all. Get your clients to sent content to websites in the hopes of promoting sales then argue there’s piracy on the web robbing them of their revenue.
Re: No Hands At All
“Remember how YouTube removes videos from artists due to a complaint from the copyright holder when it was the artist or the official account for that artist posting them?”
No. I remember how YouTube removes videos when ANYBODY makes a claim. I’d love for them to at least require a properly formatted DMCA takedown notice.
The labels either putting the songs there or having someone else do it, has been a footprint of their operations, even back at the start of the first attempt to bust The Pirate Bay.
They can not be held for infringement if they own the copyright. It’s a scam plain out and simple.
We’ll sue you for a million over copyright and put the songs there ourselves.
This has been going on a long time. I’m surprised no one else has really beat the drum on this area of their operations and shined a long, hard, steady, look at the practice.
Oceana
the more evidence that comes out in this case, the worse and worse Homeland Security/ICE is looking.
Ha ha! hahahahahahaha!
The “evidence” will be “classified” because it’s about Homeland Security and it could aid the terrists, donchaknow?
1984 got here about 17 years late…
Has anyone seen ....
Has anyone seen the first affidavit from the original domain confications? I wonder if its as bad as this one.
Re: Has anyone seen ....
I’ve been asking that same question. But the more I look into it, the more I see that all of the sites just moved on to try to avoid this again.
TVShack was hit twice, Ninjavideo has its problems, and the other seven pretty much vanished as far as I know.
The other sites just up and disappeared. But since it’s the same process and with more people involved, we’ll now have more people contesting the DMCA/COICA takedowns.
I would be very interested in how these are clarified as legal when the affidavit has so much wrong in it.
Re: Has anyone seen ....
Obviously the people behind this cant be all that bright.. I mean really when you “testing the waters” of pulling down less than 100 sites… you couldn’t find 100 dead-nuts 100% purely illegal, “heres a link to infringing material” that I commercially directly benefit from?
The best news all day
That Justice does have a price tag. To have the Justice Department in your corner only costs 1.8 million
HUH? What songs are mentioned in the affidavit that was released? Where is there proof that this isn’t the exact same affidavit? Where does the NYT say they have a newer, complete version?
And nice hack article, Ben. Sisario doesn’t even bother to get a quote from ICE, just talks to the guys that had their sites shut down. No bias there…
And that Egyptian owner of torrent-finder is just a straight up sociopath:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101217/01190512310/homeland-security-presents-evidence-domain-seizures-proves-it-knows-little-about-internet—law.shtml#c1304
Re: Re:
What? That link doesn’t say anything about anyone being a sociopath?
Is it because he’s Egyptian? That sounds kind of racist.
Re: Re: Re:
He’s a sociopath for blatantly lying about what his site does.
BTW, no retraction from Masnick for the further f*cking up of this story?
You pirate apologists have a bit of a hair trigger, it seems…
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I really think you need to settle down. The President of a RIAA Member’s Label owns a website with the exact same content of both blogs taken down. It also lists them on the blog roll and links to them in several posts. Given ICE’s interpretation of the law with regards to Torrent-Finder then the RIAA is snitching on the President of one of it’s own labels.
Wait till the facts come out. You’ll be paying 500.00 to EFF.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
LOL
it’s hilarious you think you know everything that was going on with those sites. Might want to do a little detective work, guy.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“LOL
it’s hilarious you think you know everything that was going on with those sites. Might want to do a little detective work, guy.”
Was that directed at me?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Oh now it’s showing as threaded so I can see that you were. It’s hilarious that you make as many assumptions as you do, and then get them wrong.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you calling me a pirate apologist?
Fuck you, asshat.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know, I kinda held a bit of respect for you for sticking to your guns on issues even if they were wrong and you were heading towards willful ignorance. But this one? Your link goes to one of your own comments that says nothing about anyone lying about the contents of the site in question. All you do is parrot your old blather about Mike.
So you either posted the wrong link, or you’re trying to back up your stance with… your own stance. And incorrectly, at that.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Yeah, like Masnick never links to his own posts… LOL
That lying, sociopath that owns Torrent-Finder is guilty of massive contrubutory infringement; Masnick practically admits as much in a response in his other story on this.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
LOL
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Mike links to his own posts (as do) when it actually has something to do with the conversation. You said “And that Egyptian owner of torrent-finder is just a straight up sociopath: [link to post removed for brevity]”… the post you linked to had nothing to do with the owner of Torrent-Finder lying about the purpose of his site. So, sorry, you still fail.
And feel free to provide a link to the post where Mike ‘admits’ to the owner of TF’s contributor infringement.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
The link I show quoted evidence of torrent-finder being guilty of flagrant direct and contributory infringment. That ridiculous NYT article quotes him as if he is somehow innocent. He’s a lying sociopath as well as a criminal.
The other link:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101217/01190512310/homeland-security-presents-evidence-domain-seizures-proves-it-knows-little-about-internet—law.shtml#c1601
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
So now .torrent = .crime and .mentaldiagnosis
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
The link I show quoted evidence of torrent-finder being guilty of flagrant direct and contributory infringment.
I have not seen any such evidence. Please provide it. First of all, I have seen *nothing* indicating direct infringement at all on Torrent Finder. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.
Separate, “contributory infringement” is something that is determined by the court, and requires numerous factors to prove. I am unaware of Torrent Finder being judged guilty of contributory infringement anywhere by a court, but if you have the ruling, please provide it, or admit that you are lying.
I’m guessing you’re lying.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Let’s try this again… the link you showed before shows nothing of what you claim it does. You’re accusations of sociopathy and criminal activity notwithstanding, you haven’t actually proven anything… but then again, we’re used to that from you buy now. If you?d like to change that trend, please copy and paste the part of that post that I must be missing here that shows what you?re talking about.
As far as the other link, Mike says he wasn’t arguing against contributory infringement in that post because he was focusing on the legality of the takedown. That’s a far cry from “admiting the contributory infringement”. Are we grasping at straws now?
There is a reason for going to court
This situation illustrates why these domain seizures are not just simple things like seizing a bunch of illegal drugs. With the complexity of copyright law, it is often very difficult to tell the illegal from the legal. Even experienced IP attorneys have trouble telling the difference. It takes a careful inspection of the facts by a court, and quite possibly an appeals court to make a determination.
Re: There is a reason for going to court
The more expedient thing to do would be to stop trying to block everything and just let it flow naturally. Then make it so that there are ways to talk to fans, not sue them or hamper their progress.
Here’s a full copy of the 88 page warrant:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/45705510/Operation-in-Our-Sites-2-0
Re: Re:
Yup.
nah, nothin illegal goin on there, nope…
Re: Re: Re:
The Chris Brown song mentioned was released by Chris Brown on a promotional mixtape for FREE to everyone in the world via his website, his label, and his twitter of which he had at the time over 1 Million followers under the name MechanicalDummy. This was at a time period where he was making his return to music after the entire Rihanna fiasco and was for promotional purposes in order to reintroduce him musically to the market and get his buzz up. Included on that mixtape was a song called Deuces. You may see it mentioned. After the blogs posted this song and pushed it it gained such momentum that the Record Label decided to then put it on Itunes for commercial sale and it managed to make it way to #1 on the Billboard chart.
Likewise these same blogs “leaked” Eminem and Dr. Dre’s Crack A Bottle. The version of the track leaked was unfinished but created such a buzz the artists and label decided to finish the song, include it on Eminem’s Relapse album and release the song as a single. I was #1 on Billboard Hot 100 charts, built buzz for Eminem’s Relapse album that sold 619k copies its first week, and won a Grammy.
Likewise these same blogs “leaked” Nicki Minaj’s “Your Love” the buzz generated caused the song to be mastered and released officially and went on to be her first #1 on Billboard charts. Nicki had yet to release any album and the result of the publicity and buzz, new fans she generated because of that caused her album to sell over 300k units its first week.
If you do not know what you are speaking about.. Don’t speak.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I meant to include in my comment. The blogs were not posting full albums, movies nor software. The blogs were used by the Record Labels to generate buzz and promotion for artists and projects to the degree they were included in several artists Marketing Plans.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I notice nowhere in your slippery response do you say that they did not post anything illegal.
they were not given the copyright, just the songs..
They might of sent the songs, but im sure they did NOT send them also the copyright for those songs.
Music industry, like every industry give away free samples, they do not give away the copyright to those samples.
So it does not matter how they got the content, they did not also get the copyright, rights to that conent, therefore they still broke the law.
Getting a song from a company, either purchased, stolen, or given, does not give you the copyright to that content..
Why do you think it does ? HOW can you think it does ?
how can you have such a deep misunderstanding of something that is so simple.
Re: they were not given the copyright, just the songs..
Getting a song from a company, either purchased, stolen, or given, does not give you the copyright to that content..
Nice straw man argument. Nobody said that the record labels gave dajaz1.com the copyright to the song. Do you think that a radio station is giving its listeners the copyright to a song when they play it on the air?
Re: they were not given the copyright, just the songs..
They might of sent the songs, but im sure they did NOT send them also the copyright, for those songs.
That’s why on Amazon, I pay extra to have copyrights shipped at the same time as the music!
Your trolling is getting more moronic by the minute.
Re: they were not given the copyright, just the songs..
Actually they did, even did so by using “cyberlockers”
And umm they don’t send copyright for the songs that would be absurd. Nobody is even claiming that. Please don’t make assumptions about things you know nothing about.
Mike I’m trying to reach you, can you please email me at the email address in this comment? Thank You.
Re: they were not given the copyright, just the songs..
They might of sent the songs, but im sure they did NOT send them also the copyright for those songs. Music industry, like every industry give away free samples, they do not give away the copyright to those samples.
That’s right. They sent them a license, which they are now bring prosecuted for using.
So it does not matter how they got the content, they did not also get the copyright, rights to that conent, therefore they still broke the law.
It does matter how they got the content. You’re right that they did not get the entire copyright, but they absolutely received rights to use those files.
Did they break the law? Maybe. But you can’t prove it by this warrant, or at all if you don’t change and try the domain owners.
Getting a song from a company, either purchased, stolen, or given, does not give you the copyright to that content..
Why do you think it does ? HOW can you think it does ?
Who said it does? You’re the only one going on about copyright transference.
how can you have such a deep misunderstanding of something that is so simple.
Ditto.
Re: Re: they were not given the copyright, just the songs..
Rose the entire article was about copyright transference..
The facts remain the same, the music industry DID NOT LICENSE them to copy the music.
Show me where there is a license, giving them permission to copy as much as they like OR ANY copies of music they have acquired by ANY means.
Of course you cant, we all know that..
You can say they sent them a license, but do you actually believe that to be the case ?
It’s the same old simple confusion that is always here, just because you buy a COPY of a song, or get a COPY of a song by any means, that is not an automatic license of copyright for that material.
Why cant you work that out !!!???????
So show me the license, where the music industry, or the OWNER of the copyright of those songs says it is OK for them to make and distribite further copies.
If they gave that web site the copyright, they would no longer have that copyright to that work..
Therefore the web site is within it’s right to sue the record company for copyright breach..
Do you honestly think that is possible or going to happen..
Really, some of you people on this web page, need to get a little grip on reality.. To busy appoligising for criminals to think about what is really happening.
Who said it does? You’re the only one going on about copyright transference
Mike, and the subject of this article for one, you for another, and most other people posting comment here for a corum.
That is EXACTLY what mike is trying to say, it is the subject of this article.
It is about, being sued for providing illegal copies of music, and the argument is that the music companies supplied the initial versions of the music..
Therefore somehow, by receiving copies of a song, they magically assume they have received the copyright to those works.
And we all know that is not the case, and if you get upset by me having to explain that to you, and/or if you are upset that the facts hurt you.. too bad.. get over it..
welcome to the real world… you might of heard about it, its the place where even if you do not like or agree with a law you have to follow it anyway.
Its the world, where you have to pay your way, and stealing is considered theft, and just because you are capable of theft, does not make the act ok, or legal, or moral, or ethical, or right.
And just because Mike tells you its ok to break the law, it still does not make it ok, it just makes Mike wrong, and willing and keen to incite criminal activity. For his own personal gains. (most criminal activity is for personal gains).
But of course if you can cloak your crimes in something high sounding, and talk of ‘rights’ and ‘freedoms’, it sounds all that much better. Especially for self delusion.
At least the industry, the law, the law enforcers, the politicians, the actual content creators, see you people exactly for what you are.
May be after 10,000 court ruling agaist your law breaking ways, you ‘might’ just work it out.. but I doubt it.
May be in your fantasy world you are winning this ‘war’ but back in the real world, you guys just look like a bunch of freaks. Spoiling it for everyone else.
Always trying to disprove studies, with what ??? oh yea, conjecture and guesswork.. but hay its better than a study..
This site is full of amusement, and dont worry I will continue to call FUD whenever I see it, (or as much as I can, there is ALOT here).. !!!
Re: Re: Re: they were not given the copyright, just the songs..
Actual content creator?
Speaking of FUD.
Re: Re: Re: they were not given the copyright, just the songs..
Rose the entire article was about copyright transference..
Really? Please point out the words ‘copyright transference’.
The facts remain the same, the music industry DID NOT LICENSE them to copy the music.
They didn’t copy the music, idiot. The copyright owner gave the digital files to them to use. They used it as intended. Their sites were illegally seized, anyway.
Show me where there is a license, giving them permission to copy as much as they like OR ANY copies of music they have acquired by ANY means.
They didn’t copy anything. They were in possession of digital files that were sent to them by the copyright owners. The copyright owners did the copying.
So show me the license, where the music industry, or the OWNER of the copyright of those songs says it is OK for them to make and distribite further copies.
Explain how they ‘made’ and distributed further copies.
It’s the same old simple confusion that is always here, just because you buy a COPY of a song, or get a COPY of a song by any means, that is not an automatic license of copyright for that material.
It’s certainly an automatic license to use that song, silly rabbit.
Why cant you work that out !!!??????? So show me the license, where the music industry, or the OWNER of the copyright of those songs says it is OK for them to make and distribite further copies.
Show me where they were making and distributing copies.
If they gave that web site the copyright, they would no longer have that copyright to that work.. Therefore the web site is within it’s right to sue the record company for copyright breach..
Yes, if the blog owners violated their copyright by using the files that they were sent in an unauthorized way, the content owner would be within their rights to sue.
That’s not what’s happened here, in the slightest.
Do you honestly think that is possible or going to happen.. Really, some of you people on this web page, need to get a little grip on reality.. To busy appoligising for criminals to think about what is really happening.
What criminals? No one’s been found guilty of anything. No one’s even been charged with a crime.
…copyright transference… Mike, and the subject of this article for one, you for another, and most other people posting comment here for a corum. That is EXACTLY what mike is trying to say, it is the subject of this article.
I don’t see the words ‘copyright transference’ anywhere in the title or post. This post isn’t about copyright transference.
It is about, being sued for providing illegal copies of music, and the argument is that the music companies supplied the initial versions of the music..
No, it’s not. It’s about a speech-blocking illegal seizure of a site that’s maybe guilty of a little civil infringement. Maybe.
Therefore somehow, by receiving copies of a song, they magically assume they have received the copyright to those works.
No one thinks that but you, Darryl.
And we all know that is not the case, and if you get upset by me having to explain that to you, and/or if you are upset that the facts hurt you.. too bad.. get over it..
You’re the only one upset. Of course, we all know how much you detest being wrong. 🙂
welcome to the real world… you might of heard about it, its the place where even if you do not like or agree with a law you have to follow it anyway.
Yes, which is why we’re upset that our own government officials did not follow the law.
Its the world, where you have to pay your way, and stealing is considered theft, and just because you are capable of theft, does not make the act ok, or legal, or moral, or ethical, or right.
I agree. Stealing is theft. What does that have to do with this post, though?
And just because Mike tells you its ok to break the law, it still does not make it ok, it just makes Mike wrong,
When did Mike ever condone copyright infringement?
…and willing and keen to incite criminal activity. For his own personal gains. (most criminal activity is for personal gains).
Again, when did he ever condone copyright infringement? When did his actions ever meet the legal standard of incitement? What does he gain if people choose to infringe?
But of course if you can cloak your crimes in something high sounding, and talk of ‘rights’ and ‘freedoms’, it sounds all that much better. Especially for self delusion.
At least the industry, the law, the law enforcers, the politicians, the actual content creators, see you people exactly for what you are.
Americans that can be milked for all their cash by their corporate overlords?
May be after 10,000 court ruling agaist your law breaking ways, you ‘might’ just work it out.. but I doubt it.
Whose law-breaking ways, Darryl? And what laws?
May be in your fantasy world you are winning this ‘war’ but back in the real world, you guys just look like a bunch of freaks. Spoiling it for everyone else.
Spoiling what, Darryl?
Always trying to disprove studies, with what ??? oh yea, conjecture and guesswork.. but hay its better than a study..
You have a problem with criticism of substandard study methodology? Really?
This site is full of amusement…
Yes, mostly provided by you. 🙂
…and dont worry I will continue to call FUD whenever I see it, (or as much as I can, there is ALOT here).. !!!
Please do.
Re: Re: Re: they were not given the copyright, just the songs..
So wait, in your world, record labels are allowed to send copies of songs to a blog (no doubt attached to press releases and a note saying ‘we’d love it if you shared this new track on your website’) and then request that those blogs get their domain seized?
You have a schizophrenic sense of justice, Darryl…
Re: they were not given the copyright, just the songs..
Since you personally seem to like to compare copyright infringement to stealing physical goods… let’s go:
Is it not my right to take apart my car and reproduce whatever parts I need on my own risk as long as I’m not selling ’em? (heck, that’s actually how many businesses come to be. reverse engineering and improving!)
Is it not my right to hand those reproductions to my friends, at their own risk, to use in their own cars?
Darryl, please promise me to never stop posting here. I absolutely love your posts. So far out there and stunningly bizarre it’s pure entertainment. Keep ’em coming.
Re: Re:
@OC – I have become convniced that Darryl is a Bot of some sort. He only makes sense occationally and its always one inciteful line out of an entire rant. Or a rant that is short and seems to make sense depending on how you read it.
ESLMB – English as a Second Language MethBot
Re: Re: Re:
He is so confused about the differences between scarce and infinite goods that now he thinks you can email your copyrights.
Simply stunning.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I replied to your anagram, btw.
Re: Re: Re:
ESLMB – English as a Second Language MethBot
YES!
This is why
I have not ever bought a DVD/Bluray and/or an music CD. I’ve done my fair share of downloading back in the day but not these days.. Don’t want the RIAA Nazi kicking in my door. Better off to just leave all their trash alone. Will make you a better person. Same thing with snitch on your neighbor guys at Walmart. Keep your slave labor goods.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/nytdocs/docs/543/543.pdf
The affidavit.
Page 31 talks about his evidence against Torrent Finder which is hilarious to read.
The labels have always sent new songs to DJs at radio stations and those who work in clubs. The internet is no different than another promotional tool. If there is a case brought against these blogs I hope all the labels dirty laundry is aired out. I wouldn’t be surprised if their marketing departments used to seed Napster with songs just like how Viacom employees used to post shows on YouTube. Big media is two faced…
At the risk of entering a particularly contentious debate, I would just make one point that I think other posters have tried to make: if a record label employee sends a hip hop blog a copy of a new hip hop song, the presumption might be that the blog will listen to it, and write a positive review on said blog. It does not appear from the NYT article that the record label requested that the blog owner post or link to a copy of the song (at least to an unauthorized source). I think this is a very important distinction that is overlooked in Mike’s article.