There has been much hullabaloo this past week about how all the music that is currently residing on the MP3 servers may be negotiated to archive.org for archiving as an anthropological treasure.

I have many concerns -- including about what happens to all the back-up files that MP3 has (being the good webmasters that they are in cases of crash) that would contain copies of files that are currently being deleted by tens of thousands of artists internationally.

I have had three past websites that have long (over 3 years) been discarded and obsolete that were copyrighted that now appear on archive.org that are there without my permission. The TOS for archive.com is very clear that the site is to be used purely for non-commercial purposes. But those archived sites of mine were long ago deleted and I never expected them to ever sho in public again. They are treasures to know one but did contain my own copyrighted material -- albeit no audio files, thank goodness.

But now the insanity of a site taking over MP3's files without the written permission of the copyright holders to me seems like a clear and cut violation of the DMCA. If any of my songs end up there I will instruct my attorney to file suit under the DMCA for $150,000 per violation AND perhaps do it as a class action suit on behalf of all copyright owners who have had their music moved fwithout permission.

I have had other artists tell me that it is no big deal and that all I have to do is to contact Archive.org and they will remove any material that I request. But the pint is -- I shouldn't have to... It is their obligation to CONTACT ME if they wish to archive or make make my files available to the public without my permission.

I now have had other artists go there and respond back after they have read the archive.orgTerms of Service (TOS) that this is a bomb waiting to explode and now several have made major efforts to try to delete current files at MP3 while worrying about the backup tapes that would contains copies of not only the same files just of past files long thought deleted.

Also, several artists have also reported back that like me, they have found remnants of past websites they had that they assumed were long ago gone (for good reason) that they owned that now sit at archive.com.

If you want your material to appear on that site -- good for you, but according to their own TOS and also the funding restrictions employed by Congress when they recieved public funding the entire idea was that material appearing on archive.com is to be used for non-commercial uses only. I have had some artists suggest that archive.com is a good deal because they have like five or six DAM CDs there and it would be nice to be able to park their music there. Rest assured... If you ever want to make even a penny off your music then yo cannot use the archive.com site to "park" it. There are plenty of other OMDs like this site, DMusic, Artistlaunch and Sounclick to park your music.

If the RIAA can go after 12-year-old gilrs for downloading digital music without the permission of copyright holders under the guise of the DMCA then most certainly I can go after archive.com for taking my songs -- and so can you, right?

You're trying to advocate doing the same thing as the RIAA? You won't get many points for that around here.

Ummm let's see: "perhaps do it as a class action suit on behalf of all copyright owners who have had their music moved fwithout permission." But then: "I have had other artists tell me that it is no big deal and that all I have to do is to contact Archive.com and they will remove any material that I request"

Evidently other people don't see it as a bad thing, you're not doing it on "behalf of anyone" but yourself.

"But those archived sites of mine were long ago deleted and I never expected them to ever sho in public again. They are treasures to know one but did contain my own copyrighted material -- albeit no audio files, thank goodness."

1) Are those archived sites posted on *your* domain and server space that you payed money for, or another site that allowed you to post them? Did you bother checking the website's policy and TOS on website creation?

2) If there wasn't audio files, then what the heck was it? You start out by connecting mp3.com to archive.com, yet this WHOLE thing you're posting about has NOTHING to do with audio files or mp3s?

All you have to do is email them and tell them to take it down, AND THEY WILL. The fact you would even suggest abusing the DMCA for the outrageous $150,000 figure the RIAA uses gives the impression you're a golddigger. Sorry dude, this isn't the place to be posting about personal vendettas and overreactions that you found out something you had on the internet is saved somewhere else.

Wow... Yes, let's set more legal precedents that lend more power to the filthy DMCA.

...Nope, sorry. Goes against everything I stand for. If they want my music, they can go for it. Threatening to sue Archive.org is the same thing the RIAA is doing with P2P.

You are a bitch. You are going to sue a company who gives you the option to remove the content from the site.

You are worse than the RIAA. You have left those sites on Archive.org and you sit and complain. Now you are getting a lawyer to sue them? You are going to ruin a lot of things for a lot of people.

Fuck you.

Must hold back flames.....

Ok. You must be referring to archive.ORG, NOT .com. Since archive.com is a site called OXiDE and is no way related to archiving.

Second you can block your site from being archived by including a robots.txt file on your server. This information was "hidden" away under the FAQ link on archive.org homepage. Try to look next time before posting idiotic commentary.

Archive.org is trying to preserve the web for future reference, so please get off your soap box. If search engines and archives had to contact every site for permission it would defeat the purpose of the web.

Why are you posting information on your site that you want no one to see? And why do you have a web site if you don't know the basics of the web?

===Straight from the FAQ===
How can I remove my site's pages from the Wayback Machine?

The Internet Archive is not interested in preserving or offering access to Web sites or other Internet documents of persons who do not want their materials in the collection. By placing a simple robots.txt file on your Web server, you can exclude your site from being crawled as well as exclude any historical pages from the Wayback Machine.

See our exclusion policy.

You can find exclusion directions at exclude.php. If you cannot place the robots.txt file, opt not to, or have further questions, email wayback2@archive.org.

I think you guys are missing his point. The law makes no sense. Sometimes you have to take it to extremes to show this.

Whats the difference between indies suing archive.org and the majors suing mp3.com? A copy is a copy....

"I think you guys are missing his point. The law makes no sense. Sometimes you have to take it to extremes to show this."

Leflaw, I think you are giving him to much credit.

But this gives me an idea for a new money making scheme. I am going to sue everyone who visits my website for copyright infringement. YOU do realize web browser cache content on your hard drive. Or as I call it "STEALING copywrited material"

If Archive.org is non-profit, let em put up anything and everything Electric Gypsy...

but if they try to make a single penny
(even by just selling banner ads or something)
without entering into a negotiated agreement with Electric Gypsy over the terms, then I am with ya fossil. You should OPT IN (not have to OPT OUT) when your own intelectual "property" is concerned if a profit is to be made and it is not a part of the public domain.

If you go out on the street and make a speech... anyone who heard what you said has the right to tell others what you said. You do NOT have the right to stop them.

If you talk to your lawyer about your upcomming trial... NOBODY has the right to tell the judge, prosecuter and jury what you said. You have every right to stop the lawyer or anyone who was in earshot from repeating your words.

...ah, forget it, my annalogies suck...

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support Local and Independent Music AND the Public Domain.

To clairify further...

is it for PROFIT or NOT for profit? ...that is the determining factor.

Copyrights exist ONLY to give the CREATOR of a work a monopoly on the right to earn a profit from his own work for a limited time.... etc etc

I have no problem with FAIR USE.
If folks can share my work via p2p, then I see no problem with a website that "copies" my work for the noble purpose of archiving...

...so long as Electric Gypsy preserves the right to our own creation in pursuit of any profit.

This post makes me think I better go see what archive.com is all about and what of our stuff is there.

Sorry to triple post

Shmoo

"This post makes me think I better go see what archive.com is all about and what of our stuff is there."

Just so you know, it's archive.ORG NOT .com.

isn't archive.org comparable to LOC in the way that it holds a copy of everything? if it's more a library with comparable goals, preserving culture, it seems to me an example of fair use.

regardless of that, they should get permission from the individual owners of all that music that was on mp3.com. sueing the crap out of archive.org is going to make things worse, but it is a nice analogy to show what the riaa is doing.
if vivendi/universal didn't own the copyright to mp3s on mp3.com, how come they could sell it (make money off it) in the first place?

"if vivendi/universal didn't own the copyright to mp3s on mp3.com, how come they could sell it (make money off it) in the first place?"

I don't think they are selling it. They were going to delete all the mp3s. Archive.org offered to host them instead of deleting them all.

An increasing problem I am finding in litigation is the dissappearance of internet postings after 5 years or so.

As an evidence archive, that is at least socially useful.

eberry said: "But this gives me an idea for a new money making scheme. I am going to sue everyone who visits my website for copyright infringement. YOU do realize web browser cache content on your hard drive. Or as I call it "STEALING copywrited material"

You got that right. Every single time we open a web page we are copyright infringing. So maybe a class action suit could be filed against M$ for designing software that is clearly and blatantly violating the DMCA ever time we log onto the web!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think the guy who posted this, should be beat down on the street. Why the fuck did you put your music up on MP3.com if you don't want it to be accessed? Even if it's on a different site, it is still being viewed as being under MP3.com

Because you are too lazy to stop or remove your content from being put on that site you are going to sue them? Once again, fuck you.

The first sale doctrine would apply to Archive's possession of the files. As for allowing other people to view them, fair use could be argued. An estoppel or abandonment argument could also be used. It also depends on what the license agreement with the original website was.

norimer has a point, as does kyodylee.. it all boils down to what lawyer you can afford.. too many draconian laws, if you ask me. And if you are a musician looking to make profit from tunes, you got a serious tangled web to negotiate.. sad, ain't it? It really comes to chasing that almighty

fucking getting rid of copyright in its current form and controll is the key to winning the fight
dont fight the riaa
we will fight the next in list if we even win
fight copyright and dmca
promote fair use and open source

and to the people crapping on about cache!!!!

shutup

it caches the current site u are reading
not sites that are offline does it?

one simple fact u forgot to remember
u guys are as bad the riaa
its all about money

dmusic is cool!
rock on guys

fossil i hope this is some form of sick twisted humor because what you said here raises pangs for random acts of violence like cary the boy sue sherman does...

Hey fossil man, once you put something out in cyberspace it no longer belongs to you. It is now owned by The People. What do you care anyway? You must be a greedy pig. It's only a bunch of 1's and 0's anyway, dude. Power To The People! : )

mroop, you are more right than you know. Digital anything is garbage, just like Roy Batty in "BladeRunner"

I love Blade Runner. Are you one of those vinyl guys? Digital can actually be as good as vinyl, but it is being misused and abused by today's mastering engineers at the behest of clueless record company executives. You might not be aware of the famous Mixerman Diary, but here is what Mixerman has to say about today's digital recordings and it partly explains why cd's sound like garbage:


"These days the Mastering Engineer views his job as one of placing an identifiable sonic imprint on the record. More importantly, his job is to be sure that the record is loud. So the Mastering Engineer proceeds to stamp out every last bit of dynamic range by using what is called a 'brick wall' limiter. Imagine what would happen to you, were you to be stopped at a high rate of speed by a brick wall. SPLAT! Well, it's no different when music hits a brick wall. The music becomes flattened, all depth is removed, and all changes in volume are eradicated. With the dynamic range reduced to the point that the soft parts are the exact same volume as the loud parts, the Mastering Engineer has accomplished what is referred to in this industry as 'loud'. Interestingly, as these Mastering Engineers are making records loud, they are all the while complaining about how loud records are destructive to the quality of a recording. And I don't blame them for complaining, it's true. Unfortunately, if they don't make their records loud, the Record Companies, the Producers, and even the Engineers will bring their records to someone that will."

If you want to hear how good cd can sound, go to ebay and buy a copy of Nat King Cole - The Greatest Hits on the DCC label. The company is out of business and the cd will probably cost you around 100 bucks. But when you hear it you will say: Oh My God! That is the work of mastering engineer Steve Hoffman, who did all of the DCC gold titles. Or pick up a copy of Badfinger - Straight Up on DCC and compare it to the standard version - you can probably get one of those for 20 bucks or so.

I think leflaw had a good point earlier. if a law applies to one person it should apply to everyone. sounds to me like fossil is playing devils advocate and challanging the law by using the law and showing how silly it is.

I've often thought how poetic it would be if the government was sued for having religious clerics on it's payroll IE the congressional chaplin, Military chaplins, clerics saying prayers before the start of the supreme court etc... if the government really thinks there should be a seperation of church and state it should apply everywhere. The same holds true with the copyright.

once you put something out in cyberspace it no longer belongs to you. It is now owned by The People.

Is this really Mroop??? So any song downloaded on Itunes is then public domain? amazing

"Is this really Mroop???"

That was sarcasm. : )

Here is a link to the The Daily Adventures Of Mixerman. He is an anonymous engineer who goes to work on a big budget, big label project with a new band and details all of the insanity that goes on. It is absolutely hilarious!

http://www.prosoundweb.com/recording/mm/week1/mm.php

Wait a minute, everyone. I think you're all missing the point, even Fossil, who I am certain is playing devil's advocate.

As far as the big picture, Archive.org is acting like a library. In fact, it's doing what the Library of Congress might be doing if it had a technical clue.

The real issue (and any potential lawsuit) should be aimed at Vivendi/Universal. Do they have the right to give our music to anyone?

If a crime is being committed here, it is the illicit dealer who is selling the material that violates the copyright.

And, as we have seen with the P2P cases, it doesn't matter if they give it away, they have still violated our copyright by transferring ownership of copies of our songs to a third party.

Yeah, go ahead and sue someone. Just make sure it's Vivendi.

What did Mp3.com's TOS say about that?

good anology George. Library of Congress

yea i agree with RasMasta he should get beat down, if you dont want it there tell them to remove it your just like the riaa

archive.org is a huge back-up file of most of the things on the web. If you put a website, that takes nothing more then someone typing in the address and getting access to it, you are opening it up to the public. The purpose of putting up a web page is for people to view and use in the public domain.

Now you're getting your panties in a bunch because something you posted for the public a few years back has a backup on a web site? To hell with that. It would be one thing if you had a premium section with content that required payment to view and they posted that, but you don't mention anything like that.

In fact, what you are arguing about has nothing to do at all with the music industry or mp3s. The only similiar factors are that you're going to try to abuse DMCA in yet ANOTHER section of society, and that you're suggesting suing for the the same outrageous amount the RIAA is. Like I said before, associating yourselves with those two corrupt things will not win you favor here.

This should have been posted on the forum, it's not news directly related to the RIAA/music industry or p2p/mp3s and therefore not worthy to be on the front page.

well it doesn't appear most understand what Fossil is trying to point out but it has stimulated a good discussion

Re: mp3.com TOS

First of all, it says:

Section IV - 4.4 Accounting
"... if the amount we owe you is less than fifty dollars ($50.00), in which case we will hold the money until either (a) the total cumulative amount we owe you at the end of any particular quarter is greater than fifty dollars ($50.00), or (b) we settle such accounts from time to time."

As we see, this is a lie. On the "final accounting" they merely dropped the ceiling to $25 and everyone else is screwed out of their rightfully earned royalties.

4.6 Term and Termination
Upon termination of this agreement, all of our license rights terminate, except that we retain those rights necessary for us to: (a) sell any compact discs or other authorized products which we have produced prior to the date of termination which incorporates your Material; (b) provide perpetual access to Standard Content and Channel Content added to Secure Accounts pursuant to the terms of this agreement; (c) provide perpetual access to CD Content and to holders of Secure Accounts who purchased that CD content or, with your permission, otherwise added that CD Content to their Secure Accounts; and (d) fulfill the terms and conditions of any Promotion in which you are participating.

Subject to the foregoing, we shall use reasonable efforts to discontinue public access to your material promptly upon termination; however, due to your participation in certain Promotions, your Material may remain accessible to the public for up to (90) days following termination.

We may terminate this Agreement with respect to any and all Programs and Promotions, at any time by so notifying you; the Agreement will terminate upon your actual notice of such notice or three (3) days after we have sent a notice of termination to the e-mail address you supply to us or post such notice in your Artist Admin Area, whichever is sooner.

Our obligation to pay sums due to you hereunder described in the Section titled "Accounting" shall survive termination.

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

Vivendi has no right to give anything to anyone that hasn't been paid for and they still have to pay the 250,000 artists the amounts due less than $25.

I terminated my Hayden's Wall account last January. The 90 days is long since past. If they give my songs to the Archive -- or anyone else for that matter -- they have violated the TOS agreement.

Let's see... $150,000 a song times 1 million songs...

WHOSE MUSIC IS IT, ANYWAY?

Fossil should be sued for putting his content on the web and getting mad that someone is archiving it.

Would you be mad if a museum had your music playing in it just to save the history that was your art.

Here's another issue -- When I had the Hayden's Wall album posted on mp3.com, I had not yet gone the route of making all of the songs on the CD available for public download.

So what happens to the wishes of the artists to make some songs available for public consumption and reserve others for sale on the CD? Or does Archive.org get to post ALL of the songs which Vivendi possesses?

Doing so may cause an irreparable financial damage to those artists who were at least attempting to protect some of their music, even though they were willingly sharing some.

This is the entire P2P situation in reverse. The difference is that we don't need a subpoena to identify the guilty party.

But an RIAA member owns the archive so the DMCA apparently does not apply.

RasMasta -- They don't put current commercial product in a museum.

I'm for this as long as the complete collective works of the RIAA members for the past 50 years gets added as well for free public access.

I should stress two points on this issue:

1. Archive.org will take anything down with a complaint from the copyright holder.

2. You cant expect them to contact everyone whos material is archived. It would be impossibly expensive.

"You cant expect them to contact everyone whos material is archived."

In this case (mp3.com), the burden is on Vivendi. THEY are the ones giving the content for redistribution, which was entrusted to them by the artists directly. THEY have the means and information to contact each and every one.

According to their Terms of Service, mp3.com is required to "use reasonable efforts to discontinue public access to your Material promptly upon termination."

Instead, they are going to offer up a million independent songs for public access. Will the music from the major artists also be offered up for free permanent consumption?

Don't get me wrong. I am all for Archive.org.

But if the RIAA can sue 12-year-olds for sharing nursery rhymes, then the same laws strictly prevent them from doing this. It's called the DMCA.

I can't give away copies of Vivendi's music.
They cannot give away copies of mine.

Both actions violate the same law.

we know all that goldenpi

we are fussin and fightin about what RULES apply that are FAIR

for musicians/creators of a song/work/art/pic/etc.

and for viewers/consumers/fans/etc that "experience" that work

when we put OUT a work (art/pic/song/whatever)

do we then give up ALL rights to that work?

or just some?

Copyright laws adressed this issue over 200 yrs ago in an attempt to settle the issue... but we all now know that those laws need amended (they need amended back towards the original model more so than in the direction they have been historically going!)

FAIR IS FAIR

I still say the line in the sand is the question over a 3rd party SELLING the artists work.

If you SHARE it (for free) then I think it is a GOOD thing for creator and observer.

If you want to help creator distribute the said work, then, different story... MAKE SURE YOU AND CREATOR work out the details... ... BUT FAIRLY!!!!

Anti Trust Laws were supposed to keep things like RIAA from happening/existing

Big Money caused it all to fail

radio/tv/trade print/etc all went away and got bought up.

but INTERNET came along

big money dont like it

FINALLY the public has a FORUM vs the BIG MONEY

............
..........
..
.

Again, and AGAIN I will say or SHOUT if I have to... THE ISSUE ABOUT "IP" IS ABOUT IF THE 3RD PARTY IS SELLING IT WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE FIRST PARTY!!!

If someone shares or gives it away for free it is only promotion and should be celebrated by the creator of the work...

If someone sells the work to make money without permission of the owner, then let the WAR begin and all hell break loose.

Ideas and Art and Expression are FREE!!!

Commercialization of art and etc. was a mistake...

I think we need a time machine so we can go behead Queen Anne.


.


Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support Local and Independent Music!
Support Open Source and your Library!

An idea are only YOURS if you never tell anyone about it.

All of Mp3.com's content will be up for archive, including mainstream music such as Nelly "Shake Ya Tailfeather"

Robots.txt Query Exclusion.



We're sorry, access to http://www.mp3.com has been blocked by the site owner via robots.txt.
Read more about robots.txt
See the site's robots.txt file.
Try another request or click here to search for all pages on mp3.com/
See the FAQs for more info and help, or contact us.

i think that the point fossil is trying to make is something along the lines of "whats good for the goose is good for the gander". and i think he has a point. for profit or not, if the riaa can sue the masses for distributing copyrighted material, then why not him? since the vast majority of people being sued by the riaa under dmca were not distributing the works "for profit", nor were they given the opportunity to "remove" the content before legal action was taken, i feel that fossil has every right to ask this question. whether or not they offer to "remove" the content if you object, the point is, they never asked for permission to use it or "distribute" it in the first place. this is the crux of the matter. so are we saying that, had Briana Banks put up some kind of "notice" that she would "remove the content" should the copyright holder "object" to her distribution of it, the riaa wouldn't have sued her? i think not. no matter how altruistic their intentions, archive.org has broken the same laws, and should be treated the same way as Briana. maybe if fossil does sue, people will start to realize the impossibility of enforcing such laws.
compmore
Date: November 29, 2003 @ 1:24 PM
I think leflaw had a good point earlier. if a law applies to one person it should apply to everyone. sounds to me like fossil is playing devils advocate and challanging the law by using the law and showing how silly it is.
exactly...

Chuckling while eating turkey leftovers...


RasMasta -- my you are a reactionary -- but that is good -- it looks like you are delving into some research which is exactly why you should...

Yes, I am playing devil's advocate but also do have some concerns... part of my concerns deal with the way the artist community is so fragmented.

Yes, the DMCA is such a force that we could use it. And, we do allow our music to be accessed by the public but not to be at our detriment. That is why our material always caries the appropriate copyright mark.

Being as it is what makes Archive.org (sorry for the earlier error) any different than any other "receiver" of copyrighted and digitized audio content? Because they are non-profit? I am sure the 12-year-old girl who got sued by RIAA wasn't recieving copyrighted material for "profit" -- she was a minor who was a private citizen.

The point here is that DMCA as written is a rattlesnake in wolve's clothing. You can do most anything you want with it depending on your approach. Actually I have word that Vivendi realizes that they are exposed if they transfer the site and that they will, indeed, destroy rather than violate the DMCA -- which is why everybody is so upset -- they just didn't realize that any transfer of music contenct without the express permission of every copyright owner for every copyrighted song (or portion of a song) can violate the DMCA and result in a $150,000 per violation albotross...

Gentlemen, don't you see the irony? Universal-Vivendi has to destory the material because they, themselves are part of the RIAA and relized that they would be sued to smithereens with the very monster they helped create...

OH, and btw -- I do not believe a court of jurisdiction would hold that it is the responsibility of the copyright holder to notify the "reciever" of copyrighted audio files that the audio files cannot be used. I believe they would hold that it is the responsibility of the receiver to notify the owner of copyrighted material for permission to use the material. AND, I might add -- it doesn't make a difference whether an organization is non-profit or not as to whether or not they can be held for a tort violation -- the DMCA does not protect non-profits any more differently than it protects 12-year-old girls.

RasMasta, instead of being beligerant and making personal affronts and threats to me over such issues I think you ought to check with your attorney first.

indeed...

BTW, FJones987

Your question: "1) Are those archived sites posted on *your* domain and server space that you payed money for, or another site that allowed you to post them? Did you bother checking the website's policy and TOS on website creation?"

Yes, The archived former sites of mine were from my domain from my personal servers. No one bothered to check with me about seeking permission to provide these sites free to the public after I determined them to be obsolete and deleted them. They carried the copyrighted notice in plain and conspicous sight. These were written works of mine as well as private graphics material that I paid for from a graphics artist that was also copyrighted with appropriate copyright notice. The entire site was archived by archive.org and I didn't even know it until this issue came up and I discovered it this week.

i say sue 'em and call a press confrence...talk about getting the word out...

Does Fossil not know how the internet works? Anything you view on your computer from the internet has been downloaded to your cache. So am I now going to be sued by Fossil for "archiving" his copyrighted material on my computer which he himself offers freely to the public on a website..?

uhhh... tell that to Congress....

I've been around awhile and may know more about the internet than you might think... But, the question is, what will you do with what is on your cache?? --- save it and make it available to millions? You are talking apples and oranges... And, yes, I offer things on the internet for fre -- but not to be exploited. You steal my material and try to sell it than you are no different than the RIAA, my friend. But, you download it for your own personal pleasure then you have been given permission to do so... much different because I gave you permission by the presence of my provision of material. Much of my material is not available here but on other sites and is only available if you pay for it -- Your attitude is exactly what would make you a good target for RIAA -- so, if you haven't already go ahead and put yourself in the position of having them discover copyrighted material on your hard drive... but keep in mind there is a difference between the traces of a MP3 file and the traces of a "streamed" Mp3 file.

But you raise a good point and one that you should reflect upon... Under the DMCA's provision if you were to , say, retrieve that material from your cache and save it in another directroy on your hadr drive then you are in "technical" violation and subject to $150,000 fine per violation... That's if they catch you --- but the chances of them catching you are nil, right? But... If you were to say, sign on to a P2P network with the network having access to your hard drive then you are doing exactly what archive.org is doing -- exposing the material to others to copy and download without permission and this time there may be an RIAA spybot that catches your ip address and identifies your ISP (and possibly infecting your system to disable it) and you are legally cooked meat...

Thats why the DMCA needs amended, my friend, like Leflaw said, "Whats the difference between indies suing archive.org and the majors suing mp3.com? A copy is a copy...." ---

I can't believe that many of you would take the time to make such wicked generalizations without doing some research first... You are guilty until proven innocent according to the tactics employed by the RIAA and it is amazing to me that many of you will spit on the messenger instead of reading the message...

The artist community is too fragmented (and that is if you are an artist) to be effective in any lobbying effort at this point -- which means THEY win... Major labels who rob the artist's blind because of "recoupment" clauses in contracts and then rip off the general public by producing substandard music. In the meanwhile if the independent music industry doesn't get its SH*T together then we will become obsolete as well....

You have know idea who I am... but some of you have knee jerk reactions that I am a "bad" guy rather than someone who sees and knows and who has been around long enough to know that what looks like sh*t, and smells like sh*t must be "sh*t".

Several of you picked up on what I was doing that that is terrific. But the rest of you --- if you want change then yo need to educate yourself and be prepared to join the movement. If you react this way against me how are you going to be credible if your testimony is needed before Congress or before a state legislature or before a court of law. You have to fight fire with fire. The passion must be in your heart and you must use your head here.

If you can't present an example of how the law is haywire by citing Congress's own funded archive and how it is proposing to do the same thing that P2P is doing then you are lost --- lame excuses about cacheing won't insolate you if you converted it from the cache without the permission of the copyright holder. That takes deliberate actions.

BTW, I am amazed that someone isn't threatening a class action suit against Vivendi for all of the money owed that is less than $25, plus damages... But, it is in the MP3 contract as was pointed out above --- purely, though, another example of artists getting screwed by an RIAA member.

Hypothetically speaking, taking the law to it's limit...

There I was, walking down the street when a tune pops into my head and I started whistling it. Well don't ask me how it happened but the next thing I know I'm being dragged into court by the RIAA...

man, why are you guys even here?
"So, the student of war who is unversed in the art of war
of varying his plans, even though he be acquainted with the Five
Advantages, will fail to make the best use of his men.
-sun zu, the art of war...
if you are unwilling, or unable to turn the enemys tactics against him, then you are doomed to failure...
-iscariot, the art of download...

Huh...?

And I thought I was the one not making any sence..

Disagree with this article. There is a fight against the RIAA. Are we now taking a "Cant beat em so join em" stance? I for one...will not. To sue archive.org is to join the RIAA view point, or am i missing something....?

ok..i did not read all the posts...i see your message fossil.

Fossil, I see what you are saying if a major label takes over then you are really going to get it up the butt unless you do something about it! I agree with George if your gonna get someone get the big labels!! If it's going after their butts I'm all for it

So the issue is - do we stoop to their level?

The entire copyright issue has gotten out of hand.

Every public library I have ever been to has photocopiers. Usually these machinese are quite busy despite the signs posted above them that it is illegal to copy copyrighted material.

Yet everybody understands that people are copying for personal use -- so, for the most part, everybody turns their heads and looks the other way.

But then again there are not $150,000 fines for each violation nor is the technology such that a picture is taken of you taking the copy.

Its not so much to stoop at the same level as it is to illustrate that a vehicle (archive.org) that the US Congress funds (with good intentions) is actually violating the copyright laws, itself. So where do youy draw the line? a 12-year-old girl doesn't understand copyright laws nor should she be expected to at the extent to which shfe was involuntarily drawn in. But the grown men and women who run archive.org certainly understand the copyright laws -- or do they? It was not intended, I am reasonably sure, that when archive.org was initially organized, that digital audio files of the magnituded and scope might be considered for inclusion. Obviously they understood some of the importance of being very careful about music files until the MP3 thing came up because they were and are storing music files of music from the 20's and 30's that were no longer covered under current copyrights.

But really, archive.org won't get the MP3 files anyway. Primetones.com has been making a big effort in the past week but I would doubt they will be successful either -- because, as I said, before, Universal-Vivendi owns MP3.com until that point and to allow the music files to be placed in any other site's hands would be to allow basically the same thing to happen that they are suing everybody else for with the DMCA under the RIAA's guise.

As you can see by the various responses in this thread a great number of poster's do not understand the importance of the copyright laws as they exist right now. Part of this problem is that the music community -- and indeed the internet music consumer, is global in scope and different countries have different copyright laws and levels of enforcement -- so therefore different perspectives.

I keep thinking about those photocopy machines. When you think about it there probably shouldn't be photocopies at all in a library. Therefor logic dictates that the public at large feels that copying something is ok if it is for personal use -- but not ok if you copy to re-sell it to somebody else. In both the cases of photocopying an article from this month's National Geographic, or copying a track from Willie Nelson's newest LP you are violating the copyright laws. Only one of those laws carries a substantial fine. Is Willie Nelson more important than the author of the magazine article that he deserves such a fine. But wait -- Willie Nelson probably won't see a penny of that fine money if it is collected to begin with.

There are a lot of flaws with the laws but as I see it the entire issue now needs to be re-visited and updated and the consumer should be able to expect certain levels of protection as well.

The internet continues to grow as more and more countries augment it and those that have it seem to be developing it at an out-of-control pace. If we are to protect our works as copyright holders but still allow the consumer access through this wonderful medium then we have to be proactive now to affect the changes in a favorable light. Part of my argument focuses on the idea that the only ones affecting change right now are the ones we are upset about. The internet is a revolutionary social change that is chaning the world and has a profound significance.

This is a war over power and control. We cannot be effective in this war if we are going to be fragmented. We have to use our heads and our logic and open our eyes and look around us and then organize ktake a head-on approach. Right now, for example, many artists are happy to just let archive.org or any other site just take their intellectual property because they have this absurd delusion that it is a place to park their tunes for free. Nothing is free and in the end they may lose their property because of technicalities in the law called public accomodation.

Leflaw, you yourself know that often times people who post here will cite some code they found somewhere and give their own interpretive spin on it. How often will you see them quote case law? That's because the general public doesn't understand that statute law is only a small part of the overall law.

People should go take a good look at archive.org and review the various sites that are on it and make note of all the pages that have copyright disclosures on the material. Congress funds this. Therefore that makes it ok, right? It's non-profit. Therefore that makes it ok, right? Photocopiers are in public libraries. Therefore its ok to copy, right?

If it is ok to copy in all of the above then the law should be amended as such. If I wanna copy Britney Spears' new release for my own use (God Forbid) I should be able to, right? To me the answers are so obvious. How many photocopiers does the average person have in their own home. Perhaps they have a computer scanner? uh oh... But yet we are allowed to purchase these without having to have a license, right? How many cassette recorders? How many tape recorders or even hand held digital recorders? How many VCR? How many camcorders? Its ok to own one of these but you can't take it into the local movie theater and turn it on to film the newest movie release that you paid good admission money for... How many people have screen capture software on their computer that can grab copyrighted images that someone else illegally scanned into their computer?

See? the laws can't keep up with the technology so the laws have to change -- and if we continue to be fragmented we will only see more stuff as bad as the DMCA continue to evolve.

There has to be a happy medium. Here, son, I give you a 22 rifle for a Christmas present. But, mind you, it is illegal to use it. If you get caught shooting at your targets targets you might get a $150 fine because society says if you miss the target you might kill a child somewhere. You cannot shoot it even if it is at a target. Here son, is a $2500 computer system with a 120 gig hard drive, soundcard and JBL speakers. But don't download any music with it because if you do there is $150,000 fine for each violation because you might harm some cigar-smoking foreign record executive's annual vacation at the Bahamas Playboy Club.

I think this thread should be put on archive.org, hell the whole site why not !

Wow. Went out of town in the middle of this thread to do a gig. Glad to see it came around to reality, as I knew it eventually would.

" The artist community is too fragmented (and that is if you are an artist) to be effective in any lobbying effort at this point -- which means THEY win... Major labels who rob the artist's blind because of "recoupment" clauses in contracts and then rip off the general public by producing substandard music. In the meanwhile if the independent music industry doesn't get its SH*T together then we will become obsolete as well...."

Well said, Fossil.

As I've said before, I think Archive.org is a great thing. But that doesn't change the fact that what they are doing with the Wayback Machine is, indeed, violation of the DMCA.

If Vivendi does anything with the mp3.com archive other than delete the entire thing, so are they.

Is it right?

Doesn't matter. It's the law. The RIAA will use it against everyone in the country at their whim.

We must do the same. Not for the purpose of hurting the Archive, but for the purpose of bringing a "case or controversy" closer to examination by the Supreme Court.

That's the only way the DMCA will be revoked.

yeah, they have made unauthorized
copies of lots of my copyrighted digital pages, and honestly, when I found the place a long time back, it did bother me. Not even a line in email to ask if they could post my stuff on their site en toto.

In my estimation, it is both a violation of Copyright Law of 1976 and DMCA of 1998.

I personally agree 100 % with fossil.
~Code

"I am amazed that someone isn't threatening a class action suit against Vivendi for all of the money owed that is less than $25, plus damages... But, it is in the MP3 contract as was pointed out above --- purely, though, another example of artists getting screwed by an RIAA member."

I mentioned this weeks ago when I thought there were probably only about 100,000 indies. I still think it's a good idea, especially knowing that it's closer to 250,000 of us.

They owe me a measly $10... Ha... but it all adds up....

If nothing else someone should openly publicize the amount for the general public to see while pointing out that Universal Vivendi is a member of the RIAA -- the same organization that is actively suing 12-year-old girls by justifying it publicly that the girl is robbing the pockets of starving artists... Ha... who is robbing the pockets of starving artists?

Isn't there a saying fight fire with fire???? Get them back with their own laws pull out that DMCA suit and fire away! eek this is kind of evil > leflaw hon it's like firing back at them with their own ammo. Brings to mind the saying "What comes around goes around!" too hehe

Agreeing completely with great point by George and fossil. Has ANYONE noticed you never see a person all on their own, of modest means, using the DMCA to stand up against people making unauthorized copies of their copyrighted works? The DMCA has become a hammer for the folks all monied and lawyered up...I say "become", but it was really written with them in mind , in my opinion.
~Code
"DOWN WITH GLOBALISM/ DOWN WITH NEO-FEUDALISM "

Code babs we'll keep our fingers crossed that the normal person can use it back against them.

Yeah the big orginisations make and use the laws against the individual, and the individual can't use the laws against the big orginisations, because they put a loophole in the law that makes them exempt.

Ahem... now that we have all festered a little bit about this -- Look at this new press release by the Archive:

Internet Archive Gets DMCA Exemption To Help Archive Vintage Software

In 2003 the Internet Archive, as part of research into vintage software archiving, discovered possible archiving issues involving the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. This could make it impossible to legally archive early computer software and games, even for accredited institutions wishing to store limited amounts of non-distributable, archival images.

It's vital to make proper archival copies of these artefacts, because the life of magnetic media such as floppy discs has been estimated at 10 to 30 years. Time is running out to properly archive much of this large body of work for safekeeping, to ensure it lives out its term of copyright and is available ( in the short-term, under suitable copyright-constrained means) for posterity.

The Copyright Office holds a rulemaking proceeding every 3 years to:

"determine whether there are particular classes of works as to which users are, or are likely to be, adversely affected in their ability to make noninfringing uses due to the prohibition on circumvention of access controls."

As part of this rulemaking process, the Internet Archive submitted an initial comment in early 2003, and followed this up with a reply comment giving further examples of classic software that might be lost if access controls could not be circumvented.

Following deliberation, the Copyright Office ruled in late October 2003 that four exemptions should be added to the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA, to be valid until the next Copyright Office rulemaking in 2006, including two that are related to the Internet Archive's original comments:


Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete.
Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and which require the original media or hardware as a condition of access.

With the aid of these exemptions, the Internet Archive is continuing its work with institutional and technical partners to research and archive this at-risk software, and would like to thank all those who worked hard to help us achieve our goal.

http://www.archive.org/about/dmca.php