Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Google's just a search engine, why should they have any power over internet content? I refuse to believe that Google deleted the blogs.
Clearly deletion is the sign of a successful blog. What I'd give to have so much as an mp3 link removed...
I'm sorry, the bullshit nerd defence of 'well I know it's completely illegal to do this but you should have asked nicely' is just atrocious idiocy.
The second you repost someone else's property without permission, or indeed *asking nicely*, is the second you can go and fuck yourself.
you signed up to them having the right to remove your content wihtout telling you.
If people hav a problem with it they can host their own blog
Whether you agree with it, or the manner in which it is enforced is a whole 'nother academic debate.
and even then it's *still* legal i think.
But hosting it is. And why *should* Google have to prune the blogs of users who push their luck? This is the equivalent of a bar manager finding an employee giving a free drink to a friend. Is he going to say "pay for that one drink" every time he sees it happening? No. He's going to fire him.
Being online doesn't make you any less of a douche for what is essentially theft.
playing devil's advocate a bit, but do they really need a warning? it's not as if it's not common knowledge that, in general, giving away copyrighted material is illegal
which is whether providing specific links comes under the category of 'facilitating' copyright theft (or whatever the actual term is)
That's what they rumbled ThePirateBay for, innit? (AFAIK - I never used it, but that's what news stories seemed to say.)
"cos in that case google needs to delete itself."
Indeed. It's all a bit of a mess.
I don't exactly agree with the record labels attitude to everything, but it's hardly surprising when you break the law and Blogger's terms of service, it is?
"Any mp3's posted here are just for sampling."
I love it when blogs say that.
but they look like assholes doing it after a blog has gained a reputation or some followers, they should have done it earlier on.
It's utter shit. It's tumblr FTW.
Blogger is like using IE6 - It's for cunts what are cunts. And stuff.
Um, well it serves the AMERICAN bloggers right. Hahaha.
Really though... tumblr
Did I mention tumblr?
Yesterday's post = brilliant.
BUT a lot of those blogs were ones that generally hosted MP3s they had specific permission to host, and on top of that google gave them no warning or indication what the offending material was, and so no chance to defend themselves.
they've issued a response now: http://pitchfork.com/news/37873-google-explains-mp3-blog-removals/
it basically says nothing about why they removed the specific blogs and not where the DMCA complaints come from. most of what i've read suggests its not from the labels themselves (given that they've likely authorised the mp3s for download), so where is it coming from?
that in many cases the mp3s being hosted, are given to the blogs by record labels and pr companies as promotional tools.
Some of the blogs deleted deal directly with the bands/PR's/Labels and put the music up with their express permission. In fact they positivly actively look to get featured.
I sit on both sides of the fence, I've got a blogger blog, feature music sent to me by PR companies to promote the tracks, but also work for an online PR company and am therefore in touch with a lot of blogs trying to get our bands featured on their sites.
It's kind of alarming that blogger can do that now, because you'll start asking yourself what is the point of putting any effort into something if you could log in tomorrow and find the whole thing had just been deleted, despite the fact you had featured music that you were given in good faith?
One of the issues is theres no recognition for the geography of hte blogger. See you were approached by a small indie label in the UK about featuring a band, but that band might be signed to a major in the States, then you post a piece about them, it goes up on HypeM, the US major sees it, and gets it pulled down, theres no communication between the legal departments and the A&R/Promotions departments.
the post linked to up above failed to make that point at all. It was pure OUTRAGE!!!111 instead.
Another example of how disjointed and archaic the music industry is. You can't really blame Google for this though - if they get a takedown notice, they *legally* have to act first and ask questions later.
I've gotten take down warning before, well just emails saying something I posted has been flagged and deleted, and the post is just disappeared.
It's very much a case of throwing hte baby out with the dishwater, to delete someones entire blog, well I mean blogs started off many years ago as online diarys, very personal things, that you but a lot of effort into, I know myself I've spent I'd say easily 100 hours working on html, and design, jsut to get my website lookign the way I'd like it, regardless of it's content.
I've used blogger, since while I have some level of understanding of website design, it's been mostly built on the platform of blogger, which means you can have a decent enough site, without any skills, and then learn to improve it, through it's accessiblitly, without it being too daunting.
If I logged in tomorrow, and found that all those hours of work had been deemed insignificant in the eyes of someone who wouldn't have the common sense to at least question where I'd gotten the music featured on my blog I'd be pretty pissed off.
I was suggesting to another blogger that there needs to be some kinda register or license or summat that shows that the music you feature has been sent to you by a representative of the band.
I mean HypeM have a pretty rigid set of criteria to get listed on their site, you have to feature debate, your own links, fresh regualrly updated content, not feature whole albums, and also have links back to the bands myspaces/websites so once people have smapled the music, they know where they can go to get more, or support the band.
So why not make being listed on HypeM, or someother type of site, mean that you are a "fairtrade blogger" for want of a better phrase?
but in reality it'll end up being what lawyers and corporations decide is fair - which would be somewhat ironic
not sure about washing the baby in the kitchen sink with the pots and pans though!
though often use it appropriately haha.
and now it's finally been pointed out that (for at least some of them) the mp3s were legit, with some justification. The anger needs to be directed at the music industry rather than Google though - once you're served with a DMCA notice, you've got no choice but to remove the content. The law, as it's written is absolutely brutal and doesn't allow for defence of the content until after the event. Essentially, the lawyer serving the notice also becomes judge and jury.
it's very easy to blame google as they are slowly becoming more and more dominant. As I mentioned in above, it's the communications within the music industry that needs to be reconsidered, but thats wishful thinking.
I read a great piece here: http://songbytoad.com/2010/02/owning-information-and-terminating-debate/
And another interesting one on the same site: http://songbytoad.com/2009/04/that-sony-meeting/
that summed up a lot of things, the promo departments see the value in blogs, and in many cases I've encountered see them as much part of the promotional process as the NME or Drowned In Sound, whereas the legal departments jsut view them as rogue hackers locked in their bedrooms, furiously uploading album after album onto the net.
it's hardly that easy to insist that stuff you don't like is taken down
It's a badly drafted law that allows lawyers to run riot.
it will leave itself open to a whole bigger can of worms with Youtube and unlicensed content on there too.
Another thing though, it's easier to download an mp3 off Youtube than anything, so I think somethings going to have to give, and I think the only workable solutin will be new legislastion, as Google isn't going to want to appear to be regressing from an innovation point of view, namely removing all music from Youtube, and no matter how they keep closing people down, they'll spring up somewhere else.
I might not be right here, but probably the biggest erm...blow the music industry ever made against illegal downloading was Spotify and just letting people listen to stuff?
that the DMCA asked BLK JKS to remove a song from their own official blog.
one of whom is currently a Top 10 selling artist, who use blogger for their own website, would they site get deleted if they posted links to their own music?
Be interesting to see the reaction.
intellectual copyright law is inherently flawed in the global digital domain through the disconnect between composers, labels publishers, PR, distributors, royalty collection agencies, and partners x territories x time
I've been saying for a while now that the relationship IN LAW between composers and all these other agencies needs to change
why can't we have a situation where artists maintain their copyright and all other agents are only able to license or lease that material with the work becoming public domain upon the death of the artist with a tax on all commercial exploitation thereafter going to the next of kin
need money to record and tour and labels need to get something back for their investment?
why do you consider the status quo the only way to do business?
there are plenty of successful artists who DO own all their own copyrights - it's not a pie in the sky idea
but i do think it's an incredibly difficult prospect for any musician who aspire to do something that isn't lofi / punk rock / electronica / music that can't easily be made on home setups.
plus those who maintain their own copyrights (generally speaking - i'm sure there are examples of bands that license records to majors and large indies but they're certainly in the minority) tend to be on small labels and so have multiple deals around the world and oh look we're back to the problem of one label tripping over another.
is that it is then left in no doubt IN LAW and in common practice who the infringement of copyright directly affects and who has the legal responsibility of filing copyright claims
placing the artist at the head of the tree clears up the problem of various authorities tripping over one another AND destroys arguments that people are not really affecting the artist through piracy
the arrangement I'm proposing would not alter the amount of capital within the industry, simply the power structure
artists own their songs. they effectively trade them to labels for the resources and capital to do something with those songs.
people would be more open to change, but just like anything, people will only get there act together once all the money is gone.