On the downlow(d)? Bloggers forced offline

Only slightly less depressing than your continued advocating of a bandwidth tax.

Please stop it.

how is that - in any way - a "sensible solution"?

17 Seconds had an old Glasvegas interview deleted because it featured demo mp3s that pre-dated their Columbia signing and had already been taken offline - http://www17seconds.blogspot.com/2008/10/grrrstand-up-to-bullies.html and a follow up at http://www17seconds.blogspot.com/2008/10/fightback-begins.html

of file2hd.com which practically makes downloading from blogs obselete anyway?

I am so glad you posted this article... as a blog posting of mine (on Blogger) was issued with a DMCA takedown notice yesterday! I suspended my entire blog, as it's unclear just what copyrighted material was objected to. I do not post mp3s to download, but sometimes I post images of the CDs I review, was this the objection?

Chilling Effect (http://www.chillingeffects.org/) is an excellent resource.

the Madonna mp3s have trackers on the by the way that will send a signal to the CIA that Bin Laden is living in your gran's house which will subsequently be targeted with a missile strike

brave new world

First off... Serves people right for depending on Web 2.0 websites for their blog. They don't own the property and have no rights, so what Blogspooge does is up to them. Sad but true. Own your won website and you can fight the good fight. Too many people rely on Blogspurt or whatever and they control none of their own content will Blogsponge gets all the props and SEO for your hard work.

Second... I run a radio station. This kind of crap bothers me, but understand that artists need to make money. I tell artists all the time NOT to impale their music on the Internet in its entirety. Once you do, it's public domain. People think clicking the "do not allow downloads" stops anybody... NOT But the bottom line is that one day, after all the freeloaders have downloaded themselves silly, they are going to wonder where all the new music is. And there won't be any... All musicians, record labels, and people in this business will have STARVED TO DEATH! I know you think that sounds impossible, but I am telling you the truth. People in this business, minus the Kid Rocks and the AC/DC's of the world, are basically living in poverty. So really, it's up to you guys. If you want great new music and less of this Bedroom Johnny crap that people put out, then please think about what I am saying here. Thanks everyone... Great article, great responses. Keep up the good work!

last night I was at a friend's house and I said to him "Oh, check this track out" opened up hypem on his browser, went straight to a 320kbps mp3 and pressed play and sat back.
Within 45 seconds he'd gone to the label's page and ordered the 12" AND CD.
Instant joy and impulse shopping.
The music industry needs blogs.
The record industry however do not want. Why? Because THEY wish to control the market, the avenues of exposure and distribution.

I do agree with your point about web 2.0 though

the digital network model of information distribution and the old industry model of contracts of copyright ownership

If they bought his back catalogue when they signed him then they have the rights under law - though without knowing the particular case in question I really couldn't say that for sure. But either way a strongly worded letter from a major label legal department would usually be enough for a website to err on the side of caution.

and that £1 is paid how often?
why should people have to pay more for their computer after they've bought it, or the parts necessary to build one? there's already tax on that. it's called VAT.

I've been writing a blog for the last few months and made a decision at the start not to post up MP3's, for the very reason that others have alluded to here...that things in terms of future ownership of music and other such intellectual property are not that clear, particularly where a band gives a blogger an MP3 and then at a later date gets signed and sells its ownership of its songs. I want to avoid any fights with record companies and for this reason simply provide links to Myspace pages, band websites etc. I'm not interested in getting a huge number of hits on my blog, especially from those just looking for free music. I'm more interested that my readers read my blog simply because they enjoy the read. I'm sure they are resourceful enough to find the free downloads elsewhere if they want to, but I choose not to provide that.

This whole debate is going to run and run I feel, and although I choose not to put up MP3's, it seems to me that it is another example of the record industry being so far behind the times in terms of the way people choose (rightly or wrongly) to consume music these days. The solution ? I'm not sure there is one. The internet has created a monster so huge and complex that I don't think a simple solution is out there.

is how does the money get distributed? is it not clearly obvious that, whatever is downloaded, it'll just be used to plug leaks in the sinking major label ship?

although not a great one, would be for hosts to limit the archiving of blogs to say, 3 months. That way, music is still shared, but is less likely to attract the attention of or even concern the likes of the RIAA.

A second would be a ruling set by the IFPI and RIAA that states files shared online must be a maximum of 96kbps, thus rendering them inferior to the products bought online and in stores but still perfectly listenable for sampling purposes.