Comments on: Digital Millennium Copyright Act

By: Ed

Ed — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 07:37:11 +0000

I have had four notices. I am fed up to the back teeth with all of this. What annoyed me with my latest was that all THE TRACKS i HAD POSTED IN MY fESTIVE FIFTY OF THE YEAR HAD BEEN OBTAINED LEGALLY FOR FREE. The DMCA and the RIAA should be sabotaged. They are a massive threat to music.

By: ekko

ekko — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 09:28:23 +0000

Thanks for the shout out. I think we should all file DMCA notices against the RIAA’s own website, as well as Columbia, BMG, CBS, etc.

By: Jason Pickett

Jason Pickett — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 17:56:36 +0000

I have survived 2 x DMCA notices, 2 x Copyright breaches.
My site is still up & running on a USA server –
almost 5 years later.
My Government, Australian, tried everything they could to shut me up. I’m still here –
My site shows & proves that they (Centrelink, Australia’s Federal Welfare Agency) had lied in court, falsified evidence, withheld vital evidence, changed my files & invaded my privacy.
All I can say for now, is –

“Stand Your Ground –
Tell The People –
Don’t Let The Government Push You Around –
You Have A Choice –
Fight Back – !!!!

Thanx Monty Burns Thanx

By: jessie pink

jessie pink — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 12:01:04 +0000

RIAA- Bob Lefsetz is basically describing it as the lovechild of universal and Doug Morris, number 1 on his list of enemies.

“Despite the aegis of caring about music and consumers he’s an ignorant old man who is single-handedly holding back the monetization of recorded music online.

No one who sues his own customers can give a shit about them. That’s like killing slaves for their own good.

And, believe me, RIAA policy is Universal Music policy. Based on the company’s market share, if nothing else.”

Also on this list is Bill Clinton… For passing laws such as this.

Instead of ratting on the internet, isp’s and p2p sharing record labels and artists should be embracing the opportunities it offers and thinking outside the square (think Radiohead/Girl Talk). How frustrating for you the bloggers who are contributing to the promotion of great Australian music to have to deal with the time consuming and frustrating offshoots of these sort of deals.

Rant over… but I could go on all day.

By: deff

deff — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 07:29:23 +0000

goddamn RIAA bloodsucking lawyer scum

By: Luke Electrorash

Luke Electrorash — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 01:57:41 +0000

Yeah, we’ve been hit with a couple of takedowns, most notable of which was for The Shoes’ remix of Wiley’s ‘Wearing My Rolex’. We had recieved posting permission from The Shoes, both from the artists and the manager, so it came as somewhat of a shock to receive such a detailed and intimidatory request. This now makes me think we may have had sufficient claim to re-up the track, but by that point the post was around two months old so it seemed a tad redundant. Ah well, the bully boy, rearguard tactics of a dying system.

By: Dj Donna Summer

Dj Donna Summer — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 01:49:01 +0000

>i mean shouldn’t the RIAA and IFPC be held responsible for when they act irresponsibly as well?<

Dude- of COURSE NOT! The RIAA has been given basically any sort of rights they want because they represent big-money in an administration who will suck anything to get at it. The RIAA is not a government agency, but it has been “given powers” to suggest it is as scary as the CIA… Hopefully things change in a few months, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

By: Look out! It’s the RIAA! « Loud Noise and Pictures

Look out! It’s the RIAA! « Loud Noise and Pictures — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 01:28:35 +0000

[...] to. They’ve also been hassled (via their web host) by the RIAA. Rather than explain it here, this is the link to their post, which is a really good read [...]

By: aleks discodust

aleks discodust — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:12:44 +0000

first of all: thanks for taking care of this, man.

and i was kind of shocked how easy it is for the riaa to send out a random takedown notice, only based on assumptions and a script that was probably quickly hacked together by a programmer in some basement.

i will get in touch with dreamhost about this as well, pointing them to your blog. i see their point too, i mean how are dreamhost supposed to know about all that copyright stuff, so ‘of course’ they did comply when the takedown notice hit them.

but the riaa should know better, so i also agree with travis, they should be charged for pulling something like that. and fact is: if i’d act as random and foolish as that in my day-job, treating our customers like shit, i’d be jobless by now.

don’t bite the hand that feeds. in a not too distant future, they’ll seriously regret it.

By: Travis

Travis — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:47:37 +0000

i had a very, very similar thing happen with a track that was cleared for blogging. eventually got the notice rescinded and the track re-hosted, but it’s a pain in the ass so i sympathize.

i also had a youtube video removed because i called it “little birds” and apparently there is an artist or song or something on sony records called little birds. there wasn’t even music in the video… it was just little birds. how can something so generic be removed?

i think most of the RIAA DCMA notifications are from bots and they look for key words. which is stupid.

as a preventive measure there should be a counter fine every time somebody falsely files a DCMA notice — it can be nominal like $1. i mean shouldn’t the RIAA and IFPC be held responsible for when they act irresponsibly as well?? and they cost the time and money of not only the blogger but also the hosting company. of course this will never happen in the USA where congressmen are bought and paid for by big business.

ANYWAY. re-upping the pnau remix on bigstereo now — i had removed it after it was taken down from here and discodust. annoying.