Skip to comments.Music Web Sites Dispute Legality of Their Closing
Posted on 12/20/2010 7:14:11 AM PST by Mad Dawgg
When federal authorities shut down five Web sites last month on suspicion of copyright infringement, they gave no warning and offered no details of their investigation, and they have not filed any criminal charges since
But after the seizure warrant used in the operation was released last week, the operators of several of the sites said in interviews that they were innocent of infringement, and criticized the investigation for misrepresenting how their sites worked.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Blood Suckers all...
And the libtards were screaming about BUSH trashing the Constitution? Pot, kettle, black.
No where in there does it give the right of assignment to others these rights, but if we accept that's agreeable, then there's the question if 'limited times' is met by the DMCA, which effectively makes unlimited protections for music and movies.
I can not imagine that anyone can provide any debate from the founding fathers that gives the intention that 'limited times' meant 70+ years after the creator's death. Nor does it play with the good faith intention, that in exchange for protections, these creations would be given to the public at the end of the protection, also known as public domain. A hundred years from current relevance seems like a very poor exchange for the people for granting the protections of government.
Fifth Amendment lawsuit, plus punitive damages. (Personally against those who acted, if possible.)
So the sites were closed down only after the case went to trial and the appeal process RIGHT??????????????????????
I thought patents for things were good for 10 years and then had to be renewed?
Americans have tolerated that kind ogf government theft "because we oinly go after drug dealers";sooner or later the government tthugs will just do whatever they like and take whatever they want ,as in Zimbabwe-unless the people fight back.
I would venture "the trial" was held in a smokey backroom after a large sum of money changed hands then the FEDs shut down the site.
easy peasy Japaneasy...
Here’s an interesting tidbit;
Yet after being shown the affidavit, the operator of dajaz1.com a widely read hip-hop blog that posts new songs and videos disputed many of the warrants examples of what it called copyright infringement. He said that, like much of the material on his site, the songs had been sent to him for promotional purposes by record labels and the artists.
As proof, the operator, a Queens man who declined to give his real name but is known online as Splash, showed The New York Times several e-mails from record label employees and third-party marketers offering songs mentioned in the affidavit.
Its not my fault if someone at a record label is sending me the song, Splash said.
Shoot first policy from the Obama administration.
That’s what I don’t get. I used to go to OnSmash (mentioned in the article) and its mostly just free advertising for the record companies, effort and bandwidth free. Right next to the music video they have release dates and links to preordering or ordering it on Amazon/iTunes.
There were no movies on the site and any (non-mixtape) audio samples were under a minute long, not the whole song. I don’t know the whole DMCA regulations (who does?) but at the very least it looked like a good faith effort to comply with them.
At worst he would be guilty of the same crimes of "illegal distribution" of information that the NY Times and wikileaks are.
Torrent search engines contain no copyrighted material, they merely search for media that may or may not be copyrighted. Shutting down a torrent site is no different than banning xerox machines because they might be used to duplicate copyrighted material.