Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Music Web Sites Dispute Legality of Their Closing
The New York Times, Business Day ^ | December 19, 2010 | BEN SISARIO

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: mpaa; riaa
The Media Thugs are using the Feds to crush any threats to thier business model without regard to whether said threats are legal or not!

Blood Suckers all...

1 posted on 12/20/2010 7:14:17 AM PST by Mad Dawgg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

And the libtards were screaming about BUSH trashing the Constitution? Pot, kettle, black.


2 posted on 12/20/2010 7:20:24 AM PST by OCCASparky (Obama--Playing a West Wing fantasy in a '24' world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; -- article 1, United States Constitution.

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.

3 posted on 12/20/2010 7:22:28 AM PST by kingu (Favorite Sticker: Lost hope, and Obama took my change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

Fifth Amendment lawsuit, plus punitive damages. (Personally against those who acted, if possible.)


4 posted on 12/20/2010 7:24:45 AM PST by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

So the sites were closed down only after the case went to trial and the appeal process RIGHT??????????????????????


5 posted on 12/20/2010 7:27:42 AM PST by Wurlitzer (Welcome to the new USSA (United Socialist States of Amerika))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

I thought patents for things were good for 10 years and then had to be renewed?


6 posted on 12/20/2010 7:29:44 AM PST by sniper63 (Did you plug the hole in the border yet daddy........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wurlitzer
Maybe they'll claim the government acted under a provision of Admiralty law as they do when stealing peoples' cars,cash,boats,homes,and businesses before and often without any conviction of criminal offense.

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.

7 posted on 12/20/2010 7:40:31 AM PST by hoosierham (Waddaya mean Freedom isn't free ?;will you take a credit card?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Wurlitzer
"So the sites were closed down only after the case went to trial and the appeal process RIGHT??????????????????????"

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...

8 posted on 12/20/2010 7:41:08 AM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

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 warrant’s 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.
“It’s not my fault if someone at a record label is sending me the song,” Splash said.


9 posted on 12/20/2010 7:57:41 AM PST by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg; 537cant be wrong; Aeronaut; ├čudda├čudd; bassmaner; Bella_Bru; Big Guy and Rusty 99; ...
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

Shoot first policy from the Obama administration.

10 posted on 12/20/2010 8:50:37 AM PST by a fool in paradise (The establishment clause isn't just against my OWN government establishing state religion in America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra

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.


11 posted on 12/20/2010 8:59:51 AM PST by Raymann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra
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. “It’s not my fault if someone at a record label is sending me the song,” Splash said.

At worst he would be guilty of the same crimes of "illegal distribution" of information that the NY Times and wikileaks are.

12 posted on 12/20/2010 9:05:27 AM PST by a fool in paradise (The establishment clause isn't just against my OWN government establishing state religion in America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

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.


13 posted on 12/20/2010 10:07:08 AM PST by RightInEastLansing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson