Mp3 blogger told to cease and desist by the IFPI

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

moistworks.com has posted the letter sent by International Federation of the Phonographic Industry to his hosting company...

We have learned that your service is hosting infringing files on its network (see above-referenced directory). These files contain sound recordings by the artists known as Stone Roses and Public Enemy. These sound recordings are owned by some of our member companies and have not been authorized for this kind of use.

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Monday, 17 January 2005 14:23 (twenty-one years ago)

IT BEGINS

― miccio (miccio), Monday, 17 January 2005 14:36 (twenty-one years ago)

Hmm, well, at least this means I'm not the only person in the UK to have been given such a notice :-(.

Although - if you're using yousendit or a similar service, you might be able to get away with it longer. What this person and I seem to have in common is that we were storing the files on our servers.

― carson dial (carson dial), Monday, 17 January 2005 14:40 (twenty-one years ago)

yousendit seems the way forward for bloggers no?

xpost

― Stevem On X (blueski), Monday, 17 January 2005 14:42 (twenty-one years ago)

But does that stay online? If not, for how long? Personally I don't like it cause it takes too long to upload it.

― stevie nixed (stevie nixed), Monday, 17 January 2005 14:52 (twenty-one years ago)

I have never had a problem with my .mac hosting service, and I've been using it for over 2 years and my site is hardly a secret. I recommend it.

― Matthew "Flux" Perpetua, Monday, 17 January 2005 14:53 (twenty-one years ago)

HAPPY BIRTHDAY MATT! Here's an injunction.

― The Mac Mafia (Dan Perry), Monday, 17 January 2005 15:24 (twenty-one years ago)

IT BEGINS

― miccio (miccio), Monday, 17 January 2005 15:31 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah i saw this over the weekend : surely though if us bloggers have asked relevant record labels and the artists involved then we are ok ? i know i have been nudged to post mp3's on my own blog by certain low profile labels (no bribery involved unfortunately ..)

― mark e (mark e), Monday, 17 January 2005 16:48 (twenty-one years ago)

There's a big difference between an artist who badly needs exposure (and hence wants to give away some songs) and an artist who already has plenty of exposure and doesn't want everyone to get his product for free.

― Hurting (Hurting), Monday, 17 January 2005 16:51 (twenty-one years ago)

This really doesn't surprise me at all.

― Mr. Snrub (Mr. Snrub), Monday, 17 January 2005 16:52 (twenty-one years ago)

From what little I think I know about his opinions re: music + the internet I can't imagine Chuck D is against a Public Enemy track appearing on an mp3 blog.

― gspm (gspm), Monday, 17 January 2005 16:56 (twenty-one years ago)

I like the idea of the majors enforcing indie cred: "Stone Roses? Dude, wtf. Everybody has that. Uncool. Don't you have the MIA promo?"

― Hilary Rosen Wants You To Hawk The Arcade Fire, Monday, 17 January 2005 16:56 (twenty-one years ago)

is he own the publishing rights to his songs, though? (xpost)

― kyle (akmonday), Monday, 17 January 2005 16:57 (twenty-one years ago)

This falls under the category of "had to happen sooner or later". I'm something less than shocked that it would be the Brits who'd throw down the gauntlet.

― Forksclovetofu (Forksclovetofu), Monday, 17 January 2005 17:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Hurting is pretty OTM. I avoid high profile acts, and stick to music by artists/labels who I'm reasonably sure would not have a big problem with being on the site. Also, I get a LOT of submissions and promos now, so a good chunk of music on Fluxblog is there with implicit permission.

― Matthew "Flux" Perpetua, Monday, 17 January 2005 17:04 (twenty-one years ago)

chuck d isn't the only person with a financial interest in public enemy, as i'm sure he'd be happy to point out at length.

― andrew s (andrew s), Monday, 17 January 2005 17:10 (twenty-one years ago)

injunctions sent to whomever pleases, still they post me like Jesus!

― chuck d, Monday, 17 January 2005 17:22 (twenty-one years ago)

what if the blogger only posts mp3s from records that are out-of-print?

― cathy berberian (Jody Beth Rosen), Monday, 17 January 2005 17:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Umm, they still don't own the songs, OOP or not.

― mcd (mcd), Monday, 17 January 2005 18:14 (twenty-one years ago)

but no one's losing money since there's nothing legit to buy.

― cathy berberian (Jody Beth Rosen), Monday, 17 January 2005 18:16 (twenty-one years ago)

try telling that to the lawyers!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 17 January 2005 18:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Douglas has the right idea with his blog.

― mcd (mcd), Monday, 17 January 2005 18:20 (twenty-one years ago)

i like how at the twin/tone website you can listen to samples of their OOP records and order a custom-made CD. more labels should offer that.

― cathy berberian (Jody Beth Rosen), Monday, 17 January 2005 18:22 (twenty-one years ago)

i can't imagine my mp3 blog getting into trouble..

http://thebigcity.blogspot.com

― chris andrews (fraew), Monday, 17 January 2005 22:06 (twenty-one years ago)

two years pass...

yarr!

― blunt, Saturday, 13 October 2007 09:30 (eighteen years ago)

IT BEGINS

― J0hn D., Saturday, 13 October 2007 13:14 (eighteen years ago)

it began.

― forksclovetofu, Saturday, 13 October 2007 13:53 (eighteen years ago)

lol!

― s1ocki, Saturday, 13 October 2007 15:09 (eighteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.