BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Copyright Question.....

 
 
The Natural Way
12:57 / 13.05.08
Can anyone fill me in on the legal in and outs of posting music on a blog? fluxblog, xxjfg, etc. all have little disclaimers informing the owners of the tracks that the music'll be taken down sharpish if they complain. Oh, and another little thing telling their readership to BUY music. Obviously they're not phoning Chic when they put up 'I Want Your Love', so is that all there is to it?
 
 
EvskiG
13:42 / 13.05.08
First of all, it will depend on the country you're in.

Second, assuming for the moment that you're in the U.S., the copyright owner of the work (assuming the work is not in the public domain) -- and in some cases an exclusive licensee -- has the exclusive right to make copies of the work or authorize others to do so. If you put the work up on a website without authorization and permit others to copy it, and if your use doesn't constitute fair use, you're infringing the copyright in that work. That violates copyright law and makes you liable for damages, including at the copyright owner's option statutory damages of up to $30,000 per work infringed, plus the owner's attorneys fees if it sues you.

The website's liability is a whole different matter. Basically, if it takes down infringing works upon being properly informed that they're infringing, it's protected.

It's extremely unlikely you will be caught and sued, but it's really not worth it, if you ask me.
 
 
Spaniel
14:38 / 13.05.08
UK not US
 
 
grant
15:49 / 13.05.08
is that all there is to it?

fluxblog is, as far as I know, breaking copyright law, even under fair use. But it's also doing so in a way that is creating profits for labels and artists.

There's still a lot of flux around the internet, and the law is still flopping back and forth on where exactly lines should be drawn... and what precisely makes one a worthwhile target for a corporate legal department.

In general, it seems like the first legal step a label takes against an offender is a "cease and desist" letter, so if you already have in writing that you'll cease and desist as soon as asked, you're kind of covered there.
 
 
Jack Fear
16:26 / 13.05.08
Label response is going to vary. There's an entity called WebSheriff that works on behalf of some labels, and they'll start by hitting you with a pleasantly-worded public comment, as recently happened on Popdose. A cease-and-desist will generally be a private communication, and a little nastier in tone.

Or, y'know, the label may go straight to your ISP, lawyers arrayed and guns blazing, and, at a minimum, have you bumped offline until the track is removed. Happened to Perpetua.

In general, leaks and advance tracks from high-profile artists are going to garner a more severe response; enforcing the copyright on back-catalog stuff seems to be more trouble than it's worth.

And note that it's almost always the labels, rather than the artists themselves, that will raise a fuss.
 
 
Spaniel
19:26 / 13.05.08
Really interesting stuff, guys. I don't have much interest in putting up any tracks, but, as someone who regularly visits a number of music blogs, I've been wondering about this for quite some time
 
  
Add Your Reply