What’s the Real Story Behind Home Land Security Shutting Down Hip Hop Websites?

Over the Thanksgiving Holiday something very disturbing took place… Homeland Security along with ICE (Immigration & Customs Enforcement) , the Department of Justice and the National Intellectual Property Rights Co-ordinating Center seized over 80 websites including popular Hip Hop websites RapGodfathers.com, dajaz1.com and Onsmash.com. These Hip Hop sites were accused of copyright violations, which is crazy, because their popularity rested in the fact that they mostly worked with artists to promote their work and help establish a buzz.

Was there anything on those sites in violation of copyright law?  The nature of any music site as robust as the ones mentioned, is you will inevitably find material. It might come in the form of someone posting a song on a message board or a video clip from a concert. It might be a link to a third-party site where folks can download a song, which was the case with the aforementioned sites. My experience over the years has been oftentimes its the artists themselves coming to sites asking for their material to be posted while the labels which also own part of the copyright objects.

In most cases if a site wasn’t blowing things up too much, most industry folks didn’t trip. in talking with label heads they note  that in most cases if a song or material was being highlighted prematurely or jeopardizing upcoming promotions a letter, email would be sent out or a phone call made asking for the files or links to be removed. Most sites comply without too much fanfare. It’s the way things have been done for years. It’s the symbiotic relationship that has long existed with record labels and media.

It’s important to note this practice of labels asking media outlets to stop playing or highlighting material has been around long before the internet. Working at a major radio station and several large music outlets, the name of the game  was for us to get material way ahead of its release date. Sometimes we managed to get a hold of a ‘press copy’ of a song given to magazines months in advance. Other times it was someone inside the label ‘leaking us a song’ which we would play for a couple of days only to get a letter from the record labels lawyers ordering us to cease and decease playing their material. Many of these stations including ours would post those letters up on the wall and even frame them. It was a source of pride and demonstrated your ability to have impact.

Granted the internet and us being in a digital world has allowed for unlimited copies of material to be distributed and there has definitely been rough patches with digital media and record labels, but at the end of the day all this boils down to relationships and the rule of thumb has been-know the people who run the sites and ask them to remove anything that was causing problems.

All these popular music sites were seized w/o warning

In the case of these Hip Hop sites, no warning was given. Not only that, but the entire websites were seized. In some cases we’re talking about hundreds of thousands of message board postings, articles etc. This wasn’t a shut down of a website. It was the shut down of a community and no matter how one feels about copyright law and how vigorously it should be enforced shut downs without due process should be disturbing to every last one of us.

What should be even more disturbing is how those shut downs took place. Who in Homeland Security was up on Onsmash.com enough to sit down and make a sound decision to shut down the site and seize its domain? How did they know the sites were in violation of any copyright? Was it the word of copyright owner? Did DHS check to get the other side of the story? Did the owners get arrested? Had they been fined or in trouble for any of this in the past?

Let me paint out a couple of scenarios that folks should consider before people start puffing out their chest and acting all righteous about websites breaking the law. First as mentioned earlier take down notices should be given thus allowing one the opportunity to straighten anything out. Thats first and foremost.

Second, oftentimes you have artists and even promotional folks at labels that will come along and give you material and a greenlight.  I could show you at least half a dozen emails that I’ve gotten in the past two weeks with folks asking how I can get material on my site. two have offered to pay. What many of us who do this work have discovered is that what the promo guys and the artists want may not always be in lockstep with what the lawyers or the trade organization for major labels (note I said labels not artists-remember that) the RIAA is pushing. The relationship with the artists and labels are fluid and informal while the relationship with the RIAA and lawyers for the label may be strictly by the book and to the letter of the law. One often has no idea what the other is doing. End game mass confusion.

The RIAA has railed against copyright infringement before there was an internet. They were mad about cassette tapes, then DATs, then CDS and now the web. This powerful lobbying group has always been a presence up on Capital Hill pushing for laws that would protect the interests and intellectual property rights of MAJOR record labels.  They definitely been up on the hill pushing and many say help right some of these new copyright laws, which leaves one wondering are they pointing out offending websites to Homeland Security?

That’s not a far-fetched notion and should have all concerned. Corporations sitting along side law enforcement to protect whose interest? All of our interests or just theirs?  Are the police and law enforcement following the dictates of corporations at everyone else’s expense. At the end of the day that’s called Fascism.

days after this photo was taken, editor Jason Chen got a vist from REACT

We saw blatant display of this earlier this year when a task force consisting of several police agencies called (REACT)  California’s Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team went banging on the door of Gizmodo editor Jason Chen entered his house and took his computers to see if he was behind the leaking of Apple’s next-gen i-phones. The task force claimed they were investigating to see if a law was violated.

Initially some clapped and felt the police were doing their job, until it was discovered that Apple sat on the board that oversaw the new task force that took Chen’s computers. Did the police do this because of Apple’s initial complaints or because they sat on the board?

Fast forward to a troubling news story a few weeks ago here in the Bay Area where a young man had a computer stolen from his office. He had a tracking chip inside that took a picture of the thief, however local police did not immediately follow-up with an investigation. The man resorted to taking his story to local news stations and even then there was no action. Talk about an imbalance of power and influence.

We did an interview earlier this week with Peter Eackersly of Electronic Frontier Foundation which has been in the forefront of protecting internet freedoms. He noted that what took place was far reaching and will continue to be so, because now the US is shutting down sites overseas. he also noted that what took place here without due process appeared to be the first step in the government with the assistance of corporate interests seeing how far they can go before they get push back.

While following these cases keep a close eye on the types of steps and reaches made around the Wikileak saga. Whatever the government is allowed to get away with is gonna set a precedent. Thus far we’ve seen shut down attacks  and seizures take place. Even more disturbing has been American companies like Amazon taking down the Wikileak cables. They officially say it was because of terms of service violations, but most experts are noting they got pressured.

Senator Joe Lieberman has been threatening websites without due process

To show you just how far the government is going, look what Senator Joe Lieberman just did. He threatened a Seattle-based company called Tableau to take down information that was legal and not classified, but reported on and issued charts about who and what countries were discussing Wikileaks.. His actions prompted a scorching response from commentator Glenn Greenwald.

“Those are the benign, purely legal documents that have now been removed from the Internet in response to Joe Lieberman’s demands and implied threats. He’s on some kind of warped mission where he’s literally running around single-handedly dictating what political content can and cannot be on the Internet, issuing broad-based threats to ‘all companies’ that is causing suppression of political information.”

You can read the story HERE

Today its Wikileaks being taken down which one might accept it because arguments can made about sensitive material being revealed and national security at stake could be argued. But what happens tomorrow when its you or me, because we represent competition or hold political beliefs that aren’t agreed upon? What happens when its you or me and the justification is that we’ve always allowed government to take down websites without a day and court, why complain now?

During our interview with Eackersly he noted that it was important for artists and others in the Hip Hop community to stand up, be aware of what transpired and come to the aid of those Hip Hop websites and communities that were shut down especially if they meant something to you.

After our interview Eackersly wanted to know the type of support the seized websites were getting. In his mind, he knew such large outlets would have throngs of artists ready to go to war for them. I think he was a bit surprised to see that more of us were talking about Lil Kim vs Nicki Minaj then the undue processed seizure of music websites. Even sadder is that many have callousesly moved onto other sites as if the shut downs of Onsmash and RapGodfathers was no big deal and was just another day in the life. Mark my words not understanding this and being dismissive will come back to haunt folks.

Understand this.. the seizure of websites without due process, corporate interests lobbying and then writing laws that allow them to be the police and t personally enforce, the battle over net neutrality is all about concentrating power in the hands of a few. This is about controlling the flow of information and being a gate keeper in the communications arena. Its the first step in moving a democracy toward a dictatorship. The next step is getting a population to endure fianacial upheavels and hardships.

The internet was the most democratizing tool we’ve had in a long time and now those who hate having to share and be accountable are trying to shut things down.It’s a power grab of the highest order. Don’t ever get used to being oppressed..It’ll be your undoing for years to come..Stay alert be ready, because they coming for you next.

You can peep the full interview we did on Hard Knock Radio with Peter Eackersly of EFF right HERE

http://www.swift.fm/mrdaveyd/song/81785/

Also be sure to peep this excellent article on alternet about this topic..Here Comes the Homeland Security Internet Police

Lastly after printing this I just got wind of a story Democracy Now just ran…

State Dept. Bars Staffers from WikiLeaks, Warns Students

The U.S. State Department has imposed an order barring employees from reading the leaked WikiLeaks cables. State Department staffers have been told not to read cables because they were classified and subject to security clearances. The State Department’s WikiLeaks censorship has even been extended to university students. An email to students at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs says: “The documents released during the past few months through Wikileaks are still considered classified documents. [The State Department] recommends that you DO NOT post links to these documents nor make comments on social media sites such as Facebook or through Twitter. Engaging in these activities would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government.”

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner

Warning: A Group of Lawyers Using RIAA Tactics Are Now Suing & Attacking Bloggers

//

As the battle over a free and open internet rages on with telecom companies like AT&T and Comcast pushing and paying folks to allow an unequal playing field and get rid of Net neutrality, another more sinister tactic and player has reared its ugly head. There are now group of  lawyers called Righthaven out of Las Vegas who are connected to the Las Vegas Review-Journal running around suing small non profits and individual bloggers for ‘copyright’ infringement. On their side is the Draconian, hastly done DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act ) rules and the fear people have of expensive litigation and subsequent judgement.

Eva Galperin of  San Francisco based Electronic Frontier Foundation penned this recent article warning bloggers what’s at stake…

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is seeking to assist defendants in the Righthaven copyright troll lawsuits. Righthaven, founded in March of 2010, files hundreds of copyright infringement lawsuits on behalf of newspaper publishers against bloggers who make use of news content without permission. To that end, Righthaven searches the internet for stories and parts of stories from the newspapers that they represent. Once they find content that has been re-published, Righthaven purchases the copyright to the article and sues the owner of the blog.

Galperin goes on to note that this company is doing what amounts to a copyright shakedown ala the RIAA who ran around suing thousands of people for downloading songs and then settling for a 2-3000 dollars. The two people that tried to fight the lawsuits found themselves being hit with huge judgements totaling over 600 thousand dollars.  Eventually the RIAA had to abandon its strategy as 1-downloading did not diminish and 2-Record labels spent a whooping 17.6 million dollars in legal fees to collect 391 thousand in settlements. That of course is just for one year 2008…Looking at the RIAA books the numbers get worse. For example in 2007 they spent over 24 million to collect around 500 in settlement fees.

So while the labels themselves lost money, the law firms who aggressively came after people made tons of it. In addition most of the people who got hit wound up settling with the 2-3 thousand dollars being quite a hit in the pocketbook for many.

With this group of lawyers coming after bloggers, there appears to be a few things to keep in mind. First they were specifically formed to make money doing this ‘lawsuit/settlement strategy. In a Wired article that that profiled Righthaven and their CEO Steve Gibson, he was pretty upfront and brazen with his key intentions. They say in the article:

Gibson’s vision is to monetize news content on the backend, by scouring the internet for infringing copies of his client’s articles, then suing and relying on the harsh penalties in the Copyright Act — up to $150,000 for a single infringement — to compel quick settlements.

It was pointed out that the company was aggressively expanding its business trying to get other newspapers to sign on so they can sue on their behalf. They have over 70 newspapers on board.

The second thing about this group which is even more disturbing is that they are not issuing warnings or  DMCA take down notices. They are just going out and suing folks which is seen as unprecedented in this industry. Many see it as abuse. Sometimes people quote from articles they gotten via email. Others pull from sources where no credit is given. Some think they are being compliant because they gave a link back and only used a quote or two.   Apparently thats not good enough for this group.

According to Galperin’s EFF article, she points out that they are also going out and purchasing the copyrights to articles so they can go after folks. So maybe you copied something a couple of years ago and it was no big deal, in fact maybe it was from a local newspaper where they actually appreciated the extra attention you brought to their publication. Now with this group of lawyers they are going around and offering to purchase the copyright and then coming after folks. This is beyond chilling.

Eva Galperin of Electronic Frontier Foundation says EFF is helping fight those who are victim to Righthaven Lawsuits

Galperin continues in her article on Righthaven where she points out that one of their main targets are the non-commercial, political leaning websites and people and organizations written about by the newspapers. In other words, the newspapers that this group represents may do an article or profile on you. You like what’s written and thus want to share it with folks and post it up on your site and along comes these lawyers with no warning issued. They sue and push you to settle.

Just like the US Copyright Group shakedowns, and the RIAA shakedowns of the recent past, Righthaven relies on the threat of enormous statutory damages associated with the Copyright Act to scare defendants, often individual bloggers operating non-commercial websites, into a quick settlement, reportedly ranging from two to five thousand dollars. The Righthaven lawsuits are of particular concern because they sometimes target the operators of political websites who re-publish newspaper stories, chilling political speech. Righthaven has also targeted the newspaper’s source for the very articles allegedly infringed.

So basically what I did with this article from EFF where I reprinted parts of what they wrote might get me in a whirl of trouble with this group of lawyers. might get me caught up I guess on one hand folks should not be surprised at what’s going on especially during these hard economic times. The tactics folks are using are increasing ugly and causing or the threat of economic distress is one way to really shut things down.

One has to wonder who’s next? Will they now go after restaurants for posting favorable reviews on their websites or movie houses for highlighting good reviews? Will they come after parents who highlighted the sporting or academic exploits of their kids which may have been covered in a newspaper?

Tea Party Candidate Sharon Angle was recently sued by Righthaven for posting articles of herself on her website

We know that in recent weeks they launched a lawsuit against Tea Party candidate Sharon Angle for posting up material about herself on her campaign website. They want 150 thousand dollars and her domain name. Although I’d be the first to say I disagree with everything this woman stands for on a political tip, she shouldn’t be sued. After all aren’t these outlets making money off her via their coverage? If they have an issue ask her to take down the articles-end of story.

Righthaven has also sued Ron Paul‘s Daily Paul newsletter and Alex Jones of Infowars.

Jones asserted that the lawsuit is without merit and that he intends to fight back and not be squeezed for money.

Some are saying this is a coverup to the groups main tactic of going after small bloggers. Whatever the case these lawsuits can and are already having a chilling effect. If the stories about President Obama being connected to Gibson and Righthaven because they worked at the same law firm Sidley Austin LLP in Chicago that is also disturbing if he agrees with their tactics

Eva Galperin points out in her article that EFF is seeking out people who have been targeted by Righthaven. You casn drop her a line at eva@eff.org or visit their website http://www.eff.org/

written by Davey D

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner

Facing the Copyright Rap (Pay for All Your Samples or Else)

record disc gold

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that rap artists should pay for every
musical sample included in their work – even minor, unrecognizable snippets
of music.

Lower courts had already ruled that artists must pay when they sample
another artists’ work. But it has been legal to use musical snippets – a
note here, a chord there – as long as it wasn’t identifiable.

The decision by a three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in
Cincinnati gets rid of that distinction. The court said federal laws aimed
at stopping piracy of recordings applies to digital sampling.

“If you cannot pirate the whole sound recording, can you ‘lift’ or ‘sample’
something less than the whole? Our answer to that question is in the
negative,” the court said.

“Get a license or do not sample. We do not see this as stifling creativity
in any significant way.”

Some observers questioned whether the court’s opinion is too restrictive,
especially for rap and hip-hop artists who often rhyme over samples of music
taken from older recordings.

“It seems a little extreme to me,” said James Van Hook, dean of Belmont
University’s Mike Curb College of Entertainment and Music Business. “When
something is identifiable, that is the key.”

The case at issue is one of at least 800 lawsuits filed in Nashville over
lifting snippets of music from older recordings for new music.

The case centers on the NWA song “100 Miles and Runnin,” which samples a
three-note guitar riff from “Get Off Your Ass and Jam” by ’70s funk-master
George Clinton and Funkadelic.

In the two-second sample, the guitar pitch has been lowered, and the copied
piece was “looped” and extended to 16 beats. The sample appears five times
in the new song.

NWA’s song was included in the 1998 movie “I Got the Hook Up,” starring
Master P and produced by his movie company, No Limit Films.

No Limit Films has argued that the sample was not protected by copyright
law. Bridgeport Music and Westbound Records, which claim to own the
copyrights for the Funkadelic song, appealed the lower court’s summary
judgment in favor of No Limit Films.

The lower court in 2002 said that the riff in Clinton’s song was entitled to
copyright protection, but the sampling “did not rise to the level of legally
cognizable appropriation.”

The appeals court disagreed, saying a recording artist who acknowledges
sampling may be liable, even when the source of a sample is unrecognizable.

Noting that No Limit Films “had not disputed that it digitally sampled a
copyrighted sound recording,” the appeals court sent the case back to the
lower court.

Richard Busch, attorney for Westbound Records and Bridgeport Music, said he
was pleased with the ruling.

Robert Sullivan, attorney for No Limit Films, did not return a phone call to
his office.

source: http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/news/2004/09/64884