Rules/Policy on Digital Music (MP3/AAC/etc). Copyrighted Material

[Elvis]

UPDATED

The moderators at Interference.com would like to remind you that the file trading of ANY copyrighted material is strictly against the rules.

Universal Publishing is starting to make the rounds on fan sites.... and is looking for reasons to shut the sites, or parts of them down. This is why there is no longer a U2 Lyrics Archive and U2 Guitar Archive.

Our opinions of whether or not this is okay have nothing to do with this; this is strictly a legal matter. Therefore, we cannot allow people to use the forums as grounds to trade copyrighted material and/or anything that imposes on a copyright.

What you do in private, via PM or email, we have no control over, however we can't have 'active links' to copyrighted music, compositions, video, files, etc.

Thanks,

Joel

 

[Lancemc]

does this include the requests for mp3 files and such in the mp3 section of the site, or is that not allowed too?

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

yes, you cannot request a commercial release in mp3 format. concerts and bootlegs, this is fine. but to request anything that's commercially available (whether it's in print or not) isn't allowed. sorry!

 

[Elvis]

does this include the requests for mp3 files and such in the mp3 section of the site, or is that not allowed too?

The same policy applied to the forum in general.

 

[Dalton]

Thanks Elvis.

 

[Elvis]

Basically.. we have to have a policy on this, and make it known. We obviously cant control everything posted on this site, hopefully people will try to stay in the lines.

 

[MadelynIris]

concerts and bootlegs

Not sure why these are safe. This is also considered illegal activity.

 

[Elvis]

The opening post in this thread IS the policy.

 

[maro_chik]

So this is a new policy?

I've posted commercial mp3's before, and for that, I apologize. I'll keep this policy in mind in the future.

 

[Mark Freedman]

Mark, actually, as of right now, bootlegs are legal, due to the court decision a couple of months ago specifying that the bootleg laws are too encompassing.

I expect this to change, as soon as a more limited amendment is passed.

Actually, the biggest problem has always been the sale of bootlegs, which is something none of us are doing, so it will be interesting to see how they amend the law.

And it is still an outstanding (and grey area) issue concerning U2 boots, since they personally have no problem with the trade (non-sale) of live recordings.

 

[irelandwhispers]

I find it interesting that this thread coincides with the release of the new album.

The ethical and/or legal thing to do would have been to close all HTDAAB leak request threads as soon as they started. But instead they were stickied to make it easier for everyone to get the illegal material.

This new policy or policy reminder, whatever it is, comes way too late in my opinion. But what else is new? This inconsistent, unethical behavior is something I've seen time and time again at Interference. Regardless, Elvis, I support your decision and I'm really proud of the site you've worked so hard to create for us.

 

[Elvis]

And it is still an outstanding (and grey area) issue concerning U2 boots, since they personally have no problem with the trade (non-sale) of live recordings.

Unfortunately, from what I've learned from Universal Publishing is that U2 has entered into a deal with them inwhich Univ Publishing is the sole and administrative power over their 'compositions' in the US. Seeing as though that any U2 concert contains U2 songs, with U2's lyrics and music... how it has been explained to me, is that Universal Publishing can go after them as well. This includes fan remixes as well... and even lyrics used in part or full for any purpose. There are some loopholes in the DMCA also that allow for copyright holders or their agents to go after anyone that is 'distributing' as well, which apparently 'active links' qualify under. (ie. if I link to a Google search of U2 lyrics, it's considered distribution on my part, however if I just write, 'Go to Google and search for U2 lyrics' it doesnt.)

The DMCA is a muddled piece of rubbish and needs to be revoked and replaced with something that doesnt allow/encourage legal intimidation and more clearly defines what is and is not considered 'fair use'.

In the end, it doesnt matter what U2 has said it thinks of bootlegs,trading,etc... because ultimately they've signed a deal with Univ Publishing to protect their interests.

 

[Elvis]

This new policy or policy reminder, whatever it is, comes way too late in my opinion. But what else is new? This inconsistent, unethical behavior is something I've seen time and time again at Interference.

Even in your sig. Unless of course you took that picture?

This is a community, which is evolving, and unfortuantely as it becomes larger, and more popular, tends to attract more and more attention... not always the type we desire. With this in mind, sometimes it is best to post policies to make it clear what the 'site' supports or not. We can't control, moderate, or edit every post made hear... and that is made clear upon registration (I believe). If someone posts a link, it is at the liability of the person posting it - that is what we are trying to illustrate.

And.. Thanks for your comments about the site

 

[Mark Freedman]

Unfortunately, from what I've learned from Universal Publishing is that U2 has entered into a deal with them inwhich Univ Publishing is the sole and administrative power over their 'compositions' in the US. Seeing as though that any U2 concert contains U2 songs, with U2's lyrics and music... how it has been explained to me, is that Universal Publishing can go after them as well. This includes fan remixes as well... and even lyrics used in part or full for any purpose. There are some loopholes in the DMCA also that allow for copyright holders or their agents to go after anyone that is 'distributing' as well, which apparently 'active links' qualify under. (ie. if I link to a Google search of U2 lyrics, it's considered distribution on my part, however if I just write, 'Go to Google and search for U2 lyrics' it doesnt.)

The DMCA is a muddled piece of rubbish and needs to be revoked and replaced with something that doesnt allow/encourage legal intimidation and more clearly defines what is and is not considered 'fair use'.

In the end, it doesnt matter what U2 has said it thinks of bootlegs,trading,etc... because ultimately they've signed a deal with Univ Publishing to protect their interests.

Does this superscede the (temporary) court ruling about bootlegs?

I can't see the DMCA getting revoked and revamped before many people are screwed because nothing is clear. When enough people are killed at the dangerous intersection, a traffic light will be installed...

Oh, well. It seems they are setting people up to get in trouble. They wait until the trading is hot and heavy, then they swoop in for the kill. Nice.

 

[Elvis]

Does this superscede the (temporary) court ruling about bootlegs?

I can't see the DMCA getting revoked and revamped before many people are screwed because nothing is clear. When enough people are killed at the dangerous intersection, a traffic light will be installed...

Oh, well. It seems they are setting people up to get in trouble. They wait until the trading is hot and heavy, then they swoop in for the kill. Nice.

Yes... it does seem to superscede ... like I said it's based on a loophole. And you're damn right about the DMCA. They do seem to have this heavy handed 'wait and see'... or rather.. 'wait till they screw up' approach. Very nasty.

 

[dmbfan825]

I understand the policy, as it's a policy for many other boards I post at, but I still have the same question/comment:

If I wanted to try and purchase, let's say an "Out Of Control" single with the money actually going to U2, it is impossible. The only way to obtain such an item is through eBay or something like that. It is not comercially available to the public. Yes, the songs are copyrighted, but the single is not available to the public in which the band would receive money. Yet we still aren't able to spread those tracks. I'm confused on that part of the ordeal. Not ripping on Interference or anything like that, but just in general.

 

[geeman]

Thanks ELVIS.....Thank ya very much

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

So wait, we can't even use lyrics in our signatures anymore?

 

[gvox]

I'm no legal expert, but this smells. Sounds like scare-mongering by someone at Universal and it being taken to the most extreme degree..

a. do you have a cease and desist letter from Univ legal? You would get that before they 'shut you down'..

b. have you recieved proper legal counsel on your liability, if any, here?

I think the answer to both those questions is NO.

Of course lyrics may not be reprinted without the express written consent blah blah blah...but why bother? Its right in the fucking lyrics book...so buy the album - DUH...

But guitar tabs?? Are you kidding me? The people who post the tabs didn't get them from any published or copyrighted U2 book, they listened to the songs and with their ear training mapped out the song....for private use and for maybe playing with their band or friends to cover the song..and alot of times the tabs are either wrong or not bang on...simply because of that fact, that they aren't being COPIED from anywhere but people's brains...

What's next...cover/tribute bands being sued? Universal suing the guys at u2_recording for attempting to recreate U2 songs in their bedroom studios?

Universal police showing up at open mics and telling the guy strumming One acoustically that he's got to stop?

Or maybe they could sue me for my signature...use of lyrics...use of album name...my entire website...

Whoever your 'contact' is at Universal, they can take a fucking flying leap off the...Brooklyn Bridge

give me a break

EDITED TO ADD:

WOO HOO - MY 1000TH POST!!!!!!!!!

GLAD I MADE IT A GOOD ONE!!!

LOL

HAPPY 1000th POST TO ME
HAPPY 1000th POST TO ME
HAPPY 1000th POST TO MEEEEEE

HAPPY 1000th POST TO MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

now back to the BS

 

[Mark Freedman]

You know, gabrielvox makes a lot of very valid points despite his anger.

At the same time, I'm sure Elvis wants to play it safe, and not invite any major trouble before double checking everything. I did the same thing with my site for several months.

 

[gvox]

eeeep

my anger is totally directed at the idiot at Universal who started this, not Elvis or Interference..

Altho I do think yer being a bit chicken here...usually they give you an official chance to remove the offending behaviour before they go after you...so why act based on heresay or something that is to this point interpretation, thats all Im saying



1001

 

[DaveC]

What was wrong with the U2GA? That place was amazing!

I guess they'd better shut down every lyrics and tab site on the web now.

 

[DaveC]

Oh, and when are those fuckwits at the record companies finally going to wise up and realize that they can't stop or even ebb the flow of mp3's on the net??

It's downright impossible and incredibly naive of them to even spend the money to try.

 

[Elvis]

I'm no legal expert, but this smells. Sounds like scare-mongering by someone at Universal and it being taken to the most extreme degree..

a. do you have a cease and desist letter from Univ legal? You would get that before they 'shut you down'..

b. have you recieved proper legal counsel on your liability, if any, here?

I think the answer to both those questions is NO.

Extreme. Yes.

a. YES

b. YES

Dont assume so quickly.

 

[Elvis]

eeeep
Altho I do think yer being a bit chicken here...usually they give you an official chance to remove the offending behaviour before they go after you...so why act based on heresay or something that is to this point interpretation, thats all Im saying



1001

I got a C&D!!!! The U2 Lyrics Archive and Tabs are gone because of it. This was not heresay.

 

[Elvis]

I guess they'd better shut down every lyrics and tab site on the web now.

Don't think they won't try. Of course the brain of a lawyer at Univ. didnt even know what Google cache was. LOL.

 

[Mark Freedman]

eeeep

my anger is totally directed at the idiot at Universal who started this, not Elvis or Interference..

Altho I do think yer being a bit chicken here...usually they give you an official chance to remove the offending behaviour before they go after you...so why act based on heresay or something that is to this point interpretation, thats all Im saying



1001

It's not being chicken when you're the one risking everything. It's a lot easier to talk when you're not the one who could be targeted.

 

[irelandwhispers]

Even in your sig. Unless of course you took that picture?

In a manner of speaking I did. It's a screenshot, not a photograph. Like they'd come after me anyway for something I couldn't figure out how to remove. I see that I am able to do it now. YAY But you certainly could have saved me the trouble and fixed it yourself when you changed that option. So quit picking on me.

But back to the topic at hand.

 

[gvox]

It's a lot easier to talk when you're not the one who could be targeted.

Really, Mark? Under these draconian rules, just how much do you think I'm personally risking? If this shit continues, I stand a very likely chance of being targeted.

Elvis, points taken, and assumption withdrawn. That really sucks man, I feel for you.

I can understand the lyrics, thats obvious, but again, the tabs?? That someone personally works on? Its bullshit is what it is.

 

[Mark Freedman]

Elvis is risking a LOT more than you, gabrielvox, unless you host a similar website. They'll go after him and me a lot faster than you. Sure, visitors of these sites would be the next round, but they're going to try to cut it off at the source.