AfterDawn: Tech news

RIAA sends questionable DMCA takedown for Radiohead album

Written by Rich Fiscus (Google+) @ 02 Aug 2010 16:29 User comments (17)

RIAA sends questionable  DMCA takedown for Radiohead album Record label representatives have been caught issuing DMCA takedown notices for Radiohead's In Rainbows album despite apparently not having any legal standing to do so.
Radiohead released In Rainbows online in 2007 after severing their relationship with EMI. It was initially offered online, with downloaders allowed to choose their own price - even if they chose to pay nothing.

The DMCA's takedown provision allows rights holders or their agents to have infringing content taken down by service providers. But the rights in question would have to be for digital distribution.

A few months after it's initial online release, the band made a distribution deal with a RIAA member, ATO Records, which doesn't seem to include any digital distribution (ie download) rights.

In fact it appears that Warner/Chappell Music, a publishing company owned by Warner Music Group, is contracted to be Radiohead's representative in digital licensing. Although public details of the arrangement are somewhat vague, Last.fm lists the company as the label for In Rainbows.

A guick search of the Chilling Effects database shows that the RIAA has included the album in at least one DMCA takedown request.

Another takedown notice which includes the album comes from the RIAA's international equivalent, IFPI, which ATO Records isn't even affiliated with. Even stranger is the frequent listing of In Rainbows in takedown notices by a Brazilian anti piracy organization called Anti-Pirataria Cinema E Música (APCM).

As a publishing company, rather than a normal label, Warner/Chappell Music isn't a RIAA member. It's unclear at this time whether they have any affiliation with APCM.

How does something like this happen? It's possible there is malicious intent involved, but more likely it's a case of sloppy work by RIAA and IFPI employees.

Since both organizations represent Radiohead's former label, EMI, unless they were actually checking the files to make sure they were covered by the band's earlier contract they wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Ultimately this points to a basic failure of the DMCA. The only penalties for misrepesentations in a takedown notice is liability, "for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider."

This is an extremely backward position as it results in no incentive for organizations like the RIAA or IFPI to actually fact check their claims for legitimacy before threatening service providers.

In this case there isn't even any real recourse for Radiohead themselves since it would be impossible to show any financial damages. Were it an RIAA member whose rights were being falsely claimed by someone else, you can be sure they would characterize this as a crime against society.

More news

Previous Next

Related news

 

17 user comments

12.8.2010 17:46

RIAA's motto: "You sign with us, we'll do nothing while you do all the work, and we'll get paid more than you. You leave us, we'll try to put you out of business and/or take your money. If you've never signed with us and have done nothing wrong, we'll still sue you."

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 02 Aug 2010 @ 17:48

22.8.2010 19:03

WTF?

32.8.2010 19:27
ST2006
Inactive

Originally posted by mike.m:
RIAA's motto: "You sign with us, we'll do nothing while you do all the work, and we'll get paid more than you. You leave us, we'll try to put you out of business and/or take your money. If you've never signed with us and have done nothing wrong, we'll still sue you."
Lol. This really sums up the kind of scum we have "protecting" the system. :/

42.8.2010 19:38

wow..just when you think they cant get any dumber, or sink even lower

52.8.2010 23:56

I thought RIAA's moto was, "Heil Hitler"...oh no, that is just what they chant when they walk through the streets.

63.8.2010 0:00

This shows the RIAA doesn't care who they sue,even from Bands from Labels aren't with the RIAA or if the Bands label aren't with RIAA they sue.

I kinda wonder why Youtube allows video takedowns by WMG all the time and now it is clear, Its out of fear from the RIAA and plus in a time were their is a False DMCA attack on youtube right now.

73.8.2010 2:46

it makes you wonder who the real criminals are.

83.8.2010 2:54
lissenup2
Inactive

Afterdawn is starting to rank right up there with the likes of the RIAA and MPAA regarding their website advertisements harrassing the shit out of anyone that visits them. To enjoy this site, one must now get an ad blocker.

Because of this, my viewership has dramatically reduced by at least 90%. I visit once every couple or few weeks rather than several time per week. Money grubbing, greedy Fins whom have their servers in the U.S.

93.8.2010 3:25

Originally posted by lissenup2:
To enjoy this site, one must now get an ad blocker.
You'd really otherwise be fine on the web without an ad blocker??
I haven't been able to browse without one for a decade now (using filtering proxies before addons).
I would've assumed anyone who knows what an ad blocker is to be using one.

103.8.2010 5:26

Originally posted by samttu:
Originally posted by lissenup2:
To enjoy this site, one must now get an ad blocker.
You'd really otherwise be fine on the web without an ad blocker??
I haven't been able to browse without one for a decade now (using filtering proxies before addons).
I would've assumed anyone who knows what an ad blocker is to be using one.
Actually, afterdawn is one of the dirtiest sites on the net. Xhamster has fewer malicious ads! Not only that, but some of the ads here don't get auto-blocked by things like adblockplus...and there have even been a few ads that you cannot block at all. Yes, it is a good idea to have an adblocker, good av software, and both software and hardware firewalls...but even with all that, sometimes something gets through.

However, I do not see how this relates to the RIAA or MPAA...their goal is not to sell advertising, but rather to do everything they can to prevent sales by the artists who pay them (and even those who don't). Afterdawn is not really malicious; it is just that the moderators block all the ads, so they don't care if they are viral.

113.8.2010 10:29

Originally posted by Josipher:
wow..just when you think they cant get any dumber, or sink even lower
Sadly this is pretty standard for the RIAA and IFPI. If you look around you can find countless cases of both organizations sending takedown notices for music that doesn't belong to any of their member labels.

123.8.2010 13:54

Originally posted by lissenup2:
Afterdawn is starting to rank right up there with the likes of the RIAA and MPAA regarding their website advertisements harrassing the shit out of anyone that visits them. To enjoy this site, one must now get an ad blocker.

Because of this, my viewership has dramatically reduced by at least 90%. I visit once every couple or few weeks rather than several time per week. Money grubbing, greedy Fins whom have their servers in the U.S.
Hear that! it's the worlds smallest violin & it's playing just for you unless you want to pay a yearly subscription to have no ads to keep the site running ? didn't think so

133.8.2010 15:05

killer, we mods can't do anything about the ads, that is the admin's job. i don't have a problem with ads as i use an old program called popupkiller.

144.8.2010 10:40

Originally posted by ddp:
killer, we mods can't do anything about the ads, that is the admin's job. i don't have a problem with ads as i use an old program called popupkiller.
Wow. That's a blast from the past. I haven't seen PopupKiller in years.

And to ddp's point, mods and staff get the same pages as everyone else - ads and all.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 04 Aug 2010 @ 10:42

156.8.2010 15:48

Originally posted by vurbal:
Originally posted by ddp:
And to ddp's point, mods and staff get the same pages as everyone else - ads and all.
Indeed. Some of us block our own ad's, sure, but we can't/don't block anyone else's. I do this across all sites as a matter of course, i like my browsing instant and clutter-free, but each to their own



Main PC ~ Intel C2Q Q6600 (G0 Stepping)/Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3/2GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-8500/Zalman CNPS9700/Antec 900/Corsair HX 620W
Network ~ DD-WRT ~ 2node WDS-WPA2/AES ~ Buffalo WHR-G54S. 3node WPA2/AES ~ WRT54GS v6 (inc. WEP BSSID), WRT54G v2, WRT54G2 v1. *** Forum Rules ***

166.8.2010 23:47

Originally posted by vurbal:
Originally posted by ddp:
killer, we mods can't do anything about the ads, that is the admin's job. i don't have a problem with ads as i use an old program called popupkiller.
Wow. That's a blast from the past. I haven't seen PopupKiller in years.

And to ddp's point, mods and staff get the same pages as everyone else - ads and all.
From what I understand, AfterDawn uses google ads, and google ads are localized, so the mods do not get the same ads as everyone else...they get random ads from their area. I don't have any issues with ads...actually, I have learned to like them; it seems like there are fewer noobies around when the site is throwing viral popups at anyone without protection.

1719.8.2010 23:29

Can we get bavck on track here? We are losing focus of our mutual hatred for the RIAA, the MPAA and any other greedy bastards?

Comments have been disabled for this article.

Latest user comments

News archive