Webloggers: What the policy these days about hosting Mp3's on your sites?

Any mp3s offered are here for a limited time (usually one week or less). If you are or represent an artist whose music I've posted and you do not want it shared, let me know - it will be removed immediately. The music is here to for evaluation purposes. I will always link to a place the music can be purchased if one is available.

But seriously as anyone heard of a blogger getting done for anything. I think I've come across a couple who have had letters from lawyers but nothing more. Of course I could be wrong. So don't sue me.

jennymccarthy1.jpg
jennymccarthy2.jpg
jennymccarthy3.jpg
jennymccarthy4.jpg
jennymccarthy5.jpg

― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Tuesday, 25 October 2005 20:20 (twenty years ago)

that might fix it.

Personally, I'd recommend just not putting anything major label on your webpage. No MP3 blogs have really gotten in trouble yet, but sooner or later someone will. Is it really worth the risk? In my mind, no.

No MP3 blogs have really gotten in trouble yet, but sooner or later someone will.

Well, some of them have had cease and desist letters. 45RPM got one this week.

Like Mike mentioned above, Moistworks.com got a C&D email from the UK's International Federation of the Phonographic Industry regarding the Stone Roses back in January 2005 (scroll down).

So you could put the Abba sample up and sell Madonna's single as the best single of the year!

I've only ever received 2 cease-and-desists and we play it pretty fast and loose. (Well, we still only keep stuff online for a short time and don't post more than 2 tracks from a given record - and that only rarely.) People who go and post whole records are asking for it.

Our ISP is very very bad at keeping track of who complained, though, so we don't actually know what the problems were - in either case. But FYI, by process of elimination, it was probably

one of: Beck (Eternal Sunshine soundtrack), Wilco (leak)
and then one of: The New Pornographers, Wolf Parade, Tom Tom Club.

It may only be a matter of time, though.

The first person to get sued in earnest is going to be about as fucked as the Napster kid ie: made famous and made the head of a legitimate business.

The reason why it's not out and out illegal is that it's permissible to reference work for commentary and for informative purposes. However, there's all sorts of (intentional) legal grayness about that. The 30-second thing is totally arbitrary, as you can be sued for having anything, and there's a commonly cited "less than 2/3rds of the work" rule that's also totally arbitrary.

Basically, you're less likely to incur the wrath of rights-holders if you limit the duration, limit the scope, and offer a way to buy. Oh, and putting up things that are out of print tends to mean that there are less interested parties out there to screw you. So put up those Killing Joke 12" that haven't been reissued.

*claps*

The quality would just have to be clearly inferior to that of the commercially released recording. OK I know it sucks.

So how about we all accept that after exactly 30 seconds of any piece of music recorded on mp3 there's a super-loud BEEEEEEEP!!!!! that sounds off. There'd be great silly remixes built around it too.

Maybe the EFF would care to defend some stupid jurisprudence for the rest of us..

Until then the answer for relatively hassle-free mp3 hosting is to do it from a country that could give a fuck about that sort of thing - there still are a few on this US/IFPI/WTO planet.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html

But obviously the goal would be not to get sued, rather than to spend thousands of dollars clearing your name. So to be safe, don't host works from RIAA members (which is not just the majors; see list at http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp )

this def doesn't apply to everyone, though, matthew!

xpost - Do you think that it applies to you, Sean?

but what you said about fluxblog does mostly apply to us, yeah.

Often the artist will even be in favour of having the stuff shared, but the label (or the publisher, or whatever) might be extremely uh Not. Fully legal mp3blogs (that I've seen) are either late-to-every-party, boring, PR-fluffy, or all three.

For the record, It's not illegal per se is absolutely not true whenever a blogger hasn't got permission from the copyright owner. In Matthew's case, if he's getting the files from the artists or labels, he has a very good argument that he has received a waiver of reproduction rights. But, it's important to note that most artists don't own the copyright on the sound recording. In other words, you could get permission from a band but if the label didn't want it shared, they'd be within their rights to make you stop.

The thing I like most about MP3 blogs is how well they self-police themselves. Seems like that's what keeps the majors from completely going after them (and they could if they wanted). That and the fact that the labels realize they make a good marketing tool (interesting how those four Strokes tracks were leaked one after another).

Internet Explorer doesn't know how to handle the type of file you have selected. You can choose to save this file to your disk or you can configure a Helper Application for this file.

MIME type: application g-zip/compressed file name

What does this mean?