How to bypass DCMA copyright and host a download music site?

No I dont have to accept theft and neither does anyone else have to accept it.
Theft is theft no matter what country you live in.

It is only by continually fighting against the internet theives and those that
aid and abet them that we will keep their numbers down, and with luck will get
more countries to act against them.

 

Theft? Because you've decided that is what "theft" is? And you're going to "fight the good fight" by doing what? Getting 100 people to go to California and protest against Google running YouTube?

The US government has decided to define what the laws are. Morally and ethically I'm against anyone "stealing" in the colloquial use of the term. If someone puts up a web site that he/she knows will probably be a draw because it's using someone else's hard work, yeah, I'm offended. But the fact is that the law states that you can put up a site and you get a free pass if you police it in this fashion. This is because the prevailing thought (at least within the US government, sad as it is atm), is that the Internet should grow and not be restrained if there is a reasonable compromise, this being it. If we held website owners responsible for content they didn't actually know about that is infringing, we wouldn't have all these great and beneficial websites and the growth of freedom of the Internet would be curtailed, etc. etc. etc.

IMHO, it's almost impossible for the YouTube founders to have known or thought that a huge amount of the content uploaded wasn't infringing. I don't like the "technical ignorance is an excuse" any more than others do. But that is the law, atm. Our site was about content creativity. Truth is that we wouldn't exist if we had to police every piece of thousands of pieces of content uploaded every day. Does the world need yet another mashup site? I don't know. But all I did was state what the law is. Don't shoot the messenger.

 

Just host it offshore . many host provide offshoring hosting like in china etc .

 

That is the biggest load of BS I have ever heard. If you have a website and you can't police copyright infringement, then you have no business running a site like that.
What kind of incompetent business person would go to court and tell the judge, "I don't know what I'm doing, I have no control over what other people do on the website that I own"

You know the risks and what is involved when you set something up like that. Don't play ignorant comparing yourself with a company like You Tube that has thousands of partnerships, contracts, agreements and lawyers.

And what's this crap about the U.S. Government dictating laws ? You got some other issue that you need to work out?
Our copyright laws are there to protect the property of our citizens. The internet is full of people that don't have shit and feel that what ever they find is open game for them to take and use. It doesn't work like that in the real world and it doesn't work like that online.

It's amazing some of the same countries that believe that they can take what ever they want off of the internet, will cut off your hand for stealing bread from a shop owner? That's pretty f*'in convenient...and it just proves that they DO know right from wrong, they just don't give a sh*t.

How do you acknowledge that stealing form a shop owner is punishable by law, but stealing from a software developer or movie producer is not?
I'll tell you why, because you want it therefore you don't care about people 10k miles away because you feel a certain security. If the people that you stole from could easily knock on your door with the authorities, you would think twice with that attitude of all that "the internet should be free to grow " BS.

The internet is free to grow, you are just not free to steal.

No one controls the internet but people have a right to protect the content that they created. The web wasn't conceived as a free for all that allows you to take what ever you find and use it. There is nothing in life that is like that.

If you want stuff, then create it. Or use it legally. Contect creators make it very easy for you to use thier stuff within the boundaries of their rules, but for some people that's not good enough. They want to be the internet Robin Hood.

It's all BS. Everyone want their rights, and can come up with all kinds of creative ways to get what THEY want, but no one wants to respect the rights of others.

 

No, it isn't BS nor is it as simple as you make it. Everything comes with a price. Our government has decided that the growth and maturity of the Internet will only happen with some "minor abuses" while the dust settles and we figure all this out. To some degree, they are right as we've had some neat innovation that has resulted. At the same time, having companies that we all "know" (but can't prove) were founded upon infringement is very distasteful. It is to me. At the same time, how could anyone run a forum if they were liable for any defamation that could have been posted by a user? There is a line we need to draw. Where it gets drawn is a matter of debate.

Crap? I don't make the rules, just know what they are. What I'm telling you is what any top law firm in the US would tell you for $800-1,000 an hour.

Regarding the government making laws so that it benefits the property of the "citizens"... Do you know what the Sonny Bono copyright law is? Preach all you want but don't shoot the messenger. Do a search online for that law and then you'll understand about the justifications and rationale behind many of our laws. And if you want to continue to inform us about the real world, explain to me how the trillion dollar government bailout was not really a huge, pork filled bailout and subsidy for private interests of those with power. Corporate interests are huge and protection of some of the citizens over others happens all the time in the "real world."

Stealing from a shop owner is an easy call - you know what you did and you did it. Online, you may run a web site but don't know every minute item that goes on. We had thousands of posts a day and thousands of uploads. We could not have had a thriving community if we policed everything. No online community can survive with moderation of every item - costs would be too high. So the government made a decision as to what would be the best compromise to keep online businesses running while trying to make them reasonably prudent to remove infringing materials. It's a very long discussion. Chill out and take some time to think about it. Lots of smart people discussed this.

 

It's all an easy call. If it's not yours, you have no right to it.

All I hear is, "We turned a blind eye to get what we wanted: It would cost us too much money to do it the right way and protect the rights of others" That's why You Tube has a building full of lawyers and agreements with production companies.

I'll bet you made no such agreement or received permissions from anyone..you just opened it up and let the chips fall where they may. You didn't even try and that's why you are no longer active.

I understand "minor abuses may occur", but when you go into a situation KNOWING that these abuses are going to occur and open the flood gates, you deserve what ever you get and it should be no surprise.
There is a right way and a wrong way.
If you allow your community to operate freely and upload what ever they want, then be prepared to reap the consequences of their actions...after all, you run it, not the them.

 

I hear you but it's not that easy. Easy calls - Napster. Made for "sharing" but used for pirating and was 99% of the time.

Let's say I create a legitimate, really cool site that allows users to create amazingly beautiful works of art. It allows people to upload their own pictures and do neat things. It has many legitimate uses. Now there can also be abuses of people uploading logos, pictures of others, things they don't even know they can't do (you mean I can't upload my favorite football team's logo and make something beautiful for the fans?) Our government believes there is a value to this creativity. There is. No question a benefit. Do we need it? I don't know. But how much should we curtail it? Should we shut down all these sites that bring much creativity?

A user form is the same - you open the floodgates for potential harassment and defamation. But do we require every forum owner to get picture ID and social security number from every user? We'd have no forums.

YouTube - an interesting animal. How could they have not known that a huge amount of content was infringing? They claim that a significant amount wasn't. My gut isn't the issue... the law provides a safe harbor that if you follow and react when notified, you avoid liability. Is the line not quite set at the right place? Perhaps... it's debatable.

 

I'm not denying that there are legitimate uses for such a site, but what I am saying is if your users infringe on copyright, it's your burden to carry. You are responsible for what goes on on your site, and in your business.

 

Regarding the limited issue we are talking about, e.g. safe harbors of the DMCA and running user generated content sites, etc. and with regard to content that may be infringing to which you don't have direct knowledge, etc.

Morally and ethically, you are correct.

Legally, you are not correct.

Don't shoot me. While I've been dealing with Internet law for a long time, I'm just the messenger.

 

While you may not get prison, I am sure that you are still responsible for keeping it clean and if you receive notice, you are obligated to remove offending content.
I am also sure that repeated violations will get you into more serious trouble.
For instance if Ultra Music is constantly sending you notices, pretty soon they are going to sue you. It doesn't take a constitutional amendment to sue someone. You can sue who ever you want at anytime for anything.

An easier rout would to just name the hosting company in the lawsuit and they will surely shut you down.

 

You are very much right.

 

ahhh.... just what i didnt want to start, a moral discussion. now they are comparing me with a drug dealer. and some one questioning my methods. this music site has been online for more than 3 years, and users like it. they share their music there. i review my favorite music albums. its my website hobbie, that i fully enjoy, not like the other ones that i have that sell pills, diets, etc.

thanks for the ones that answered what i was asking for.

i just want to find a way to continue this website, i have never uploaded music to my server, so i wasnt doing nothing illegaly. users posted links to rapidshare, etc. in the comments section, and DCMA sued me for that. i had to remove them. my visitors are angry of course.
so if i host the website on a offshore server, and open discussions where people share links to music, i think i wont have more problems.
live and let live.

 

Awww C'mon. You know you can't open that can of worms on this forum and not spark a vigorous discussion. Some of us actually enjoy it. No one got hurt and as long as you got the information you need that's all that counts.
Rock on and I wish you luck with your site.

 

Well for those with the question about this, it has been answered for you by the federal government. The top 9 sites for movies have been officially seized.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...39120611859094.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_tech

 

This is fantastic news - I hope more will follow

 

He's a martian??? That explains quite a lot.

 

Well I have to retract that statement in all fairness .
The comment that triggered it has been out weighed by his follow up posts.

 

1. Like the OP, the user is blatangly looking to steal someone else's work. There's no way around that and it wasn't about "turning a blind eye." The DMCA allows a compromise for those looking to put up web sites that have a legitimate purposes and for which they cannot completely control the flow of content, e.g. an amazing mashup site that people can do good things with legitimate content but, invariably there will be a sizable amount of copyrighted materials that will be shared as well.

2. I pgot a good laugh from this quote:

Mr. Morton and several movie-studio executives sought to portray online piracy as harmful to America's economic interests, saying that Hollywood employs 2.5 million Americans in 50 states.

"Counterfeiting and piracy hurt American workers, pure and simple," Mr. Morton said.
"These are good, middle-class jobs," added Thom Davis, a vice president of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, a movie-industry workers' union.

I'm an artist myself. I am against piracy. Sure I understand. But how many of you think that one single job was lost or that this is all about the care for "middle-class" jobs for Americans? LOL.

 

There is no way to know. Obviously pirating takes money out of the pocket of the owners, but who can say how many jobs it has cost of haven't been created because of the drop in revenue.

I thought it was particularly interesting that users are now getting sued:

Pretty much puts it in perspective for everyone that thinks they can go around taking what ever they want and not be help accountable. I'll bet those people were pretty surprised.

 

The bolded text was so bolded due to the author's obvious thoughts on the comment.

It's not that interesting. It's big business flexing its muscles and creating harsh laws.