|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 1, 2014 16:07:09 GMT -6
www.rightscorp.com/notices/why-did-i-receive-a-noticeOur technology system monitors the global Peer-to-Peer (P2P) file sharing networks and sends emails to Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) as per the Digital Millennium Copyright Act with the date, time, song title and other specific technology identifiers to confirm the infringement by the ISP’s customer. Once the ISP is in possession of these facts, they forward the notice, or send a distinct notice, to their customer and to disconnect the services of repeat offenders when appropriate. Rightscorp, Inc. collects payments and makes remits to the copyright owner a percentage of these settlements. Every mp3 file that is downloaded has at least two copyrights, a sound recording copyright and a publishing copyright. The publishing copyright is the right to use the song separate from the sound recording such as putting the song in a movie, re-recording the song or printing the lyrics and melody on sheet music. According to US law, copyright owners have the right to be paid when their copyrighted materials are used. We have an agreement with the recording artist, music label or music publisher who owns the copyright cited in the notice you received. Our technology monitors the Internet all of the time looking for infringements. When a copyright is infringed upon, we receive the following data Date and Time of infringement Filename ISP Name IP Address Port (similar to the last four digits on your nine-digit zip code) We send this data to the ISP in an automated computer format called XML. These emails are called “DMCA notices,” and they follow the format prescribed in subsection 512( c) of the DMCA. Though the format is the same (for other legal reasons), these notices should not be confused with “Takedown” notices. The ISP keeps “router logs” of all of the activity on their networks. When we send these notices, they cross-reference the data we send with their router logs. By doing this cross reference, the ISP knows which one of their customers was using the IP Address in question at the time and date specified. Due to the DMCA law as described above, they forward these notices to their customer on the customer’s email address. The notice comes to the customer from their ISP, not from Rightscorp, Inc. The user who receives the notice, is liable for $150,000 in damages, but if they click on the link supplied by Rightscorp, they can enter a credit card and we will settle the matter between them and the copyright owner quickly and affordably. - See more at: www.rightscorp.com/notices/why-did-i-receive-a-notice#sthash.iYvdqYbO.dpuf
|
|
|
|
Post by formatcyes on May 1, 2014 16:18:32 GMT -6
Need this here in OZ,
Doesent say how to register works.
Need it for software too.
A good start and hopefully a new era for music.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on May 1, 2014 19:08:09 GMT -6
Looks promising...... if nothing else it may scare the people that don't know how to remove the digital watermark or whatever it is they use. Good news is that most people that download illegally don't know how, or if they get notices like that I can imagine them dumping the p2p software pretty quickly and starting to either buy music or using the streaming sites.
Baby steps, get people to stop downloading for free, then once that is starting to take root and more people are shifted to streaming, turn the heat up on the streaming services. At this point the music industry doesn't have much leverage against the streaming services, because of p2p downloading. But if that were to exponentially decrease the industry would have leverage again, and who knows, we all might start making a good living again. Something has to happen sooner or later, I'm optimistic about it, and this looks very promising.
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on May 2, 2014 17:04:31 GMT -6
Sounds like the stuff of phishing scam...all day. Whose spam filter does one of these emails even make it through?
People still use P2P to steal music? Good to know. Are they doing it on Pentium 2 computers over AOL?
Here's what you don't want to hear....the tech companies NEED pirates. They actively fight legislation that has to do with IP protecting copyright law, because at the end of the day, if people have to pay for content, they won't pay as much for the widgets they use to listen. It's in their best interest to pay enough lip service to the creative culture to not appear to be an adversarial entity, but leave the back door open.
How easy would it be for Microsoft to "fix the glitch" since they own/make 90% of the OSs and arguably 98% of consumer facing...but, there would never BE a bigger gift to Apple. Apple's iThings in 2001 played mp3 files why? AAC was fully DRM'd...AND sounded better. I'll tell you they'd have sold 1% of what they sold if it didn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 2, 2014 20:16:15 GMT -6
Sounds like the stuff of phishing scam...all day. Whose spam filter does one of these emails even make it through? People still use P2P to steal music? Good to know. Are they doing it on Pentium 2 computers over AOL? Here's what you don't want to hear....the tech companies NEED pirates. They actively fight legislation that has to do with IP protecting copyright law, because at the end of the day, if people have to pay for content, they won't pay as much for the widgets they use to listen. It's in their best interest to pay enough lip service to the creative culture to not appear to be an adversarial entity, but leave the back door open. How easy would it be for Microsoft to "fix the glitch" since they own/make 90% of the OSs and arguably 98% of consumer facing...but, there would never BE a bigger gift to Apple. Apple's iThings in 2001 played mp3 files why? AAC was fully DRM'd...AND sounded better. I'll tell you they'd have sold 1% of what they sold if it didn't. They receive snail mail too. |
|
|
|
Post by popmann on May 2, 2014 20:47:55 GMT -6
You focused on the wrong part...that's my fault, jokes about AOL and all. I don't know if they use P2P to steal stuff...but, the tech industry is actively invested in content being free. That's well documented. If you don't get THEM to fix the glitch, you simply won't get it fixed--and they have skin in the game of NOT fixing it. Thinking you can sue random people who put their fave CD on their P2P sharing app is a distraction from the core issue. Intentionally, IMO. That was my point.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on May 3, 2014 14:46:05 GMT -6
My friend is a lobbyist for the music industry in Washington and he said it's like bringing a knife to a gun fight up there. I guess what you're saying makes sense, because someone w/ more money than he can offer is buying these officials off, because legislation could be passed to fix this, and I mean instantly. But for some reason for the last 15 years it's been at idle, just letting the music industry collapse.
But he did tell me about a month ago that some new stuff was coming, and that there was about to be a significant shift, so, that's what me think this has something to do with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 3, 2014 15:37:30 GMT -6
You focused on the wrong part...that's my fault, jokes about AOL and all. I don't know if they use P2P to steal stuff...but, the tech industry is actively invested in content being free. That's well documented. If you don't get THEM to fix the glitch, you simply won't get it fixed--and they have skin in the game of NOT fixing it. Thinking you can sue random people who put their fave CD on their P2P sharing app is a distraction from the core issue. Intentionally, IMO. That was my point. This is NOT opening up lawsuits on tons of people. It's offering an alternative to being sued. The settlements are as low as $20 per illegal file. That's better than $150K per file. It's tracking the IP's that download files that are being illegally shared on P2P sites. The ISP's have a get out of jail free card as long as they pass the information on to the users that are participating in illegal activity using their service. The notices are sent to people by their ISP - not this company. And btw - this is not dubbing a cassette tape for your girlfriend. This is one file potentially turning into millions. You're once again being obtuse. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 10:10:17 GMT -6
I think it's scarier that some unknown site is scanning all of the packets that come into your computer for the specific signature of an audio file. What other types of data are they going to be looking at that gets transmitted to your system? It's one thing that my ISP is looking at all the data (that's in the T&C when you sign up), but they're in an agreement with that rightscorp organization to look at the traffic, and I didn't agree to that when I signed up with my ISP...
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 4, 2014 10:32:17 GMT -6
They haven't agreed to anything with Rightscorp - if I understand it correctly...I believe Rightscorp goes in and gets some kind of bench warrant for the illegal activity...(It IS illegal btw)...then the ISP is forced to give up the name of the person (so they aren't sued)...
I certainly see your point...Where do we draw the line? I don't know.
My solution would be for every ISP to charge a "downloadable music fee" (maybe $3 per month or something) to everyone that has an internet connection...then all music could/would be free. After all, I pay for the Home and Gardening network, LOGO, SOAP network, etc...and I don't use a single one of them, but I pay for them. If we went to a solution like this, the music industry would make more than they've ever made before. Of course, there's a boatload of problems/complaints that go along with that idea too...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 14:27:28 GMT -6
If the ISPs haven't agreed to anything with RightsCorp, how is traffic getting routed to RightsCorp for them to packet-sniff before it makes it to your home computer, if they're not hijacking the traffic? Think about it.
$3/month for unlimited downloadable music is practically identical to what Spotify and pandora are doing now. Unlimited access to music in exchange for ads, you can't take it with you, and that $3/mo gets distributed out to ALL artists that are in the catalog of the provider. That's just watering down the pot even further. iTunes is really the best online choice for people to get their music to make money as an artist. This is also why I am not keen to get into the 'artist' game and release some of my own music. I'd much rather just get a check from a client after being hired to add a part and be done with the project, and not worry about if I'm gonna get money 6 months later from ASCAP or iTunes, especially if I don't know how *much* i might be getting from those Performance Rights organizations. I'll leave that gamble to the people who do it "For the music" lol
|
|
|
|
Post by formatcyes on May 4, 2014 15:10:06 GMT -6
I think it's scarier that some unknown site is scanning all of the packets that come into your computer for the specific signature of an audio file. What other types of data are they going to be looking at that gets transmitted to your system? It's one thing that my ISP is looking at all the data (that's in the T&C when you sign up), but they're in an agreement with that rightscorp organization to look at the traffic, and I didn't agree to that when I signed up with my ISP... As a group we cannot be trusted to be lawful the internet needs a sheriff. Commerce can only take place in lawful environments if you have pirates destroying the value of peoples works law and order has to be enforced. If that means scanning packets to and from our computers so be it. We didn't play nice with no monitoring. Lawlessness destroys peoples lives and businesses and will continue to do so untill something is done. Wild west dident stay wild for ever. BTW you are already being monitored |
|
|
|
Post by formatcyes on May 4, 2014 17:20:22 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 4, 2014 20:38:57 GMT -6
$3/month for unlimited downloadable music is practically identical to what Spotify and pandora are doing now. Unlimited access to music in exchange for ads, you can't take it with you, and that $3/mo gets distributed out to ALL artists that are in the catalog of the provider. That's just watering down the pot even further. lol Well, no...if we paid $3 a month to the ISP for downloadable music (I'm sure there would be a bandwidth restriction) hen Spotify wouldn't stay in business. And how much of that $3 that spotify makes goes to the rights holders? Less than half. I never thought I would say this, but I trust BMI and ASCAP with distributing these royalties FAR more than relying on a FOR PROFIT business like Spotify paying for streaming. The other issue is this - that $3 per month would then be mechanical royalties - not performance. Creators would receive mechanical royalties from that and then also receive performance royalties from the traditional avenues like radio. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 21:21:38 GMT -6
it's still $3 distributed among THOUSANDS of artists. they're still receiving thousandths (if not smaller) of a penny per person that signs up.
think about it this way:
ISP X has access to a catalog of 10,000 artists. I give them $3 per month to access it. That means each artist receives $0.0003 each month from me (100% dispersal). what happens if ISP X takes a 20% cut for delivery, and the label per artist takes a 50% cut? that means the pool of artists are actually getting 40% of that $3 per month. so it' smore like $3 * 0.4 /10,000 = $0.00012 per month per artist.
AAAAAND that is assuming that each artist receives the same rate from their label...
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 4, 2014 22:14:42 GMT -6
I'm not talking about artists. I am talking about a deal with ISP's and PRO's. ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, etc. So, I think I'm wrong in thinking they would be considered mechanical royalties (although, that would be up for debate)...The PRO's currently do this with radio. They negotiate a 10 year or so deal with radio and distribute money from that pool to the millions of artists based on radio airplay. I was thinking this could be the same they could deal with Internet play/stream/download. Unless the artist was the creator of the song or the label owns publishing, they wouldn't see any of this money. That is exactly what happens on radio right now.
Just a quick comment on the first line of your post. Not all of these 10,000 artists would be paid...the PRO's would distribute based on plays/streams/downloads...just like they do now for radio. If you don't have a song on the radio, you don't get paid. If you get 1000 plays in Sweden, your PRO check is weighted accordingly.
Obviously, it would be a gargantuan undertaking...and it might not work...but with 122 million households with internet access - that's an additional $322 million dollars to creators...on top of radio performance royalties.
|
|
