"We have received a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) request to remove one or more content items from your Multiply site. Per the DMCA, we are required to act when a copyright holder claims someone is sharing their content without permission. For now, we have changed the access on the item(s) reported so that only you can access them going forward. We suggest you remove these item(s) completely, as well as any others that may contain copyrighted material. We reserve the right to cancel your account if we discover another violation.
Here is the list of items that were reported to contain copyrighted material:
more than funny, i guess. i hope this is not result of the opinions i expressed till now. lol. have fun, my friends, and - as americans use to believe and sing (with or without copyright) - we shall overcome. if i will be deleted, i shall come back.
dinu draga noi ceilalti am primit de mult asa ceva...daca nu le dilesti tu...ti le vor dili ei...:)
lol, pai sint convins, trebuia sa-mi vina si mie rindul. doar ca n-am de gind sa le dilesc, ci o sa le postez inapoi. iar, daca o sa ma stearga, am sa ma intorc. dau eu de voi. nu scapati asa usor de mine. hehehe
They are really worried they'll lose 5 euro a year, aren't they?!
The usual advice is: 1) set your music for 'contacts only'; 2) remove the download buttons. One of my other contacts has done the latter, and she's the only music poster I know who hasn't been harassed. Hope you solve the problem and stay with us.
They are really worried they'll lose 5 euro a year, aren't they?!
The usual advice is: 1) set your music for 'contacts only'; 2) remove the download buttons. One of my other contacts has done the latter, and she's the only music poster I know who hasn't been harassed. Hope you solve the problem and stay with us.
thank you for your support. and for advice also. but sorry, i shall not follow it, no matter the risks. i am a writer and i know what copyright means - i haven't violated any of that, as long as i didn't use the songs for commercial purposes. if you're my friend and i invite you in my house to listen some music, i don't violate anybody's rigths. if you're not my friend, but you ring my bell and i invite you in my house to find out what are you looking for, and meanwhile you listen the music playied on my computer, this is no violation of copyrights. i don't sell music, but i buy CDs with music. and when i buy them, i pay the copyrights. the most stupid thing is that the reported music as, so call, abusive use, is a special kind of music, with a special kind of message. i don't think that the authors of this music (tune and lyrics) had in their mind to make money of this music, but to difuse their message. i just help them doing that, and i don't do it for financial reasons. i can pay, as royalties, a part of what i make of this. as francois villon wrote in his will: "i have nothing. the rest, is for poors." PS. sorry for the messages written in romanian, or better to say: i am sorry that romanian is not yet one of the international languages. they say only proper advices, about how to manage this situation, nothing else. thank you for your visit. friendly, dinu
there is alot of paranoia surrounding the sharing of music these days... which is too bad, especially when it is the record companies, who do not necessarily treat their own musicians fairly, who are crying foul... anyway good to hear that you are not going to stand for it Dinu!
there is alot of paranoia surrounding the sharing of music these days... which is too bad, especially when it is the record companies, who do not necessarily treat their own musicians fairly, who are crying foul... anyway good to hear that you are not going to stand for it Dinu!
in fact, this is all about: some record companies are worried about losing their benefits. they are not able to imagine that they are still honest people who go on buying records, even if they are sharing their preferences with friends. their mind is built up after their budget, they sell music as if they would sell potatoes or beans. that's why i shall not make my posts private and i shall not make difficult the life for those which want to listen the music i like. take care, and thank you for your support. hugs, dinu
Dinu, I agree with everything you say, and I'm sure you're absolutely right about the law in your own country - but Multiply follows American law, and that seems to be completely paranoid when it comes to copyrights. In Denmark, we can't play our own records/tapes/CDs in a "public" room, which usually means one we have rented for a party, unless we sign a paper saying that "the party is open for invited guests only". It doesn't suffice that we have no commercial purposes. And American law is worse. Yes, it's ridiculous. Yes, the musicians whose music you share are probably happy that you do. There are so many double standards involved in copyright laws. As a Uni teacher, I couldn't take 25 copies of a book or article and hand them to my students, that's a violation of copyrights although I didn't earn a cent. But I could lend student 1 the book, let him/her take a copy and pass it on to student 2 who took a copy and ---. That's private use and legal. The result is the same. Sigh.
There seems to be several interpretations and non-settled issues about what you can do on the net. Is a website a private or a public place, for instance? This is stupid, though. If I buy 100 copies of a CD and give them away in the street, I'm not violating any copyrights. Then why can't I let 100 people listen to and download music I've paid for? Because they want their money 100 times, yeah. On the other hand: in my youth, we had tape recorders, and recording from the radio was perfectly legal as long as we didn't sell the tapes. The music industry survived that. Why is downloading from the net such a THREAT?
On the other hand: in my youth, we had tape recorders, and recording from the radio was perfectly legal as long as we didn't sell the tapes. The music industry survived that. Why is downloading from the net such a THREAT?
In the UK recording music from the radio (or progs from TV) was legal. This was because blank video and audio tapes had a charge built into their cost which was fed back to the recording industry. This didn't happen with digital media (hard disks etc).
As a Uni teacher, I couldn't take 25 copies of a book or article and hand them to my students, that's a violation of copyrights although I didn't earn a cent. But I could lend student 1 the book, let him/her take a copy and pass it on to student 2 who took a copy and ---. That's private use and legal. The result is the same. Sigh.
In the UK the only difference in those two scenarios would be who had committed the crime. In your first option you would be open to prosecution for copying the book 25 times. In the second each of the students would be liable to copyright infringement prosecution.
Or do you mean that when you bought a tape, the shopkeeper paid part of the price to the "recording industry"? Well, I've no idea whether that was the case in DK. Probably not - tapes were used for many things apart from recording music.
As for books, Danish law says that copying is legal, but distributing copies is illegal - I'm positive. And nobody lost anything in reality since we practically only copied books that were out of print.
As our friend Gurcan informs us: In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, any copyrighted work on this site is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational or criticism purposes only, and IS NOT an infringement of copyright. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107shtml) The phrase "to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information" is significant enough, I believe. That's why many of us restrict music to contacts or even start group sites for members only. At any case, we are on your side, dear Dinu. And surely we shall overcome... (some day :-)
Or do you mean that when you bought a tape, the shopkeeper paid part of the price to the "recording industry"? Well, I've no idea whether that was the case in DK. Probably not - tapes were used for many things apart from recording music.
That's what I mean. Yes there was some argument early on as to whether you could penalise people who only wanted to record birdsong or tape their wedding but as the tariff was not onerous the fuss died away.
i love you all, my friends, generally speaking, but most of all now, that you're in such a hot debate about copyrights and different kind of laws. thanks all for your support. but... as far as i can see, there is at least one problem that we must have an answer: we are using internet, and we are paying, in a way or another, for using it - don't you think that it would be their task (the companies for providers, cables, phones, computers, and so on) the services for copyrights? by the way, i already have (as andreas also suggested below) announced on my main page that my staff is just for private and educational and non-commercial use. it seems that it's useless. they don't care about education or knowledge, as long as such things don't bring money. but meanwhile, we are talking on internet, using their tools and devices, passing through their adverts, bringing them money with each typing. not bad at all, i think. thank you all again, and have fun. after i'll be erased, my first posts when back will be the ones which made me erased: i trust mercedes sosa, and i trust all my friends. we shall find each other again, no matter what. take care and please enjoy. dinu
Dinu I received a similar advice a couple of months ago, that's why I decided not to post any music again. That's correct that playlist here posted are not for commercial purposes but Multiple stuff doesn't think so. Take care! Laura
Dinu I received a similar advice a couple of months ago, that's why I decided not to post any music again. That's correct that playlist here posted are not for commercial purposes but Multiple stuff doesn't think so. Take care! Laura
gracias, laurita, por el apoyo. but i don't think it would be a good option not to post music again. what, then, could be the reason of this site? not for me to establish what kind of site is this: public space or private. we have in popular tradition a short story about such a thing. one day, Nastratin Hodja (some popular Balkanic character) entered a pub where they were just preparing some delicious food. after he stood a while, only smelling the scent coming out of the kitchen, he wanted to go, but the owner of the pub stopped him and asked him to pay. 'what for?' asked Nastratin. 'For smelling the food we are preparing.' 'No problem', Nastratin answered. 'In this case this is the fair price:', he let a gold coin fall on a table and after that put the coin back in his pocket and wanted to leave. 'What kind of payment is this?' asked the owner. 'The proper one: i smelled your food, you heard the sound of my money.' And he left. this is the same situation. when i buy a CD, i don't pay for the magnetic support or for the cover, but for the music on it. the one who have sold me an apple has no right to oblidge me to eat it boiled or burnt or not at all. what we are doing here is not selling music, but making free publicity for the music they are recording, and they would have to thank us for that. de todo modo, gracias querida. abrazos, dinu
ooops, i forgot to add something more: i really (and sinceerly) do appreciate the work of the multiply staff. that is why i am here. and i am sure they have over their heads of stupid complaints from all kind of people and all sort of reasons. but, as a honest suggestion, if they would inquier first the one who make the complaint, and only after the complaint - if it's reasonable -, they would save a lot of time and effort. and if they would build up some more proper way to discern on fake identities, our life here would become easier and this site much better. thanks for attention.
I agree 110% with "they should inquire the one who makes the complaint". Sometimes (most times?) it's done from sheer spite. In your case, I very strongly doubt that it can possibly be copyright holders or artists who complained, they are more likely to be grateful, as you said. I don't know what anybody can have against you; some people seem to be destructive as a general behaviour pattern.
Yes Dinu, I entirely agree with you, we all are making free publicity of their musics and this is true but this is not understood as such and Multiply staff think differently and as a solution they cancel the accounts. What can we do? complain, complain again and again? They do not hear us and simply...poof! By the way, your story is fantastic, good sense of humor. Delicious! Um beijo Laura
dinu draga noi ceilalti am primit de mult asa ceva...daca nu le dilesti tu...ti le vor dili ei...:)
