Drohbriefe an Teilnehmer des Online-Protestes
Heute ist "Grey Tuesday", der Tag an dem dutzende von Webseiten, College Radios und Webstreamer sich bewußt an einem "Gesetzesbruch" beteiligen um gegen die asozialen, anti-kulturellen Methoden der Musikindustrie zu protestieren, indem sie das sog. "Grey Album", ein Underground-Remix-Album Jay-Z's "Black Album" mit dem 68er "White Album" der Beatles, öffentlich aufführen und auf ihren Webseiten zum Download bereit stellen.
Seit Wochen ruft die Online-Initiative 
http://greytuesday.org/ dazu auf, sich an diesem historisch erstmaligen zivilen Ungehorsam gegen die Plattenindustrie zu beteiligen. Knapp 200 Webseiten, darunter viele Blogs, haben sich für die konkrete Variante des Protests angekündigt, etwa 150 weitere wollen ihre Seite als Protest "grau einfärben".
Seit Jahrzehnten wird die Musikwelt von den profitgetriebenen Machenschaften der Major Labels drangsaliert. Alternative Musik wird ökonomisch und per gesetzlicher Lobbyarbeit ausgegrenzt und künstlerischer Ausdruck durch die kompromisslose Durchsetzung eines pervertierten Kopierrechtswahns zu Gunsten kommerzieller Einnahmen bürokratisiert und illegalisiert.
Viele der Protestteilnehmer erhielten bereits "Cease and desist"-Briefe von der Anwaltskanzlei "Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman" die in ihrem Schreiben dazu auffordern, jegliche Teilnahme an diesen "Gesetzesverstößen" zu unterlassen ( http://downhillbattle.org/grey/emi_cd_letter.html). Sie verlangen ausserdem die Aushändigung sämtlicher Namen und Adressen derer, die sich an dieser Aktion beteiligen und die Initiative greytuesday.org unsterstützen, sowie eine Auflistung aller Download-Zahlen des illegalen Albums, für welches man natürlich eine Bezahlung fordert, deren finanzielle Höhe noch ausdiskutiert werden soll.
Ganz scheinheilig bezieht man sich auch auf eine Aussage des Remix-Künstlers "DJ Danger Mouse" selbst, der auf seiner Webseite verkündet habe, er werde sich den Drohungen der Plattenfirmen fügen und die Musik nicht weiter verbreiten, was laut "Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman" nunmehr auch ein Verstoß gegen die "ausdrücklichen kopierrechtlichen Wünsche" des Remix-Künstlers selbst ist.
Eine Unverschämtheit der Anwälte ist auch, dass in diesem Schreiben die Worte Brian Burtons ("DJ Danger Mouse") spitzfindig falsch ausgelegt werden: man zitiert einen Reuters-Artikel (s.u.) in dem er äußert: "[t]his wasn't supposed to happen... I just sent out a few tracks (and) now online stores are selling it and people are downloading it all over the place."
Was im Interview des Originalartikels aber als eine unerwartete Freudensbekundung zu werten ist, wird im anwaltlichen Schreiben nun als ein Indiz angeführt, Burton habe die öffentliche Verbreitung seines Remix-Albums gar nicht gewollt.
Damit verbale Manipulation und die unerhörte Aggressivität der anwältlichen Mitteilungen nicht allzu öffentlich einsehbar sind wird der Brief übrigens noch mit folgender Notiz abgerundet:
**********************************************************************
This message is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you.
**********************************************************************
Um dieser Auffordung pflichtbewusst entgegenkommen zu können, anbei Webseite und E-Mail-Anschrift des Unterzeichners des Schreibens J. Christopher Jensen:
jcj@cll.com
http://www.cll.com/
Reuters-Artikel:
http://www.reuters.com/locales/newsArticle.jsp;:40340191:17e9d59f8283bdea?type=entertainmentNews&locale=en_IN&storyID=4386866
Stellungnahmen dazu von downhillbattle.org:
http://downhillbattle.org/index.php?p=68
Insider-Text darüber wie die Major Labels wirklich funktionieren:
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
Vorangegangener Indy-Artikel:
http://de.indymedia.org/2004/02/75385.shtml
http://greytuesday.org/ dazu auf, sich an diesem historisch erstmaligen zivilen Ungehorsam gegen die Plattenindustrie zu beteiligen. Knapp 200 Webseiten, darunter viele Blogs, haben sich für die konkrete Variante des Protests angekündigt, etwa 150 weitere wollen ihre Seite als Protest "grau einfärben". Seit Jahrzehnten wird die Musikwelt von den profitgetriebenen Machenschaften der Major Labels drangsaliert. Alternative Musik wird ökonomisch und per gesetzlicher Lobbyarbeit ausgegrenzt und künstlerischer Ausdruck durch die kompromisslose Durchsetzung eines pervertierten Kopierrechtswahns zu Gunsten kommerzieller Einnahmen bürokratisiert und illegalisiert.
Viele der Protestteilnehmer erhielten bereits "Cease and desist"-Briefe von der Anwaltskanzlei "Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman" die in ihrem Schreiben dazu auffordern, jegliche Teilnahme an diesen "Gesetzesverstößen" zu unterlassen (
http://downhillbattle.org/grey/emi_cd_letter.html). Sie verlangen ausserdem die Aushändigung sämtlicher Namen und Adressen derer, die sich an dieser Aktion beteiligen und die Initiative greytuesday.org unsterstützen, sowie eine Auflistung aller Download-Zahlen des illegalen Albums, für welches man natürlich eine Bezahlung fordert, deren finanzielle Höhe noch ausdiskutiert werden soll. Ganz scheinheilig bezieht man sich auch auf eine Aussage des Remix-Künstlers "DJ Danger Mouse" selbst, der auf seiner Webseite verkündet habe, er werde sich den Drohungen der Plattenfirmen fügen und die Musik nicht weiter verbreiten, was laut "Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman" nunmehr auch ein Verstoß gegen die "ausdrücklichen kopierrechtlichen Wünsche" des Remix-Künstlers selbst ist.
Eine Unverschämtheit der Anwälte ist auch, dass in diesem Schreiben die Worte Brian Burtons ("DJ Danger Mouse") spitzfindig falsch ausgelegt werden: man zitiert einen Reuters-Artikel (s.u.) in dem er äußert: "[t]his wasn't supposed to happen... I just sent out a few tracks (and) now online stores are selling it and people are downloading it all over the place."
Was im Interview des Originalartikels aber als eine unerwartete Freudensbekundung zu werten ist, wird im anwaltlichen Schreiben nun als ein Indiz angeführt, Burton habe die öffentliche Verbreitung seines Remix-Albums gar nicht gewollt.
Damit verbale Manipulation und die unerhörte Aggressivität der anwältlichen Mitteilungen nicht allzu öffentlich einsehbar sind wird der Brief übrigens noch mit folgender Notiz abgerundet:
**********************************************************************
This message is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you.
**********************************************************************
Um dieser Auffordung pflichtbewusst entgegenkommen zu können, anbei Webseite und E-Mail-Anschrift des Unterzeichners des Schreibens J. Christopher Jensen:
jcj@cll.com http://www.cll.com/ Reuters-Artikel:
http://www.reuters.com/locales/newsArticle.jsp;:40340191:17e9d59f8283bdea?type=entertainmentNews&locale=en_IN&storyID=4386866 Stellungnahmen dazu von downhillbattle.org:
http://downhillbattle.org/index.php?p=68 Insider-Text darüber wie die Major Labels wirklich funktionieren:
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html Vorangegangener Indy-Artikel:
http://de.indymedia.org/2004/02/75385.shtml
Indymedia ist eine Veröffentlichungsplattform, auf der jede und jeder selbstverfasste Berichte publizieren kann. Eine Überprüfung der Inhalte und eine redaktionelle Bearbeitung der Beiträge finden nicht statt. Bei Anregungen und Fragen zu diesem Artikel wenden sie sich bitte direkt an die Verfasserin oder den Verfasser.
(Moderationskriterien von Indymedia Deutschland)
(Moderationskriterien von Indymedia Deutschland)
Ergänzungen
P2P-Link
ed2k://|file|Dj.Danger.Mouse.-.The.Grey.Album.(2004).(brammes).[---MightyVibes.com---].rar|72589194|D4C74A24B50161DA033879F444310C64|/
Viel Spass beim hören...
Der Link funktioniert bei mir besser:
IPR Enforcement
Es lohnt sich den EU Richtlinienentwurf vom 16. Feb zur Durchsetzung des Geistigen Eigentums zu lesen. Rechtsstaat ade. Zahlreiche rechtsstaatliche Prinzipien werden über Bord geworfen.
Article 8
Measures for protecting evidence
1. Member States shall ensure that even before the commencement of proceedings on the merits of the case the competent judicial authorities may, on application by a party who has presented reasonably available evidence to support his claims that his intellectual property right has been infringed or is about to be infringed, order prompt and effective provisional measures to preserve relevant evidence in regard to the alleged infringement, subject to the protection of confidential information. Such measures may include the detailed description, with or without the taking of samples, or the physical seizure of the infringing goods, and, in appropriate cases, the materials and implements used in the production and/or distribution of these goods and the documents relating thereto. These measures shall be taken, if necessary without the other party having been heard, in particular where any delay is likely to cause irreparable harm to the right holder, or where there is a demonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed.
Where evidence-protection measures have been adopted without the other party having been heard, the affected parties shall be given notice immediately after the execution of the measures at the latest. A review, including a right to be heard, shall take place upon request of
the affected parties with a view to deciding, within a reasonable period after the notification of the measures, whether the measures shall be modified, revoked or confirmed.
2. Member States shall ensure that the evidence-protection measures may be subject to the applicant's lodging of an adequate security or equivalent assurance intended to ensure compensation for any prejudice suffered by the defendant as provided for in paragraph 4.
3. Member States shall ensure that the evidence-protection measures shall be revoked or otherwise cease to have effect upon request by the defendant, without prejudice to the damages which may be claimed, if the applicant has not instituted legal proceedings
leading to a decision on the merits of the case before the competent judicial authority within a reasonable period, to be determined by the judicial authority ordering the measures when the law of a Member State so permits or, in the absence of such determination, within a period not to exceed 20 working days or 31 calendar days, whichever is the longer.
4. Where the evidence-protection measures have been revoked, or where they lapse due to any act or omission by the applicant, or where it is subsequently found that there has been no infringement or threat of infringement of any intellectual property right, the judicial authorities shall have the authority to order the applicant, upon request of the defendant, to provide the defendant with appropriate compensation for any injury caused by these measures.
5. Member States may take measures to protect witnesses' identity.
1.
Section 3
RIGHT OF INFORMATION
Article 9
Right of information
1. Member States shall ensure that, in the context of proceedings concerning an infringement of an intellectual property right and in response to a justified and proportionate request of the claimant, the competent judicial authorities may order that information on the origin and distribution networks of the goods or services which infringe an intellectual property right be provided by the infringer and/or any other person who:
(a) was found in possession of the infringing goods on a commercial scale;
(b) was found to be using the infringing services on a commercial scale;
(ba) was found to be providing on a commercial scale services used in infringing activities; or
(c) was indicated by the person referred to in point (a), (b) or (ba) as being involved in the production, manufacture or distribution of the goods or the provision of the services.
2. The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall, as appropriate, comprise:
(a) the names and addresses of the producers, manufacturers, distributors, suppliers and other previous holders of the goods or services, as well as the intended wholesalers and retailers;
(b) information on the quantities produced, manufactured, delivered, received or ordered, as well as the price obtained for the goods or services in question.
3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall apply without prejudice to other statutory provisions which:
(a) grant the right holder rights to receive fuller information;
(b) govern the use in civil or criminal proceedings of the information communicated pursuant to this Article;
(c) govern responsibility for misuse of the right of information;
(d) afford an opportunity for refusing to provide information which would force the person referred to in paragraph 1 to admit to his own participation or that of his close relatives in an infringement of an intellectual property right ; or
(e) govern the protection of confidentiality of information sources or the treatment of personal data.
Article 9
Right of information
1. Member States shall ensure that, in the context of proceedings concerning an infringement of an intellectual property right and in response to a justified and proportionate request of the claimant, the competent judicial authorities may order that information on the origin and distribution networks of the goods or services which infringe an intellectual property right be provided by the infringer and/or any other person who:
(a) was found in possession of the infringing goods on a commercial scale;
(b) was found to be using the infringing services on a commercial scale;
(ba) was found to be providing on a commercial scale services used in infringing activities; or
(c) was indicated by the person referred to in point (a), (b) or (ba) as being involved in the production, manufacture or distribution of the goods or the provision of the services.
2. The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall, as appropriate, comprise:
(a) the names and addresses of the producers, manufacturers, distributors, suppliers and other previous holders of the goods or services, as well as the intended wholesalers and retailers;
(b) information on the quantities produced, manufactured, delivered, received or ordered, as well as the price obtained for the goods or services in question.
3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall apply without prejudice to other statutory provisions which:
(a) grant the right holder rights to receive fuller information;
(b) govern the use in civil or criminal proceedings of the information communicated pursuant to this Article;
(c) govern responsibility for misuse of the right of information;
(d) afford an opportunity for refusing to provide information which would force the person referred to in paragraph 1 to admit to his own participation or that of his close relatives in an infringement of an intellectual property right ; or
(e) govern the protection of confidentiality of information sources or the treatment of personal data.
(4) Deleted.
SECTION 4
PROVISIONAL MEASURES
Article 10
Provisional measures
1. Member States shall ensure that the judicial authorities may, at the request of the applicant:
(a) issue against the alleged infringer an interlocutory injunction intended to prevent any impending infringement of an intellectual property right, or to forbid, on a provisional basis and subject, where appropriate, to a recurring penalty payment where provided for by national law, the continuation of the alleged infringements of that right, or to make such continuation subject to the lodging of guarantees intended to ensure the compensation of the right holder; an interlocutory injunction may also be issued, under the same conditions, against an intermediary whose services are being used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right ; injunctions against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe a copyright or a related right are covered by Directive 2001/29/EC ;
(b) order the seizure or delivery up of the goods suspected of infringing an intellectual property right so as to prevent their entry into or movement within the channels of commerce.
1a. In cases of infringement committed on a commercial scale, the Member States shall ensure that, if the injured party demonstrates circumstances likely to endanger the recovery of damages, the judicial authorities may order the precautionary seizure of the movable and immovable property of the alleged infringer, including the blocking of his bank accounts and other assets. To this end, the competent authorities may order the communication of bank, financial or commercial documents, or appropriate access to the relevant information.
1b. The judicial authorities shall, in respect of the measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 1a, have the authority to require the applicant to provide any reasonably available evidence in order to satisfy themselves with a sufficient degree of certainty that the applicant is the right holder and that the applicant's right is being infringed, or that such infringement is imminent.
2. Member States shall ensure that the provisional measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 1a may, in appropriate cases, be taken without the defendant having been heard, in particular when any delay would cause irreparable prejudice to the right holder. In the event of this happening, the parties shall be so informed without delay after the execution of the measures at the latest.
A review, including the right to be heard, shall take place upon request of the defendant with a view to deciding, within a reasonable time after notification of the measures, whether these measures shall be modified, revoked or confirmed.
3. Member States shall ensure that the provisional measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 1a shall be revoked, or otherwise cease to have effect, upon request by the defendant, if the applicant does not institute proceedings leading to a decision on the merits of the case before the competent judicial authority within a reasonable period to be determined by the judicial authority ordering the measures where the Member State 's law so permits or, in the absence of such determination, within a period not to exceed 20 working days or 31 calendar days, whichever is the longer.
4. The competent judicial authorities may make the provisional measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 1a subject to the lodging by the applicant of adequate security or equivalent assurance intended to ensure any compensation of the prejudice suffered by the defendant as provided for in paragraph 5.
5. Where the provisional measures are revoked or where they lapse due to any act or omission by the applicant, or where it is subsequently found that there has been no infringement or threat of infringement of an intellectual property right, the judicial authorities shall have the authority to order the applicant, upon request of the defendant, to provide the defendant with appropriate compensation for any injury caused by these measures.