Re: (313)search bots (was Emotion Electric shutdown)
if i make the tracklisting an image file rather than a text/html file will that stop bots from searching it? james www.jbucknell.com D B [EMAIL PROTECTED] thms.com To 313 Org 313@hyperreal.org 15/10/04 08:30 AM cc Subject Re: (313) Emotion Electric shutdown Hi All, First off, I have to say this does, suck. I enjoyed your site very much. This type of activity has been happening for quite sometime, at least on the US front. The RIAA, ASCAP, BMI all have spider bots that patrol the web and compare what they find to their database of registered users and songs, and then contact offending parties on the artists behalf, as their representative. So it probably wasn't the guys from Nu Groove, going... I'm going to get that Emotion Electric guy, as compared to that a bot, or a representative (I see plenty of visits from BMI.org and ASCAP.org in my webserver logs) comparing playlists to the databases and getting a positive match. Which is ironic as if you didn't list a playlist, then you'll probably get a harder time getting caught, then if you do, but listing the playlists have always been helpful in sales for dance music. They can get especially nasty to the people who have downloadable content as compared to just streaming, as they view that the same as Soulseek or the old Napster, or even the recent Jetgroove fiasco, as copyright issues don't care if you're making money at it, or giving it away, as the punishments are the same, regardless of money that is made or not. They'll usually go to the ISP and tell them that they'll be sued as well, unless they pull the plug on the host. The only real resolution, to being able to host or webcast what you want, is to contact each and every individual copyright owner of the physical media as well as copyright owner of the composition and publishing owner for every work that you wish to obtain, and get written permission that you are allowed to provide downloads (via seperate mp3/wave or in a mix, a download is a download from the RIAA perspective) of their music and/or webcasts of their music. If you do not get this, then you are subject to VERY heavy fines (up to $150,000 per copyright infringement, so with a mix of let's say 10 songs for download, you are lookning at a possibility 1.5 million dollars in fines and 6 years in jail), with only 1 exception for webcasters. So even if for example Jeff Mills said that it's alright for me to webcast his music, I would actually need to contact 3 seperate company's or people in order to legally webcast or allow downloads. Sometimes this can be the same person, but many times it is not, for example, one of Jeff's records' on Tresor, you would also have to get Tresor's permission as well. Obviously this is a nightmare of Red Tape to do. The 1 exception that I know of that is available for Webcastors (so wouldn't even address Emotion Electric's issues, as they were downloaded mixes correct?), is one can obtain a statuatory license. It was created by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. And this statuatory license doesn't come without a set of rules: Sound recording performance complement. A webcaster may not play in any three-hour period... • more than three songs from a particular album, including no more than two consecutively, or • four songs by a particular artist or from a boxed set, including no more than three consecutively. This limit is called the sound recording performance complement. These are just a few of the RULES that one must comply by in order to have a statuatory license. If not, then you can have the fun job of getting each individual copyright and publishing owners written permission. Now imagine these rules if you're broadcasting an party live, and tell Jeff Mills, that he can't play more then 4 of his songs in the 3 hour set, unless, he can verify that he owns both copyrights and the publishing rights to them and agrees to sign a contract saying that you can broadcast them. With the fact that the RIAA
Re: (313)search bots (was Emotion Electric shutdown)
do a google search for robots.txt thats the way to avoid the bots. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: D B [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 313 Org 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 8:24 PM Subject: Re: (313)search bots (was Emotion Electric shutdown) if i make the tracklisting an image file rather than a text/html file will that stop bots from searching it? james www.jbucknell.com D B [EMAIL PROTECTED] thms.com To 313 Org 313@hyperreal.org 15/10/04 08:30 AM cc Subject Re: (313) Emotion Electric shutdown Hi All, First off, I have to say this does, suck. I enjoyed your site very much. This type of activity has been happening for quite sometime, at least on the US front. The RIAA, ASCAP, BMI all have spider bots that patrol the web and compare what they find to their database of registered users and songs, and then contact offending parties on the artists behalf, as their representative. So it probably wasn't the guys from Nu Groove, going... I'm going to get that Emotion Electric guy, as compared to that a bot, or a representative (I see plenty of visits from BMI.org and ASCAP.org in my webserver logs) comparing playlists to the databases and getting a positive match. Which is ironic as if you didn't list a playlist, then you'll probably get a harder time getting caught, then if you do, but listing the playlists have always been helpful in sales for dance music. They can get especially nasty to the people who have downloadable content as compared to just streaming, as they view that the same as Soulseek or the old Napster, or even the recent Jetgroove fiasco, as copyright issues don't care if you're making money at it, or giving it away, as the punishments are the same, regardless of money that is made or not. They'll usually go to the ISP and tell them that they'll be sued as well, unless they pull the plug on the host. The only real resolution, to being able to host or webcast what you want, is to contact each and every individual copyright owner of the physical media as well as copyright owner of the composition and publishing owner for every work that you wish to obtain, and get written permission that you are allowed to provide downloads (via seperate mp3/wave or in a mix, a download is a download from the RIAA perspective) of their music and/or webcasts of their music. If you do not get this, then you are subject to VERY heavy fines (up to $150,000 per copyright infringement, so with a mix of let's say 10 songs for download, you are lookning at a possibility 1.5 million dollars in fines and 6 years in jail), with only 1 exception for webcasters. So even if for example Jeff Mills said that it's alright for me to webcast his music, I would actually need to contact 3 seperate company's or people in order to legally webcast or allow downloads. Sometimes this can be the same person, but many times it is not, for example, one of Jeff's records' on Tresor, you would also have to get Tresor's permission as well. Obviously this is a nightmare of Red Tape to do. The 1 exception that I know of that is available for Webcastors (so wouldn't even address Emotion Electric's issues, as they were downloaded mixes correct?), is one can obtain a statuatory license. It was created by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. And this statuatory license doesn't come without a set of rules: Sound recording performance complement. A webcaster may not play in any three-hour period... • more than three songs from a particular album, including no more than two consecutively, or • four songs by a particular artist or from a boxed set, including no more than three consecutively. This limit is called the sound recording performance complement. These are just a few of the RULES that one must comply by in order to have a statuatory license. If not, then you can have the fun job of getting each individual copyright and publishing owners written permission. Now imagine these rules if you're broadcasting an party live, and tell Jeff Mills, that he can't play more then 4 of his songs in the 3 hour set, unless, he can verify that he owns both copyrights and the publishing rights to them and agrees to sign a contract saying that you can broadcast them. With the fact that the RIAA has gone after 10 year olds with Multi Million dollar lawsuits here in America, means that really, nobody is protected. As to the suggestion of hosting the site in Russia... .don't let anybody know about that either, if you really want to do it. As the actual act of uploading the files from your computer in the US or UK to the servers in Russia, is breaking the same copyrights. Now don't intrepet these as MY feelings and thoughts
Re: (313)search bots (was Emotion Electric shutdown)
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 09:48:35AM -0400, /0 wrote: do a google search for robots.txt thats the way to avoid the bots. I'm afraid it's not; there's no way to prevent a bot from ignoring 'robots.txt'. Cheers, Michel
Re: (313)search bots (was Emotion Electric shutdown)
I think /0 means research the subject of robots.txt There's a good FAQ on Robot Exclusion and related topics here: http://www.robotstxt.org/wc/faq.html carl morris Plug Two t +442920190151 Michel Rijnders wrote: On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 09:48:35AM -0400, /0 wrote: do a google search for robots.txt thats the way to avoid the bots. I'm afraid it's not; there's no way to prevent a bot from ignoring 'robots.txt'. Cheers, Michel
Re: (313)search bots (was Emotion Electric shutdown) OT by now
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 06:33:50PM +0100, carl plugtwo wrote:
I think /0 means research the subject of robots.txt
There's a good FAQ on Robot Exclusion and related topics here:
http://www.robotstxt.org/wc/faq.html
The following article ('No Bots Allowed!'):
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1248105,00.asp
might be of interest as well; it also states the point I was trying to
get across:
However, the standard relies entirely on the courtesy of the visiting
robot. It's completely optional. Nothing prevents robots from simply
ignoring the directives in a robots.txt file and many robots do just
that. In that sense, a robots.txt file is less like a locked door than a
no entry sign hanging in an open doorway.
Cheers,
Michel
Re: (313)search bots (was Emotion Electric shutdown) OT by now
At 02:09 PM 10/18/2004, Michel Rijnders wrote:
The following article ('No Bots Allowed!'):
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1248105,00.asp
might be of interest as well; it also states the point I was trying to
get across:
However, the standard relies entirely on the courtesy of the visiting
robot. It's completely optional. Nothing prevents robots from simply
ignoring the directives in a robots.txt file and many robots do just
that. In that sense, a robots.txt file is less like a locked door than a
no entry sign hanging in an open doorway.
there are, of course, better ways.
-you can block certain user agents, or all except certain user agents(bots
can get around this by using a different user agent string)
-you can block certain ip blocks (this requires knowledge of which ip
blocks the bot goes in)
-you can put an image-based challenge/response thingy (you present garbled
image, human user enters the word it represents, bots fail) but these can
be fooled by bots with some trickery involving naughty web sites
--
unsigned short int to_yer_mama;
matt kane's brain
http://www.hydrogenproject.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] || [EMAIL PROTECTED]
