Bryan Adams Sends Copyright Bullies After Fan Sites
from the how-anti-fan-can-you-be? dept
One of Prince’s more absurd moments of fan abuse came when he threatened various fansites for hosting photos of him and including images of album covers on their sites. Yes, these were fansites, promoting Prince and his music… and Prince threatened them. It appears that musician Bryan Adams is now doing the same, hiring WebSheriff (one of the companies that tries to track down file sharing) to bully and threaten Bryan Adams’ fansites for daring to help promote Adams. Now, I know what you’re thinking: Bryan Adams has fansites? But, beyond that, it does seem like WebSheriff is going beyond legal boundaries in its threats. Its big complaint seems to be that some of these sites link to unauthorized versions of Adams’ music. But linking isn’t illegal in most places, so it’s difficult to see what sort of legal leg they have to stand on. If I ran a fansite helping to promote a musician for free, and then started receiving legal threats over it, my instincts would be to simply stop helping promote that musician’s work for free — and let the musician know that if they wanted me to continue promoting his work, he should pay up.
Filed Under: bryan adams, copyright, fans
Comments on “Bryan Adams Sends Copyright Bullies After Fan Sites”
Copyright Lawyers 1: Masnick: 0
Mike:
For a guy writing a legal blog, you sure don’t seem to understand the law. Patent, trademark and copyright laws protect the owners of ideas against businesses–generally larger ones–from stealing from them and not paying consequences.
If a patent, trademark or copyright isn’t strong enough, it loses in court. If it is, it prevails.
Simple as that.
We get the Ron Paul-esque of the blog. But your view clearly is in the minority. And from what I’ve read, isn’t legally sound in any way whatsoever.
Re: Copyright Lawyers 1: Masnick: 0
“If a patent, trademark or copyright isn’t strong enough, it loses in court. If it is, it prevails.”
Thanks for pointing out one of the biggest flaws in the system. Yes, *if* it loses in court, but these sites are usually run as hobbies by ordinary people who don’t have the time and/or resources to fight multinational corporations in court, especially over something as relatively trivial as some music they like. Even if they’re ultimately right, they can’t afford to prove it.
Besides, as ever, you prove again that you are the one who doesn’t “get it”. Mike has not said a word about the legal aspects, but rather about the business and common sense aspects. What sense does it make to sue your own fans? People who have put their own time and resources into creating free advertising and a community based around your music? It makes little sense, and is guaranteed to lose both existing fans and a new resource for bringing fans old and new together. Yet, the claim is that this is to “help” the artist?
Whether or not it’s legally correct, it’s extremely stupid and counter-productive. That’s what’s being criticised here. Feel free if you disagree, but try and at least attack the point being discussed.
Re: Copyright Lawyers 1: Masnick: 0
@MikeDoesntGetIt:
Whereas:
Patents protect inventions.
Trademarks protect signs or indicia.
Copyrights protect original works.
Nothing protects ideas.
Further, it doesn’t seem to me that Mike says that Bryan Adams doesn’t have a legal claim or argument — just that at face-value it seems counter-productive.
Its unclear what you mean by “if a trademark… isn’t strong enough it loses in court” but you are probably referencing (poorly) the concept of dilution. In this case, there is no dilution as using pictures of Bryan Adams or of his album covers do not lessen their uniqueness.
Therefore, be it resolved: you are an idiot. QED.
Re: Copyright Lawyers 1: Masnick: 0
Personally here is what I think:
Copyright Lawyers 1, Masnick 1, Bryan Adams 0
I admit freely that I cant stand Bryan Adams (Ever since my Radio Days, listening to that awful “Everything I Do” song). Stop a minute and think what is going on here. How come we dont see people who are very successful in music (at the present time anyway) do much of this same thing? Prince, Bryan Adams? They fell off the map years ago.
Bad press is still press. These guys are exploiting the court system to get press from it. Even if it may be bad press. Bryan Adams is taking time to personally attack the handful of people who still care about his songs? It dont make sense unless you see what the real motive is.
This of course is a huge waste of taxpayer money by going to court over absolute absurd motives with a very weak legal leg to stand on…
Re: Copyright Lawyers 1: Masnick: 0
You don’t get it either. This isn’t a legal blog.
Simple as that.
Re: Copyright Lawyers 1: Masnick: 0
For a guy writing a legal blog, you sure don’t seem to understand the law.
For a guy reading a business blog, you sure don’t seem to understand business.
Patent, trademark and copyright laws protect the owners of ideas against businesses–generally larger ones–from stealing from them and not paying consequences.
Actually, that’s incorrect, both in the law and in reality. Patent and copyright laws are designed to encourage the creation of new inventions and creative works. They’re supposed to be about incentives to create, not about protectionism.
Trademarks are entirely different and are based around consumer protection, to avoid confusion.
If a patent, trademark or copyright isn’t strong enough, it loses in court. If it is, it prevails.
The post itself had nothing to do with the legal issues, but was focused on why this was a dumb *business* move by Adams.
But you knew that, right?
Simple as that.
Not quite. But you can rest assured that when someone says “simple as that” it’s usually because they don’t understand the complexity of what they’re talking about.
We get the Ron Paul-esque of the blog
I have no idea what that means.
But your view clearly is in the minority.
This isn’t a popularity contest. I’d rather be correct and in the minority than wrong and in the majority. My point is to highlight the actual issues — none of which you responded to.
And from what I’ve read, isn’t legally sound in any way whatsoever.
It’s not legally sound to suggest business practices that might make you more money, as opposed to pissing off your fans and shrinking your market?
You live in a weird legal world.
Re: Copyright Lawyers 1: Masnick: 0
Just curious what your credentials might be because you’re certainly WAY off on protecting “ideas”. Go back to trolling from where ever you came from.
RE: Copyright Lawyers 1: Masnick: 0
“owners of ideas?”
Who doesn’t get it?
Re: RE: Copyright Lawyers 1: Masnick: 0
Ditto. Last I heard, owning an idea was not recognized in the U.S.
Only asking to take down links to illegal copies?
I don’t see the problem with that as long as he’s not being as ridiculous as Prince.
I would hope that if people were REALLY his fans, they would do so because he asked. If not, they really aren’t his fans now, are they?
Re: Only asking to take down links to illegal copies?
Its not a problem, but its rather short-sited on Adams’ part, innit? I mean, the guy was popular over 20 years ago. If I were an out of the limelight artist I hardly think a some web sites that wanted to honor me was a problem.
Re: Re: Only asking to take down links to illegal copies?
That’s exactly why he needs the nickels and dimes that trickle down from the RIAA on sales. If people are downloading 20 year old songs from torrents he may have to eventually give up a luxury most of us don’t have.
Re: Only asking to take down links to illegal copies?
I agree, if ppl were TRUE fans, they would DO what Bryan asked & RESPECT his wishes. It ALL about copyrights, DON’T ppl get it!
I’m not upset about this.
not sure their really "fan" sites....
If you go to Bryan Adam’s website you can listen to over 60 tracks for free and make your own playlist. Seems to me a true fan site would encourage people to do that…
I just don’t buy the whole argument that these sites are innocently promoting the artist. It sounds to me like they’re using Bryan Adam’s name to drive traffic to a site with little valuable content of their own, and in doing so are making a profit without adding any value to the true fans that would look for a site like that. I’m pretty sure that’s called leaching.
The other thing that’s mentioned in the register article is something about “illegal aps” I’m not sure what this refers to as there is no clarification of what that means, but if there were aps on there that were potentially crapware or spyware…perhaps Bryan Adams didn’t want to be associated with them, and was protecting his brand? just a thought, although you didn’t mention the aps either…
Re: not sure their really
The other thing that’s mentioned in the register article is something about “illegal aps” I’m not sure what this refers to as there is no clarification of what that means, but if there were aps on there that were potentially crapware or spyware…perhaps Bryan Adams didn’t want to be associated with them, and was protecting his brand?
IANAL but I hope we don’t need permission from anybody to mention a famous (OK Bryan Adams jokes aside) person and also host applications on the same web site. If I decide to write about Bryan Adams or Prince, then they get to decide what software I can and cannot have on my site? Screw that.
Re: Re: not sure their really
If the site could be construed as being run by, or officially sanctioned by Brian Adams, I believe that he may have legal rights, at very least he needs to be very careful. It’s easy for you to say “screw that” but if I put up a site that said it was an official Mike Masnick Fan club page and it installed spyware on your computer…I’m betting Mike might consider taking action against it..
Bryan Adams also has a charitable foundation and so he’s doubly under the microscope. Torrent sites aren’t exactly known for being “family friendly” either…which was probably part of his concern in linking to them. It wasn’t discussed but I wouldn’t be surprised…
Re: Re: Re: you're not very perceptive...
because you used the words “I believe that…”.
Torrent sites are plenty family friendly, they’re just not very greed-driven-idiot friendly.
Re: Re: Re: not sure their really
I bet you’re right…
But that action would be to denounce it from his own platform.
Re: Re: Re: not sure their really
It’s easy for you to say “screw that” but if I put up a site that said it was an official Mike Masnick Fan club page and it installed spyware on your computer…I’m betting Mike might consider taking action against it..
Rose is right on, but I’m sure you mean legal action. On what grounds? Defamation? Libel? That would seem like a tough case to prove, at best. Maybe if you claimed to actually be Mike Masnick, but I don’t know how the law would view that.
Re: not sure their really "fan" sites....
I just don’t buy the whole argument that these sites are innocently promoting the artist. It sounds to me like they’re using Bryan Adam’s name to drive traffic to a site with little valuable content of their own, and in doing so are making a profit without adding any value to the true fans that would look for a site like that. I’m pretty sure that’s called leaching.
KJ, Adams is going after his own tribute bands. To quote Masnick, “Bryan Adams has a tribute band”? Yup… He sure does. Called the The Bryan Adams experience.. Yeah they sell junk, But how else is a band going to make money? I mean musicians have to eat to right? You can’t compliment someone any more then dedicating every piece of music you do to an artist. But Bryan Adams choose to take em to court. Come on.. What a joke..
Re: not sure their really "fan" sites....
I’ll concede you have a valid point driving traffic to his main site if he has over 60 songs for free.
I think you’ve went off the deep end when you say “It sounds to me like they’re using Bryan Adam’s name to drive traffic to a site with little valuable content of their own.”
Honestly? HONESTLY? In less than a minute I could probably name dozens of artists that would be more viable than Bryan Adams.
As for the rest of it, I’d like to see the exact content of these sites rather than pass judgment and immediately say all 3 of them are in the wrong. Unfortunately it seems they’ve already shutdown.
The two examples don't compare
Saying some one attacking fans for hosting fan pictures and someone protecting their copyright is the same thing is ridiculous and makes you look like a nutter.
“Now, I know what you’re thinking: Bryan Adams has fansites?“
Seriously, Bryan Adams has fansites? Real sites run by real fans?! I don’t believe it.
Jim thinks lawsuit is counter productive?
Fair enough, Jim. You believe the lawsuit is counter productive.
Obviously, the Bryan Adams people don’t feel the same way. And since there is no “Jim The Paint Guy From Home Depot” fan website–at least at the moment–let’s allow the affected parties in question to hammer it out.
Which, of course, is entirely the point behind owning a patent, copyright, or trademark. Right?
It’s a rhetorical question, simp.
Tell you what, Jim: When you become king of the world, you can decide what is counter-productive and what is not.
Until then, let the legal system handle it.
Thanks, pal. Now back to your XBox.
Jim: Is my Grandma's Wrongful Dealth lawsuit counter productive?
Hey Jim:
Since you and Mike have the best perspective of which lawsuits are relevant and which ones aren’t, I’d figure I’d ask you about my Grandma’s Wrongful Death lawsuit is of merit–at least in your eyes, Jim.
I would provide details for you, Jim, but that would only get in the way of your profound opinions regarding others.
And no one wants to get in the way of Jim.
Except, perhaps, his employers at Home Depot.
Jim: my baby was poisoned. Should I sue drug company?
Hello Jim:
My baby was poisoned by a drug company that encourages to promote its blood thinner off label to pediatricians, claiming it can help with certain disorders.
Mind you, the FDA prohibits off label marketing of the drug. I didn’t know that, as I trusted the doctor and drug company.
My baby was poisened. Now all it does is read so-called legal technology blogs written by non-attorneys. Her condition is terminal. She will not have a social life whatsoever.
Jim: shall I sue the drug company for off label marketing fraud? Or is it not counter-productive.
I value your opinion, Jim. As you know all things legal.
screw Adams
I’m downloading all his music illegally right now just as a personal screw you.
WoW, Jim must have really pissed off some intertard stalker! Three posts under three separate names, same pseudo-jibberish and within minutes of each other?? Watch out Jim, sounds like this guy is having a really bad day.
Wagers anyone? When he gets home is he going to;
a) Beat his wife.
b) Beat his kid.
c) Post more under a new name.
d) All of the above.
hey mike
Mike, how many websheriff IP’s did you find in this post? I seem to count at least 3, so far.
Anyone who tries to throw this off as “what if they install spyware” or acting like this is to protect the artist is 100% working for websheriff. This is common tactics, and well documented from mediasentry too.
Matt: Stick w your day job circlejerking Anon Coward
Anonymous Coward: Duh?
Matt: Just because Mike’s paranoid doesn’t mean I’m NOT out to get Techdirt.
It’s a reality-lite legal blog, written by a Ron Paul For President nitwit.
Abra Cadabra
Since the courts have recently established that “sucks” sites are just peachy and acceptable, maybe the best answer is to directly convert. That seems to be what Adams desires, after all.
Now, I know what you’re thinking: Bryan Adams has fansites?
Hey, ‘Reckless’ is still a damn good album. So what if it’s 25 years old?
Must be nice to constantly respond to people criticizing your crappy blog
Mike:
One can see why you’re a blogger and not a “real journalist.”
I love a guy who comes out of the woodwork to constantly defend his poorly written legal positions. Kinda like taking numerous mulligans to improve your golf score, wouldn’t you say?
Looking forward to your half-baked thoughts to this post as well, small change.
And another thing…
Oh yeah…what I meant was…
You are wrong because…
Whatever Mike.
Re: Must be nice to constantly respond to people criticizing your crappy blog
Wow. Looks like it was at least Option C, doesn’t it? I love the idiots who call a business blog talking about the business ramifications of a legal decision a legal blog, especially since the legality of what is being done wasn’t even discussed.
Re: Must be nice to constantly respond to people criticizing your crappy blog
Must be nice to constantly respond to people criticizing your crappy blog
You would prefer that I not discuss my views and not explain the logic behind them to folks such as yourself who seem unable to understand basic concepts?
Why?
I love a guy who comes out of the woodwork to constantly defend his poorly written legal positions
Which part of the fact that these are business and economic discussions do you not understand?
Kinda like taking numerous mulligans to improve your golf score, wouldn’t you say?
Um. No.
Pointing out logical inconsistencies or outright falsehoods spread by critics is hardly asking for a do-over.
Oh yeah…what I meant was…
You are wrong because…
Whatever Mike.
Ah, proving that you have no argument at all.
Very cute.
Anon Coward: Shouldn't you get back to work?
You are hogging Mike’s comment space. Not cool.
Or are you on break between classes at the community college?
Dude looks like a troller…dah, dah, dah, dah, dah, dah.
Dude looks like a troller…dah, dah, dah, dah
Litigation doesn't affect business????????
Littlegal Luci:
Litigation doesn’t affect how a company conducts business?
Perhaps not while babysitting. But where the adults live, it’s very important.
Dare I say, critical?
Bryan is just trying to reclaim his name
To paraphrase Bryan, it’s happening now because aside from the mess at YouTube (someone had registered his name at YouTube), which will soon be sorted, he has made a decision after having to struggle to get his name back from MySpace and YouTube, that he’s going to get it back whereever he can, and if all goes well, the fan sites will remain active.
Bryan has also said he can’t stop bootlegging or file trading and has never even tried to, he can, however, try and make a better page on YouTube so all of this stuff ends up in one place – that is the plan.
He has also said what isn’t acceptable is for someone to take someone’s name, trade on it, sell advertising, etc., without even asking.
Bryan is not trying to stop the internet, nor does he think he can stop illegal file trading, but the rights to an artist ultimately belongs to the artist, not the general public and he owns his name.
Pure and simple: Bryan is just trying to reclaim his name.
Re: Bryan is just trying to reclaim his name
LOON LOON LOON LOON LOON LOON LOON LOON LOON
Re: Bryan is just trying to reclaim his name
“Bryan is just trying to reclaim his name.“
Bryan does not own his name anymore than I own my name. Or anymore that Apple Computers owns the name “Apple.”
Let’s say you’re a fan of Bryan Adams. You want to honor him so you decide to create a myspace fan page. You notice that the name Byran Adams is not taken. So of course that’s the name you use. If Bryan wanted it for himself, he should have got it sooner.
I’m not buying this “reclaim his name”-Story. I heard he keep repeating this when people asking him in his Message Board. Oh and of course there was this lovely chat a few days ago. Where he told his own fans that it ain’t their business that he’s shutting down fanpages. Wasn’t this lovely from him ? I never thought that there would be a day, that I actually feel ashame to once being a Bryan Adams – Fan. But i now do. Hey, maybe you can ask Bryan when he decides to talk to his fans outside his “To-Pay-For-Page” ? I’m sure some people would love to hear from him personally. But somehow i have the feeling this will not happen. He would have done this days ago already. And now most fans are pissed. Way to go, Bryan !
Oh and when he is not trying to stop illegal file trading, why i’m hearing about disappearing Bryan Adams files from miniova.org ? This sounds like an illegal source. Way more illegal then the contents of the Pages the Web Sheriff shut down. The Ooh so evil bryanadams.nu-Page mostly hosted rare audio & video files. Nothing official. Now it’s lost for everyone, but most of his former Fans maybe not caring about that loss any more.
quote:
———————————————————
I just don’t buy the whole argument that these sites are innocently promoting the artist. It sounds to me like they’re using Bryan Adam’s name to drive traffic to a site with little valuable content of their own, and in doing so are making a profit without adding any value to the true fans that would look for a site like that. I’m pretty sure that’s called leaching.
————————————————————
I hope, you’re not serious with this. Maybe you want to talk to some of the (former) fans about the value of the now closed pages ? If people really thought these pages had no value, no one would have noticed them disappear.
Musicians are forgetting they are ONLY entertainers, they are not really needed, specially in times of economic crisis.
Some (most?) believe they ought to be ultra-rich just because they sing some cheesy un-inventive recycled crap.
Like if they were saving lives, or educating the youth.
Troll a day keeps the doctor away
Bryan Adams has fans?
I find that surprising, as I’ve always found him as close to talent free as one can get without being Tiny Tim or Madonna. Anyone professing to be his fan should probably be picked up in a large butterfly net and heavily medicated.
Are you sure that these sites are serious and not the result of another series of senseless drinking and web publishing incidents?
If his fans really still would matter to him Bryan ASKED the fans to put down whatever he want. But instead he send the “Copyright Bullies.” (Nice one. I hope i’m not getting sued over using this here ? Just kidding, of course)I can’t respect him, for how he handled this. He should have learned from the Prince debabcle, instead he had the brilliant idea to hire the very same people that worked for Prince back then. When thinking & writing like this, not making me a “TRUE fan”, then i’m proud of not being one. At least, i have an own opinion. Not like some other people that changing their “opinions” whenever Bryan does.
The Web Sheriff is an SCAM
They also asked TPB to stop linking to files for some of their clients and TPB quickly added them to their list of RETARDS sending legal threats. These companies are powerless, they are just bilking their clients and giving the illusion of results.
Surfin’ the web this evening
I coulda sworn we had it all worked out
You had this boy believin’
Way beyond the shadow of a doubt
Then I heard it on the street
I heard you mighta posted a new fansite
Well I called the sheriff baby – Web Sheriff Baby
When the takedown comes, what are you gonna do.
I took it all for granted
But how was I to know
That you’d be stealing from me!
Copyright cuts like a knife
But it feels so right
It cuts like a knife
But it feels so right
deeper reality
i read some of those sites and they are not fans at all. so it seems a pretty good way to go after sabatogers to me.
You know with words like “sabatogers” it’s not easy taking you serious. But maybe this wasn’t your intent at all.
It seems to be true that none of the fanpage owners is allowed to speak about this topic. Because fact is: Nobody does and this all started 5 or 6 weeks ago, AFAIK. One fanpage was shut down by the owner claiming it had nothing to do with the Websheriff. It was just for “personal reasons”. Uhuh.
I guess this procedure is what the Websheriff calling “need to play ball”. Or was it “very fair and straightforward guidelines that the sites and artists can live by.” ?
Bryan, Prince and other who have to go after 'fan' sites
Maybe you should learn more about what’s called “righs of personality.” Fans are just that FANS! They do not own the celebrity simply because they buy the CD, video, movie etc and decide to put up a fansite for them. A true fan would RESPECT that artist and their legal rights! Too many nobodies out there making fansite and then expecting to get pat on the back or get some sort of special favors. Maybe some of those web admin need to get lives of their own instead of spending 24/7 living vicariously through those celebrities.
Clarification On This Thing
Hey guys,
I’m a Bryan Adams fan and I was really surprised when I heard about this recently. Your blog has been informative in clarifying some of what happened, but I have a question for you guys. I understand Adams or any other artist wanting to shut down a site that is blatantly selling bootlegs or similar copyrighted material. But how far exactly, are they taking this? I mean, if I want to create a Bryan Adams fansite where I’m NOT selling anything, not making money on his hard work, then I wouldn’t think this websherif would have much of a leg to stand on, right?