TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Artist Can’t Get Pirated Music Off iTunes, Google and Microsoft Stores

By now it’s common knowledge that nearly all content on the Internet can easily be removed or censored by filing a single DMCA notice. For some reason, however, this doesn’t seem to apply to most mainstream music stores. When The Flashbulb, aka Benn Jordan, found out that another artist was selling a “copy” of his music, he learned that it is pretty much impossible to get it removed. According to Jordan the mainstream music industry only cares about profits, not the actual artists.

In 2008 Benn Jordan was one of the first artists to publicly revolt against Apple, after the company sold his album on iTunes without sharing any of the revenue.

In a counter move Jordan decided to share all of his music on BitTorrent for free. This worked out pretty well for him, and more than four years later Jordan still doesn’t mind when people download his work.

However, it’s a different story when other artists rip off his music for profit.

Jordan recently discovered that an unknown musician named “Inventor” had released a “copy” of his most popular track and put it up for sale in nearly every digital music store. The track is labeled as a remix, but Inventor did nothing more than adding some bird sounds in the background (spotify: Inventor versus Flashbulb).

To resolve the issue, Jordan contacted Inventor’s record label “Foul Play,” but without any luck.

Not a problem, Jordan thought, because nowadays most Internet ventures are quick to respond to takedown requests. In fact, The Flashbulb himself has quite a bit of experience with DMCA notices, as he details on his blog.

“Google has previously sent me copyright infringement warnings for my own material on YouTube, pertaining to, hilariously, the exact same song mentioned above. I’ve responded with proof that I own every possible right to the music, only to get another DMCA notice a week later,” he explains.

Having your own content censored by mistake is problematic of course, but for once strict copyright regimes could now become of use. Jordan is suing “Inventor” for the unauthorized use of his work, and in the meantime has decided to ask all digital music stores to take the pirated songs offline.

Surprisingly, this was easier said than done.

Jordan contacted iTunes, Google, Microsoft, Rhapsody, Emusic, Junodownload, Spotify and other music stores, but they all failed to respond, or claim to be working on it. Talking to TorrentFreak the frustrated artist says that these companies care very little about the artists they make their money off.

“They care about profit, and being the #1 music retailer. I assume that to them, a salary to an artist representative is a salary that could pay someone to do development or marketing,” Jordan says.

Meanwhile, Inventor blatantly continues to generate revenue from The Flashbulb’s work.

Jordan had hoped that nearly half a decade after his initial row with iTunes, things would have changed for the better. But judging from his recent experience it’s still the same old song.

“At the end of the day, I look back 5 years to my last brush against iTunes, and realize that nothing has changed. None of these music stores have a department, or even an employee to deal with artists directly. When they sell my music, they make money, and lots of it,” Jordan notes.

Jordan was never too keen on the big money side of the music industry, and after this most recent debacle he wonders whether he should just give up on it again.

“I have made these companies 6 figures over my career, yet there’s not one person I can contact to resolve a simple issue such as this. It is sad to say, as a precedent, I simply can’t justify my agreement with any of these companies at this time, and it makes me question if and how I will release albums in the future.”

It’s a grim conclusion, but Jordan believes that only the big labels have the power to get anything done. Not with the interests of artists in mind, but to secure their own profits.

“So the next time you get a letter from your ISP threatening you about illegally downloading music, or the next time your YouTube account gets banned for using a clip of Megadeth behind your video of a squirrel eating Chex Mix, remember that on the other side of the transaction, all of that bullying amounts to nothing unless you’re a RIAA partner.”

“These companies are willing to shove 1,000 attorneys down your throat if you share music, but won’t even respond to a legal order about actual music theft and piracy,” Jordan concludes.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • http://twitter.com/Anime4PSP Anime 4 PSP

    “According to Jordan the mainstream music industry only cares about profits, not the actual artists. “
    No way, dude. Really? :o

    • thedude321

      Hey, he torrented his stuff, and now its all good! :P And, come on, this was at a time when Apple was like the ‘most awesomest company in the world’ sorta thing, so I think artists kinda trusted apple. Now they know the truth.

      • http://twitter.com/Anime4PSP Anime 4 PSP

        I think you misunderstand about what he was talking about saying that. I think it was not about that accident he had few years ago, but about “Jordan contacted iTunes, Google, Microsoft, Rhapsody, Emusic, Junodownload, Spotify and other music stores, but they all failed to respond, or claim to be working on it. Talking to TorrentFreak the frustrated artist says that these companies care very little about the artists they make their money off.

        • http://roxannemook.myopenid.com/ Roxanne Mook

          @Demand the profits gained.. and then give it to the EEF to help with other lawsuits. Donna answered I’m surprised that a student able to earn $7177 in 1 month on the network. did you look at this(Click on menu Home)..Goo.gl/RYvck

      • http://twitter.com/JoyDepp1 JoyDepp

        Carrie implied I am surprised that a stay at home mom able to get paid $8731 in a few weeks on the network. have you look this(Click on menu Home)

      • http://twitter.com/JoyDepp1 JoyDepp

        …..goo.gl/acLr9

    • flubalubaful

      This is a point i have been pointing out for a while now, the middle men were who the artists were protected against, that is why copyright initially existed, to prevent big business from ripping of the artists by selling there works and not giving them any of the profits.

      Copyright was not meant to go after the general user that shared the music with others for no monetary gain.

      Now that this has happened the eff should start discussing how the copyright laws have been twisted in such a way that they do not in fact help the artist any more they only help the middlemen the people sucking the life and money out of music.

      I am a person that believes in sharing I am also a person that believes in fair use, but the idea that a business can blatantly steal money from an artist is crazy, and yes I share a little music , I listen to radio mostly so do not need to share much, mainly old stuff I have previously purchased, but i am not making any money from doing so, neither are 99.999% of the pirates who are sharing with each other.

  • Pingback: Artist Can’t Get Pirated Music Off iTunes, Google and Microsoft Stores | Best Seedbox

  • Anonymous

    Hey Ben Jordan you ever heard of the kick starter website? You should try it some time.

    • Athox

      Or megabox!

    • Biggydingus

      You seem to miss the point of the article, unless you’re suggesting he use kickstarter to fund a huge legal team. He put his own music online for free, so it’s pretty obvious that his business model pretty much expects zero revenue from online music sales. His complaint is that he owns the copyright and therefore he alone decides how it’s distributed–just because he allows his fans to have it for free, and to share it with others for free, doesn’t mean that some asshole can try to take credit for his work and profit off of it. His complaint is about the hypocrisy of the big music peddlers who have lobbied for draconian laws for the sake of some moral obligation to artists, and then spit in the faces of those same artists when it’s the peddlers who are profiting from piracy.

  • Guest

    Surprise, surprise. The laws that the RIAA bribed and bought are completely incompetent at solving the ONE THING they were meant to solve – making money off the backs of others.

    Oh, wait. Making money off the backs of others has long been the RIAA’s business model anyway!

    C’mon, Anon, Pelouzey, Nej – we’d all like to see you defend THIS behaviour!

  • Jerky_san

    He should get the EEF to help him sue for copyright infringement.. Demand the profits gained.. and then give it to the EEF to help with other lawsuits..

  • Just Me

    Wasn’t this exactly the reason why laws regarding monopolies were put in place? I think it is insane that these companies get away with just about a murder.

    • http://www.facebook.com/romet.loodus Romet Loodus

      Who says they couldn’t get away with actual murder as well.

  • VintageTorrie

    Ben Jordan, take a look at this:

    http://kat.ph/kickstart/

    • Yuchmich

      Do people not read the articles? He already does this…

  • RIAAtarded

    sad, I wish this guy luck but suspected as much. The system is setup to protect big business it doesn’t give a rat ass about either side of the equations. Not sure how this has been allowed to happen, the talent creates it and we consume it so why does something in the middle control it?

    • Bloaxor

      Because back in the day this “middle” you so speak of was quite important, as I can imagine getting your stuff spread out -without- the internet (putting stuff on records en masse costs big monies, remember?), while you are you and yourself alone in this cold, big world; would be quite difficult.

      And thus the middle men came, and here they still stay. Thanks to what we’re witnessing here, and probably a lot of stuff that’s equal to or worse than it.

      • Aussie Bob

        gotta remember that the middlemen were originally mafia, so they have come some way since then.

        not that that says much…

        • 7th_Guest

          1920s: “Hey, that’s a nice liquor store you got there, pal. Be a shame if something were to happen to it. Hand us some money each week and we’ll make sure it stays nice.”

          2000s: “Hey, that’s a nice album you’re trying to push out there, pal. Be a shame if nobody heard about it or you got sued for using that 1sec sample. Sign up n’ hand us the IP for a few grand and we’ll make sure it stays popular.”

          Progress!

  • TheTruth

    What – you mean he has a problem with someone profiting off his COPYWRITE. You mean like every torrent site with ads, etc.
    Fuck you, hypocrites – and this asshole gets what he deserves.

    By the way, his music sucks and he is lucky if it has sold 100 units, not “6 figures” – lol.

    • TheTruthIsACunt

      Yea, just too bad you’re a complete cunt. Hope you get the same treatment from life and others as you give. Stop being a waste of life.

      • TheTruth

        So, no actual refutation, huh?

        Don’t all of you realize how absolutely stupid you look.

        • Go fuck yourself

          So, no actual refutation, huh?

          Don’t you realize how absolutely stupid you look.

        • *Yawn*

          Pfhaha no matter how stupid we don’t actually look when someone like you steps up we just can’t compete.

          But it’s, like, soooo true! I dunno about Copyrights but Copy”writes” on the other hand- those being broken is going too far..!

          Nice little response to yourself, by the way.

          Oh and call me when torrent sites make retail price off of their torrents, I’ll be sure to play the worlds smallest violin for poor little you ;_;
          Don’t worry you pretty little head though, adblock is clearly a new thing so it’s normal to be as far outside the loop as you are.
          Doesn’t say anything about you at all, oh no.

          Fact of the matter is, most of the people who pirate something will buy it later if it was good. Myself included. So rather than worrying about piracy ruining sales on your awful product, figure out how to make a good one.

          But oh wait.
          They can’t!

          Now then, shouldn’t you be in school right about now? Or did you drop out?

        • Todie

          @*Yawn* I like how you didn’t even mention that he’s entirely wrong about the point of the article, it’s hilarious how poorly misled this guy is.
          Though really just because an intelligent response would be lost on him, doesn’t mean you should go all provocation. But I guess that’s just my opinion.

        • Guest

          You want a refutation? Okay.

          Downloading a song and plagiarising a song are two incredibly different things.

          You have no point. You also can’t spell the word ‘copyright’.

    • http://profiles.google.com/pianogamer Knut Harald

      “his music sucks” – TheTruth

      Watch out, we got a music scientist over here

      • TheTruth

        “his music sucks” – TheTruth

        Watch out, we got a music scientist over here

      • TheTruth

        YAWN, you dumbass – try checking the definitions of copywrite and copyright.

        Thank you for proving my point about all of you being so stupid. You don’t even know the difference – lol.

        • *Yawn*

          Pfhahaha keep digging that grave, we all know you were just pretending..!

        • http://www.facebook.com/follow.the.llama Roman Meisenberg

          Wow, first of all, copywrite is not even a recognized word in the English language, second of all, it’s ‘copy write,’ yes, two words and it means to write copy, as in, write content for websites or press releases or whatever needs to be written, copyright is a very different thing. so yeah, there’s some truth for ya!

          http://www.jonathancrossfield.com/blog/2008/03/copy-write-versus-copyright.html

        • Guest

          Copywrite may refer to:

          Copywriting, the process of writing the words that promote a person, business, opinion, or idea
          Copywrite (rapper), an underground hip-hop artist from Columbus, Ohio

          Okay, now substitute the correct definition of copyWRITE into your original post.

          Ben is pissed that some guy is profiting from the [verb form of writing the words the promote Ben.]

          That makes perfect sense now.

    • Murv

      The hypocrisy is that these organizations legitimate themselves, and gain income under the ruse of “protecting the copyright of the authors they represent.” While they in fact, as this article demonstrates, only protect their own interest, that is making profit on the distribution of music, regardless of whether they have any right of distributing said music. The farce is that all their legal efforts go to stopping other forms of distribution (filesharing) to protect their own income, and no effort is made when it comes to actual intellectual property. Furthermore they do exactly that, which filesharing platforms are alleged to do, which is make a profit on the distribution of intellectual property to which they hold no rights.

      Pirates never claim to pirate for the sake of copyright. So please troll, gtfo.

      • TheTruth

        Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, whether it is something you agree with or not.

        And wtf does your last statement mean? Are you saying pirates only claim to pirate for the sake of stealing?

        • MadAsASnake

          Pirates copy cause it’s there, easy to get and a sensible price. Three things that are seldom found together in industry offerings. It’s not stealing and it’s not about stealing. You know, when I was younger, these pricks wanted me to pay again for taping a copy for the car… they haven’t changed.

        • lattari

          @MadAsASnake

          Amen. Piracy is first and foremost a practical solution for the consumer. Thanks to the manic, oppressive measures the industry has since taken to protect itself, it has also evolved into a moral one.

        • Guest

          He’s saying that with very rare exceptions, few pirates consciously think “I’m going to screw Sting out of some royalties.”

          Of course, nowadays I think more and more people are consciously pirating to deprive RIAA supporters their cut, and buying concert tickets or merchandise or finding other ways to get money to the artists they like without any going to the middleman (or at least going to a different, presumably less dickish middleman)

    • It’s simple…

      There is a world of difference between commercial vs non commercial sharing. The man gives his music away for free to anyone who wants to hear it. Asking that other people not turn around and claim to own his music and make hundreds of thousands of dollars off it isn’t asking too much.

      When I post something on pirate bay, even without the owner’s permission, neither I nor anyone else make any money off it, and I certainly don’t then go on youtube claiming to own the music I post.

      • TheTruth

        See below, Einstein – he said people could do anything they wanted with it.

        Also – so I guess copyright IS about protecting artists and the money they make. In your example – YOU may not make money from it, but the Pirate Bay does.

        Use your brain.

        • Guest

          Ads make money? When you find me a torrent site that has made billions from ads be sure to let me know.

          Anyone who’s run a site knows that ads make you chump change.

        • 7th_Guest

          TPB generates ad revenue by offering an indexing service its visitors find repeatedly worthwhile; it’s also a non-profit that uses its money to maintain hardware and pay for hosting expenses. Plz get a clue ‘cos right now you’re as close to having one as your moniker is to being accurate.

    • MadAsASnake

      And he’ll make more of each 100 than the big boys will give him for a million, of course.

    • TheTruth

      HEELLLP!!!!
      I was playing with my Barbie doll when the head came off and I can’t get it out of my ass. I really am as dumb as a bag of rocks.

      • Someguy

        Yes, yes you are.

    • TheRealTruth

      I’m a member of biggest music focused torrent site and have yet to see any ads. Thus you have been proven wrong.

    • Bloaxor

      I think there might be a slight difference between sharing (not selling) music files, and outright stealing music and selling it as your own.

      But you know, minor differences are hard to spot, so it’s not like I can blame you.

    • Guest

      Popular opinion seems to be against you, friend. Here’s your refutation:

      “What – you mean he has a problem with someone profiting off his COPYWRITE. You mean like every torrent site with ads, etc.”

      COPYRIGHT – A legal right for the initial creator of published content to essentially dictate whatever the hell can be done with his work within the limits of the law. The main limit is that once a licensed, legitimate copy of his work is sold, people can resell it or do whatever they want with it, but author retains the key right to prevent new copies can be created without his permission, explicit or implied. Another key right is that of attribution. Even if the author says, “Copy and share as much as you want, you don’t owe me a cent,” that doesn’t imply permission to take credit for the work.

      As an example, you generally have a copyright when you write letters to a newspaper, or in TheTruth’s case, post infantile rants online, but you implicitly give the publisher the right to publish and indirectly profit from your work. However, that doesn’t mean that some internet troglodyte with even less intelligence than TheTruth is allowed to copy said infantile rants and sign his own name to them, maybe even publish them in a 30 cent ebook sold on Amazon next to the cheap e-porn novels.

      Perhaps it would be easier for TheTruth to understand if he had ever published any creative content he was proud of, or had the ability to empathize with human beings who have. In my line of work, we’ve had clients who published works they don’t profit from who wanted to sue purely on principal. They were pretty much all software developers who pretty much had an open-source freeware license where you could copy, distribute, and even modify the program, and charge only enough to recover the costs of distribution (bandwidth, or blank disks/postage back in the day), and more importantly, make sure every copy or modified new version of the software was freely available and subject to the same open license. NetHack and it’s variants are the only examples I can think of from outside of my job–I can’t think of any other examples that might be more widely known.

  • http://twitter.com/MAFIAAFire MAFIAAFire

    Oh, totally shocked by this! Not.

  • SS-Untersturmführer

    i wonder y heroes like Anders Breivik killed only ”innocent” people instead of concentrating all funds/plans on a government attack..think about it..100 civilians or a government building with 100 people in it ;)

    • 666999

      He and others terorists totally wrong , insted kill incocent people better to focus and kill destroy corrupted parasite leaders and entire familly of these pigs , better to focus to destroy entire system , corporations which actually destroy people lives

      SO please all terorists (no mater who you are – arab or not ) do a good thing for humanity ,focus to kill bastards which take freedom and enslave peoples – bankers , trolls, corrupted politicians ,dirty riches tax evasioners, corporations bosses and all heads leaders not inocent (manipulated ,foolished) people , if you do this you all will be a heroes for masses and your suicide will have a sense

    • icerob

      So you kill some people and you’re still not happy. So you figure, “hey, I must’ve killed the wrong people!”

      Maybe it’s not about killing people at all.

  • Guest

    Ben seems a bit pissed that someone actually took him up on his offer to do whatever they want with his music.

    From his “about us” page…. “I fully support listeners taking media distribution into their own hands. Without “music piracy”, making a living off of a non-mainstream type of music wouldn’t stand a chance in the world. So do whatever you want. Download it, rip it, share it. All I ask is that you help spread the word about where the listener can find more music and show support if they have the means.”

    Seems he’s now starting to realize why other people are a bit more cautious about their copyrights and who they grant licences to.

    • TheTruth

      I told you he was a dumb asshole.

      /thread.

      and inb4 some lameass loser says “troll”

      • TheActualTruthofReality

        Obvious troll is obvious.

        He’s pissed off because somebody is counterfeiting his work and commercially exploiting a blatant violation of his copyrights – a completely different situation to ‘pirates’ infringing a copyright by privately sharing a file with no exchange of monies. What’s more, the major online distributors are aiding and abetting this criminal exploitation of his copyright (you see, sharing is only a civil matter, not a criminal one, but commercial exploitation like this is very definitely covered by criminal law). These distributors are in flagrant breach of the DMCA agreements to which they have signed by not removing the infringing material in a timely manner when served with a valid notice. This is exactly the kind of accusation the MAFIAA threw at MegaUpload yet they actually acted on DMCA requests by removing access to the identified infringing material.

        And yes, you’re a dumbass troll who knows nothing about the law.

    • Murv

      “All I ask is that you help spread the word about where the listener can find more music and show support if they have the means.”
      What he said translates into: Attribution.
      Meaning he holds all intellectual property and it still isn’t legal to copy his work and claim it as your own. Further, from those words, and his legal struggles, he obviously doesn’t wish for any commercial use of his work, or of any derivative work. Meaning he’s distributing his work according to CreativeCommons-Attribution-NonCommercial

      It is other people that should be more cautious about intellectual property and it’s author’s wishes.

      • Murv

        See a © anywhere on his site??

        Ignorant asslicker.

        • Dang Ren Bo

          Copyright is automatic and all-rights reserved unless there is another type of license available. It is extremely difficult to put something into the public domain, as Guest seems to have claimed.

        • watfordjc

          Heard of the Berne Convention?

      • Guest

        Translate it how you want but you are inventing a subtext to suit what you’d like to think he said.

        The fact is he gave it away, with his own blessing, with no reference whatsoever to IP.

        He should have copyrighted it, but that wouldn’t have been “right on with the kidz” would it?

        He took a risk thinking that sharing was caring, he bought into the whole for free ideal and now someone has annoyed him by making more money than he did out of something he created but didn’t care enough about to protect.

        Lesson learned.

        • TheMAXX

          Anything you make is copyrighted automatically-the law. Proving it is why you might want to register something but you don’t have to register anything or even put a little symbol next to anything.

        • Bucket2004

          you are a dick… you really don’t get it do you.. he did copyright it.. as soon as he produced it.. it happens.. read up on how ti works .. shit for brains.
          please tell you are you american..?

    • heh

      You are not supposed to make a profit out of other people’s works, and when you do you usually get sued. Also notice that Inventor is profiting from this, not Ben.

      Sharing and selling music are incredibly different concepts. Dense people would not realize this.

      • TheTruth

        “You are not supposed to make a profit out of other people’s works…”
        you mean – like every torrent site with ads.

        And face it jerkoffs, it costs money to keep “pirate” sites up – somebody is making money somewhere. If you dont think someone is making money off of your “it wont hurt anyone downloads” you really are dumbasses. At least admit it – admit you are stealing and have balls about it – enough with the girly excuses.

        • Anyone

          I’d be surprised if the ads are enough to cover the costs

        • Guest

          idiot

        • Counterfeit.
          Look it up. Think about it.

        • chronoss chiron

          face it hollywanker before torrent sites kids hacked those 100megabit boxes for free, and i gather the us govt would rather us all doing that then paying for a seedbox and renting servers and paying taxes….

          so stick it up your ass the govt gets a cut too , sue them….too. sue every one, don’t forget space aliens have dvdrs of your shit go tell them not to pirate and see what they think a you low life scum of the earth.

        • Guest

          “admit you are stealing and have balls about it”

          A lying, ball-less copyright industry troll telling other people to have balls? Now, see, that’s what actual hypocrisy is. Also irony.

      • Guest

        “You are not supposed to make a profit out of other people’s works, and when you do you usually get sued”. You can’t sue somebody for doing anything with something you have told them, explicitly, they have the right to do “whatever” they might want with.

        “Also notice that Inventor is profiting from this, not Ben.” Yes, with Benn’s 100% blessing according to his own words on his own website.

        “Sharing and selling music are incredibly different concepts. Dense people would not realize this” I don’t think it’s entirely fair for you to call Benn “dense”.

        Evidently he is learning the difference and that is what’s pissing him off. He shared his music for people to do “whatever” they wanted with and someone has done just that.

        • MadAsASnake

          This sounds very much like the guy that is selling is passing off his work under the sellers name. This is called plaigiarism – and some of us consider it a far greater offence than mere copying something from the public domain for personal use.

        • chronoss chiron

          did he put on the torrent a liscnese saying you can do this or that…nope , so all is legal even…

          i recently ran into a 3d mesh models website where one or two people are not giving out free models anymore cause others have taken them and put them up for sale at one particular site. While i sympathize they did give them away royalty and copyright free….if i can find 1 million models and for free and put them all in one place spending my bandwidth and taking time to make a great index and you gave me them free well sucks to be you …feel free to sell and stop giving away for free. HOWEVER one diff i would do is say this belong s to so n so , i’d give atribution . Even if i dont legally have too.

        • lattari

          Well is this the reason iTunes etc. haven’t stopped selling the copies? If so, it would have been relevant adding that to the article.

          So why have they refused to stop selling his music?

        • Bucket2004

          well said

      • MadAsASnake

        Not strictly true. Pretty much everything we do is a derivative work of some sort, in many cases, it’s a new twist or veiwpoint on a theme that adds new value. I write programs. I don’t start by writing machine code and reinventing an entire ecosystem every time I use a computer to solve a problem. It’s all derivative, and a little new from me. All creativity is like this. The best creations are often those that reference existing works best… When I claim authorship of a program, it is clear what I added. What many of us don’t like is people passing off other peoples work as their own. This is what is happening here.

    • http://twitter.com/Alanman6 Alan man

      All he though he complains about “copying”, his real issue is miscreditation (in other words calming to be the author of his work) and completely understandable and, under the laws of most countries, not authorized by the permission in his about page.

      • chronoss chiron

        you take a piece a wood carve a man in it very vague
        you give to me freely to do as i wish with….
        i put eyes and hair on it and sell it for a gajillion dollars ….

        i made the sale and added to and derived form your work you gave freely.
        ITS like apple and the bsd operating system.
        think about it hard will ya….

        • Schaul

          In the eyes of the law, what is implied by his words can and will hold up in court. Take your invalid argument and shove it.

      • Guest

        Alan, Benn gave people the right to do whatever they wanted with his music, he didn’t even ask for accreditation. The artist in question is not misrepresenting or miscrediting anything, he / she clearly states the work is a (derivitive) “Remix”. He / she is not claiming to be the author of the original work. Benn made a bad decision and he’s pissed that someone took him up on his offer and is making money for their derivitive works.

    • lattari

      What kind of corrupt fuck sees that and thinks: Hey, I better start selling his music as my own?!

      LOL at being a total asshole who’s going to burn in atheist hell with Oprah and Gene Simmons.

      • Guest

        Q: “What kind of corrupt fuck sees that and thinks: Hey, I better start selling his music as my own?!”

        A: A smarter individual than the one who made his material available copyright / licence free in an attempt to appear cool. Evidently that’s who.

        • lattari

          That’s exactly the problem. You equate a ruthless opportunist with smart. Hardly the same thing.

        • Guest

          lattari, so someone who takes up a genuine offer made (in writing) by someone else is a “ruthless opportunist”? That’s a strange world you live in.

        • Leapoblocks

          It was never copyright free. You misunderstand what a copyright is. A copyright gives the holder the right to dictate how the ‘work’ is copied – ergo, the holder can dictate that everybody is free to copy it (that is, make identical digital copies of it), but not that they’re free to sell it.

      • Schaul

        More than likely he’s of religious orientation. What makes you assume he’s atheist? Cause your momma told you all non-believers are evil people? Lol

  • Murv

    This isn’t a new phenomenon. In Belgium the largest copyright organisation have been exposed to “taxing” musicians and making revenue on intellectual property to which there is no copyright, or is enforced either privately or by a third party. They claimed it was a fluke and technically too complex to prevent what basically comes down to legal harassment. When Parliament inquired them if any efforts has been made to refunding these artists they simply responded with “no.”

  • http://twitter.com/JerkfaceMcGee Jerkface McGee

    Fredrika, eat your heart out!

    • Anon

      Fredrika ignores the way things are and demands they be the way she wants them. Then she gives us the same poorly informed pompous crap over and over. Fredrika lives in her own little world.

      At least they talk to her there.

      • Guest

        And bam, the troll shows up to justify the above behaviour.

        Well, Anon, which is it? Mr. I-witnessed-idiot-pirates-breaking-less-law-over-the-last-decade? Pirates breaking more law or less of it? Make up your mind!

      • Guest

        *points at Anon*

        See this, psychology students? This is known as projecting.

        • Fredrika

          One of the weirder one’s.. But several people have started guessing that Anon isn’t a copyright troll, but a devil’s advocate pirate that’s playing games trying to start up discussions, and i’m starting to believe the same thing, because the stupidity and absurdity in Anon’s comment’s have grown lately, to a point which i no longer believe any real copyright troll or lobbyist would dare to go.

      • Fredrika

        > “Fredrika ignores the way things are and demands they be the way she wants them.”

        Please stop lying. I have never done either, if you believe otherwise please quote one single comment from me where you believe that was what i did, and i will help you read that comment properly, so you understand what it actually says, since reading comprehension seems to be a huge problem for you. I dare you.

        The one that actually ignores how things are is you.

        You ignore what §19 in the u.n. charter of human rights says.

        You ignore the fact that §30 in the u.n. charter of human rights says that §27.2 can’t interfere with §19.

        You ignore the fact the the non-profit parts of the copyright monopoly are made up of clearly illegitimate legislation, because society’s need for them can’t be proven.

        You ignore the fact that there already exist filesharing technology which the masses can start using any day, that makes their illegal behaviour completely unstoppable both legislatively and technically, a protocol that will make the range of available content bigger than ever before, a completely decentralized protocol.

        You ignore the fact that every time the masses have moved on from one filesharing protocol to another, the number of pirates have grown exponentially.

        You ignore the fact that the only growing political group in the worlds strongest and biggest economy advocate a huge dismantling of the copyright monopoly, as in among another things legalizing non-profit use and filesharing.

        And that’s just to mention a few of your well proven ignorant misconceptions and facts that you ignore.

        > “Then she gives us the same poorly informed pompous crap over and over.”

        The in all democracies well established fact that prohibitions in legislation is an unnatural state or order, and that prohibition only should exist if it can be proven that the prohibition benefits society, is pompous?

        You do realize that you argue exactly as they do in dictatorships or fascist regimes? But then again, you have continuously advocated fascism, to protect the profits of some weak failed entrepreneurs that can’t handle themselves on the free market, so that’s nothing new.

        > “Fredrika lives in her own little world.”

        If that’s the case, funny how you never been able to refute one single claim or argument i’ve put forward.

        • http://twitter.com/JerkfaceMcGee Jerkface McGee

          See what I mean, guys?

    • Fredrika

      > “Fredrika, eat your heart out!”

      Do you dare to clarify what you mean?

  • Chuck

    Where is MegaBox when you need it!!!!

  • Pingback: Torrent News » Artist Can’t Get Pirated Music Off iTunes, Google and Microsoft Stores

  • Anonymous

    According to Jordan the mainstream music industry only cares about profits, not the actual artists.

    No shit, Sherlock.

    Now that you have seen the light, you may want to consider going INDIE.

    True Friends don’t let friends sign up to label contracts.

    • Techanon

      He’s already gone INDIE. The problem is mainstream retailers selling plagiarized copies of his music.

      • Anybody

        No he wasn’t INDIE, he signed with a small label.

        • Anonymous

          Do you know the difference between the words he WAS and he IS?

        • Guest

          He’s not “signed” to any label. He owns the label “Alphabasic” which he releases his stuff through.

        • Anybody

          @Anonymous No? do explain :P

        • Schaul

          You are wrong. Inform yourself before spouting this nonsense.

  • http://www.facebook.com/bovski Dmitri Bovski

    By not removing the content after a DMCA notice they have lost their safe harbor protection & @$150,000 per copy they sell he will be rolling in it lets hope it gets to number 1.

    • lattari

      Good point. Ben here could re-invent himself as a copyright troll and go for the jackpot.

      • http://www.facebook.com/bovski Dmitri Bovski

        It’s Not copyright trolling if a large corporation is commercially selling your property.

        • Guest

          It’s not his property – he shared it with someone for free to do whatever they wanted with. In fact, according to most pirates it’s not even “property”, are you saying they’re wrong?

        • MikBys

          Thanks for playing but!: To share freely doesn’t mean that you don’t license the downloaders. Subsatori Records http://subsatorirecords.se, the label I work with release some releases as free under the “Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)” license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/.

          It clearly states “Noncommercial — You may not use this work for commercial purposes” and “Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor “. I expect Benn Jordan releases under a similar license.

        • Leapoblocks

          @Guest – you still don’t get it do you? He still owns the copyright, which gives him the right to determine what happens to the music. He’s decided, as is his right, to allow anyone to freely copy his music, but he has not given approval – tacit, implied or even expressed – to sell copies of his music. By selling copies of his music against his wishes (and we can plainly see it’s against his wishes, because he’s already approached the culprits and issued DMCA takedown orders to which they’ve failed to respond) they are in breach of his copyrights and more than that, they’re complicit with illegal counterfeiting.

      • Guest

        He could, he could also “fess up” and admit that giving your work away for free and ignoring copyright isn’t the brightest idea ever.

        His circumstances prove, rather well, that the idea of giving music away (sharing) without restriction is flawed – at best.

        He’s just the latest proponent of “sharing is caring” to discover that it is a flawed premise and he looks totally ridiculous for bitching about it.

        • Leapoblocks

          He doesn’t have a problem with ANYONE sharing his music. Do you honestly not understand the article or was it a case of TL:DR?

          HIS ISSUE IS WITH SOMEBODY ELSE ILLEGALLY SELLING HIS MUSIC THROUGH MAJOR ONLINE RETAILERS WHO ARE FAILING TO HONOUR THEIR LEGALLY OBLIGATIONS TO RESPOND TO DMCA TAKEDOWN REQUESTS. SHARERS HAVE NO IMPACT ON HIM WHATSOEVER, BUT COUNTERFEITERS AND PLAGIARISTS DO.

        • blah

          He didn’t ignore copyright. He released it under a non-commercial Creative Commons licence, which depends on copyright law. That means that he still retains the copyright. Every time I post one of my tunes on Soundcloud, I have the option of releasing it as all rights reserved or under one of the various Creative Commons Licenses in which I can decide whether to bestow the right to distribute, create derivative works, and/or sell the tune to anyone downloading it. Under the Creative Commons terms, he did not grant the right to sell derivative works. Stop being ignorant.

        • Schaul

          Whats flawed is several corporations not obeying the LAW. Fuss about what he did with his music all you like, the point is that Apple and friends are breaking the law by not removing the copyrighted works that this artist owns. END OF STORY.

    • Whatever

      This implies that it isn’t even relevant if the DMCA is valid or not. It is sufficient that they didn’t comply immediatelly.

      But somehow i don’t think this Ben will do this.But if he does everyone should start buying the track to make it number one.

      It’s not like its too difficult to start a case because there would be enough lawyers out there (in US) who would grab the oppertunity and do it for “no cure no pay”. Because it would make them rich within a few years as well.

  • Anonymous

    he should know the rules just like the rest of us. when it suits a company to issue take downs, they will issue them. when it doesn’t suit, they wont issue them. the fact that when they issue them it is almost invariably against someone who hasn’t got the financial muscle to fight against the orders, is irrelevant. on top of which, everyone, from the government to other corporations, to ISPs to individuals are shit scared of the US entertainment industries simply because what they say is taken as gospel and they always get what they want. after all, they have spent a fortune bribing all those they needed to to get the backing they sort

    • MadAsASnake

      Law written by industry and only usable by industry. Bad Law. Not good for society.

  • JordanKratz

    Well that is just what happens when you sign with the MAFIAA ! You Get Ripped Off and that fact is so yesterday’s News.As in this is the way the MAFIAA has done and still does their Business.They rob from you if you dare sign with them.
    Any Artist who is foolish and/or greedy enough to sign with MAFIAA deserves to get what is coming to them.
    You do not get my sympathy for using MAFIAA !
    If you are an Artist like me make the decision to never sign with MAFIAA.And make sure to Boycott their whole fucking Industry.

    • Anyone

      he is with an indie label
      but another label is simply copying his music and putting it on those stores

      • JordanKratz

        Should of said that in my post.Stupidly did not do that.In this Story the Artist did sign with a small label.then another label took that release and put it on the websites itunes,AMZ, ETC

    • xmichaelx

      “Well that is just what happens when you sign with the MAFIAA !”

      Reading is really hard, isn’t it?

    • JordanKratz

      I stupidly did not say that in this case he did not Sign with a large label in the first place.One small label took advantage of another small label.

    • Schaul

      This has nothing to do with the motion picture industry…………

  • http://www.facebook.com/wakeupjon Jon Hughes

    iTunes is proactive to an extreme with cases like this, both today and 5 yrs ago. I’ve dealt with several issues like this in the past and as long as you know where you stand as an artist, file the right documents, submit the right documents, and prove without a doubt that you are the content owner, then iTunes will remove it immediately. I just dealt with that today, for fucks sake. This isn’t open heart surgery; the artist just didn’t take the right measures needed to get his content offline.

    • Bob

      Yup, just another attention seeking douche who is too stupid to do things properly or actually did it to get people to check out his own product.

      Nothing wrong with making a profit (ya can’t pay the bills with good intentions) but FFS be honest about it. If profit was so bad and antithetical to filesharing, why does the Pirate Bay and the vast majority of torrent sites and file lockers have ads?

      Kim Dot Com is living lush for a reason and everything he does is to make money not out of some grand ideas. That shit is called pandering.

      • Guest

        Ads will make you a millionaire? Really?

        • Leapoblocks

          Only if you’re Google.

  • foff

    File a DMCA with the hoster of Itunes and get the whole site taken off line problem solved.

    • Leapoblocks

      That’d be Apple then. They host their own shit.

  • Valen

    if you want something in regards to artist suing a big company…

    http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Robinson

    sorry for the facts in fench but here is one little guy suing …

    • Just Me

      if you just change the wiki entry to start with en.wikipedia… you’ll get the same doc in english :)

      • Just Me

        wups, sorry… actually this trick wont work with this link…

  • Jalone

    ok that the story. but anyone can provide some samples of one and another?

    • Leapoblocks

      RTFA.

      “The track is labeled as a remix, but Inventor did nothing more than adding some bird sounds in the background (spotify: Inventor versus Flashbulb)”

      Go back and click those links to the 2 tracks in the article.

  • WingNamm

    Sometimes those dudes really crack me up.

    at-privacy.tk

  • chronoss chiron

    why is he bothering he gave it away freely just make references to the other tunes too too show how popular your tune is , instead a being a lawyer be a fan of the fans…

    • Anyone

      claiming someone else’s work as your own and profiting from it is just wrong

  • chronoss chiron

    Apple iOS and BSD same differance….
    you don’t see the bsd makers crying and suing apple cause they sell an OS that is free ….as in completly free.

    • Whatever

      Checked the wiki and you’re right.

    • Leapoblocks

      That’s because the open-source licence covering the BSD kernel allows for it – expressly. It’s a totally different scenario.

  • Nightforce9

    This is why I have zero sympathy to the major labels whining about profit loss. They in turn pull stunts like this and totally screw over artists in the process. Their records deals are likely very unfair too but a non-informed artist will walk right into them because they don’t know how to self-promote their music. Hopefully Kim DotCom’s new music service gives artists the viable avenue they need that is easily accessible to them so these greedy corporations can just wither away.

  • Whatever

    The “birds in the background” is probably just the background noise from using a casette recorder and microphone to copy his song. For lack of proper digital equipment like a computer……

    Then again, some inventions/discoveries were made by different people at the same time in the past so it might be possible two people created the same track (one with and one without birds).

    More seriously:
    He should go to a local police station and a file a (whatever it is called) on all of the companies for not complying with the DMCA.

    What did he expect from a label called “Foul Play” ?

  • Steve Smith

    i never heard this guy before, but really only way this will ever get some footing, is if a big name artist has this happen to them,

  • Asd

    We should all release his songs and make money. :-)

  • WingNamm

    lol, those anti piracy groups really crack me up man.

    at-privacy.tk

  • anonymous

    seeing this go to court would actually be interesting, given he has the money to make it go that far, though kickstarter could be a good spot for him to get the money going.

    See if public interest cant take on the Maffia head to head.

  • shmurx

    only an idiot would buy music online from itunes. like those people who ask for download links in youtube videos. and there a way too much of them

  • Pingback: Artistas não conseguem retirar músicas piratas suas das lojas virtuais do Google, Apple e Microsoft | Livre Navegar

  • MissBrady12

    This article highlights the importance of copyright laws and making sure that royalties are fairly distributed amongst all players who make new music possible. When we short change the artists, we discourage them from continuing their musical endeavors. Many artists feel like Jordan does, that it may not be a worthwhile enterprise for them to continue making music. They fear that if they go through all the effort of making a new song, album, cover, etc that they may not be rewarded for their work. By allowing these companies to cheat the artists out of their fair share of profits, we are disincentivizing the artists from creating music in the first place. And we need to remember that without those artists, these companies would not exist, nor would we as listeners be able to enjoy the wide variety of music we do today.

    • http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell

      Well, this is a case where they are ACTUALLY losing money or someone is getting paid illegitimately for work that is actually theirs.
      Most ‘piracy’ doesn’t fit into that category.

  • jiejiewoshi
  • ewkfdskfdsf
  • Guest

    oh now we know who is the real pirate
    the ppl that make money on some1else work

  • ScrewEwe2

    Don’t know how I could have missed Mr. Flashbulb. Damn, I must be getting old, or maybe he’s been hiding in “The Cloud”. Wonder if there’s musicians with names like “The Tailight” or “The NiteLite” or “The High Pressure Sodium Arc Lamp” or “The Metal Hallide Bulb” or “The Buglight”?

  • Christophe Thomas

    “According to Jordan the mainstream music industry only cares about profits, not the actual artists” Surprising isn’t it !!!! The earth is not flat – even more surprising !!!!

  • http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell

    This is outrageous that he cannot get his work, sold illegally by another person, off these ‘legit’ websites when it’s so easy to get things off places like Youtube, which are deemed ‘pirate havens’ on a regular basis.

    I really think that it is time for him to pull out the “S” word with these guys and tell them that if it isn’t removed, he is going to sue them for fraud conspiracy.

    Hell, report them to his state attorney general, they might be willing to take this up and rap Apple and the others on the hand.

    • Hut The Jabber

      Alternatively he could sell the rights to that track to Samsung – just one more thing they can bash Apple with! XD

  • 0omg

    Wake up the world we have been telling you this story FOR AGES !!!!

  • http://twitter.com/economistaingle Carlos González

    As a private individual who has fought for his individual rights, this is not my problem, it is the problem of those artist who intend to make money.

    The message is loud and clear… If you do not want to be ripped off, stop creating.

    Please recall the italian movie “Gomorra” were a top modist decides to give up his passion and become a lorry driver, rather than being ripped of inside out by the mafia.

  • Pingback: Free and thinking » Upphovsrättsindustrin har ingenting alls emot att tjäna pengar på piratat material - IDG.se - Störst på dagliga IT-nyheter, tester, forum och guider

  • StopBeingCunts

    Why do the copyright trolls here; like guest, truth and anon, always seem so butthurt? You all act as though you have some righteous moral issue with piracy and shit on pirates, then turn around and shit on this artist. Why would anybody conform to your standards of the status quo when you’ll clearly be giant dicks to them even if they have a change of heart.
    Do you have problem with piracy, the fact that you weren’t smart enough to start a site that allegedly profits off ads, or are you just cocks?
    As to all this ‘he said do whatever’ the artist never gave up his rights, he’s free to turn around and stop sharing tomorrow if he wants to. Hell he could then turn around and share it again in a month. He can decide who can use it for what whenever he feels like it, sure maybe he did say ‘this is free for whatever you want’ but as copyright holder he can say, ‘ok thats enough you cant use this’ whenever he feels like it.
    And just because he released it into the public sphere at one point doesn’t mean that its public forever. He probably can’t sue for past profits but he can definitely say stop.

  • http://www.facebook.com/pwhitetom Peter White

    We will no longer have to worry “iTunes won’t add music” issue as soon as we get Bigasoft Audio Converter! Bigasoft Audio Converter can convert all kinds of music to iTunes compatible format for fast import to iTunes (including the new iTunes 11).

    It supports converting lossless music formats including FLAC, Monkey’s Audio (.ape), WavPack (.wv), TTA, ATRAC Advanced Lossless, WAV, AIFF, AU, raw header-less PCM, M4A, Windows Media Audio Lossless and Shorten (SHN) to iTunes supported lossless audio format like AIFF or Apple Lossless M4A.
    It also supports converting the above lossless music format to iTunes supported lossy audio format like MP3.
    It can convert lossy music like MP3, Vorbis OGG, WMA, Musepack MPC, AAC, ATRAC and CAF, QCP, AMR, AWR, MP3, RA to iTunes supported lossless or lossy audio format like AIFF or Apple Lossless M4A.
    It even can convert music video in AVI, MP4, MOV, WMV, MKV, VOB, FLV, 3GP and etc to iTunes supported audio format.

    The following is a step by step guide on how to import music to iTunes with the help of Bigasoft Audio Converter at http://www.bigasoft.com/articles/how-to-add-music-to-itunes.html

  • AidanB

    A good site for him would be Bandcamp

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • The Pirate Bay Isn’t Down Completely, Just Having a Few Issues

    Twitter and Facebook, not to mention the TorrentFreak inbox, are currently alive with complaints that The...

  • Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

    Freedom of speech is a highly valued commodity, but should people be allowed to say whatever...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.