Posts by x 7

that girl looks happy.

wheres the problem?

Spotify are theives

for instance, from http://www.dgmlive.com/diaries.htm?entry=24025

"THIRD NOTICE OF INFRINGEMENT AND DECLARATION

dear Spotify legal,

This quote comes from an email sent by Robert Fripp, legal owner of ALL King Crimson copyrights to Spotify on August 21st 2009:

so, please be informed: any king crimson content on your site at all is unauthorised & illegal; and you are formally notified of such by both declan, as my agent, and myself, as rights owner / controller.

This was sent to Spotify's content director at the time. It was true then. It was true in January of that year when Spotify first went live with a variety of King Crimson/Robert Fripp material, music which, as it was on the DGM label directly operated by Robert Fripp & David Singleton, could only have been delivered by DGM. DGM never delivered music to Spotify or authorised any third party to do so.

It has been true at all points since & remains true to this day.

Let me reiterate as Spotify's legal department's grasp of copyright ownership appears to be somewhat challenged:

The copyright owner of ALL King Crimson material has refused permission for ANY King Crimson material to feature on Spotify.

We asked Spotify in 2009 to tell us who had delivered this music that Spotify was giving away in breach of Robert Fripp's copyrights, but Spotify never answered.

Spotify has, since then, featured King Crimson music on its services on more than one occasion.

The copyright owner has, to date, never been paid for any of this usage.

Spotify states in its email response to Grayzone, the company requesting urgent takedowns of King Crimson material on our behalf (several requests have been necessary to draw even this inadequate response):

"a review of our in-bound licenses indicates that sound recordings that include performances by King Crimson and Robert Fripp are licensed to Spotify by, among others, Universal Music Enterprises, Virgin Records and A&M Records."

None of these companies has EVER held a legitimate license for the sale or distribution of King Crimson material in digital form.

Any King Crimson material delivered by UME has been in breach of Robert Fripp's copyrights.

Any King Crimson material delivered by Virgin Records has been in breach of Robert Fripp's copyrights.

There is no King Crimson material on any of the above labels that can or should have been delivered by these companies.

Senior lawyers at both Virgin & UMG (now the same company) are copied on this email.

If either of them can show a single instance where their respective labels or companies have had the rights to deliver King Crimson material to Spotify, then let them do so.

They won't, as no such license exists.

At this point, Spotify will, doubtless, fall back on the usual "but it was delivered to/uploaded us so it's not our fault if we made it available.." - otherwise known as the 'ignorance is always an adequate defence' line used by Grooveshark, Last.FM & other copyright thieves....

But, even this doesn't work for Spotify as the company was clearly told, in 2009, by the copyright owner, leaving no room whatsoever for any interpretation, that no King Crimson material should appear on the service.

Spotify has no rights whatsoever to any music by King Crimson. So Spotify's willingness to repeatedly make King Crimson music available on its service - from whatever source - having been told unequivocally by the copyright owner of all King Crimson music four years ago that no such music should be made available on Spotify, can only be viewed in terms of copyright theft.

Indeed your opening statement to Grayzone is directly contradicted by your actions with regard to King Crimson music:

"Spotify respects the rights of copyright owners and for that reason we only use content where we have been authorized to do so."

The situation with Robert Fripp material may be slightly more complex due to collaborations with other artists.

However, I will address separately once I have had an opportunity to look at what's currently available on Spotify.

Any instances of Robert Fripp music where the artist did not grant a specific right to make available digitally will be the subject of immediate takedown notices.

Irrespective of this & specifically with regard to "King Crimson Radio" & "Robert Fripp Radio", "King Crimson" & "Robert Fripp" are subject to trademark protection operated by DGM on behalf of the artists.

Neither consent to having their name used in this manner & both would regard the usage of the name in association with such a "radio" as a form of endorsement/Passing Off, involving a breach of the protection offered by the respective trademarks.

As it is possible that a user of the service would regard "Robert Fripp Radio" or "King Crimson Radio" as having an association with, or recommendation from, the named artists, these services must be discontinued immediately & permanently.

Kind regards,

Declan Colgan

on behalf of DGM"

what if the artist doesn't want his/her music on Splotify at all?

when did Aerojet Rocketdyne become bit players in the rocketry world? They used to be the leading performer

Captain Bob and the rest of the Hawks sang about it years ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFF3LJ678kY

round here the local landfill attracted so many gulls that we ended up with one of the biggest breeding colonies in Europe, and also one of the highest rates of gut disease due to birdshit in the water supply (which ran off the hills)

Now the landfill has been closed and capped, most of the gulls have gone, and so have the shits

so what did they use instead of Word?

And was Excel a similar problem?

surely though, if there's a case against him then he should be brought to trial, not hauled before a Congress Committee? Whatever you may think of the charges against him, being forced to testify before Congress very much seems like enforced self-incrimination. If he is guilty then he deserves all he gets, but that guilt should be determined in a real court - not before a bunch of politicians