Anyway, reader Steph Lambert just alerted me to this. A joint called Kipepeo Publishing ripped off
Nineteen of my rips, stolen and placed on Amazon
The release dates the first two are June 26, 2019. The posts were June 18 and June 21. Just counted seventeen more. Those creeps have stolen a boatload of my files.
Thanks, Kipepeo Publishing. Naturally, I did all that work so you could use it to turn a profit. Discogs gives a page to these folks.
Should I leave reviews at each rip-off, letting buyers know where they came from?
Oh, and more fun. Windows 10, this time. Windows Live Mail is no longer supported, so Microsoft has this new, embarrassingly cheap-looking program. Well, I was wondering why it was taking stuff so long to show up in my inbox, so I found out I had to go into Settings and adjust the "sync." Or something like that. Just what I'm "syncing" with, I have no idea. Email goes out and it comes in. Do the send and receive rhythms have to align with the moons of Jupiter or something?
Anyway, the program was defaulted to check for new email... every two hours. I've reduced that to 15 minutes. I've synced it. With Father Time, I guess.
Lee
27 comments:
Uncle Gil shut his blog because of this. But I guess if we post stuff on the net someone else is going to try to sell it. One of the down sides of the web. When you contact him he just states he owns the records & you arer not the only one with a copy. Even though Uncles stuff had the same homemade covers!
Sorry to hear this, heal fast.
How can you know that the RIPs are yours, couldn't it be anyone's work (just for curiosity)?
BTW, a big thank you for the music you offer, I won't buy in Amazon :)
Apesville,
Yup, theft is sanctioned in cyberspace. Steal away. The only thing that gets people in trouble is sharing stuff at no profit. It boggles the mind.
A place called SINETONE ripped off 78 files from me years back. These folks must have no sense of shame whatsoever. But, you're right--it's to be expected.
Robert,
Given that the release dates are so close to the posting dates and that the cover scans are mine, what are the odds the tracks aren't mine, also? Thieves go all the way when stealing things. Anyway, thanks for the nice words!
Some people are just slimeballs, there's no other word for it. But there's not much you can do about it. :(
And as for knowing the music is yours? Well, that wouldn't be hard to prove with a simple A-B comparison, but why give the guy a dime?
Exactly.
I knew that label name sounded familiar. Looks like their name has come up a few times over at The 'Fa.
https://www.falalalala.com/fireside/index.php?topic=3455.msg22646#msg22646
Same old tricks, just getting more blatant. :(
Keep going down the list of his stuff on Amazon - a lot of your material is there.
Oh, my God. They've taken 16 of my posts in addition to the two recent LPs.
Kipepeo Publishing is based in Kenya. I wonder how many they sold on Amazon. Very few probably (well, I hope so!)
Look, I don't want to be a turd in the pool, but we're all pirates on this ship. Because you own an LP doesn't mean you own the rights to the material. You know that. It's like calling the cops because someone stole your cocaine. The only difference is you did it for love, not profit.
Creedmoor - the point you may be missing is that Lee spends a huge amount of time bringing these records to people like you. The others do not and profit from his labors.
Yep, I'd say it's your work Lee. I guess one thing you could do is comment on each release with a workupload link for a free copy. What cheeses me most if no credit for your efforts.
Thanks, Buster. I think we can add that the stuff I put up is mostly forgotten gospel LPs and junk-label issues that no one expected to be around half a century later, let alone up for download on a network of personal computers. No one anticipated the long-term survival of the the type of media being shared by bloggers in cyberspace, and so copyright laws weren't written with the current reality in mind, because no one saw it coming. It's akin to the average human lifespan suddenly tripling, and life insurance co.'s trying to keep functioning under the old rules.
Rev. B.--Well, I don't know. Maybe they have "Thanks, Lee!" written on the CD inserts. Yeah, I know--they're cruds. I'm going to start scanning jackets without fixing them up. See how that goes over. I'm serious. I just thrifted a fake-hits LP that I managed, against the odds to save--all except one track with a deep gouge across it. The jacket is in bad shape, complete with writing, rips, etc. I've photo-fixed worse examples than this, but I think I'll put it up as is. See what my friends do. See how far their PC skills extend.
Oh, and thanks, Bob. Kenya, huh? Small internet!
wasn't me.
i only steal jokes.
I don't even want to look at the list...
And as for not owning the actual music, that's true. But this stuff takes a lot of work to find, record, remaster, scan & package. There are plenty of people out there doing that, and if they duplicate my work, so be it. But to take all my work and pass it off as their own? That's just dirty poker.
I think it's the same guy who was such a pain in the ass to Uncle Gill (another great blog, now gone because of that schmuck). Don't let that guy get you down Lee, rats will be rats.
For what it's worth, I love your bloge and realy appreciate the work done by you.
John
I'm sorry you're being put through this, and more than a little surprised that the perp would target such an esoteric blog, but Daddy used to say, "They made more of 'em than they did horses to put 'em on." Hang in there. You'll win this one!
Hey Lee, because I searched a few of your titles on Amazon to confirm the were indeed appropriated from your blog, they've stared to show up on my main page as recent searches. In this case, that wasn't a good idea because it reminded me of where the material originated and that it really cheesed me off. I started to leave the following review, but decided not to because I didn't want the wrath of Amazon or whatever regulatory entity to descend upon you. I'm not a copyright attorney, so I'm not 100% on that subject, but it's my understanding that at this point, anything over 75 years old is public domain. So I decided to only post it here to vent on how I feel about it. I agree with the point Creedmoor made, but for whatever reason, I love generosity and get bugged by opportunists taking advantage to make a buck. Now if they ever send a few bucks your way, that'll be different. Anyway, here’s the review I didn’t right:
"Want it for free?
This music was appropriated from a blogger who offered it for the love of the music and the joy of sharing. He put a lot of time and effort into this offering. It's culled from antique 78s. The copyrights have expired, the performances are in the public domain. Neither he or this bogus "label" own the rights to this music. If you'd like it for free, search the title and remember to say 'thank you." That's the only charge; cheaper than eighteen bucks plus shipping, but of far more value than any currency. The blogger's all about love and sharing, this mercantilist is only about making a buck."
They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This is probably one of those!
Rev. B,
That's very kind. My sincere thanks. And you named the exact reason I didn't put my own reviews up--I don't want to draw attention to my nefarious operation. Which no sane person seriously regards as nefarious, but we're talking the law, which doesn't operate on logic. When I tell people about the copyright hassles that come with putting up material that was on the market during my youth, my parent's time, or even my grandparent's time, they give me that "Are you kidding?" look. Thanks again.
Lee, this outfit is bootlegging anything they get their hands on. They’ve duped the “Chronological” CD series of 78’s, your stuff, even some Columbia and RCA titles.
If you send a protest to Amazon on these “print on demand” fakers, it might be the last straw. They may have gotten a few complaints already. Creeps like this count on apathy and being below the radar.
“Public Domain” is not QUITE so simple. If you improve an item (colorize a silent film, clean up a 78rpm) you have made something new. Amazon might take your word without demanding copyright forms. Point out how they added their items after you posted yours. Creedmoor’s point doesn’t apply. Aside from the Nash Family on Columbia (which these parasites also copied), you mostly do out of print shellac the major labels are ignoring and that you’ve put work into restoring. Rhino, Ace, etc. pay people to polish and digitize a CD compilation. And you DO use equipment and take care to bring out the best in this old stuff (unlike all the bloggers who just rip CDs and think they've done "hard work.")
This outfit needs to prove THEY have the rights to sell and explain how they’re copying off Decca, RCA, and so much other stuff. Kenya dig it? Put the ball in their court and put them on the defensive. You’ve got nothing to lose by sending in a fax, letter or e-mail.
And in the future, you might add a “ringer” song to a compilation — insert five seconds of Vesta Victoria at the end of an Ada Jones or something; when they copy it off, and sell it, they’re caught.
Write to: Copyright Agent
Amazon.com Legal Department
P.O. Box 81226
Seattle, WA 98108
Phone: (206) 266-4064
Fax: (206) 266-7010
E-mail: copyright@amazon.com
Thanks for the advice and contact info. I'll think about it. But most of the thefts were vinyl rips, so that's one reason I'm hesitant to gripe. And I have to wonder how many people are going to pay $9.99 for the six tracks offered on "Music for Those Who Think Young." But seriously, they did steal a number of 78 rips, but most are vinyl sources. Since I made considerable improvements (I think) to the sound on those very cheap sources (Specialty Plastics Co., in particular, and whoever put out those Pepsi premiums), would they also qualify as something new by your definition?
As I think about it, I doubt Amazon would care what I do at my blog, and so I wouldn't be taking a great risk, but.... I'll have to think about it. Thanks again.
Another thing that causes me to hesitate--as you noted, this group is doing some highly blatant theft. I think they may be setting a record. So, is Amazon not paying any attention at all? Does it care? These are things to consider.
“…is Amazon not paying any attention at all? Does it care?”
Not really, and not so much!
The excuse for Amazon, Google, YouTube, Paypal, Ebay, etc. is “we’re just a venue. We have SO much to do, we can’t monitor everything.”
Lawmakers created the “Digital Millennium Act” to protect the struggling Internet and let it grow. Now it’s grown into a bit of a monster and the laws haven’t changed.
It’s nice for GOOD bloggers. You didn’t have to sign up with your name, address, or credit card. You don’t have to submit forms documenting that what you post is public domain, fair use or licensed. You’re trusted. BUT so are bad bloggers, or the bad guys on Amazon, eBay and YouTube.
Fortunately these big websites must give you ways to contact them on both violations of their own Terms of Service and violations of copyright, trademark or intellectual property.
Ebay, to avoid bad publicity, screens the site for gun sales, racist words, etc. But they rely on the “report this item” link for other things, and they have a “verified rights owner” email address for Disney, Gucci, and other companies who can state with authority of something’s a bootleg or not. Certainly eBay is “just a venue” in not being able to tell if a seller is a bootlegger or a forger. Once they are told, they remove the items and maybe even suspend the seller.
“Innocent until proven guilty” is the situation in a case like yours. Amazon accepts the word that this Kenyan outfit is selling their own content, and things they’ve licensed. You can prove they are swiping your content and it’s not licensed. As in: “See when I posted these, and when they made them available on your site.”
Sure, these guys aren’t going to sell many copies, but they have a lot of nerve. It’s like noticing a shoplifter and at least saying, “Hey, cut it out. Pretty blatant, shoving stuff into your trick or treat bag.” See something say something.
It does no harm to send in an e-mail. It’s just a case of how much time you want to spend in writing a stern, legalize missive stating:
“You have a fine, reputable site, but unfortunately this seller is bootlegging. No items are authorized, and in these 19 examples in particular, the seller has infringed on my work. The seller is copying songs I have digitized, re-mixed, and carefully restored. They are being enriched without compensation to me, and have not licensed my work for sale.”
This really IS your “hard work” and your expertise. The items they copied from you should not be for sale anymore. Whether Amazon wants to cut the seller loose entirely would be their call.
I wrote a fairly long reply but deleted it. Reason is, I'd prefer to have a few points clarified first. What are "GOOD bloggers"? And, "The items they copied from you should not be for sale anymore." But PD has been extended into eternity, thanks to our "lawmakers." So why shouldn't a given item be for sale anymore? Years back, some poor, hardworking blogger had his or her Classic Comics scans taken down because someone owns these early-1940s publications, and the owner has no connection with the publisher (originally, Gilberton). And I have never for a moment believed the DMCA functions as a protection of bloggers, because that would mean accepting as sane and fair the notion that I, or anyone else, should rot behind bars for posting sound recordings that may or may not have reached the charts back when my grandfather was courting my grandmother. And I'm 62. PD has been killed (massively scaled back--same difference), and content managers (I think that's the phrase) are given the green light to claim as theirs material that never belonged to them in the first place. Seems to me that, in such a setting, I have no rights to assert. Curious to hear your take.
I guess "protection for bloggers" would be a better word choice. Anyway....
i dont normally sware
but shoot the bastards
Post a Comment