Web Sheriff To MP3 Bloggers: Happy Easter, Thanks For Plugging The Raconteurs
If you didn't make the trip to Austin this year (and let's be honest, even if you did), you probably didn't experience any of the SXSW panel Amrit sat on called "Blog Factor." It was about blogs. If you wanna know what you missed, it looked exactly like this:
At least according to Michael Arthur. Everybody's having fun, right? Especially Matador's Gerard Cosloy. But along with scribbling furiously, Gerard offered the panel's deepest insights and best perspective. Also, he mentioned he wasn't thrilled with Web Sheriff's bullying tactics on behalf of Matador over the last few months. The fair use discussion spotlighted the miscommunication on the label/publicist/policing end, and it doesn't look like the Sheriff's actions are any better thought out since the panel, those many days ago.
This weekend while you were drinking Peeps cocktails to the big brass sounds of Jack's "Many Shades Of Black," Web Sheriff took some time writing misguided and creepy comments on blog posts about the early-to-arrive Consolers Of The Lonely LP. To Gerard's point, these new blog comments by the Sheriff aren't threatening, but let's just note that the Sheriff's commenting on blogs that did NOT host any tracks off the new record. A few examples of his missives can be found here, here, and here, the last of which resulted in ekko's Open Letter in return:
Via Berkeley Place:
Dear Web Sheriff:
In the past week, I've heard from you twice. Both of your notices were posted in the comments section of my blog, which I assume you did as a warning to all bloggers and readers that you are out there and that you are watching. Fair enough. But please consider the following.
The first notice I received was on a review of The Kills' "Midnight Boom." Along with the review, I posted two live bootleg songs. You requested that I remove them. I did, because it is easier to do that than to argue about it, but I also sent you an e-mail asking you whether your view would change if you knew that I had not posted content from the album. Naturally, you did not respond.
As a result, I have deleted the album review and have deleted the album from my ongoing "Best of 2008″ list. I will not consider the band for a best-of-the-year album, and I will not mention them favorably on this blog ever again. In fact, I got rid of the CD. I average 3,000 unique readers per day, and now none of them will hear about The Kills from me. It's not a big deal, I know, just one little blogger. But I know at least one other blogger who won't review the album based on your behavior. So congratulations, you won. The Kills will have less of a positive internet presence thanks to your involvement, and nothing you did helped stop material from the album getting illegally downloaded, because I did not offer material from the album to my readers.
The second notice I got from you was as follows:
WEB SHERIFF Protecting Your Rights on the Internet Tel 44-(0)208-323 8013 Fax 44-(0)208-323 8080
Hi BP,
On behalf of XL Recordings and Warner Bros Records, many thanks for plugging "Consolers Of The Lonely" and The Ranconteurs' pioneering, 'fans-first' release concept ... .. album officially comes-out-to-play tomorrow, so not long to wait !!
Regards & Happy Easter,
WEB SHERIFF
I was ignorant of the fact that the band had signed with a major label, so shame on me, but your message is baffling. What is the purpose of this comment? You didn't ask me (because WB doesn't own the copyright) to take down the live songs I'd put up, so it wasn't a threat, but you can't honestly expect the blog community to appreciate a comment like this, can you?
I'm probably going to delete the Raconteurs post I did, just because it doesn't sit right to have a post on my blog about a band that Big Brother is so aggressively protecting.
But can you answer me this: What is your goal? Do you want bloggers like me to never write about bands on major labels? Because if that is your goal, fine! I can happily do that. I rarely write about such bands (at least not knowingly), and I fully understand the RIAA and related organizations desires to keep their music as a commodity, not allowing any free sharing of content, even single songs. I understand and respect it, even if I think it is a short-sighted business plan.
I just want to know, really, honestly, what is your goal with the comment you made on the Raconteurs post? Are you warning me to shut down my blog?
I don't expect a response from you, but I'd appreciate one.
And I know you are watching.
If we can play consoler: don't feel lonely, BP. We got one, too! Of course, this is not the first time.
It's aggressive to jam up comment sections on blogs that are running MP3-free news stories, particularly when your duty presumably is to police illicit MP3 postings. That said, we can assume that blogs that are hosting the new tracks are getting a less friendly response. (The Raconteurs are currently Hype Machine's Most Blogged Artist, although the only new track we could find was removed in a day.)
So, as Berkley Place said: What's the point? It essentially amounts to a "We're watching you..." right? Well that's lame. Anyway it seems Web Sheriff takes joy tracking down the new stuff, but we have a feeling, rooted in his IP address, that he'll be even faster to comment (under a fake name) if you post about a Mancunian band. Let's just say it's not only him watching us; we are watching each other.
Posted at 10:47 AM
Tags: The Raconteurs
It's a real shame...what happens is that the bands represented by Web Sheriff end up being blacklisted by bloggers. More than often these bands could really do with some blog love.
Score = 2
What does this even mean? That you're boldly viral marketing where few have dared? That labels' viral marketing campaigns sometimes clash with their leak policing policies?
Score = 0
I received one for a Tokyo Police Club song that was released last year as a single, and just happens to be on the upcoming Saddle Creek debut. So it is more than the majors, but agreed with Ekko's point in full.
Score = 2
Another sign that the industry is grasping at straws. They have no idea how to battle web piracy. I say GIVE IT AWAY NOW!
Score = 1
I'm really not quite understanding this. There is more to this than it first appears I suppose, because with all of the web sheriff comments I have read thus far, regarding Consolers, it seems that the web sheriff is thanking the bloggers for plugging the new release.
How is this bad for the blogger, exactly? I'm sorry, I'm a little ignorant I guess...
Score = -1
WEB SHERIFF
Protecting Your Rights on the Internet
Tel 44-(0)208-3238013
Fax 44-(0)208-3238080
websheriff@websheriff.com
www.websheriff.com
Hi Everyone (& BP),
We just wanted to add our nickel's worth in order to redress some of the (innocent) misinformation that appears to be 'out-there' ... .. first-of-all, we'd like to apologise to BP - we were / are not ignoring you and the purpose of posting on your blog was twofold ... .. firstly - and literally - to thank you for not posting pirate links and, secondly, to simply let you know what the policy was / is on the relevant pre-release ... .. unlike certain, other, copyright protection agencies, we do not believe in persecuting fans for their mere (and generally understandable) over-exuberance in posting links to pirate files of unreleased material etc ... .. instead, we show respect for the blogger community and simply elect to explain the policy on any given pre-release that we happen to be working on ... .. this respect and understanding extends to routinely recommending and arranging for the early release of official 'preview-tracks' that fans and bloggers are then free to host / post / share etc.
We hope that this post throws some light on our reasons for blog posting etc ... .. the alternative is RIAA like legal actions and site closures, which is not where we are at and is a measure of last-resort for repeat / flagrant infringements ... .. we've closed sites down all over the world, but these actions have related to far more serious issues (eg. closing down sites hosting videos of US and UK hostages in Iraq being beheaded and closing down sites dedicated to the torture and hanging of women for sexual gratification) ... .. in those instances, the gloves come-off, but that's definitely NOT how we or our clients wish to treat bloggers - hence our "Thank You" approach.
Best to All & Happy Easter (what's left of it !!),
WEB SHERIFF
Score = -31
Is there footage or a transcript of this particular SXSW panel? Thanks in advance.
Score = 0
Yeah, whatever Web Sheriff. I still didn't appreciate the post. It was kind of creepy. What, did you just google "Raconteurs" or something? Because not many people read my blog, it's just for a school assignment.
But thanks for the link Stereogum. Lol.
Score = 4
Other than the teenage 'anti-establishment' mentality, think about what really bothers you about the Web Sheriff. Obviously initial response is to abhor 'Big Brother', but I really don't think that's what's going on here. I'm not pro- or anti-WS since I don't know enough about their actions, but I feel that the fanbase of this website tends to be pretty immature and reactionary.
Go ahead and 'thumbs down' me.
Score = -2
First, thanks Stereogum for linking to my open letter.
As for WS's reply, why on EARTH didn't WS post the reply on MY BLOG where he posted his "friendly" notice about "policy."
There is nothing in his post, reproduced in my open letter and quoted above, that mentions anything about policy. I am happy to hear WS say that he doesn't intend to seek prosecution against mp3 bloggers, but I still would like to know where he gets the authority to take the actions that he takes. Is he hired by the labels? Are the artists aware of your actions? Are the labels? Or are you just doing what you do hoping that you get a contract to really come after us?
Score = 0
Ekko, at least you'll be happy to know that the same body that handles beheaded prisoners and tortured women takes interest in your blog...I guess MP3s are a real threat to society
Score = 0
Hm, I didn't notice that the message ended with "Happy Easter" before. Too bad I'm not Christian. Nice try.
Score = -4
Dear Web Sheriff,
You're currently ruining music on the internet. I know you're just getting paid to do it, and that because of draconian copyright laws that are preventing the music industry from "moving on" past their failed business model and into something that can generate positive results, you're only extending the problem. You're not helping.
You can make allusions to child pornography, violence or any other number of entirely unrelated crimes that you may or may not be able to have any effect on, but the fact remains that these things don't fall in line with a positive outcome. There is nobody who is better off by your tactics, regardless of how polite they are.
On behalf of music fans on the entire internet, I'd like to respectfully ask you to have your CEO or board reconsider your desire to work with the Music and Movie cartels. You're shacking up with the enemy when you do business with them, regardless of how well they pay. There's very little good that can come out of your involvement with them, no matter how many mp3's you take down and how many websites or blogs you happen to take down.
Polite language aside in the creepy blog posts, you're not helping anyone. You're making people hate you in return. For the most part, people consider you to be a corrupt cop who's working for the mafia all things considered, since the organizations you represent are little more than thugs as far as the internet goes. Nobody likes it.
Have some morals. Stop doing business with the RIAA and the record labels. Stick to the stuff that really matters to people. Music and busting people for posting it on their blogs in small amounts, does not matter to the vast vast vast majority of the entire world. Upholding it, no matter how "right" it may be under the letter of the very well lobbied congress, it's just not a good thing to do.
Score = 10
And another thing, WS: You say you're "not ignoring me," but you STILL have not responded to my question: If The Kills track I posted was a live song that was not owned by the record company, where do you get the authority to tell me to take it down?
Score = 2
Well to all the people that do understand what this "WEBSHERIFF" stands for here is a funny link of >creepy" emails they have sent to sites in order to bully them over legal sharing music.
http://thepiratebay.org/legal
Scroll down and read the websheriff/white stripes bit.It actually kind of funny that this websheriff tries bullying people all the time.
I am personally boycotting the White Stripes and all of jack whites music because they are associated with this "websheriff".Does any one remember Metallica against Napster ? same thing with Jack White association with websheriff.
I hope people get the proper education on websheriff and there tactics and please educate yourself on this matter.Google websheriff and see what they are all about.I will NEVER buy another CD from Jack White or any bands that associate them selves with this Sheriff.So you will see when record sales drop for white stripes and you can blame websheriff cause the internet is educating themselves properly.
Score = 1
Ekko, I've always been under the impression recordings of live performances are only acceptable if given consent by the artist and venue, but it's one of those little enforced parts of media law (like taping a show to VHS back in the 80s, for example.)
For what it's worth, the pro-blog comments in this thread are as equally far-fetched as the RIAA stance on music piracy. Saying the model of the music industry is outdated and therefore you're validated in downloading whatever you like - entire discographies of hardworking bands, if you so please - is just as nonsensical as Web Sheriff being employed to take the fight to the areas of the internet where an awful lot of their clients get publicity from writers who genuinely enjoy their artwork.
There's a middle ground here somewhere, but both sides - yes, BOTH - are so stubborn that we're just going to keep going around in circles for some time yet.
Score = 0
Ryan-The copyright to live shows is sometimes owned by a promoter, sometimes a venue, sometimes even the label if the artist signed such a contract, but that's not terribly common. WS pays no regard to who actually owns the copright. If the REAL owner of the copyright asked me to take something down, of course I would--no doubt.
The rest of your comment is pretty unfair, at least if you are directing it at me. I never, would never, have never, post entire albums--at most I post two songs, and usually I only post songs that the artists themselves (or their agents) have allowed me to post. My point about The Kills is that I didn't post anything off the new album, and WS had no apparent right to tell me to take it down, and when I asked WS about it, he ignored me AND HE IS STILL IGNORING ME. Then, when I did nothing but try to help The Raconteurs, WS came on my blog and tried to chill free speech with his creepy warning comment.
I don't appreciate that, and I have been emminently reasonable and respectful towards major labels. They can keep music a commodity if they like, it's their choice. I just won't support any project that hires folks who use these kinds of tactics to attack fans.
Score = 3
Very well put, Ryan.
Score = -1
reagardung the comments made my "websheriffiscrap"...
I might be wrong but I think the warner brothers label, the major that is now supporting both the white stripes and the raconteurs and their respective releases, has a lot more to do with websheriff than jack white. i don't think jack white is personally contacting websheriff to check these blogs even though I know how he feels about album leaks. its just a little ridiculous advocating some jack white boycott because of this without all of the info.
Score = 0
WANT TO MAEK UR PNIS 12 INCHES LNGER? VIAGRA CHEAP DRU UGS CLICK HERE
Score = 15
Kudos on posting about the Websheriff, stereogum.
I know you're not run by record companies or whatever, but you are kind of a high society blog. Always slipping in a stray post about Britney Spears or amazon.ca or WHATEVER, despite constant negative feedback from commenters. I guess, it's just nice to know that you haven't sold out to The Man completely yet.
Score = 1
"Creepy" is used several times to described Web Sheriff's comments. What makes it creepy?
Score = -2
My mini-rant wasn't directed at you entirely ekko, my apologies if it sounded like it was.
As someone who's been trawling blogs for new and interesting music for years now - and finding some absolute gems - I agree that music blogs are now an integral part of how people discover music. It's utterly idiotic to seek out writers who promote bands they enjoy for not terribly much in return, and threaten them. I can't fathom what industry would not want to encourage such behaviour. Free promotion of a product? And we don't have to do anything at all? Great, bring it on!
But then, on the flipside, you've got genuine music blogs thrown in the same category as places that have no interest in what the tracks or artists are. And currently the music industry is too shortsighted to see the difference. It's just easier to lump everything in the one bundle, and claim digital music piracy is harming everyone. However, you cannot just blame 'The RIAA' or the music industry for this. There's an entirely pervasive mindset that the Internet = free, and anyone who says otherwise is just not with the times and is "The Man". Reading some of the other comments across Stereogum shows how prevalent that mindset is.
So that's what I mean when I said both sides are stubborn; you've got an industry that can't see the potential of this system, and users who are willing to exploit the possibilities the system brings. And, of course, both sides blame each other to validate their actions.
I'm not for one minute defending Web Sheriff - who definitely should contact you properly, ekko, and discuss the boundaries your blog can and can't breach - but there's two extremes in this music piracy situation, and it's incredibly frustrating to watch unfold because all I want to do is listen to great music and support the artist who makes it, and these days I'm not even sure how I can do that consistently.
Score = 0
Much agreed Ryan. For what it's worth, why do people think they are entitled to get this music free in the first place? Unfortunately I think that "because we can" is the answer, though it's not the right answer. I think piracy law sucks, especially when you're staring at millons of dollars in "free" music floating around p2p sites, but these artists spend $ to create their product (yes, even those not tied into the major label hierarchy) and deserve be compensated just as much as anyone else with a job (albeit a totally sweet job).
There is a great place for word of mouth marketing, especially in the age of blogs, and the labels are only just starting to come around to this. The Web Sherriff appears to be just another poorly mounted attempt by the labels (as usual) at stemming the illegal downloading of copyrighted material, which (unfortunately) deserves to be paid for. There are all sorts of marketing tactics like releasing the first single for free which may be very worthwile, but they need to be mandated by the property-owners, and not the fans.
Score = 0
One final thing I should mention on the topic: I bought the new Devotchka album yesterday. I did so after reading Metacritic reviews, a couple of forums, and then downloading a handful of tracks from Hype Machine to sample. They're the latest in a long line of bands I've discovered via blogs - names like Midlake, Yeasayer, Menomena, Tapes n Tapes. Midlake and Tapes n Tapes got a great return from just a handful of digital tracks I download; I played the albums on a radio show I had at the time, recommended them to friends, and went to see them live when they visited Australia.
I want to believe that's what most people would do given the support of the artists and industry - utilise the technology that's there, and find a middle ground that sees me enjoying a great new record I wouldn't have otherwise heard and the band getting a new fan. But I'm not holding my breath.
Score = 1
I feel sorry for the Raconteurs. They have some good songs on but WS is destroying it all for them.
Score = 1
Why doesn't Web Sheriff have a wikipedia page? I find their whole existence to be creepy and suspect. An organization that polices the internet should have more transparency. The fact that some commenters refer to Web Sheriff as "him" or "he" strikes me as odd. The website offers little insight. Who the fuck is Web Sheriff?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=web+sheriff&go=Go
Score = 1
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9784193-7.html
He's a dapper looking man....
Score = 1
WEB SHERIFF
Protecting Your Rights on the Internet
Tel 44-(0)208-3238013
Fax 44-(0)208-3238080
websheriff@websheriff.com
www.websheriff.com
Hi everyone,
We would like to make you aware of a recent change in web sheriff policy... .. We have decided that illegally downloading music is fine... .. However, dissing the sheriff in a blog is a felony for which i will hunt you down like a dog.
Peace out
WEB SHERIFF
Score = 6
The Raconteurs' album was all set to be released but then itunes leaked it early, was that the story? Someone "at itunes" interfered with a fine release schedule. This has happened for several releases..... it is effective in confounding bands' publicity, but itunes doesn't ever really get any flak for that....
Score = 1
I don't think that's the case, about iTunes leaking it early. From all I've heard, the album was purposely recorded and released in a very small time-frame (like, a month). I hadn't heard anything about a leak.
Score = -1
Meh, just let it go. The RIAA and Web Sheriff are never going to be able to stop piracy or music sharing. Web Sheriff is just another way that major labels are losing money instead of rethinking their business plan. Let them blow their money.
A lot of people here need to read The Future of Music. Some people defending the industry on here are a little off the mark. Here's the blog for the book:
http://www.futureofmusicbook.com/
HIGHLY recommended. You read this book, and you wonder why the labels are being so ridiculous, when they could make more money by simply changing their business plan. Instead of suing potential customers.
Score = 1
Having read the above post, I thought you might be interested in the lengthy conversations that have been had between myself and my other blog authors and Web Sheriff, who returned to reply many times to all our questions after the intial classic Web Sheriff post that they left:
http://readersrecommend.blogspot.com/2008/04/beginning-of-twist-intimidation-for.html
regards,
Blimpy
Readers Recommend Overspill Blog
Score = 0
I'm gonna be Web Sheriff for Halloween.
Score = 0
WEB SHERIFF
Protecting Your Rights on the Internet
Tel 44-(0)208-3238013
Fax 44-(0)208-3238080
websheriff@websheriff.com
www.websheriff.com
Hi, I'm the websheriff. I make a living convincing stupid people that don't know their rights to do things. Actually, in theory I'm a Mercenary, so I'm gonna change my name to WEBMERC. Want to know how to deal with me? Just like any lawyer deals with real cops, don't say shit. Ignore me, and since I really don't have any real authority, i'll just go away.
Thanks and have a killer 4th of july!
Score = 2
Sue me. Thx.
Score = 0
FIELD_MESSAGE_cazelouletod
Score = 0
FIELD_MESSAGE_cazelouletod
Score = 0
FIELD_MESSAGE_cazelouletod
Score = 0