Thursday, May 26, 2011

A POSSIBLE LEAD!

If you visit chillingeffects.com - a clearing house for DMCA complaints (authorized or unauthorized) and do a search for Chappell you will find 118 complaints.

http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512c/search.cgi

I have reached out to Chappell Music.

If you look at the individual complaints you will see that many if not most of them were filed by the soon-to-go-down Ebay Wise!

In fact, 13 of the 14 DMCA notices in that search filed in 2011 as of today are the work of this vile entity Ebay Wise who has filed numerous unauthorized DMCA complaints on behalf of Varese Sarabande and laugh.com.
(others may soon be added to this list). 

But if you look at the DMCA complaint dated March 4th, 2011, you will see that it was filed by

In this claim, which was made against bestcomedyonline.com, Georgiana-Adrianna Voicu claims
(and this is a direct quote from the DMCA complaint)


"On October 14, 2010, the webmaster I've been working with, by the name [redacted], stole my passwords and transferred , without my authorization, the domain http://www.bestcomedyonline.com/ from my name to his name".
 
I have also reached out to bestcomedyonline.com to get more info!

Let's review the facts:
 
Ebay Wise has filed at least 160 DMCA complaints to Google.
 
50 of them have been declared unauthorized by representatives of the companies
named in the complaints.
 
13 of these unauthorized DMCA complaints by Ebay Wise were on behalf of laugh.com.
 
Now we find out that Georgiana-Adriana Voicu once owned bestcomdyonline.com
and has an axe to grind!
 
Is this a coincidence - maybe. 
 
Circumstantial evidence - certainly.
 
 
I am not trying to create a witch hunt - but all of this information is posted on the internet and all of my speculations are not an infingement on anyone's rights.
 
With all due respect and no malice torwards this particular or any Georgiana - Adriana Voicu - I am not stating with fact that this person is Ebay Wise and I have been forwarded very complleing logic  from fellow bloggers that feel it probably is not:

  - The DMCA complaint referenced by Voicu that comes up in Chappell is actually caused by a reference to Dave Chappelle.

But in this guilty until proven innocent enviornment - every suspect can and will be put under the microscope.
What do you think?

Let me know - do what you can - the blog you save may be your own!

Dave RFW


11 comments:

Record Fiend said...

Hi,

I just responded to the e-mail that you had recently sent to me, but I also wanted to drop you a line here as well.

Your detective work is amazing, and I hope that your tireless research will put an end to this loser's nonsense. I wouldn't be surprised if you were the guy who figured out where Osama bin Laden had been hiding for all these years.

Please let me know if there is anything that I can do to assist in defeating Ebay Wise.

All the best,

RF

shadreck said...

Keep up the good fight. Appreciated

Anonymous One said...

As two comments I sent in earlier have not yet appeared, I am going to conclude you have decided not to publish them.
You have evidently read them in the course of moderation as you have changed your post from this morning based upon certain of their content.
However, you nevertheless persist in naming/accusing/singling out Ms Voicu for some reason.

You write in the modified post that:
[start]
But in this guilty until proven innocent enviornment - every suspect can and will be put under the microscope. What do you think?
[end]
Ms Voicu is not 'Ebay Wise' and HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with any of these takedowns.
That you continue to treat Ms Voicu the way the real 'Ebay Wise' has treated you is just as wrong, for all the same reasons, as what 'Ebay Wise' did. If you cannot understand this, you deserve no one's help.

That you choose not to publish my comments is your decision as this is your blog. But your continuing to point to Ms Voicu when she is not any way involved, that you justify this continuing naming of her because some document somewhere is public, that you further justify doing so by furthering a "guilty until proven innocent" atmosphere only indicates you are losing, or have already lost, perspective regarding this matter.
Which is quite sad because until you began accusing people falsely, until you began treating other people the way 'Ebay Wise' treated you, you were everybody's hero.

You made an error naming/accusing/associating Ms Voicu with any of this. Admit it, remove her name from your webpage and move on.
But if you are only going to be another 'Ebay Wise' in how you deal with other people, do not expect any more support or help or encouragement from anyone who believes being fair-minded applies to all.

Anonymous One said...

If the only standard of conduct is that nothing is off limits if "all of this information is posted on the internet and all of my speculations are not an infingement on anyone's rights" then is it correct that this standard also would apply to you?

In the few minutes since my last post I have located online and publicly your real name, your address, your telephone number, your age, certain public records about you in the county in which you live and a satellite photograph of your home.
Using the standard you have described you think applicable to justify your continuing to name Ms Voicu, is it all right with you that, using this same reasoning, I publicly point to or publish all of this about you?
And, after have done so, is it acceptable to publicly invite people to track you down as you have done with her?

If, in fact, you are "not trying to create a witch hunt" then stop doing the things which are ingredients of all witch hunts.

Remove all references, speculations and suppositions about Ms Voicu. Whoever she is, she has nothing to do with this.
And you know she does not.

Radio Free Wohlman said...

Hi AO (and All),

Many of the points you have made are convincing and many are not.

Your assumptions and statement are opinions much less based on facts than my speculations - which are based on solid association and obvious possible motive.

My naming this person or anyone else on this blog who has a proven history of utilizing a DMCA complaint and a potential connection is not illegal, unethical or immoral in any way.

It certainly has nothing in common with an entity that files scores of unauthorized legal forms and commits perjury in doing so.

In all forms of effective journalism, investigation and law enforcement, suspected wrong-doers are identified and scruitinized. The innocent have nothing to fear, prove that innocence and clear their name. Sometimes you have to play hardball to eliminate the innocent and weed out the guilty.

If this person would care to communicate with me and/or it is proven to me that they are not involved in the described activity, I will use my platform to declare my findings just as clearly as I stated my suspicions.

I stand behind my statements - especially in the described environment we are faced with. One in which accused people are penalized prior to their ability to explain to, defend against or even deterine the name of their accuser.

I did indeed edit my earlier post and it was in-part because of your contribution. I asked for the RFW Family's thoughts on the matter because I do indeed respect dialogue from you and others with perspectives of there own. But I have no obligation other than to consume the information and opinions and decide if all, some or none of it will be adopted by me.

You obviously enjoy writng and seem to be articulate, intelligent and passionate - so if you feel so strongly - rather than commenting on my blog as an Anonymous One, start your own blog, use your actual name and stand behind the principles that you believe are right.

My goal is not to be your or anyone's hero. Nor did I aspire to start a crusade. I enjoy creating my RFW Transmissions. This came to me unsolicited and unwanted. I will comply with any authorized complaint, be 100% transparent and continue to speak from my heart!

I appreciate your participation in this forum and wish you the best.

Dave RFW

12:30 AM, May 27, 2011

Kwai Chang said...

Does anyone else think the complaints could be computer generated? The technique IS a lot faster than waiting on a court order. If 'anyone's data is so easily had, couldn't it become quite simple to fill-in-the-patsy?
Circumstantial evidence is as worthless as heresay...proof is primary...the solution is secondary...and the name of the culprit is the least important although it is paramount in the deliverance of justice...
The detective efforts are to be commended...but rule number one is to never assume anything. Otherwise, I see no reason NOT to continue...but I do think all avenues of possibilty need to be checked and rechecked.
Keep going, Dave...

Radio Free Wohlman said...

Hi KC,

Wise words and sage advice.

If you read the comolaints - you can easily dicipher that they are not computer generated.

They contain observations and comments regarding the offenses.

Enjoy your weekend!

Dave RFW

Phillip Dampier said...

Folks, people make up phony DMCA complaints ALL THE TIME. I don't run a music blog but have battled site scrapers and content thieves for several years now. They basically steal content and then slap ads all over nearly identical websites, and I've even dealt with a few DMCA complaints alleging I, as the original author, was infringing THEIR content.

When it comes to music blogs, there are two common reasons for DMCA complaints:

1) Jealousy/intimidation/revenge: These are often ex-bloggers or individuals who had their own blogs taken down by Blogger, etc., and instead of re-launching, they get jealous of the blogs still remaining, so they vow to shut them down. Sometimes it's a personal dispute, other times its a feeling a blog "stole" their music and repurposed it. Regardless, these are the DMCA complaints filed individually and come in waves in hopes the blog will be shut down.

2) eBay Resellers: There have been repeated instances of eBay music sellers going nuts because some out of print album they hope to make a killing selling has been posted, for free, on a music blog. Want to get music addicts to pay top dollar? Shut off the supply of albums available for free. This won't impact collectors who want the physical album for their collection, of course, but will impact those who just want to hear the music.

The major copyright enforcement efforts are NOT being directed at out of print material. They are not going to waste their time or resources on a blog posting an album that has been out of print for 30 years. The only exceptions I have seen are from independent distributors that acquire the rights to re-release out of print content commercially. Their names should be readily recognizable. If you get a complaint about material from four different labels of different music genres, it's a safe bet you are dealing with someone not authorized to make a DMCA complaint in the first place.

The law is quite clear. Only a copyright holder or their authorized representative or agent is allowed to file a DMCA complaint. An ordinary citizen with no affiliation is violating the law filing a DMCA complaint because they lack the standing to do so. A real complaint will usually come with a record label name, corporate holder, and contact information. A fake one comes with a silly handle.

And here we come to the counterclaim, the easiest way to restore your blog and music. I'm surprised no one has brought it up here.

The DMCA counterclaim allows you to basically force the complainant to put up or shut up. It also gets your blog and music restored. By filing a counterclaim stating the material is not infringing and the party bringing the claim has no standing to do so, the claimant has 14 days to file a lawsuit or else their complaint is dismissed.

Guess how many times these people file lawsuits. ZERO. In fact, you can sue them under the DMCA provisions for costs and damages associated with their false filing.

Phillip Dampier said...

In the real world, neither party is heading to a courtroom. Some music bloggers use this counterclaim form to automatically respond to every suspicious DMCA complaint they receive:

http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca/counter512.pdf

These are the blogs that go unmolested and are not shut down, even as others find their links deleted or their blogs gone missing.

After a sufficient number of counter-complaints, I've found hosting companies to be leery of future ones from these types and demand documentation before acting on filings. They might even do some legal threatening themselves when that isn't forthcoming.

In my own journeys, I've routinely had these people stripped of their own websites that scrape my content, had their ad network affiliations canceled, and have gotten them to bug off.

So don't be a victim to these people. A real complainant will readily give you their contact information and will use their real names, not silly handles like "Ebay Wise." Google has to follow certain procedures handling DMCA complaints, and those include your own counterclaims, so stand up for yourselves.

@Anonymous One: You are protesting way too much over someone you claim you don't know. I'm not buying it.

Radio Free Wohlman said...

Phillip,

Elequent and educational!

Thanks for your two cents on this matter, they will be well spent.

Dave RFW

Phillip Dampier said...

Thanks Dave.

I ran into this situation when trying to visit several lounge music blogs I frequent and found mass-carnage, mostly because of "Ebay Wise." Nearly a dozen of these blogger sites are offline because of this, although most will probably return under new names at some point.

I spent some time reviewing the original complaints and have some additional fuel to add to the fire.

1) The complaint refers to "Chappell & Co." which is a defunct entity. That company ceased doing business under that name in 1987! Its corporate name is Warner/Chappell Music, and it is the publishing entity for Warner Bros. labels.

2) What are the chances Warner, one of the biggest corporate entities in the music business, is going to file a legal notice under the name "Ebay Wise."

3) In reviewing some of the "infringing" material, I noticed a complaint for music from the Chuck Wagon Gang from 1936. While Warner/Chappell did hold publishing rights for some of their music, the album in question was not one of them.

4) In reviewing a handful of legitimate complaints from Warner and its entities, it was all business. They minded theirs and didn't tell Google how run its Blogger service. Yet in the aforementioned complaint, check out this very unprofessional part of the complaint:

"Location of copyrighted work (where your authorized work is located):
Thanks. This blogger previously warned on this blog, and the other blog was removed:
http://visitusinmusiccity.blogspot.com/

This blogger's intent to get around DMCA's, ignore copyright, and abuse
artists is made clear on such defiant postings as:

http://visitmeinmusiccity.blogspot.com/2011/03/plan-b.html

This violates Blogger.com TOS on engaging in illegal activities."

In addition to being grammatically challenged, this level of detail goes well beyond what a company like Warner/Chappell would ever submit themselves. All they have to do is demonstrate copyright ownership, and the DMCA does the rest. This person takes it to a whole different level.

5) You will find a long and sordid history of this clown under the more typical username ebay_wise. Check out this complaint's level of vendetta:

"Totallyfuzzy's two html posts are being used by zerozerofour.blogspot,
jensenbrazil and sircharliepalmer to promote and link to illegal downloads.

In other words, these three bloggers work with and have the password to the
totallyfuzzy bloodspot, and use it to get more traffic to their blogs.

Therefore, totallyfuzzy.blogspot is in collusion and in conspiracy to lead
people to illegal links, and should be shut down. The Totallyfuzzy post
done by Jensen even admits that there have been DMCA's and takedowns, and
that another Jensen blog was removed entirely. First Jensen promotes and
links to 16 new illegal uploads, and then remarks on 8 removals, and the
deletion of their sister blog jensenbrazil1.blogspot...."

http://totallyfuzzy.blogspot.com/2010/04/dmca-copyright-complaint-to.html

What I recommend is that you put together a single post and put "ebay_wise" and "ebay wise" in the title, calling it something like "Is your blog targeted by ebay_wise/ebay wise? Learn how to defend yourself" and then point people to file counterclaims so they can keep their blogs up and running.

Too many folks are being intimidated by DMCA notices. Most just repost new links, but after so many warnings, many blogs end up gone for good. It's worth investing a few minutes fighting the phony DMCA complaints than trying to re-upload what is sometimes years of work when blogger pulls the plug.

I am more convinced than ever this is either an eBay seller or someone with a grudge. It is certainly not Warner/Chappell.

The biggest pain of all is that there is no easy way to reach all of the blogs harmed by this clown. Many are history and it becomes next to impossible to contact them after that happens.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...