boycott-riaa.com - Article: An interesting letter from the RIAA to Gary Shapiro

An interesting letter from the RIAA to Gary Shapiro

Posted by CodeWarrior on May 25, 2004 at 10:12 PM (printer friendly)

Here's an interesting letter in a PDF file from the RIAA to Gary Shapiro. It is apparently an answer to an earlier letter to the RIAA from Mr. Shapiro. The letter from Cary Sherman, is dated April 24,2004.

I urge folks to read it !

http://cryptome.org/RIAA-CEA.zip

Apparently Sherman faxed it as well, and included a copy of Mr. Shapiro's earlier letter.

(Those of you may remember from Mr. Shapiro from his appearance before the hearing regarding the DMCRA amendment. He was one of the most articulate speakers for OUR side).

Sherman signs it "Cary"....awwww, isn't that cute?
:)
[Ed. note- in observance of the "confidentiality" notice in this document, I am not reprinting any portion of the communications myself.]

NOTE-Read please====Folks, I do not and cannot delete any posts you make to a thread and decide to change, so, please make sure that what you post is what you want to post.
Thanks

User Comments (These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)


raoulduke1	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 10:14 AM "install a buy button" Ha Ha HA what a simplistic asshole!

ronnie71	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 10:21 AM what happen to my other posts on this subject? Hammer of Justice and mine... how about this FUCK YOU CARY SUE... (i intended to say that)

ronnie71	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 10:25 AM I like how Gary Shapiro told him RIAA has no rights and its none of RIAA business. RIAA is patsy scapegoat organization that is funded by labels: Major Labels include: Sony, BMG, EMI, Time Warner, and Universal.

CodeWarrior	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 10:28 AM Ronnie...will answer in a DMusic note

ronnie71	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 10:40 AM I like how the RIAA letter had a disclaimer that this cannot be distibuted to unknown blah,blah, blah and if does end up on accident that they would remove it at no charge to you. To bad they didnt give Brianna this choice!!! I have come to the conclusion that RIAA's death will be slow and still think its winning kind of like the knight in Monty Python's the "Holy Grail" that had know legs or arms but still could bite you to death. RIAA is a patsy scapegoat orginization who supported by labels : Major Labels are Sony, BBG, EMI, TIME WARNER, and UNIVERSAL.

NiceGuy2003	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 11:24 AM So let me get this straight. If I want to know what the weather's gonna be like on a particular day I'd have to pay a fee to get it off the radio? When is Cary Sue going to understand that you can't place a price on a digital file mainly because the lack of a finite supply. With infinite supply, there is no demand and therefore no way to set a price.

ronnie71	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 11:26 AM I need some answers: How many lawyers work for the EFF? I need a list of copyright lawyers? How much would cost to put a lawyer on a retainer? I guess the best lawyers would have a higher retainer fee? How many students could we get that are studying law right now that could help us with like research? Is P2P illegal? or is just the sharing of copyright material or is it the downloading of copright material? What is the odds of someone getting sued? How much information on P2P is authorized material is there a source to find detailed information on P2P? Has RIAA proven one case in thier favor? Just cause someone infringes dont they have to prove harmful intent? How many people use P2P? Who are our allies? DMusic, boycott-Riaa, P2P United? How many cases have been settled so far? Was the cost of each one? Does anyone no a good publicist thats on our side? Code can you write pulbicity letters? I thought you said you had worked for a newspaper or was an editor or something? Do you still have contacts if you were? Do we have a face for our cause a champion or maybe someone who has been sued? What artist support our cause? Would they be willing to buck the system? I know the answeres to some of these questions, but i got to know for sure cause it will be my ass on the line if we are wrong on some issues. Please send me the answers to these questions. Send me a DMusic note at ronnie71.dmusic.net

ronnie71	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 11:28 AM and the final question Will you support us?

nyer82	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 11:44 AM This post was one of the most interesting.

DeadMan2003	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 12:07 PM That letter is so creepy and boot licky. I hope Mr Shapiro see's through the bullshit.

compmore	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 1:13 PM I find interesting is that Carey Sue is constantly calling for an cooprative meeting between all interested parties (consumers are not included as one of the interested parties though) so that a proposal can be put forth to the FCC Translation: lets all get together in a smoke filled back room and hammer out a monopolistic agreement to screw artists and consumers more and make us rich. then we can put on a united front that the FCC can't ignor

PipzUK	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 1:36 PM Interesting that Sherman used the phrase "OWN ... the content" - yet all along we keep being told that we own the media but we DON'T own the content. Asn, as Shapiro quite rightly points out there's a LOT of digital radio over here in the UK both through traditional radio channels and as radio streams on Freeview (out terrestrial digital TV system) - many of the radios come with optical output for linking digitally into mini disc recorders and soundcards - yet nobody's given a second thought to illicit copying of music (and here's it's probably actually illegal as we don't have the same "fair use" provisions as the U.S.A.. To be fair right now it's a pain to do unless you want to record a complete live set or something as there's a lot of editing to do. Of course that will change over time and no doubt the enterprising soul who creates the software to do this with one of the readily available computer cards with a DAB chip will be heralded a hero (or the antichrist, depending upon which side you're on). However, I can't see it ever being possible to scan multi-channel automatically and be lucky enough to be just at the start of a track that's on a "hit list" the only way is to record one station and after each song starts abandon the recording once it's identified as not being required - still all a bit of a hit and miss affair. The BIG fun comes with the increase in the number of channels that can be carried by digital radio, there's scope for channels catering for every taste under the sun (and nothing to be gained by having all the channels sound the same as there won't be any money to be made), it may be that for the people who find a channel to their liking they never (or hardly ever) need to buy music again, sometimes the randomness of a good radio channel and it's ability to surprise, delight, and inform about new music (thankfully clearchannel isn't here - yet!) it much better that reclusively playing your own favourite hits over and over again - IMHO RIAA and co should be more worried about this scenario than any other. Bottom line of this is that Sherman and co. are stuffed, they can't charge for the original broadcast (over and above the statuary rights currently in force) so what they worry about is "on demand" - you can listen for free just so long as you don't get to choose when - so remember, when you next (if ever) download a piece of DRM, lossy crap you aren't even paying for the music, you're just paying for the "right" to be able to play it at ten past six in the evening (or whenever) - a dollar (or in the case of the UK nearly two dollars) to timeshift a "damaged" 3 minute song is a lot of money for something that should be a fundamental right. Sorry for the rant!

CodeWarrior	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 1:54 PM great rant! I enjoyed it. :) ~Code

leflaw	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 2:50 PM If someone wants to copy the text of both letters and post here, the hell with their claim of "confidentiality." Its not, and I don't respect it.

crackedup	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 2:57 PM Is it just me or is the link to the letter down? could someone please post it elsewhere or paste the txt here please ?

TechnoPuppet	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 3:12 PM Same here crackedup....can't pull the site in. Tried http://cryptome.org and that didn't work either

compmore	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 3:22 PM I've got the file saved on my computer I could send the file to someone who can change the format to post it.

crackedup	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 3:26 PM compmore: animeman@pacbell.net I can convert it.

Lachatte	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 3:26 PM crackedup, Techno: Click on the link that Code posted at the top of the page. You have to download the file. http://cryptome.org/RIAA-CEA.zip

captdunsel	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 3:34 PM error message. :( If anyone else can provide a different link it would be appreciated.

carla60626	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 3:41 PM I think Cary would sell his mother (or a one-time use of her) if he could.

carla60626	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 3:41 PM I can type up the letter an post it here.

compmore	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 3:46 PM crackedup it's on it's way. it's a big file so I hope your email can handle it

compmore	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 3:46 PM I should've sent you the zip file

carla60626	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 4:07 PM not sure if the formatting will come out, but here goes

carla60626	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 4:09 PM April 14, 2004 Mr. Gary Shapiro Consumer Electronics Association 2500 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA 22201 Dear Gary, We understand that CEA has asked the FCC to deny interested parties the opportunity to address the very important issue of content protection as part of the upcoming consideration of final rules for the adoption of a transmission standard for digital radio. We are disappointed that CEA has taken this position. We thought it might be helpful to clarify our position on this issue generally, and to respond briefly to several arguments you have made. More importantly, we want to reiterate what we have said before -- that we hope to work together with you and your members, along with other interested parties, to find common ground on these issues and to ensure that digital radio becomes an exciting new way for consumers to enjoy music. RIAA has not asked the FCC or otherwise proposed any limits on the current ability of consumers to copy over-the-air radio programming. Setting aside the legal issues associated with such copying, our concerns about unprotected digital radio transmissions are not about consumers who may push a record button to tape a recording as it is broadcast by a terrestrial radio station. Rather, we are concerned that new devices manufactured by your members will enable radio listeners to become owners and worldwide distributors of a personalized collection of sound recordings. Specifically, our understanding is that the next generation of digital radio receivers would grant the unfettered ability (1) to redistribute recordings widely, whether on the Internet or digital media and (2) to automatically copy and disaggregate from a broadcast particular recordings of the user�s choice, thereby transforming a passive listening experience into a personal music library � in many cases without the user even listening to the original broadcast. These features, especially when combined with inexpensive storage devices, would fundamentally change the character of broadcast radio from a listening service to a distribution and on-demand reproduction system, displacing the sales on which the entire music industry relies. CEA has set forth a number or arguments to forestall discussion of our very real concerns. Let me briefly respond to those arguments: 1. Our ability to propose a �licensing structure� or technical solution on our own is precluded by the fact that Ibiquity is a private company with a proprietary technology. We do not have access to the proprietary technology owned by Ibiquity, and therefore are not in a position to offer licensing or technical proposals. Only Ibiquity can license its proprietary transmission standard. Precisely for this reason, we contacted Ibiquity last year to request that it include content protection in its digital radio transmission technology. Ibiquity told us that it could easily accommodate content protection, but that it would like regulatory approval before doing so. That is why we have asked the FCC to address the issue. Contrary to your assertion that content providers have not made a �request� on the subject of content protection, we have done so repeatedly and at the roundtable discussion specifically referenced in your letter. 2. A �multi-industry process� has not taken place because CEA and other parties have made clear their desire not to participate absent FCC action. We would very much like to engage in a multi-industry process with your organization, its members, and other interested parties to discuss the contours of content protection for digital radio, and to jointly propose rules to the FCC for adoption. Unfortunately, you have made clear that you oppose content protection, as you did at the roundtable discussion. Further, because of the anomaly that copyright owners do not have rights with regard to the public performance of sound recordings by radio broadcasters, record companies and artists cannot compel you to participate � unlike the DTV situation where content owners could demand protection of their content before licensing their programming for digital broadcast. Again, if your point is that you would participate in a multi-industry discussion, we would very much like to begin that process. 3. The threat to the recording industry of unlimited redistribution and automated copying of recordings chosen by listeners is obvious and should be addressed now. Your argument that the FCC should not even consider the issue of content protection because injury has not yet occurred would illogically require us idly to wait by until the moment of impact instead of preventing that injury now. Ibiquity has told us that the device manufacturers themselves are requesting guidance on the parameters of functionality relevant to our concerns. Wouldn�t it be better to avoid the legacy device issues that complicated other content protection efforts and provide certainty to the marketplace sooner rather than later? We also point out that a lack of content protection will forever preclude a myriad of new business models that could benefit your members as well as other interested parties. For example, device manufacturers could provide �buy buttons� that would offer consumers the ability to quickly and easily purchase music that they hear on the radio. Indeed, iBiquity [sic] has said that it would like to offer to consumers, for a fee, on demand weather and traffic reports. The same opportunity could and should exist for music, the bread and butter of radio broadcasts. Conclusion We very much would like to work with you and your members to find ways to ensure that creative works are protected and new market opportunities preserved, while consumers enjoy digital radio. We propose that we begin the multi-industry discussion that you lamented have not yet begun. We stand ready to begin that process now so that the rollout of digital radio is not delayed. We hope that you will consider the benefits of a new, collaborative approach to these issues, rather than the confrontational tactics of the past. Sincerely, Cary Sherman

crackedup	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 4:10 PM yea got it thank you for your effort converting now

crackedup	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 4:10 PM ^^ nm

compmore	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 4:24 PM Carla should have finger cramps by now

carla60626	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 4:32 PM Fingers are a little warm, but I love typing :) Coming up, Shapiro's response letter.

carla60626	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 4:37 PM April 15, 2004 Mr. Cary H. Sherman President Recording Industry Association of America 1330 Connecticut Ave NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 Dear Cary, Thank you for your letter of April 14. We always look to work in partnership with the RIAA, but are puzzled by a number of statements in your letter, as well as your belief that longstanding and legitimate consumer recording practices suddenly pose a threat to your industry. First, contrary to what you claim, CEA has never refused to meet with the RIAA in a multi-industry context. No such offer has been extended. In fact, I am unaware of any RIAA expression of interest in digital radio, or its technologies, before the January 30 FCC roundtable, although the standard setting process has been underway for over a decade. Second, you claim that you have �repeatedly� asked the FCC to address the digital radio content protection issue. I was particularly surprised by this, since there is no record of any such communication having been filed in the pertinent FCC docket, which has been open for a long time. There is also no indication in the docket that you provided the FCC with any basis for jurisdiction over this issue, despite your counsel�s suggestion at the roundtable that he might do so. Also, as noted in your letter, there is no content �license� at issue because RIAA members have no licensable right that could be a basis for imposing limitations on free broadcasts. Finally, you state that you do not wish to limit the ability of consumers to record over-the-air radio broadcasts. Instead, you apparently want to force them to buy what they have received for free since Fleming and Marconi first made it possible for consumers to hear news and music over the public airwaves. As you know, we have long been concerned about content owners seeking to change the �play� button on our devices to a �pay� button. At least you have addressed the semantics by suggesting new devices come equipped with a �buy� button. Based on your letter as well as your industry�s statements at the FCC roundtable, you appear to be seeking a government mandate precluding, limiting, or charging for the private, noncommercial home recording of digital radio programs. Among other troubling issues, this approach directly contradicts RIAA�s January 14, 2003 �Policy Principles on Digital Content� which read in part: Technology and record companies believe that technical protection measures dictated by the government (legislation or regulations mandating how these technologies should be designed, function and deployed, and what devices must do to respond to them) are not practical. The imposition of technical mandates is not the best way to serve the long-term interests of record companies, technology companies, and consumers�The role of government, if needed at all, should be limited to enforcing compliance with voluntarily developed functional specifications reflecting consensus among affected interests. Little more than a year after this statement, you are not only seeking government intervention to limit noncommercial home recording rights, but you are doing so without having met even the most minimal burden of showing that an actionable problem exists. As you are aware, hundreds of thousands of digital radios have already been sold in Great Britain, yet you offer no proof of harm to the recording industry. Indeed, the various consumer recording practices your letter warns of could be easily accomplished today using commonplace analog radio data service (RDS) technology combined with the digitization of FM broadcasts, but there is no evidence this is occurring. The FCC docket is also devoid of any showing linking digital radio to the unauthorized peer-to-peer file sharing of music. If you are seeking a consensus technical specification or standard with respect to digital radio copy protection, instead of calling for federal mandates the appropriate course would be to devise a technical proposal and work with the appropriate standards bodies. Where, as here, proposals are preliminary and unfocused, issues often are first aired at the multi-industry Copy Protection Technical Working Group. (CTWG). [sic] You will recall that RIAA initially was a co-chair of this open forum, which is always attended by members of CEA, representatives of HRRC, consumer advocates, and other interested groups and their members. After establishing the Secure Digital Music Initiative � which apparently did not produce any proposal relevant to your digital radio concerns � RIAA ceased attending the regular CPTWG meetings and has not returned. In fact, the CPTWG was meeting at the very moment you sent your letter, but to my knowledge no one from your organization was in attendance. In closing, let me again reinforce that non-commercial recording of freely broadcast over the air radio programming is a fundamental consumer right, and one that has consistently been given great deference by Congress. Any discussion of curtailing that right, prior to even the most minimal showing of harm, is ill conceived and premature. Sincerely, Gary Shapiro President and CEO

captdunsel	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 4:52 PM .....and the horse you rode in on. Way to go Mr. Shapiro! I think I'll have this framed.

compmore	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 5:26 PM I loved shapiro's response. he calls Cary on all his theiving lies

compmore	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 5:27 PM who was worried about this getting out?? probably Sherman

crackedup	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 6:43 PM Thanks so much for typing that out Carla, Im sure it was time consuming, very much appreciated.

carla60626	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 9:13 PM nah, I typed it fast -- like 80 wpm.

carla60626	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 9:13 PM but thanks, and you're welcome :)

boggieman	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 9:24 PM Well......boycott-riaa is 2nd on the google search....so....It is OUT now......too bad for Mr. Sherman.

tomsong	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 9:45 PM I need a typist who won't drive me crazy.

tomsong	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 9:46 PM By the way, OCR (optical character recognition) works amazingly well these days.

carla60626	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 9:51 PM tom, did you see the archived link to the DMCRA committee hearing?

independentm...	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 10:04 PM ".....and the horse you rode in on. Way to go Mr. Shapiro! I think I'll have this framed." Excellent observation and suggestion captdunsel. I am C&P and printing it out and hanging it on my wall right now! Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy Support Local and Independent Music!

tomsong	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 10:22 PM I met Shapiro few weeks ago. He gave a powerful presentation at Future of Music. I'm sure Bill Hudson will agree with my asessment. Thanks to Leflaw for enabling me to attend. Meanwhile take a look at Shapiro's testimony before Boucher's DMCRA Hearing: http://files.dmusic.com/video/dmcra_shapiro.mov

tomsong	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 10:25 PM This clip requires Quicktime. Suck it up people, get the QT plugin. Get with the program. Keep your eye on this space tomorrow, more to come. Jack Valenti rode rollerskates backwards claiming with some fire & brimstone that he never made the statement about the Boston Stangler.

ronnie71	Date: May 26, 2004 @ 2:35 AM if anybody has yahoo messenger my ID is ronnie_73018 and will send them a file of the letter!!!! Have a nice day :)

independentm...	Date: May 26, 2004 @ 7:32 AM I am thinking of making high quality prints, or engraving in wood/bronze plaques and selling copies of the two letters. We could sell them on ebay and donate the proceeds to eff and creative commons, etc... naw, that would be copyright infringement. :)

Remye	Date: May 26, 2004 @ 8:10 AM "We very much would like to work with you and your members to find ways to ensure that creative works are protected and new market opportunities preserved, while consumers enjoy digital radio. " this line is total bullshit. It probably SHOULD read.. "We very much would like to work with you and your members to find ways to abuse creative works, protect our pockets and see new market opportunities exploited, while consumers pay through the nose for digital radio. " people enjoy listening to the radio for FREE!. My parents drive OTR, and they have two fmx recievers in the truck. They record stuff like NPR, Larry King and I'm sure a few songs, and they pay for the privilege with a subscription fee. They would cancel it in a second if they had to pay more for less. And speaking of paying more for l have to wonder who else is going to pick up the burden to pay for all of this crap Cary wants? Does that mean that "commercial free music" will go away? I'm thinkin that's the case, since the fees wont' even begin to cover the cost of doin business, but that's just my (nonexpert) opinion. Good for Mr. Shapiro! He calls every one of Cary's lies, and provides real information in his rebuttal. This guy is on the ball, and Cary Sue should be very afraid if he pisses this guy off. ttmmm

CodeWarrior	Date: May 26, 2004 @ 8:23 AM I think that Gary Shapiro is an excellent advocate for our issues, and it is obvious that, as Remye said, Sherman is leary of antagonizing the group Mr. Shapiro represents.

independentm...	Date: May 26, 2004 @ 8:55 AM Shapiro is a businessman, but he also "has a clue." Shmoo

Guitar-n-Nic...	Date: May 26, 2004 @ 11:59 AM The music "industry" has evolved over the years to embody structure that in and of itself is monopolistic and one-sided. There is NO less talent out there today than there was in the 60's - the difference is if you don't break into the "industry", your almost forced to play cover tunes to make some cash to survive on. Not many venues are looking for performers who do original music, and those few who do go all out pursuing their own music - throwing the proverbial dice - because the unfortunate reality is the industry, in its current form, is deathly sick. I do not want to point the finger of blame at the talented performers who have made it in the industry, but for those clawing at the doors to get in? Its just not fair. If you haven't recently, go out and check out/support some live music - not all but many bands are outstanding and talented. A shame, it is. There is an army of talented musicians on the outside of the industry. It seems evident the RIAA wants to cook up something - to further the pay for top echelon performers and industry folk in the form of royalty pie. Man, are they trying to keep the high tower intact or what? But the guy-wire cables are snappin' - I can hear 'em... PS - Good Reading - "Confessions of a Record Producer" - Moses Avalon. Amazingly excellent/uncensored book about a record Producer in the industry and his tales of industry tactics used to separate the artist from $$$ - for those few who do get in. Many sharks in the water - beware. Whew - sorry all - had to get that out.

carla60626	Date: May 26, 2004 @ 12:25 PM Too bad most of the live venues permit smoking -- I can't take that. The Jazz Showcase in Chicago was one of the only non-smoking venues around. Don't know if it's still in existence. I don't really care for jazz though.

TheRealJFM	Date: May 26, 2004 @ 4:11 PM One thing, on the UK level, it is theoretically possible to rip freeview broadcasts perfectly. Freeview is based on the MPEG II standard, and thus audio is practically MP3 already (one version up infact from "Mpeg I Layer 3"), therefore digital ripping is already very easy. Secondly, the new 8-day EPG is now coming courtesy of the BBC, meaning programs and their broadcast times are clearly available for a week ahead, the idea meaning people can set recorders to get a series of programs. However, unlike DAB, the true song titles are not usually shown on the radio stations. However, DAB does not have an EPG, so you can't set any "recording device" to find a song. So to get a track you'd have to find a chart show and record them all to disc. Now where have we seen that before....? Besides, in the UK all BBC public radio (including copyrighted songs) are available to listen to after the transmission on the BBCs website - http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/ Anyway, all this is totally legal because the new EU copyright law, evil though it is, still allows the consumer to "timeshift" recordings, and allows consumers who act in "good faith" to make copies of recordings. So.... the reason they don't argue about the UK is because they can't. The UK's digital network is based on freedom (hense the name Freeview), and all channels broadcasting under the Freeview banner CANNOT use encryption or macrovision. Of course, this is (apparantly) why the BBC lost the rights to 24 - they refused to add macrovision to boost the DVD sales. Now Sky (subscription/encryption based satellite) broadcast the show to a much reduced audience, and it seems as though the cost of the DVDs has gone up. Anyway, from what I see, encryption, digital key, etc is used to increase the price of DVDs by preventing people making videos taped off the TV. So what if I can use the net to transfer the recording, I could give a friend a copy of the tape.

crackedup	Date: May 26, 2004 @ 9:36 PM Connection Rejected: 149.101.1.32 - US Dept of Justice (05-26-2004 @ 16:35:18) Connection Rejected: 68.163.90.10 - tst inc riaa host (05-26-2004 @ 16:35:18) :[ Ive been recieving these every other hr for the past 2 days now.. Im feeling paranoid.

CodeWarrior	Date: May 27, 2004 @ 9:10 AM Here's the scoop...One of our members,Wayshot, is a genius. He noted that some of the images on the news page were hotlinked to the RIAA site and DOJ site. When an image is "hotlinked" back to a server, your browser goes to that site and requests that image. Someone had put the RIAA and DOJ logo on a couple of articles, and when your browser tried to load them, it was told to go to the RIAA and DOJ sites to get the pictures. When that happened, PeerGuardian would say, HEY NO WAY WE GO THERE, and would report it as a ping from those sites. I relinked the pics elsewhere, and now, it is fixed. BIG thanks to our resident genius Wayshot. Great detective work Wayshot!