|
Fozzie
|
Date: March 13, 2001 @ 12:54 AM
irony. |
|
superpimp
|
Date: March 13, 2001 @ 2:56 AM
I still hope mp3.com dies in a flaming e-biz dotcom death |
|
arc
|
Date: March 13, 2001 @ 3:26 AM
and why's that? |
|
doobybrain
|
Date: March 13, 2001 @ 5:14 AM
yeah, i would like to know why too.
[doobybrain] |
|
doobybrain
|
Date: March 13, 2001 @ 5:14 AM
well, i guess they ruined it for themselves.
[doobybrain] |
|
T666
|
Date: March 13, 2001 @ 9:07 AM
Chris, If MP3.com have writen to you stating T666 "were using a cheating scam to help their way up to the top of the charts", then please forward this email to me.
From all of the people who have emailed MP3.com in relation specificaly to T666, noone has alerted me to having recieved any information such as you have suggested.
As you know T666 will be releasing a statement in defense to the MP3.com descison to remove T666 from the charts VERY SOON, so i suggest you wait for that before you make your mind up on this one. We also intend to display with the detailed statement the original MP3.com Artist Table and Graph Statistics for T666 to demonstrate exactly where our song plays came from in an attempt to prove our success was genuine and did not breach anything in their Disqualification Terms. |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: March 13, 2001 @ 11:02 AM
This is an interesting situation. One I would like to know more about. Do you (T666) have a web page that is accessible. One that will have your side of this story? |
|
p0ppe
|
Date: March 13, 2001 @ 11:08 AM
www.t666.com |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: March 13, 2001 @ 11:22 AM
T666 are taking their time to write more lies to 'prove' they didn't cheat. T666.COM has no detailed 'their side of the story', just a stupid rant. Next time think before gaming, you wankers. |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: March 13, 2001 @ 11:24 AM
So clicking links from another site is bad? Tell me how that is wrong? Bifg deal if you happen to get a link on a igh traffic site isn't thata reward for hard work? |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: March 13, 2001 @ 11:33 AM
You really don't understand how warez & porn click and link scams work, do you? |
|
T666
|
Date: March 13, 2001 @ 12:18 PM
W W W . T 6 6 6 . C O M
www.T666.com |
|
Livingdeadgrrl
|
Date: March 13, 2001 @ 12:29 PM
i love t666 |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: March 13, 2001 @ 12:40 PM
*anonymizer
Are you trying to say you have never downloaded porn or checked out warez. Im going to start a porno site and im going to send all my visiters to T666
*.anonymzer fuk you nerd!
Dmusic has about 10 pop up windows i never asked for but i dont mind becasue i chose to visit this site. |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: March 13, 2001 @ 1:09 PM
who has the proof??? have any of you seen proof, no your innocent until proven guilty.. so im still hangin with dave, i think there is a little something going on here with these boards, someone is not familiar with laws because you now can get in trouble... |
|
nu11-pb
|
Date: March 13, 2001 @ 1:31 PM
Well I'm still sticking David D. Whether people like it or not, proof is needed to back up a statement. If this weren't true we'd all think the earth were flat. So as stated before by others...I'd like to see the proof please. Logs, Charts, Ip's whatever. I just want to get my facts straight before pointing a finger. I'm sure that's reasonable enough.
all your base are belong to us. |
|
p0ppe
|
Date: March 13, 2001 @ 2:12 PM
What's surpricing me, is that they weren't caught eariler, IF they cheated. |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: March 13, 2001 @ 4:09 PM
Whoops! Looks like your ass is offline very soon.
I thought America was the hottest place in the world for lawsuits, and look what you done did! |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: March 13, 2001 @ 4:17 PM
Fact: People complained about T666 on MP3.com message boards regarding gaming the system.
Fact: MP3.com investigated the matter and found T666 in violation of their terms.
Fact: It happens to more than just T666. Cheaters are commonly shutdown. |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: March 13, 2001 @ 4:34 PM
and where do you find this information from?? because guess what.. the email that i recieved said... "However, at
this time, they have some material that is on hold. And, until that information
has been updated and approved they wouldn't be accessible on our site. Furthermore, as soon as they get that information approved you will be able
to access their music from our web site once again." which does not give me any reason to believe that they are under investigation for CHEATING huh? hmm odd how u can manage to get in here and change the subject... |
|
doobybrain
|
Date: March 13, 2001 @ 6:58 PM
its not clicking links that is bad. its the way they in a way, "forced" people to download or stream (or whatever) their songs when in reality, the person probably didnt want to.
[doobybrain] |
|
doobybrain
|
Date: March 13, 2001 @ 7:01 PM
thats true that this does happen to many bands. its just that this one stands out because they actually made it to #1 by the way they cheated the system mp3.com was going by.
[doobybrain] |
|
B00MER
|
Date: March 13, 2001 @ 7:55 PM
mp3.com can suck a left nut for all I care, their service bites and is still geared towards pop culture bullshit or pubscent kids posting their lame ass music. I need to delete my account. |
|
-dave-
|
Date: March 13, 2001 @ 8:46 PM
The kinda funny thing, is that the band is the type who would benifit from negative publicity...
While negative publicity for a group like N*sink wouldnt do all so good...
What a fun world. |
|
Phreakywoman
|
Date: March 13, 2001 @ 9:38 PM
Well, if mp3.com has PROOF they cheated, I'd love to see it. I don't think it's true though. The email I recieved from mp3.com was so lame, it offered no explanations. |
|
arc
|
Date: March 13, 2001 @ 10:14 PM
david,
I have received confirmation from Michael Robertson (CEO of MP3.com) that T666 were involved in the cheating. The argument that you were removed for the content of your songs, or because they wanted to cheat your band out of the money has been proved untrue by Michael, there are plenty of bands out there with content similar to your own.
Now if there's been a mixup on MP3.com's side then I'll retract what I said. But at the moment I think they're the best informed on this issue, and would be able to analyse their logs properly to determine whether there was any cheating involved or not.
If you have any problems with this then feel free to drop me an email, but at the moment this is all the information I have. |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: March 13, 2001 @ 11:09 PM
Dmusic, where is the original dmusic.com message board that had 60 messages from T666 fans.
dmusic.com/news/news.php?id=4379
why did you delete this message board and are you trying to get a job at mp3.com. They like deleters. |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: March 13, 2001 @ 11:20 PM
Your a f**k Chris! Stop acting like a jelous teenage school geek-wannabe and grow up. Keep jerkin mate!
|
|
Anonymous
|
Date: March 13, 2001 @ 11:25 PM
ok, let me say something..
what can you call cheating?
have your friends listen to your songs, invite everyone you know to listen to your music? i think 100% of the bands do this, and i dont see it as illigal activities, after all, mp3.com provides this possibility...
cheating would be you hack up mp3.com archieves and change your negative rating to the best of the world.
T666 is a great band, and very respected everywhere on the underground as far as i am concerned.
If mp3.com doenst want to have this kind of problem, they should review their policies, they should rebuild their structure, and obviously not crucify bands as T666, which in my opinion did what all bands do.
So what if thers sites linking to the bands mp3 files from mp3.com?
isnt that ok? why does mp3.com have radio stations?
what counts in my opinion is the fact that the band is really being heard, and noone can deny that, in my opinion, the only person, or organization to lose credit in all this is the MP#.COM web site, for being unloyal to the bands in their server...
its sad to see this happened to a band of friends of mine, a person who introduced so many people to mp3.com and brought a huge amount of traffic to their web site..
im terribly astonished, and maybe even angry is some way, after all, how can you give credit to a organization who cuts your profits and makes you seem like a bad guy..
i think this story should be well talked out by everyone, and i hope everyone doeas question mp3.com about this fact...
im sure that if the public were to vote for this, mp3.com would lose the cause, and without public what will be of mp3.com
fortunately thers other sites out there doing the same thing, uploading bands music, and hopefully they are better intention with the bands who bring them public..
|
|
Anonymous
|
Date: March 13, 2001 @ 11:27 PM
This hole place is corrupted. I hope T666 kills you all. |
|
susey
|
Date: March 13, 2001 @ 11:33 PM
mp3 still suck, and this fucked up site sucks too, who deleted my last message on T666??? |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 1:14 AM
whadda fuck up
i agree wif that anonymous bloke (or chick)...... that poa.terra.com.br
u need proof b4 u can say that sum1 cheated..... so until that.. and prolly after that still.. i m wif david |
|
arc
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 3:29 AM
how about a written confirmation from the CEO of mp3.com? do you think the authenticity of that information may be correct? i do.
and i'd like to know how it's odd that i can change the subject?? if i wasn't provided with incorrect information from t666 in the first place then there'd be no need for me to retract my original statement, would there? |
|
arc
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 3:31 AM
we deleted it because the article was INCORRECT. we don't want to provide the users of this site with false information, so i've unauthorized it. that is the logical thing to do. |
|
arc
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 3:32 AM
Jealous of who exactly? MP3.com? No. T666? No. |
|
jark
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 5:34 AM
Apparently you need to read the rules of how MP3.com's schema works. Any linking methodology that would allow a download to automatically start without the intent of the individual clicking the link to be that of downloading the song is considered a violation of the rules. Because of this, and the fact that T666 was using a "scam" of this nature, MP3.com pulled them from the site.
Try reading and doing a little thinking prior to opening your mouth. |
|
jark
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 5:38 AM
How about MP3.com having the proof?
There is this little variable called HTTP_REFERRER that allows websites to track what document referred to a particular link on your site. For example, we can see here if someone clicked a Yahoo.com link in order to get here. So, based on this, that would be one method in which MP3.com would be able to track things. Then while perusing logs they could see an unusual amount of referrering from a particular document. Because of the unusual amount of traffic generated from that referring document, MP3.com representatives probably surfed to see what it was, only to find out that the song download was automatically starting, without their intent being to do so, which is a clear violation of the rules.
Simple...just stupid of T666 to not do their homework and to assume that they would not get caught. |
|
jark
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 5:39 AM
Why not just admit to the fact that there was cheating rather than beating around the bush, dragging this on and carrying on? It would make things so much easier.
Fact is that T666 is going to be lucky if they dont get sued for violation of the rules... |
|
jark
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 5:41 AM
Just admit it and get it over with before you continue to lie all while digging your very own grave that much deeper. |
|
jark
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 5:42 AM
rofl...yah, we all want jobs at MP3.com. Get a life... |
|
jark
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 5:46 AM
Your direct personal attack on Chris is just further proof that you've lied and cheated and are too incoherent to see that you have been made. Rather than carry this on continually, and make personal attacks on people that YOU manipulated into writing a story that made it look like MP3.com was bad, maybe you ought to retract your own statements. Show that you're a man.
...but I forgot - you're not, otherwise you wouldn't have lied and cheated the system, just to make a quick dollar, to begin with. the irony about it is that you're trying to get a record contract with the very companies that do just exactly what you did: lie, cheat and steal. the only difference is that they steal from the bands whereas you stole from the company. |
|
jark
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 5:47 AM
the irony of all you people bitching, mostly folks with a .au domain, is that you're all somehow connected to T666. do you people actually think that the folks reading this are stupid enough to not see through your pre-pubescent lies? |
|
spot
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 9:57 AM
hahahhahahaa... you want to talk.. all you silly dicks posting as 'anonymous' register for a account. Show that you actually care enough to tell the world who you are before you bitch and moan. |
|
tack
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 11:11 AM
Proof? T666 never managed to pull up any logical explanation as to why a standing company would suddenly delete a popular band. That should have clued us off in the first place. The fact is, T666 was aware of the MP3.com policies, and thought they could skirt around it. They got busted. They got deleted. End of story. Dmusic and MP3.com have tons of other bands that made it to their success the old fasioned way, and in my mind, they'll always be that much better than some little hacks who couldn't even run their own scam right. |
|
jjewel
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 11:11 AM
Seams to me this could be solved pretty easily, with a little effort on T666's part.
OBVIOUSLY, mp3.com thinks they cheated. Too many people listen to T666 in too short a time, or from the same IP, or whatever.
But, (and this is the important part,) what does T666 say they did. What did T666 do (that T666 thinks is not cheating), that MP3.com think IS cheating.
Did they load songs automatically from web pages?
Did they ask the same 200 people to keep listening to their songs over and over?
Did they just put a link on their web page, and ask people to "click here to listen to our songs"
In other words, what has T666 done to make MP3.com THINK they cheated?
|
|
tack
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 11:13 AM
the best replies are usually coherent. |
|
tack
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 11:15 AM
Why? Because of the fricken rules of the site. It doesn't matter beyond that.
T666 signed up under those rules, and they broke them. There's no review, no martyrdom. They screwed themselves. They can go back to being nobodies now. |
|
tack
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 11:18 AM
How naiive can you get? You think you're going to get anything substantial from them if they don't even know you? You got the "cordial business reponse" because that's the smart thing to do.
You can't even show your face on here, I don't know why the hell you expect to get concrete information from another company without a name or face. |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 11:47 AM
Okay, here's a bit of coherent for you, smartass.
What posses someone to write a leader condemning T666 for cheating when nothing definite has been stated from either camp? Surely this leaves Chris wide open to get his pimply ass sued? I like a bit of danger, mind, but I do think one should be a little more cautious in writing this sort of piece when the jury are very much out on the whole issue.
(I suppose it would be fine if there were a ' these opinions are those of the author and do not represent...' kind of addendum to the site, but there isn't, is there?
Peace, love & light. |
|
doobybrain
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 4:21 PM
yep. well said.
[doobybrain] |
|
doobybrain
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 4:22 PM
what a horrible thought. i;m starting to think t666 has corrupted YOUR minds.
[doobybrain] |
|
doobybrain
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 4:25 PM
and by the way...its "whole" not "hole". smartass.
[doobybrain] |
|
doobybrain
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 4:27 PM
if the "public" was to vote, they'd probably win because their fans would try to cheat their way into voting a gazillion times. haha.
[doobybrain] |
|
arc
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 7:10 PM
Anonymous (*.vml.lib.mi.us), please get a fucking clue. we're not saying that warez is bad. we're saying that when music starts automatically streaming from the web site without the users intent then that's bad. read up a little on the subject before making moronic comments. |
|
arc
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 7:13 PM
Why on earth would mp3.com give you the required information? They don't have to justify their actions to a fan of T666. You aren't directly involved, therefore you can find out through T666. |
|
arc
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 7:20 PM
rofl.. i'm going to get sued now for writing facts?
you've commented "when nothing definite has been stated from either camp?"
actually, i've had direct communication with both camps. if you'd read the other comments here, you would've seen that i've had direct confirmation from mp3.com. they really wouldn't make a mistake on an issue like this, and felt strongly enough about the first article to email us with the correct facts.
i've spoken with david, and even though i've asked him three times why the songs automatically loaded off web sites, my questions have been ignored. interesting.
i'd like to see this issue in court. only i wouldn't be the one getting sued, it'd be a band for attempting to cheat mp3.com out of $2000. |
|
arc
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 7:21 PM
rofl. |
|
arc
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 7:22 PM
In other words, what has T666 done to make MP3.com THINK they cheated?
^ read the article. |
|
arc
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 7:29 PM
You know, it's interesting that you're all saying "T666 didn't cheat". The problem is, every single time I ask why the songs automatically loaded off a warez web site without the intent of the user who clicked the link, everyone seems to quieten up.
The fact of the matter is that the songs automatically loaded off the web site without the users intent, which is CHEATING. When the band signed up to MP3.com's services, they agreed not to do this. And then they broke that agreement they signed. Therefore they got terminated.
Now how about you stop saying "T666 didn't cheat!" and provide me with some raw hard facts that shows why automatically streaming songs without a users intent isn't breaking MP3.com's policies. 'Nuff said. |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 7:33 PM
I have been a metal listener for quite a while, T666 sounds like a group of no talent computer hacks who play repetitive, growling garbage. MP3.com is just the place for this joke being passed off for metal. They both suck as far as I am concerned. |
|
McDeath
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 8:02 PM
Surely, until T666 are proven guilty, the original article can only be deemed INCOMPLETE, therefore an update in the body of the message board would be more appropriate. I believe I am not the only one to have had things to say on the original board that are not invalidated by Chris' change of stance. |
|
arc
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 8:40 PM
how could i update or append to what i had already written, when all of it was wrong? why not just write a new article? you can easily post your comments here. |
|
Surtr
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 10:27 PM
How do you prove that T666 made the songs automatically play without the users intent? For all you know T666 could have known absolutely nothing about that. I agree with jjewel. They deserve an explanation... |
|
Surtr
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 10:40 PM
I think that if T666 really did cheat, they would just drop it. Since they are actually spending money on a lawyer, and will end up spending more than they earned, I doubt they were cheating. |
|
RuNeGiRL
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 10:45 PM
What the shit is this....A band that isnt main stream gets high up on the list, and everyone screams scandal. Give it a rest, Ive seen T666 HOUND people to vote for them on Mp3.com
Do you really think that they would actually cheat...they are musicans not fucking Ex cons. God you people need to get a life and remember its the fucking MUSIC, not your no balled we need a story accusation bullshit. No wonder most local bands dont make it, they have to put up with Britney Spears pimping whores that think they know about music fuck around and write shit they cant back up. Give it up.. |
|
arc
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 10:47 PM
in the highly unlikely event that this was what actually happened, it still means that they haven't earned the $2,000. if this was what happened, then the band would not of risen high up the charts, and would not have earned all that money.
either way, in the terms and conditions on mp3.com it states that they have the right to cancel an account if they suspect there has been any cheating or gaming involved. it's not like they have the resources or times to check into this kind of thing all the time, hundreds of bands are deleted from mp3.com for incidents similar to this. mp3.com wouldn't email and research every single incident in the unlikely event that the band was not involved with the gaming or cheating. david and the band should've known about the warez site anyway. if the band had analysed their statistics they would've seen the high amount of clickthrough's generated from this warez site and notified the webmaster to take the song down. |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 10:50 PM
Do you know how to understand written text? Try it.
Read the article. Read the postings. There has been an explanation. T666 didn't get the playback honestly. Give it up. THE END. |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 10:57 PM
i agree wif the jjewel person 2 as well as rune gril.
what is this man??????????
what is it that they did 2 cheat? every1 talks bout this warez site... well list the site, a warez site.. ooo lots of those.. how u say that they did that??? how u know they ave n e thing 2 do wif that??
the closest thing they have 2 cheating is having links to the file on a site like sayinf listen 2 t666 or sumfin.. and asking people 2 go and listen 2 their songs.. and isnt that what it is all about??
i know david better than i know all of u.. so if he sez he aint cheating.. as far as i m concerned.. and until i see actual any proof, like records or statistics or anything like that, i aint believe no bullshit, he didnt cheat.
oh and posting anonymous? well hmm, i cant be bothered getting an account? so y should i? just so i can post this god damn msg? i dun fink so.. |
|
Surtr
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 10:57 PM
Being underground + popular = cheating |
|
arc
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 10:59 PM
I know that T666 really push the band to get people to vote for them in the charts. However, do you really think they can hound 50,000 people in one day to do this? If these 50,000 people actually visited t666's band page on mp3.com and clicked on the songs, then there would be ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for mp3.com to take them down. That many people visiting the site would be EARNING mp3.com a lot of money, not hurting them. think about it, mp3.com are in the business so that people will visit the site and the bands will become popular. it makes no sense whatsoever for them to cancel an account that's earning them money. it isn't about the content of T666's songs, there's plenty of bands on mp3.com with similar content. also, they aren't trying to cheat t666 out of money, as this money would just go to another band instead. read some of the information on mp3.com, all the royalties that the bands earn come from a fixed amount of money in a pool, and distributed to artists based on how many clickthroughs they get. so if T666's account get deleted, the money goes straight back into the pool and the other artists are given the money instead.
So they weren't deleted because of their lyrics, they weren't deleted because of the money, so what other possible reason would they get kicked apart from cheating?
and if you took a look at the content of this site, you'd notice that we push a lot of unsigned bands. |
|
Surtr
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 11:02 PM
Why does everybody think David is a complete idiot? I don't get that from him... |
|
arc
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 11:07 PM
that's not what happened. read the news article and the comments a bit more. like i've said, the song automatically started streaming without the users intent, which is cheating.
there's nothing wrong with asking people to go listen to their songs, but that's not what happened. |
|
arc
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 11:10 PM
please find where i called david a complete idiot and i'll apologize.
can't find it? oh, thought not. |
|
arc
|
Date: March 14, 2001 @ 11:14 PM
uh... underground + popular doesn't really make sense.
underground + talented yes, undergroud + popular no.
besides, we've got plenty of underground type bands on dmusic. we don't oppose underground bands, we oppose cheaters. |
|
tack
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 12:43 AM
why does everyone call this a change of stance? It's not a change of stance. It's not like this is a two sided issue.
There's the false side, and the true side. Arc is just doing his best to get back to the truth, since the band didn't give him all the info to begin with. |
|
seik
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 1:32 AM
heh - just registered - and i had several pop-ups to see - celebrity?? wamu mortgage?? carmen electra?? - the search matrix? - heh ppl - all we dont mind to make cash for dmusic...:) - do you have proof we dont call any secret mp3s of mp3.com???:) anyway, i know T666, im not from au and i do web development for living - so i have some experience in security of the hest companies servers etc
well mostly american ones
one question - is there any proof that ppl from T666, i mean members of T666 personally did what Mp3.com ppl declare to happned? if so - i want to see it - and i will respect MP3.com experts
if they have nothing to show - CEO of mp3 should better kick these "experts" from the company...and apologize to T666 ppl - -comments on that? |
|
jark
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 3:11 AM
what does that have to do with the discussion? |
|
jark
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 3:20 AM
it doesnt matter if T666 did it personally or not. what matters is that they were earning money that they did not have a right to make. whether they created the site or not is the issue. whats at issue is that when people visited a certain website a download, which generated money for T666, was automatically started from MP3.com without that user specifically requesting the song. the intent was NEVER to start a download of a T666 song by visiting this particular URL, but rather for something else (that which is not important for the sake of this discussion).
that fact alone negated any and all earnings generated by the automatic downloads that this particular site started, which the sum of, allowed T666 to climb to the top of the MP3.com charts. this has NOTHING to do with their music and EVERYTHING to do with them skirting the system.
face it...they got caught. end of story. grow up and admit it rather than denying it.
...or maybe they are trying the plausible denial route, where a friend who runs a site hooked things up so that they could climb the charts, all the while T666 can claim that they "had no idea" they were cheating. that, though, is something that i highly doubt. |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 5:50 AM
MP3.com has been sued by an insurance company over the online music company's demand for a payment of $5 million to cover millions of dollars in losses resulting from its copyright violations. Westport Insurance says in the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan that San Diego based MP3.com is seeking $5 million toward the $170 million it set aside for settlements.
Westport refused, saying it denied coverage because "MP3.com misrepresented its business practices, engaged in willful violations of the U.S. Copyright Act, and entered into settlements without Westport's prior consent." In its lawsuit, Westport asked for a judicial declaration that it is not liable for any loss caused by the illegal acts of MP3.com. Last year, a district court ruled that MP3.com had intentionally violated the copyrights of record labels when it let consumers listen to unlicensed music.
|
|
arc
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 6:24 AM
uh.. what the fuck does this have to do with what we were talking about? |
|
T666
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 6:50 AM
Chris,
You claim to have recieved an email from the CEO of mp3.com. You then used the information from this email to publicly slander T666. If the email from Michael Robertson was sent to you as a public explanation of an mp3.com ruling in this matter, then foward to me the original email from Michael Robertson so T666 may seek the proper legal advice in relation to mp3.com's public statement and ruling.
If Michael Robertson's email was sent to you in confidence, and you have upon your own volition as the editor of this page used the oportunity to slander T666, then we will also seek legal advice on your statements.
I suggest you go through this entire message board immediately and appologise for your premature statements in every instance including the topic statement, and where you replied to the T666 fans, or slandered T666. Deletion of this message board is not acceptable as many of people who have read your comments prior to this day, should be given the opportunity to one day return and read on.
Until both mp3.com and T666 have had time to deliver their public statements, it is not your place as the editor to slander either side.
I appreciate the comments of visitors and welcome differing opinions on the matter of why mp3.com did remove T666, but as the editer of this article your comments may have caused wrongful damages for which you may be held responsible. |
|
p0ppe
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 6:51 AM
I can't believe all these T666 fans. As soon as their fav band cheats, ,they start denying it.
THEY MADE $2000 BY CHEATING. That's money away from other bands who didn't cheat. Stop bitching. |
|
T666
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 6:52 AM
Chris,
You claim to have recieved an email from the CEO of mp3.com. You then used the information from this email to publicly slander T666. If the email from Michael Robertson was sent to you as a public explanation of an mp3.com ruling in this matter, then foward to me the original email from Michael Robertson so T666 may seek the proper legal advice in relation to mp3.com\'s public statement and ruling. If Michael Robertson\'s email was sent to you in confidence, and you have upon your own volition as the editor of this page used the oportunity to slander T666, then we will also seek legal advice on your statements.
I suggest you go through this entire message board immediately and appologise for your premature statements in every instance including the topic statement, and where you replied to the T666 fans, or slandered T666. Deletion of this message board is not acceptable as many of people who have read your comments prior to this day, should be given the opportunity to one day return and read on.
Until both mp3.com and T666 have had time to deliver their public statements, it is not your place as the editor to slander either side.
I appreciate the comments of visitors and welcome differing opinions on the matter of why mp3.com did remove T666, but as the editer of this article your comments may have caused wrongful damages for which you may be held responsible. |
|
d3bugg3r
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 6:54 AM
I checked it personally..
when T666 used Mp3.com service for
Payback for playback
there was NO spasific rulles agains
Deep linking..
All the surfers saw Mp3.com's Ads and only the people who had the Mp3.com cookie on their browser heard the Songs..
AND..
they couls stop hearing it anytime they wanted.. it was 100% opinial...
all what they did is playing T666 music as Background music for thay cirten site.. and there were NO rules against it..
Keep on the Good work T666 We all love you here on the Underground and support you no matter what... |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 6:58 AM
T666 rules |
|
seik
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 7:16 AM
heh:)
ok - i will try to grow up a bit more....i just wanted to see the materials Mp3.com used to take that decision
i dont care so much for T666 as they are real ppl and they could be able to take care for their interests...
you seems to care for mp3 com money too much...i dont mind
whatever, i still think mp3 com should provide better services re cheating...this is something they failed ...and as they are not so good at this - i have no reason to think they are right in this case too |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 11:25 AM
You are clueless. Give it up and go home.
Stop begging for press with your lies. |
|
ChristianKiller
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 11:40 AM
Ok this is what i think
I think that this whole subject is a bunch of fucking bull shit.I dont think T666 was scamming anything.I happen to fucking love T666's music and i went to mp3.com every single chance i could and voted for them.And i know lotsa people who also voted them alot because they are such a great fucking band.I think that people are being wussies because T666 is a new band that is growing fast and is not like that gay ass mainstream music.(PAPA ROACH)
T666 music is fast heavy and jsut insane.In my conclusion i think T666 has every fucking right to be on mp3.com's top 40 list.The earned there was to the fucking top because there music is great.
Tom |
|
jjewel
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 11:53 AM
I did read the article. It talks about what mp3.com claims T666 did.
What I'm saying is:
What does T666 say T666 did, that MP3.com would think is cheating.
for instance, if T666 says "all we did was have our songs load automatically only on peoples macines with the mp3.com cookie, and they could stop it whenever they wanted |
|
jjewel
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 11:55 AM
(sorry, hit the "comment button to soon".. but to continue:)
for instance, if T666 says "all we did was have our songs load automatically only on peoples macines with the mp3.com cookie, and they could stop it whenever they wanted", then (in my opinion) that would be cheating.
if T666 says "all we did was ask everone who visited out site to click here to hear our song, and tell everyone you know", then (in my opinion) that is not cheating...
does that make sense? |
|
jjewel
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 11:59 AM
to say THE END, without giving the accused a chance is completly unfair. It certainly SOUNDS like T666 cheated. but they should be at least given a chance to explain what THEY think happened. |
|
tack
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 12:01 PM
T666: He doesn't claim to, he _did_ receive an email from Michael Robertson, and reported on the situation. Also note that these are in fact NOT message boards, but news articles with comments and replies. No message board was deleted: a faulty article based on poor information that _you_ provided was made unauthorized (which, as has been already explained, does not mean deleted).
Be aware that because you may have misrepresented yourselves to begin with, YOU are legally subject to the same threats that you just made. |
|
tack
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 12:06 PM
What posses him? Notification from the CEO of MP3.com. Which has been said repeatedly.
Smartass. |
|
jjewel
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 12:08 PM
I agree that it is not up to MP3.com to prove T666 cheated. As you point out, their T/C says they can do what they want. But is it all possible that T666 is soooo good that they got 200 people to download there song, and they told friends, and the word just spread real fast? I agree that it is unlikely, but shouldn't we at least CONSIDER it until T666 has a chance? |
|
tack
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 12:11 PM
And yet, with every opportunity given, they haven't. |
|
tack
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 12:15 PM
none of us care a bit about mp3.com money. the only thing that matters in this and any other story is the truth, and the bottom line which jark wrote here and we've written all over the place is it. that's all it boils down to. |
|
tack
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 12:25 PM
den i cnat bee both3rd to reed ur messge |
|
Lestat138
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 2:22 PM
T666 fucking rules and thats why they moved up the charts. If they cheated where is the proof? and IS it cheating??? If they have alink on a high traffic site than that is good cause they will get more exposure. So before you go pointiong finger Smash the Fucking Cross. |
|
jark
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 3:27 PM
and this is the exact reason why anonymous users should be banned...because the relevance of this post is completely out of wack. what does this have anything to do with the T666 incident? |
|
jark
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 3:36 PM
nobody was slandered. we merely reported the facts. if you cant handle that then tough cookies. you, or whoever was involved in the "scam," will just have to face the facts: it was reported that downloads were starting without the intent of them being started by visitors to a specific site, or set of sites, and therefore T666 was not entitled to the money that which was earned by those illegitimately started downloads.
if you consider the report slander, this maybe you need to look at the definition of slander:
slander (n.) A false tale or report maliciously uttered, tending to injure the reputation of another; the malicious utterance of defamatory reports; the dissemination of malicious tales or suggestions to the injury of another.
If you think that the reporting of facts is considered malicious then you are quite mistaken. On top of that, there is "no place" that we need be concerned about. Nothing says that we have to await public statements from involved parties prior to offering information regarding the story. Many news articles are written without parties making statements or with the statements of only one side.
Problem here is that you manipulated Chris into writing the first article and are now hellbent on payback because of the expose of the scam. Too bad that you have little recourse based on your actions... |
|
jark
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 3:39 PM
hello? how many times do we have to say it? here, try this: there was no link but rather a download that started automatically, which was not the intent of the individual visiting that page. could it be any clearer? |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 4:00 PM
There is no difference between anonymous and registering a bogus nick. It won't stop anything. :-) |
|
arc
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 5:39 PM
Firstly the article was not slanderous in any way. Just because it had a negative view on T666 did not mean it was slander, it was an article based on facts that I have received from MP3.com. It's interesting that you had me write an article slandering MP3.com originally when they had not written a statement. It is our obligation to provide the users of this site with the correct facts, and as yet I have been provided with absolutely no reason why they would have deleted you. If I was not deceived in the first place by you, then there would be no reason to write this article.
Furthermore we are not obligated to send you any correspondence between the DMusic Network and MP3.com. |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 6:38 PM
man oh man what shits you people are. Id believe a band before Id believe MP3.com any day of the week. jesus cut em som slack. I know a lot of band on mp3.com use they same thing to get hits to their pages. Believe me if they gonna crack down then they should investigae every single band on mp3.com! they all are doing it!
|
|
Anonymous
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 6:41 PM
I'd side with the band before I'd side with mp3.com they sux big time and there are tons of bands doing the samething. I know as some told me they do! nothing new here... |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 7:27 PM
I received an email from mp3.com stating that "T666 has some material on hold, and until this matter is cleared up and taken care of, that they will be temperaily unavailble. As soon as they take care of this problem(s) then you can download them once again from our site...". Well, if T666 was under investigation for cheating, why didn't mp3.com state that in the email, instead of feeding us an obvious line of bullshit? T666 is a band that deserve all the best for their hard work and talent. Instead of be made the example of a modern day witch hunt. People keep saying the have proof that T666 was cheating, be it from the CEO of Mp3.com or other sources. Well, where is this proof? I think we, the fans, are at least entitled to that much. Show us the proof. Until then, stop the slandering(due to lack of info concerning T666's "cheating the system"). T666, David and the rest of you guys, you have a fan in the States. We await your arrival here to tear this place apart. Together we'll fight the battle being brought upon by Corporate Earth(be it America, Australia, where ever). Maybe one day soon we'll be able to fight side by side to stop this witch trial. You guys still have a fan in the U.S.A(the HELL HOLE). HEIL METAL!!! HEIL T666!!! |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 7:55 PM
Hello
I am Claudiu bass player in band Comandorul Hoisan.
Our site at mp3.com was closed and i recived an mail with this explanations:
Dear Artist,
Your page has been put ON HOLD due to allegations of offensive content on
your site. To have your site removed from it's ON HOLD status, please submit
to me the lyrics for your songs in English and the translation of your info
page in English.
Thank you for your co-operation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Damian.
I reply to this guy but till now he don't e-mail me.
Our songs reachd top positions in industrial metal charts and in speed&thrash charts and mp3.com owns us about 2600$
|
|
Anonymous
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 8:24 PM
Hey T666 Is a great band.
I first listened to them a couple of years ago and they got me since then I really respect their music.
If bands would play for fun the way those guys do it everybody would get along!
Tati |
|
Comandorul
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 9:21 PM
Hello
I am Claudiu bass player in romanian band "Comandorul Hoisan".
Our site at mp3.com was closed and i recived an mail with this explanations:
Dear Artist,
Your page has been put ON HOLD due to allegations of offensive content on
your site. To have your site removed from it's ON HOLD status, please submit
to me the lyrics for your songs in English and the translation of your info
page in English.
Thank you for your co-operation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Damian.
I reply to this guy but till now he don't e-mail me.
Our songs reachd top positions in industrial metal charts and in speed&thrash charts and mp3.com owns us about 2600$
|
|
T666
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 9:37 PM
Chris, be aware I am logging this entire message board in the event it strangely disappears, as did the previous one. I strongly suggest to you that you make no further slanderous statements against T666. Labelling T666 as being involved in a cheating scam, we consider is an absolute defamatory statement against us. We are seeking legal advice on this matter. I again strongly suggest that you go through this entire message board immediately and apologise for your premature statements in every instance including the topic statement, and where you replied to the T666 fans, or slandered T666. |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 9:38 PM
I can not vouch for t666, but I can say our site was shut down and wrongly accused. When talking to Rod, the only stats givin to us was our boost in p4p earnings. Its pretty harsh to ruin someones name on assumptions of p4p and no solid proof(they didn't give us no links to where we was deeplinking from...BECAUSE IT DOESNT EXIST). I know for a fact they are wrong in our case.
I am not sure if t666 did something wrong, but I can assure you .. there are a few of us who didn't do shit..but was targeted because of p4p boosting.
Look at t666 raw stats and see how many IP were playing more than one song. If he was blind linking..there should be like a bunch of IPs playing one song. In our case, we had 5 songs in the top 10 of our genre, with almost every single IP playing more than 3 songs. Only way to play more than 1 song..would to be actually at our site. So mp3.com can be wrong, trust me.
Good luck t6666. |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 9:43 PM
Any person that was cheated please Email
illnonish@aol.com
Send me the reason and how much p4p they owe you. |
|
Stefanie007
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 9:58 PM
T666 is a great band! And they're music kicks ass... A bunch of serious talent there....Im proud of David. Hes done a good job with this whole situation :) T666 RULES |
|
arc
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 9:59 PM
sigh.. read harder. |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 10:09 PM
Ok well you want proof? Well there is proof that MP3.com has broken international laws in the past! That will look really good goin into court, oh yes we did steal money off of people, and yes we did delete them without an investigation, in this country we are innocent until proven guilty. The only thing that mp3.com is going to have to testify with is log files which are open to the public for viewing! To make it better, look at all the damned fan sites they got kickin out there... they have auto-play's on stuff dont they? Cut the man some slack he isnt HUGE yet but you bastards are increasing his popularity faster then you know it! |
|
jark
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 10:35 PM
Just remember that the evidence regarding whatever happened between MP3.com and your band WILL come out in court and therefore you risk losing MORE than what you assume that MP3.com owes you. |
|
arc
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 10:37 PM
in mp3.com's terms and conditions it states that they have the permission to delete an account if they suspect the user of gaming or cheating.
so yes, they did suspect t666 of gaming and cheating, and they have the log files to prove it too. what they've done in the past has nothing to do with this case. the fact remains that they have the log files, they show that the band's songs automatically played on this web site and have therefore cheated. whether the band knew about the links or not doesn't matter. |
|
arc
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 10:38 PM
"Ok well you want proof? Well there is proof that MP3.com has broken international laws in the past!"
mp3.com breaking international laws means that every single decision they make is illegal? love that moron logic! |
|
jark
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 10:48 PM
from the Payback for Playback rules page, which is located here: http://www.mp3.com/payback/terms.html
(c) Audit and Disqualification: Sponsor reserves the right to audit any and all participant's Estimated Earnings at any time and without notice to a participant to ensure compliance with these Terms and Conditions. In the event an audit reveals discrepancies or violations, the processing of cash payments may be delayed until the discrepancies or violations are resolved. Any participant (or member of a participating band) who is determined by Sponsor, at its sole discretion, to be "tampering" with or "gaming" the Promotion shall be disqualified from participating in the Promotion for its duration and shall forfeit any and all cash payments earned under the Promotion. Sponsor also reserves the right to disqualify any band/artist from further participation in the Promotion if, in Sponsor's sole judgment, that band/artist has violated any of the Terms and Conditions described herein.
...
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: By participating in the Promotion, each participant agrees to release and hold Sponsor and the employees, officers, directors, shareholders, agents, representatives of Sponsor, its parent companies, affiliates, subsidiaries, advertising, promotion, and fulfillment agencies, and legal advisors, harmless from any and all losses, damages, rights, claims and actions of any kind arising from or related to: (i) late, lost, delayed, damaged, misdirected, incomplete, illegible or unintelligible submissions of music and/or other content to the MP3.com web site; (ii) telephone, electronic, hardware or software, network, Internet, or computer malfunctions, failures, or difficulties of any kind; (iii) failed, incomplete, garbled, or delayed computer transmissions; (iv) any condition caused by events beyond the control of Sponsor that may cause the Promotion to be disrupted or corrupted; (v) any injuries, losses, or damages of any kind arising in connection with or as a result of participation in the Promotion; (vi) any printing or typographical errors in any materials associated with the Promotion or (vii) claims based on publicity rights, defamation, or invasion of privacy. In addition, IN NO EVENT WILL SPONSOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY LOSS OF REVENUE ARISING OUT OF YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THE PROMOTION (HOWEVER ARISING, INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), EVEN IF SPONSOR WAS ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
sounds pretty clear cut to me... |
|
jark
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 10:54 PM
yet another, from their faq, located here: http://www.mp3.com/payback/faq.html
Q. Can I be disqualified?
A. Yes. If there is suspicious activity, cheating or gaming of the system, MP3.com reserves the right to audit any such activity and disqualify any participant. Cheating or gaming is any mechanism put in place by a participant that takes the place of real fans and users accessing their music through the MP3.com web site. If anyone becomes disqualified, a recalculation may be deemed necessary to finalize payment amounts and MP3.com retains the right to conduct such recalculations.
again, sounds pretty clear cut to me... |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 11:05 PM
http://www.cybersound.com/
A site which supports some artists who have been consistant on the Top40 chart. This page is a non mp3.com page yet has direct play links to their artists and i dont see any mp3.com sponsor adds. For example:
Good morning ! - [ Amok ]
. This artist has $35,727.59 US. |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 11:10 PM
Have you receievd an mp3.com newletter recently with Erik Clapton on the front page with direct play links to his songs?. Now Look at the TOP40 chart. He is no.1,2 and 3. Who decides what bands get featured on this mp3.com newsletter, and is it fair to other artists?
T666 owns Erik Claption! |
|
jark
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 11:16 PM
apples -vs- oranges regarding T666 owning Clapton |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: March 15, 2001 @ 11:31 PM
I just read the terms, and i cant see where it states anything about other websites supporting or linking to T666 songs. Can you try and think of a new reason for how T666 cheated becasue that one is bogus. Basically they are saying what kind of media you can and cannot use and they pass there own judgments in an unfair manner. Does this meen that people cannot stand up for what they believe in anymore? MP3.com says what we listen to just like mtv, im tired of seeing all of the hypocrits running around that are stuck up on themselves and cannot figure out how to get a life! I believe that goes along with our 1st amendment.. freedom of speach religion and press. LET US HEAR WHAT WE WANNA HEAR! |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: March 16, 2001 @ 12:16 AM
that is any INDERECT, i believe there is some form of direct herrasment to dave, because they dont feel he can get so big so fast.. hell thats how all bands do it, its like overnight |
|
arc
|
Date: March 16, 2001 @ 12:28 AM
Q. Can I be disqualified?
A. Yes. If there is suspicious activity, cheating or gaming of the system, MP3.com reserves the right to audit any such activity and disqualify any participant. Cheating or gaming is any mechanism put in place by a participant that takes the place of real fans and users accessing their music through the MP3.com web site. If anyone becomes disqualified, a recalculation may be deemed necessary to finalize payment amounts and MP3.com retains the right to conduct such recalculations.
If T666 didn't want to abide by these rules then they never should of joined MP3.com in the first place.
And also, it doesn't matter if they support T666, but when a song is played without a users intention it breaks the rules. If you don't like the rules, don't fucking join up to mp3.com, simple.
Have you even read the article? Get your facts straight. |
|
McDeath
|
Date: March 16, 2001 @ 12:32 AM
It seems mp3.com can send HTML-based emails, which may contain all manner of profiling/cookie tech that fires off as soon as you open the message and yet they don't like creative use of the net medium from anyone else, especially artists. The message is clear: 'We control the airwaves' . . . . |
|
arc
|
Date: March 16, 2001 @ 12:40 AM
well the fact that clapton has sold millions of songs throughout the world would be an indication that he's probably better than "billy bob's bushtucker band"
if you had your way, you'd put t666 in the newsletter right? well then would that be fair on other artists? no. same diff.
seeing as there's thousands of artists on mp3.com, they can't give mad props to everyone. |
|
arc
|
Date: March 16, 2001 @ 12:42 AM
uh maybe because the user actually CHOOSES to click on the link to the song, as opposed to being forced to play the song like what happened with the warez site.
READ THE ARTICLE PROPERLY |
|
Navigation