New London firm polices music-sharing

The long arm of the law has shown up across the Web’s music-sharing sites. A company based in the United Kingdom, Web Sheriff, has taken on an increasingly visible role in policing music-sharing sites, BitTorrent trackers and other sites providing downloads of copyrighted tunes.

The London-based firm has 30 workers who scour the Web on behalf of musicians such as Prince and Van Morrison, telling offenders — politely at first — that allowing their music to be downloaded violates copyright laws. After a quiet first five years in business, the company has begun taking a larger role as it gains new clients, says John Giacobbi, the company’s president. It’s ready to add a U.S. operations office this year.

“Most of our clients happen to be in the U.S. rather than over here (in England),” Giacobbi said.

For much of its work, Giacobbi said Web Sheriff tries the carrot approach, urging fans or site managers to comply with requests to remove tunes under copyright.

When a stick approach is needed Giacobbi says he’s capable of using legal means to go after alleged offenders. While individuals who run fan sites may get “cease and desist” requests, Web Sheriff is more focused on big sites that allow widespread sharing.

“Our goal is to tackle piracy, not go after fans of bands or artists,” said Giacobbi.

That approach comes from his background as a corporate attorney for a number of U.K. music labels. The company’s client list includes record labels, music publishing companies and film studios.

Reactions to the sheriff run the gamut. Many BitTorrent fans and some diehard file sharers regard Web Sheriff as a ham-fisted corporate tool. Others view it as a necessary corrective to rampant music piracy on the Web.

Jez Proctor, a musician who posts his own music and mp3s of other artists on his own site, has agreed to remove any material that Web Sheriff says violates copyright.

On his site Proctor has a statement — “If you are an artist (or represent an artist) being featured on here and want me to take down a song — let me know and it will be removed from the server immediately” — which is his way of complying with the Web Sheriff approach.

Giacobbi said most individuals who operate music sites, such as Proctor, tend to cooperate with requests for file removal.

In some cases, site operators even give Web Sheriff the option of having site access. “We have established agreements that let us take down any files ourselves (on sites) that violate the rights of an artist,” Giacobbi said.

Web Sheriff does not use technical tools to interfere with a site or add bogus files to some sharing sites to discourage piracy, he added. Its primary method is identifying the people who run targeted music-sharing sites.

Once the person is contacted by Web Sheriff, that person usually understands he or she can face expensive civil or even criminal charges, Giacobbi said.

He said two major successes in recent years were the dismantling of a fake Village People site, based in California, and a hugely popular ring of sharing sites devoted to music by Prince.

In both instances the process was essentially the same. Using traditional gumshoe detective work, the company found the individuals who had tried to run the sites anonymously. The first requests, by e-mail and then regular mail, produced no results.

Then Web Sheriff started making phone calls to the operators, and that started producing results.

The Village People site was more than a fan hangout, Giacobbi said. The owner sold merchandise and allowed music downloads to visitors, he said. After the first phone call the operator agreed to shut down the site, Giacobbi said.

The Prince takedown involved a ring of sharing sites called The Royal Hub, based in Europe. The sites were essentially nonpublic and used a variety of tactics to remain underground. Because Prince had hired Web Sheriff to target those and other sites, Web Sheriff took the unusual tactic of infiltrating the site and learning the names of the chief operators. That led to the main sites all being shut down.

“Once they lose the cloak of anonymity, these people are exposed and know they can be taken to court for this activity,” Giacobbi said.