Slashdot Mirror

> Multiple people cannot have the copyright on the whole of the song

Actually, for any given instance of a song, there's usually at least three copyrights on the whole of the song: the songwriter's copyright on the composition, the performer's copyright on the performance, and the recorder's copyright on the particular recording. The last one mainly comes up with bands that allow taping at their live performances, especially when multiple people are recording the same show, but it exists, and it matters.

There are also, as cpt kangarooski points out, circumstances under which the composition alone can have multiple copyright holders. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. An actual recording of a performance of a song can have dozens of copyrights on the whole thing.

Admittedly, there is a small "free music" faction on slashdot trading their public-domain folksongs,

Actually most trade our recordings of live concerts. I only support artists that allow and support free-air recording at their concert and the trading of that material.

OH you think it's a tinly number of bands that allow this or are no-name indie bands that suck anyway? Shows how little you know...

Take a look at one of the many databases of bands that allow you to tape the concert you are at. Taping includes up to portable DAT plugged into the mixing console with some bands if you ask early and the sound board operator likes you.

Personally I trade a HUGE collection of mp3 songs recorded on my MiniDisc and iRiver from Tragically Hip concerts I make it to.

I also do the evil deed of not have purchased a new RIAA CD cince 2001. I buy them used and that hurts the RIAA more than piracy does.

Funny, we're talking about license and you're talking about criminal acts. When you talk about copyright and patent law, promissory estoppel (aka "I said it's okay") is an acceptable defense. In criminal matters, it may or may not be - in your example, if AC happened to own the bank, it would be fine.

Some bands give permission to tape and trade. Those bands, by giving their permission, have made it such that you cannot be successfully prosecuted for doing so. You remain an Anonymous Idiot, and should never, ever try to post about the law again.

Wiki List which points to:

this

and that.

This is going to become more common. As a recent Pew survey of musicians showed, most artists think of the internet as a way of getting their word out. 99.99% of artists have no real chance of landing on the RIAA monopoly push money train, regardless of merit. For them, you and I enjoying their music is pure promotion and about the only chance they have of their recordings becoming something that gets lost in the attic. Performance is demanding and few people have the inclination to tour for 30 years. Music is still a get it today because it will be gone tomorrow kind of thing.

Expect to hear from the RIAA soon. :P

I love how much power people give to these weasles. The RIAA stands for the Recording Industry Association of America. They have no interest in concert recordings unless they have already been recorded and distributed by an record company that is a member of the RIAA.

Also there are 692 bands/artists listed here and available for easy download and another 1200 or so listed here that allow noncommercial recording and trading of their concerts.

No, the defining feature of file swaps is that you're swapping files. If you have the permission of the copyright holder then it's perfectly legal to swap those files via p2p.

This already goes on at etree. Does the slashdot crowd turn a blind eye to this because they are looking for "pop(ular)" music? I would hope that the folks here are willing to step out of the mainstream and support bands that allow taping.

Regards

you can have your observations, but they are moot.

SUPPORT THOSE BANDS THAT ALLOW THE FREE TRADING OF THEIR MUSIC!

I just went to a Dead show in Joliet, IL (I am still smacking myself for not going to the show in Somerset, WI as well as it is on my way home from IL). I saw quite a crowd there to see moe. (they didn't play due to a wrecked/rebuilt stage the night before), Robert Hunter, Bob Dylan, and The Dead.

Amazingly enough, these bands allow and promote the free trading of their music. Somehow, they are still able to turn QUITE a profit, make some INCREDIBLE music, and even have a steady following (Bob Dylan and The Dead have been playing for what 40+ years?)

Here's a list of bands that you SHOULD be supporting.

DMB, a band which is more in the mainstream, makes a pretty penny on CD sales AND touring sales. Imagine that, someone who allows his own stuff to be taped yet makes a profit.

So, you have people trading crappy live recordings made through sub-standard microphones, placed 100 yards away from the performers, that picked up the sound from so-so PA speakers and fed a consumer-grade portable recorder insisting that they need lossless compression for the audio treasures that they that they exchange.

What's otherwise a fairly interesting piece of hardware has no relation to the RIAA, so it's given one to make it more interesting.

I've been bootlegging shows with something known as a Digital Audio Tape (DAT) deck for years. I just moved to something known in taper circles as a "laptop with a S/PDIF card in it". These devices, on the surface, seem quite tame at first, as well.

When I saw this thing, I knew my illegal concert bootleg-creating days could continue on!

You are clearly deluded if you think evil music pirates such as myself won't take full advantage of this device. Expect to see me stealing all sorts of live concerts with this thing in a couple of years, and sharing them with everyone I know!

- A.P.

Actually, further is just an extension of things that have been going on for years. It goes all the way back to the Dead and people trading tapes from the reel-to-reel masters of a show, etc. There's a long standing tradition of many bands that allow taping of their shows, and trading (without profit) of those tapes.

Recently, this has been extended to the digital world, with furthernet being only the most recent addition to the mix. There's also (most prominently) etree.org which is the backbone of a system of FTP servers coupled with mailing lists that distribute ligitimate live music.

So, to touch on your fear that "sharing may not be legal" and that "the RIAA could[n't] care less what the bands want," in this case, the sharing is legal, and the RIAA can't do nuthin' about it. The RIAA does not have copyright on a live recording, simple as that. The copyright for that show belongs solely to the band that played, and they have the right (and many exercise this right) to a) allow people to tape them and b) allow those tapers to freely trade their tapes.

It's not just hippie music, either. Metallica (ironically,) Pearl Jam, and Radiohead are a few bands whos live music is freely tradeable. A very incomplete list of bands who allow recorders at their concerts and subsequent trading can be found Here

burris

Yes, you can find bad apples in any bushel, but that doesn't mean that the whole bushel is rotten. DAT-heads members maintain a list of more than 600 bands that allow and even encourage their live performances to be recorded and traded, via MusicCity or otherwise.

What you fail to realize that the copyright laws, in their present form, are stealing off of you and me and everyone else. Copyright is supposed to encourage the useful arts and sciences for the benefit of the public . It is clear that the copyright laws of today are written not to benefit the public, but to preserve the excessive profits of a few major corporations. Disobedience of unjust laws is not only justified, it is our duty as citizens.

Current copyright law doesn't even benefit the artists. There is much less live music in this country than there was 30 years ago, before the wave of corporate mega-mergers hit in the music industry. The etree model of music distribution is preferable to the copyright-heavy oligopolic distribution model we have today. It works like this: Musicians derive their income chiefly from live performances. In turn, they allow their fans to record the live performances for free, and trade the recordings for non-commercial use only. The recordings serve to generate a larger following, so demand for live musical performances rises, and the venues are always filled. The Grateful Dead outearned Micheal Jackson in his heydey using this approach. Today, the model is being increasingly used, and there are hundreds of taper-friendly bands . The benefits to the public are both immediate and far-reaching: Not only are most of the live recordings free, but this also has the effect of increasing the total number of musicians by encouraging live musical performances, as opposed to spinning discs in nightclubs. Just as importantly, it has the effect of cutting out the middleman, the huge corporations that impose their "corporate tax" on everyone else to benefit no one except themselves.

In a world where you can't stop people from copying your work (unless you never release it), I think artists and authors will find that they make the most money by letting their work spread into as many hands as possible and make it as easy as possible for people to tip the artist, no matter where they get the work from.

The Grateful Dead pioneered this model by giving away their live performances. Phish showed that anyone could become successful this way, it was not something unique to the Grateful Dead. Now there are a bazillion Jam Bands that allow recording and trading of their concerts. Pretty soon they will be able to actually get income directly from tape trading as well!

Burris