Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge: eBay Not Liable For Bootleg Recordings

Posted by Hemos on from the interesting-twist-on-the-cda dept.

Millennium writes: "San Francisco Superior Court Judge Stuart Pollack has ruled that eBay is not liable for bootleg music sold on its site. The interesting thing about this ruling: Judge Pollack based his opinion on the CDA, of all things."

3 of 81 comments (clear)

  1. Illegal *sale*, not recording by tapin · · Score: 5
    In a ruling late Tuesday, Superior Court Judge Stuart Pollak in San Francisco County dismissed a lawsuit brought by a Grateful Dead fan who sought to stop sales of illegal concert recordings of the band...

    Seeing as the band the article is talking about is the Dead, I have a feeling the author screwed that up slightly -- it should probably read: ...who sought to stop illegal sales of concert recordings of the band.

    No taper I've ever met has worried about "illegally" recording a band that allows taping at their shows. However, many of the tapers I know get downright pissed when someone sells live recordings -- their reasoning being, the band should be profiting off the music (sound familiar?) and not the fan; trading is fine, but if the band sees people selling live recordings (not "bootlegs" -- these aren't unauthorized) they might decide that no one's allowed to legally tape at their shows anymore, and then the people who do it for the music are SOL.

    Personally, I'd never buy a live recording -- chances are, any show I'd be interested in getting (which probably wouldn't include any Dead shows, frankly) would be available for free by trading with someone who had better equipment at the show in question, anyway.

  2. Ruling says it's IDENTICAL to Napster by Morgaine · · Score: 5

    You only see a difference because in each case you're reading the ruling from the point of view of the party bringing the suit. That doesn't reflect how things work at all.

    Judges almost never rule anti-establishment (it's career-limiting), and in this regard the ruling was identical to that in the Napster affair in which big business won out over the small guy. The item in dispute is irrelevant --- lawyers can produce an argument supporting either view with equal ease. All that matters is which side big business is on.

    Here eBay is big business, so the deadhead was told to take a flying jump. Are you surprised?

    In both cases, the law acted identically.

    --
    "The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
  3. How is this different from Napster? by Speare · · Score: 5

    I can use one networked listing service to sell shady items, but I can't use another networked listing service to sell shady items?

    In what district is the Napster case being decided? In what district will this eBay case be appealed (cuz we know it will)?

    Two rulings on very similar cases that contradict each other: that's one of the tickets for Supreme Court review.

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]