Slashdot Mirror
US Judge Strikes Down Bootleg Law
lee writes "BBC News reports briefly on a federal judge declaring a 10-year-old anti-bootlegging law unconstitutional, because it sets no limits on the length of copyright of live performances, and grants "seemingly perpetual protection" to copyright holders."
There is NO FRIGGIN WAY this is going to stand. The RIAA and MPAA will see to that. $$$
A BBC article on a U.S. court ruling? Maybe you could include a link to a U.S. based news source to balance that out.
thisnukes4u.net
The judges themselves have made copies. They probably didn't sell it on the street. But the concept of copy and backup is just too much of a thin line with boot legging.
By ERIN McCLAM
Associated Press Writer
September 24, 2004, 8:27 PM EDT
NEW YORK -- A federal judge Friday struck down a 1994 law banning the sale of bootleg recordings of live music, ruling the law unfairly grants "seemingly perpetual protection" to the original performances.
U.S. District Judge Harold Baer Jr. dismissed a federal indictment of Jean Martignon, who runs a Manhattan mail-order and Internet business that sells bootleg recordings.
Baer found the bootleg law was written by Congress in the spirit of federal copyright law, which protects writing for a fixed period of time _ typically for the life of the author and 70 years after the author's death.
But the judge said the bootleg law, which was passed "primarily to cloak artists with copyright protection," could not stand because it places no time limit on the ban.
Baer also noted that copyright law protects "fixed" works _ such as books or recorded music releases _ while bootlegs, by definition, are of live performances.
A federal grand jury indicted Martignon in October 2003 for selling "unauthorized recordings of live performances by certain musical artists through his business."
The business, Midnight Records, once had a store in Manhattan but now operates solely by mail and Internet. It sells hundreds of recordings, specializing in rock artists, from the Beatles to Led Zeppelin.
An e-mail message to Martignon from The Associated Press was not immediately returned Friday, and a phone number could not immediately be located.
Megan Gaffney, a spokeswoman for the Manhattan U.S. attorney, said federal prosecutors were "reviewing the decision and will evaluate what steps ought to be taken going forward."
The Recording Industry Association of America, a trade group that fights piracy and bootlegging, also disagreed with the ruling.
The decision "stands in marked contrast to existing law and prior decisions that have determined that Congress was well within its constitutional authority to adopt legislation that prevented trafficking in copies of unauthorized recordings of live performances," said Jonathan Lamy, a spokesman for the RIAA.
The bootleg law calls for prison terms of up to five years for first offenders and 10 years for second offenders, plus fines. It requires courts to order the destruction of any bootlegs created in violation of the law.
The law did not apply to piracy, which is the unauthorized copying or sale of recorded music, such as albums.
On the Net:
Midnight Records: http://www.midnightrecords.com
Bootleg law: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2319A.html
Copyright © 2004, The Associated Press
just took the Grateful Dead's enlightened position then there wouldn't be a problem.
I hate the Grateful Dead, but their attitude to the recording and distribution of their live performances is spot on!
Maybe I'm too old, but I thought this was going to be an article about alcohol.
No todo lo que es oro brilla
What, that's now ok too?
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
A sensible ruling on copyright terms?
Dear Mr. Bainwol,
I apologize for the unpleasant news you are probably reading this morning. We thought we had this one in the bag, but the opposing side actually made better use of solid facts and accurate analysis than we anticipated. I estimate more obfuscation will be needed to win on appeal. We will do our best though.
Sincerely yours,
Your Well Paid Lobbyist
Second, are most bootlegs recordings from the mic mix, or from the crowd? If it was the crowd, I ask again, why would anyone want these things?
Personally, I don't know why live recordings are sold. I don't think they're worth the money.
Here's Reuters
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
It's called Google news search.
b =wn&q=Harold+Baer&btnG=Search+News
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&ta
Didn't see that in the article.
Sure, here's the New York Post's article.
Or did you want a legitimate source? Try USA Today.
..."seemingly perpetual protection."
Isn't that the point of copyright laws? to protect the author/creator/composer/whatever?
Yeah, like it wasn't newsworthy when people egged Bush's limo during the inauguration procession back in 2001-- something which had never happened before to any President during their inauguration.
I still can't believe that the first time I saw that footage or even heard that it happened was when I saw Fahrenheit 9/11.
In light of that, it won't surprise me at all if this ruling doesn't merit a mention by any big-media news outlet.
"It stands in marked contrast to existing law and prior decisions that have determined that Congress was well within its constitutional authority to adopt legislation that prevented trafficking in copies of unauthorised performances of live music," spokesman Jonathan Lamy said.
So the performances were illegal?
A judge has struck down a law which bans the sale of bootleg recordings of live music in the United States.
Judge Harold Baer Jr, sitting in New York, dismissed charges against a Manhattan-based record dealer which had been brought under the law.
He said the law could not stand because it placed no time limit on the ban - unlike the limits placed on books or recorded music releases.
Prosecutors said they were "reviewing the decision" the judge made.
A federal grand jury indicted Jean Martignon in October 2003 for selling "unauthorised recordings of live performances by certain music artists through his business".
But Judge Baer said US law unfairly granted "seemingly perpetual protection" to the original performances.
US law defines bootlegs as being recordings of the original performances, as opposed to copies of already released music, such as live albums, which are dealt with under piracy legislation.
The Recording Industry Association of America criticised the judge's ruling.
"It stands in marked contrast to existing law and prior decisions that have determined that the RIAA can do whatever it wants to you, bitch," greedy spokesman Jonathan Lamy said.
from newsday.com
BY LOU DOLINAR
STAFF WRITER
September 25, 2004
Long before there was Napster, there were concert tapes, live recordings made and swapped by fans of groups like the Grateful Dead and Country Joe and the Fish. Those recordings have narrow constitutional protection from copyright, a judge in Manhattan ruled Friday, handing the Recording Industry Association of America's anti-piracy crusade another defeat.
The ruling came in the criminal case against a longtime fixture in the New York music scene, J.D. Martignon, owner of the Midnight Record store on 23rd Street in Chelsea. At issue was a federal law that criminalizes the sale of bootleg recording of live performances. U.S. District Judge Harold Beard said the law was unconstitutional because it sets no limits on the length of copyright.
Copyright law covers a work for life of the author plus 70 years. The 1994 criminal anti-bootlegging statute runs afoul of that legal standard because it "grants seemingly perpetual protection to live musical performances."
Martignon, a former rock singer and writer for a French music publication, had offered about 1,000 individual concert sessions for sale for between $10 and $20 per concert at his store, which closed after the government seized his stock as evidence, his attorney, Legal Aid lawyer David Patton, said. He could have gone to prison for 5 years. Martignon said Friday that he's still selling vintage recordings legally at his Web site, https://midnightrecords.com/ index.html, but he can't offer concert tapes pending appeal of the ruling.
"We are reviewing the decision and will evaluate what steps are to be taken going forward," a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office said.
Patton said Friday the ruling solely affects concert tapes of performances where artists do not record their own work for copyright or sale.
"This is not about illegally making copies of CDs," he said. Under the ruling, he said, artists can protect live works merely by recording and copyrighting them, and states can still outlaw live recording.
Edit: No sympathy for those selling pirated works. Jail the f*****.
> Copyright © 2004, The Associated Press
For those who are contemplating doing the same thing and risking the threat of civil proscecution, you better learn something about copyrights first.
I'm all for restrictions on copyright terms to reasonable limits...
But when you consider that it's illegal to record live performances ANYWAY there's no copyright on those recordings to begin with (because their illegit recordings the very nature of those recordings are outlawed) If the band makes a recording of that performance then normal copyright (and the usual limitations) apply.
So if it's illegal to make those recordings, then it's illegal to sale those recordings and it doesn't make sense for the judge to rule that those illegally made recordings should someday become legal because the copyright term has passed.
On the FLIP side however, if this ruling stands and it'll eventually become legal to sell bootleg copies... then it should be LEGAL to make bootlegs to begin with... because it's infringing on my right to someday sell those recordings!
I can understand why the guy had charges brought against him, assuming they were posted notices prohibiting the recording of the concert. I think that since bootlegs are illegal in the first place, that having a limit on the ban is silly. That simply invites people to wait for the statute of limitations or the copyright to run out, whichever ends up passing first. Then they ebay the cd or dvd for about 50 jillion dollars to rabid collectors. The only way to fight the problem would be to search for huge caches of no-yet-released bootleg recordings. Whether or not the industry is charging rediculous prices for albums doesn't change the fact that the artist and the company they're contracted to should get the money for their work. You can be certain that the record store owner wasn't sending a check to EMI every month with "your portion from the sale of home-made concert cd's" in the memo block. Don't our judges have better things to do than striking down laws that actually make sense?
I have heard quite a bit of Greatful Dead's music, and I still think they suck ass! So N'yah!
In the true rock & roll tradition, Midnight Records, the NYC bootleg store that was exonerated by this ruling, has an invalid certificate installed in their webserver. Apparently their server host self-certifies, without membership in a trust network including popular web browsers. It's these borderline operators, who take the risks at the edges of the protection of our liberty, who wind up protecting us all.
--
make install -not war
...a federal judge declaring a 10-year-old anti-bootlegging law unconstitutional
Well, this is certainly great for all those 10-year-old bootleggers out there.
ClearChannel has a program called Burn Live (the name was changed to "Instant Live"® after an unfortuante incident) that records most of the entire concert direct from the soundboards. Their deal with Worst^H^H^H^H^HBestBuy also has the CDs in those stores after the show.
Some people don't think Burn Live is all that, either. Note that ClearChannel is trying to lock out competition of their live CD burninating model by using the patent system.
Yeah, right.
Like these?
The judge is probably referring to Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution which grants Congress the power to grant exclusive rights for a limited time, i.e. there has to be some limit, even if it's a thousand years.
...[t]o promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
Here's the text:
Congress shall have the power
Distributing bootlegs on Zip disks, well, in the eyes of the RIAA, that's gotta be tantamount to murder.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, write technology blogs.
If you can't grasp subtleties like the fact that the constitutionality of a law is independent of the ethics of what the law prohibits, then you shouldn't be commenting on it. Dumbass.
Just out of curiousity, what is the Grateful Dead's enlightened position and attitude to the recording and distribution of their live performances?
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
The Beeb does cover this stuff more than some American news sources. But there are other British news sources that do the same things you speak of, and there are American news soures that do not.
The problem is you are over generalizing American news sources. If you did the same to British sources, you'd be able to make the same comments.
I also used "their" instead of "they're" and bad sentence structure, (because they're illegit recordings, the very nature of these recordings is outlawed) but that's what you get when you post after just waking up with a hangover...
And thank you for giving me a chance to correct myself!
The Constitution mandates that specific time frames for copyrights be established, and the judge has said that this is ambiguous about how long the copyright for this particular type of recording lasts. Unless the appelate court clarifies it by issuing a ruling saying that its length is already covered under copyright law, it will most likely stand. The courts don't like ambiguous laws, especially laws that are ambiguous where the U.S. Constitution is quite clear.
The only thing you have to worry about are those wackos on the Supreme Court. With McCain-Feingold they acted like they had never read the first amendment, but most courts aren't nearly that bad.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
The appeals process is intended to allow regress for those FOUND GUILTY. The law allows for no retrial of those found Not Guilty.
Maybe they'll win a case against someone else, but this guy's off the hook (until the next time they arrest him, on a fresh set of charges.)
Art Schools Dietzilla
I've seen hundreds of musicians in a live setting over the last 30 years, and can recount perhaps two times when all the conditions were as you describe as the norm.
They were in some small clubs in San Francisco in the mid 70's, I can't even remember who the bands were it was so bad, but that wasn't the norm by any means.
I remember once at the On Broadway (above the Mabuhay Gardens)when Jeffery Lee Pierce of Gun Club was so fucking drunk that he could barely stand up!
Now that sucked.
So, what kind, and how many shows have you seen to arrive at your sweeping conclusion?
That was my first thought too...
...
Never even considered the thought about concert tapes
Story couldn't have been about illegal copies of released works, since everyone incorrectly calls that piracy now..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Insightfull
I actually agree that that copyright should end within lifetime of the author, however, there is a good argument otherwise. At bottom copyright puts a value on original work so that people are encouraged to do it. How much "value" should be given is the question that determines how long copyright should last. If you make it real long then the author can sell his copyright for more money - even if he or she doesn't live to see its expiration.
Now whether copyrights should be allowed to be sold in the first place is another story. "Corporate" as opposed to personal ownership of copyrights is to me one of the reasons we are in this current mess now.
But LOTS of bands are awesome live, tired or not. Then there are those greats like SRV or Lightnin Hopkins or Myles Davis you'll never, ever get to see live unless it's a recording - so what do you do? These artists were great live and it would be a trajedy to lose access to those recordings - authorized or not.
That is the sort of errant pedantry up with which I will not put.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
you get the long version of the drum solo, and you get to see the groupies up front of the stage bouncing up and down
%^)
Thi isn't just about what artists want. There are numerous precedents that could be set by a law granting perpeptual rights, and few (if any) outweigh the public's right to information in a free society.
The constitution clearly spells out the formla - that those rights are to be a limited time, and they be exclusive - meaning I can license my work to you and not your competitor, meaning I have value doubly because you can be shielded from RICO type laws while signing me to an "exclusive contract." Without this exlcusive right to license, artists and creators of all flavors - even programmers who work under contract - would have even less protection from corporate exploitation.
Not mention in Technology
Not mention in Law
CNN/Money has the story
...is like shoplifting in Disneyland. It would be stupid to actively prosecute it.
Try stealing some minor toy at Disneyland. If you don't steal a 2m high Winnie the Pooh, they will let you get away with it. Just because the tagline "Disneyland, the kingdom of dreams where they jail poor shoplifting kids" just wouldn't fit.
In the same perspective, would you go to a concert of that cool rebel band that will put you to jail for making some shitty recording ? Don't think so.
This is an interesting decision. We had a protracted discussion about this section in my copyright class and figured a challenge would be soon to come. I can't wait to see this come up to the appellate level to be affirmed.
18 USC 1101(a) essentially gives copyright protection to unfixed musical performances creating a right to fix an otherwise evanescent work. The issue becomes, how does this language square with the constitutional requirement of Writings in the copyright clause?
Furthermore, 1101 places no limit on how far back in time the unauthorized recording can be made (it is essentially applied retroactively, forever), and likewise no limit on the future enforcement of the rights. How does this square with the constitutional command that protection is for Limited Times?"
Additionally, a violator under this section is subject to the same remedies as a traditional infringer of copyright. This right to fix an otherwise contemporaneous work is treated as similar to copyright in a fixed work, yet somehow different from it.
At least one previous federal case has suggested that Congress has the power to regulate unfixed works under the Commerce Clause. But can Congress avoid the restrictions in the copyright clause simply by saying that it is basing its authority in Commerce Clause?
The good thing is that 1101(d) does not preempt state law on the matter. States are always free to grant MORE protection than the copyright clause grants, but they are prevented by preemption from offering less. So, for instance, the state in which the defendent resides could constitutionally grant performers state copyright in their unfixed, contemporaneous musical performances. They could also grant "Authors" protection for 200 years. What they could not do, however, is only grant fixed works 15 years protection, for example.
Hope this helps some people work through this oddity in copyright law.
Here is a link to the law:
l
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2319A.htm
Notice a few things...
(a) Offense. -
Whoever, without the consent of the performer or performers involved, knowingly and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain -
from this can we assume that you probably need written permission to protect yourself in the future? I mean if not, what is to prevent them from giving you permission and then afterwards claiming that they did not and getting you thrown in jail?
(1) records the performance - yes, ok, that's a bootleg
(2) transmits the performance - can you think of ways this might apply to TV news organizations?
(c) even though this is a US law, it applies even if the recording was made outside of the US.
also see:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1101.html
now, I don't see it but I have a book which claims this to be retroactive and protects even pre-1994 recordings. (perhaps I missed something? can someone enlighten us on this.)
OK, so I am sure if we search the National Geographic Archives we can find recordings of musical performances from varoius cultures around the world. I would doubt that they have written permission to make said recordings.
If not, these recordings would be bootlegs nad thus illegal to traffic in. Oops!
Bad bad national Geographic Society!
And from the first link:
(b) Forfeiture and Destruction. -
When a person is convicted of a violation of subsection (a), the court shall order the forfeiture and destruction of any copies or phonorecords created in violation thereof, as well as any plates, molds, matrices, masters, tapes, and film negatives by means of which such copies or phonorecords may be made. The court may also, in its discretion, order the forfeiture and destruction of any other equipment by means of which such copies or phonorecords may be reproduced, taking into account the nature, scope, and proportionality of the use of the equipment in the offense.
If convicted we have to destroy all of that priceless historical recordings and, if the court chooses, all of the equiptment that the society can use to make such recordings.
Yeow!
A Nony Mouse
Taping concerts is legal. Shoplifting isn't...
None of that is relevant to the topic. Artists dead and gone aren't giving concerts today.
That copyright was never intended to be perpetual is irrelevant because the recordings are illegal creations and should be destroyed. Copyrighted material is created by an author. Any cd burner and the person controlling the burner are simply the method an author uses to publish their work. If a method not authorized by the author is used, then the person, the record store owner, are in the wrong.
While sad, the Zappa and Hendrix issue is irrelevant.
Did Anais will her writings to anyone? If not, then the local judiciary has control. As unfair as it may seem, if whoever owns the works doesn't want them published, then it sucks to be us, but I'll get over it.
The jefferson and franklin bit are irrelevant too,unless someone unlawfully copied their words during a paid speaking engagement, but since I doubt laws from back then covered that...
The public does not have a right to the music. If we did, then Clapton wouldn't be able to charge for his concerts, because to charge a ticket fee for more than the cost of the venue maintenance would be violating your right to listen. If a band wants you to record their concert the singer would mention it to you when they came onstage, or there would be signs proclaiming "feel free to record this concert!!", or they would be giving or selling live cd's at the venue. If it is the requesite amount of years after the artist's death, then the issue is null.
"And copyright was never intended to serve as a perpeptual right to not be published anymore than they were intended as a right to perpeptual control over publication"
If I make a speech in public, I have little control over whether someone quotes me, etc. If I am being paid to speak or playing in a band, putting on a broadway production, etc, the situation is different. With your mindset, people should be afraid to open their mouth for fear of having their ideas and art stolen from them.
This idea has come up before, and folks point out the possibility of someone recording a hit song and getting killed the next day. Surely his heirs deserve some return for that work.
Now whether copyrights should be allowed to be sold in the first place is another story.
The ability to sell copyrights is, in some cases, what gives them value to the creator. It might not be an issue if all artists were also savvy business and/or marketing people, but they're not. So I say let'em cash out if they want, if there's a buyer. Put the material in the hands of someone who can commercially exploit it better. That works to everyone's advantage.
I hope you have the pid of this post saved somewhere, because I'd like to ask you something since you're a pro-RIAA recording artist and all.
Suppose I like your music and want to support you without supporting the RIAA and your record label.
How do I go about doing this? Take it for granted that I've already downloaded your music. If I went ahead and bought $25 or so in merch, would that settle your need to get compensated for your work?
+++ATH0
when they decided to kill a story about falsified evidence used in the lead-up to the Iraq war in exchange for laxer regulations on station ownership.
...won't necissarily keep this guy out of trouble. He's still distributing copies of a copyrighted work (the underlying composition has a copyright separate from the recorded performance). While the bootlegging law seems pretty stupid, it would stand to reason that they'll just come back after him for the usual statutory damages since I seriously doubt he's passed the life +70 time limit.
Unless you're granted permission by the artist doing the performing the work is legally protected by default.
I'll just take my video camera into the theaters all the time now and record everything for my own personal use and re-watching later. Because I'm WRONG! Thanks Mr. AC!
*IF* the artist explicitly grants permission (aka Phish) to record the work then there's no problem. But works and performances are copy protected by default.
And copyright terms, while arguably well overextended, are still limited - so those paragraphs you wasted on that pomposity are likewise utterly moot.
So far as Lennon.. I suggest you do some research. So far as mechanical rights, Apple still controls most of the beatles recorded catalog, and... well, go ask Steve Jobs who runs that show and if the remaining beatles have any stake those recordings and Apple Corps... even if the masters are still owned by one of those big, evil, corporations.
Within a year, new federal law will require that all bootleg live-performance recordings created after the law goes into effect be turned over to the Library of Congress within 30 days for archival purposes, and that you are not allowed to copy or even play back the recording you made. If you violate this law, you'll be jailed for 90 years. Why 90 years? I think that's obvious :( .
This will "protect" the financial interests while allowing everyone who is alive 90 years from now access to the recordings. After 90 years, the Library of Congress will make the newly-public-domain recordings available for copying.
Of course, at the rate the laws are changing, 90 years from now, copyrights will last 180 years.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
W00t!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
They add value to the recordings: finding, marketing and shipping them. If they didn't do that, how would you get them? If they didn't get paid, why would they do the service? The ruling is a determination of the copyright restriction on old recordings expiring, which is specified in the Constitution. Without the restriction, that temporary government monopoly, the recordings of long-past events are available for anyone for any purpose. The entire notion of "authorized" copies is only valid within that copyright, which does not exist here. A good thing, too, because these performances have never been released by the record companies, and we'd never get to listen to them.
--
make install -not war
You'll never win this battle with me as I know full well what copyright is all about and, if you are a member and can hit the archives, you'll see we may well agree. But on this issue, especially given your ill researched example, you're just plain wrong.
Have you even heard the white album? Do you know anything at all about the beatles? If you did, you'd certainly know yoko was there - and her contribution, for better or worse, is "on record."
What's most hilarious is you are argung with me after I was the one who pointed out why this law was ruled down. Are you paying attention at all? Does the collective IQ drop on the weekends around here or something?
They Might Be Giants charge a reasonable $9.99 to download a high-quality recording of their live shows.
And why is that? Did they contribute to it?
And why is that? Did they contribute to it?
Maybe they did. In any case, if we're talking about immediate family, they almost certainly helped make the work possible even if they didn't contribute directly. But that's beside the point.
Here's the real argument: Think of it as being pretty much the same thing as the last paycheck of an hourly-wage worker who dies suddenly. That guy's family deserves the money for his work, don't they? So this would be the equivalent for the writer, musician, or whatever. Maybe the term's not as long as it would be if the artist had lived, but the heirs still get something.
I thought this was a very interesting story. So much so that I would like to read it again. Could you please re-post it in, say, 6 hours? Thanks!
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
http://law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v47/no3/schwartz. html#II
(just before section c)
It appears that it's a generalized protection for political speech.
If they did contribute to it, then they own (or should own, if they were treated fairly) part of the copyright. In that case this discussion is irrelevant.
If they did not contribute to it, I don't see how it's like the "last paycheck" at all. And if the guy's a famous star it's not like his family is struggling to put food on the table. It is nothing but a windfall for uncreative, greedy people who did nothing to deserve it, but who'll probably go around suing anyone who has the audacity to actually create, say, a derivative work.
You are completely missing the point of copyright, as stated in the Constitution, which is to encourage an artist's creativity. When the artist is dead, he cannot create anymore, so the artificial monopoly granted to him by the government is pointless. Less government-controlled monopoly in our lives, I say.
Of course you are buying into the mainstream argument, and I doubt you and I will ever see eye to eye.
Wow, thanks for redefining irony.
There is precedent that anything over 99 years is effectively forever. If you want to 'lease' property to someone forever for $1 a year(effectively giving the property without paying capital gains taxes), it is considered to be forever (and it becomes taxable) if the term is over 99 years.
Hong Kong was leased to the British for 99 years using some similar reasoning.
With copyright at 95 years (or 70 + life for those few works not made for hire), it slips in right under that number.
Of course, with the current Supreme Court, I'd be suprised if they overturned any law favoring big media, no matter how unconstitutional.
Invoking Godwin's Law to get around denouncing fascism. Not new, but low.
--
make install -not war
The judge in this case found that the copyright applied was perpetual, therefore not valid. But the unlawful copy was the original, made in the performace venue. On private property, the original performance cannot be copied except by express permission of the performer. The first copier is not within their rights, and subsequent copies are also unlawful, just as an illegal copy of a copyrighted studio album that doesn't include the copyright doesn't "break the chain" - subsequent copies are also unlawful.
It's odd that the judge in this case didn't focus on that simple opinion. The case seems to have been constructed as an attempt to extend copyrights in perpetuity, which failed. The actual actions in question are still legally uncertain.
--
make install -not war
He did work he would have been paid for.
And if the guy's a famous star it's not like his family is struggling to put food on the table.
1. If he's a famous star. Most artists aren't.
2. A lot of famous stars aren't as well-off financially as folks think they are.
3. Whether they're struggling or not is beside the point.
It is nothing but a windfall for uncreative, greedy people who did nothing to deserve it, but who'll probably go around suing anyone who has the audacity to actually create, say, a derivative work.
If the artist thinks his heirs are greedy and don't deserve it, let him write them out of his will. Leave the copyright to the Susan G. Komen Foundation, or the Humane Society, or something. Or let him declare all his work public domain upon his death.
You are completely missing the point of copyright, as stated in the Constitution, which is to encourage an artist's creativity.
No, I'm not. I've argued here on /. before in favor of a limited, say 15 year copyright term with no renewal, for the very reason the Consitution states. I understand that the reason for a limited term is to give the artist an incentive to create subsequent works. I think it's a good idea, too.
But this view of copyright means the artist is working for the public's benefit, so there's the matter of the "last paycheck." The artist's family benefits from the income if he lives, so why not let the term of protection run its course if he dies? Or, heck, even cut it off shorter if you want. And if there's no immediate family, then by all means let the work go into public domain.
Do you know how Anthony Burgess started as a novelist? He was diagnosed with a brain tumor and told he had about a year to live. He wrote, if memory serves, his first five novels in that year to try to provide some money for his (he thought) soon-to-be widow. The tumor turned out to be a false alarm, but the idea that his heir would profit from his work was the incentive that started his career as a novelist.
My way gives the literary world Anthony Burgess.
Man, it just gets better with every post from you. Did yer momma have any kids that grew up?