Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Judge Strikes Down Bootleg Law

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the soundboards-and-dats dept.

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."

4 of 312 comments (clear)

  1. Confused; could use some answers... by MedHead · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    First, I would like to know why people would want to listen to live performances. Most often these are songs sung on tour, with the singer half dead from exhaustion. On top of that, acoustics are pretty bad as well! There's also the problem with many singers not being all that great of singers, and peforming pretty poorly outside the studio, but that's not true for every singer.

    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.

  2. for crying out loud! by caldfyr · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    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?

  3. You're an idiot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    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.

  4. Say goodbye to Section 1101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    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.