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. $$$
New here arn't you...
The US press considers judgements that are not in favor of copyright holders to not be news. (At least all together too frequently.)
Rusty
You never know...
I've noticed that the BBC does a much better job on this type of thing than the American media. American news sources generally devote page 1 space to death and scandal, while the Beeb gets into the American court rulings related to personal liberty and freedoms, etc. I live in the 'States, but get more news from the BBC than anywhere else. If you care more about court rulings than manufactured "scandals" or political doublespeak, you don't have much choice. It's not necessarily the media's fault, rather it just reflects the local readership/viewership interests.
G
Maybe you'd like to be the one to try to find the American news source indicating significant change in America. Whoops my bad, when it comes to American news everyone is too concerned over the weather in Florida, what was happening with Kobe, whether Michael was touching some kid at his ranch, or some other crap to actually pay attention to anything of importance like that. The BBC was offering some of the best news coverage of shit going down in Iraq. Quality journalism doesn't change just cause the news people don't have alegiance to your specific country.
It's the law that is found unconstitutional.
Just because the law is wrong doesn't mean the court endorses the crime. Take Miranda vs. Arizona . Even though the rapist is freed, and precedent is set, the court isn't saying it's okay to rape someone.
Get your Unix fortune now!
Additionally, BBC News 24 shows "The news Americans get" with Peter Jennings.
..."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.
Not all artists are prefab performers. Some are musicians, actually. There are plenty of artists I like that regularly completely overhaul the arrangements of songs, or play songs they haven't released yet, or play covers that you simply cannot hear studio versions of.
Besides, it also happens that the studio mix simply isn't very good but that live recordings sound astounding.
It all comes down to preference, live recordings can add excitement, overview of an artists growth and they can show you songs in a different light, as live artists are prone to let a song breath some more, giving it the room to blossom that simply isn't always possible in studio recordings!
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!
ah, the benefits of a not-for-profit information service :-)
not wanting to come across as troll, but as a UK citizen the BBC is one of the things that makes me proud and optimistic. the idea of mixing facts and profits just seems like a really Bad Idea(tm) to be avoided as much as possible.
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
To follow your analogy, would you then consider profiting by selling unauthorized shows to be such a "rape"? (obviously that's too strong a word, and I'm sure neither of us mean to equate it that way)
It seems to me that the prevailing sentiment (like the parent post) sees everything in a "Fuck the RIAA" kind of way -- but if the artist is being ripped off, is that something to cheer?
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
how is a bootleg going to affect the compensation of the artist?
if the artist isnt selling the concert recording, they are not losing anything.
a concert is a one time deal, if i listen to a recording of a concert last night, did the artist lose money because i didnt attend it?
doubtful
That's a very interesting quote from the Constitution.
It seems to me that one could argue that the Constitution prohibits copyright terms that are generally expected to be longer than the author's lifetime. That is, if you grant someone rights for a "limited time," that the person in question should expect those rights to expire at some point.
Note that the Constitution is also clear that the rights are being granted to "authors and inventors," *not* their heirs, designees, estates, etc. If copyright were intended to be perpetual and handed down among generations and corporations, wouldn't the Constitution say that?
Cheers
-b
If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
Then start your own news organization. Media consolidation is a function of economics, not politics. Alot of small news organizations each with there own political agenda isn't much better than a few large news organizations with their own agenda.
The public is dumb, they don't care where they get their news from, whether its "Bush is King" Fox news, or "Save the planet and think of the children" CNN, or the entirely fabricated tablioid "news". Public apathy and poor education are a far bigger threat to democracy than a homoginized media.
As for a "responsible" media, that doesn't happen, the free press has always slanted news reporting to fit their individual agendas.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
That's not just a commentary on the whorishness of American media (which is widely regarded by execs in the biz as infotainment rather than journalism). It's also a commentary on the sad state of public interest in copyright and fair use issues. It's going to take legislation that overturns Betamax and outlaws VCRs and PVRs to finally get the general public's attention on this issue, and by then it could be too late to turn things around.
The media would never have rolled over to the extent that they have for Bush even as recently as 15-20 years ago.
You're joking, right? I suppose that CBS was "rolling over for Bush" when they started this whole mess.
If everyone calls it that, then it's not incorrect. Words are defined by usage, after all.
What is it with this site, and analogies!?
An analogy exists to illustrate a point! You can't prove something by analogy. It's not the same situation. Since it's a different situation, the conclusions from one do not automatically apply to the other.
And while we're at it, nobody was equating theft of a recording with rape. He was using one specific case as an analogy to another to illlustrate the point.
What is the purpose of your stupid analogy?
You cannot have "rights" end with the death of an author, since the "author" might be killed in a plane crash next week - well before the people he licensed those rights to have the opportunity to recoup. I know that's a dirty word, but the fact is rights that cannot be traded have no value, and some rights are what gives artists value.
Monetary value is what I think you mean. Obviously, even things that cost nothing have value (as in; linux? love?).
Rights end at the time of death all the time. While it's inconvenient, death puts a stop to deals all the time. What happens to your cell phone contract? The lease on you house? Still businesses enter into these contracts with mere mortals.
You cannot make them die with the author, since those rights would then have substantially less value (imagine if his rights to the white Album died the day Lennon was shot - all that money from the inevitable "death windfall" made by the remaining beatles and the record companies and nothing at all to his widow and son? No Justice there.)
The remaining beatles not being dead they would still have had a claim. The widow and son? Well, when your local neighborhood wageslave dies, the widow and son usually don't get wages for the work the dead man isn't doing, do they? Where's the justice in that?
And besides, copyright is there to promote science and the arts, not Yoko and Damien's wellbeing. It's not like they weren't well off already, surely they'd saved up for a rainy day.
Actually, those rights were already sold, so who benefits? Corporations (at least, the corporation that owns the copyright, not the corporations that want to reproduce the works el cheapo - the big guys vs the small guys), and not the public.
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
The constitution doesn't preclude you from entering into non-exclusive licenses. That's why the GPL is constitutional, for example.
Actually, the constitution allows congress to make such laws, but mandatory licensing is also A-OK.
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.
Programmers who work under contract typically produce works-for-hire and are afforded no copyright protection at all, not even moral rights (e.g. the right of attribution).
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
> Alot of small news organizations each with there own political agenda isn't much better than a few large news organizations with their own agenda.
Yes it is, it has a lot more variation and thus gives you a better chance on seeing different sides.
> Public apathy and poor education are a far bigger threat to democracy than a homoginized media.
AH yes, and we have no idea what role media plays in education..
> As for a "responsible" media, that doesn't happen, the free press has always slanted news reporting to fit their individual agendas.
Which in itself is not bad as long as there are different agendas so that diversity can exist.
THere is this very very very usefull concept called competition. It can only work if there are enough players and the playign field is somewhat equal.
which america do you live in? The police here see the desire not to be searched as equal to guilt. I know from personal experience. Police are not law enforcement here, they are life collectors that recycle people for money like the homeless they arrest do with cans.
-Digital Extremist
> Only if people are educated enough to understand what they are seeing. It's hard enough for people to understand the slant in "mainstream" media, let alone deciphering the agendas of dozens of news agencys.
People may not find it easy to understand the bias of what they see, but it wont be difficult at all for them to see that bias exists especially when different programs on the same station have a very different bias. It is quite likely to help them also in makigng a start to actually realize there is this thing called bias and that it is everywhere.
> If media is educating us, we are very far gone. Media is the entertainment business, it's there to keep our eyes on the TV. If they can get their own agenda across while keeping ratings up, then all the better for them.
You see, that is exactly why a large part of TV in the USA is uninteresting and mediacore at best.
You would really do wise to take a peek over your borders and look at other systems. Most notably the UK has a relatively well working system that has both public and commercial TV. Somehow it seems that having a big station there that is forced to focus part of its time on (initially) less popular things seems to do a good job there in not letting advertisement income rule everything.
They also do a lot of educational programs, which for that matter are pretty good in quality.
The same applies to at least some extent to other countries in Europe. Most have a combined system with actual competition but also with a strong public presense.
> There is also concept called market consolidation. Newspapers, TV, radio, it's all business. If people don't like your "version" of the news, you lose out. Just look at the internet, so many options yet people go mostly to CNN.com, or MSNBC.com. People will flock to the news they like, so having many options really doesn't make much of a difference.
And there is the wisdom that a free market without soem set of rules results in anarchy and survival of the fittest at the expense of everything else.
Free market is good ONLY when you can ensure competition exists. That may at times require government intervention or even participation.
There are very good reasons for special laws that apply to those who manage to obtain a monopoly in the USA even if those laws don't seem to work very well anymore.
Then, having choices matters. Yes, peopel may go to cnn.com and msnbc.com and actually, to get their version of the news, I'll go there as well (or watch their news bulletin if I get a chance), but they can goto bbc.co.uk as well or to anova.com or to news.com or to a zillion different sites, and the last time I checked, many such sites actually get quite a few visitors, so I am surely not the only one doing so.
The difference between the internet and cable networks is that few of the news sources actually own the means by which their news is delivered, and none have a strong enough position to dictate terms for now. Also, there is virtually no barrier to entry.
This all is completely different for cable networks, hence there is no way of even trying without either having a huge amount of money to start out with, or the blessing and financial support from one of the current players.
I don't know.. where I live, there is a law that actually makes it impossible for any publisher to own more then 40% of the publishing market for newspapers for example. Why? because we believe guaranteeing diversity of news sources is extremely important for a democracy. So important that the rules for it should me much stricter then normal rules concerning (partial) monopolies.
But then... we also learn at school that you should read more then one newspaper and make sure we see different news programs and background programs.