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
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
The only "live" performances i own are some Unplugged concerts (namely: Clapton, Nirvana and Alice In Chains) - it's a good chance to listen how a song is converted from one style to another.
As for pure live recordings, either bootleged or offical ones, i agree. 90% are not worth the trouble.
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?
Usually, if you slip the guy at the mix board a $20 or so, he'll let you hook up a minidisc recorder. Go home, convert the tracks to MP3, and boom - a decent live recording for about the price of a CD.
Gotta get me one of these!
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?
I agree with you in general, the quality of live recordings leaves a lot to be desired. However, I hold on to some live recordings because bands sometimes play unreleased songs, do covers, and add quirks into existing songs. Also, some up and coming bands only have live recordings of their songs, having not been able to afford studio time yet. Of course, the up and coming bands usually encourage free distribution of their music.
Cthulhu Saves.
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!
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*****.
I disagree. Legitimate live recordings that are taken directly from the mixer feed can be high quality, and truly shine with bands that use improvisation and acoustic or wind instruments. What comes to mind is Jethro Tull's "Living in the Past". I bought this not knowing it was a live recording, and was plesently suprised. It's higher quality than some of the studio recordings I own. Bootleg recordings, however, tend to be from the crowd and of horrible quality as the parent noted.
Many people want recordings of live performances they've been to, just as a souvenir, kinda like you might buy a T-shirt there, too, or any other article of merchandise. Other people will just buy bootlegs of live performances of certain bands because that makes them more 'hardcore' than fans who just buy the albums in the shops. Thirdly, some bands perform songs live that will never see the light of day on an official album, and so bootlegs are the only way to hear them.
Secondly, I find most bootlegs are recorded off the soundboard and not some guy with a casette player in the crowd - maybe I just like lenient bands or perhaps I've just been lucky - Bootlegs recorded from the crowd are notoriously awful.
I think bootlegs are really only for the hardcore fans - regular people won't want them or wont have the will to seek them out. But if you're a dedicated fan, and owning everything there is to possibly own to do with your favourite band is important to you, then a good bootleg of a great performance is more than worth the money.
Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
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!
Personal preference, I guess.
I love live music - IMHO, it's what music is supposed to be. It's organic, spontaneous and human. I really enjoy hearing my favourite bands as they translate their material to a live setting, where they have to deal with the fact that whereas their album was recorded to 64 tracks, they are now just 3 or 4 guys with their instruments, trying to recreate the complexity and richness of a modern studio production.
A lot of bands ad-lib, insert fragments of other songs into their own, change their riffs around, banter with the crowd. Un-edited live recordings have a kind of personality.
Boots can be straight from the mixing desk, or they can be recorded from the crowd. But don't dimiss audience recordings until you've heard a really good one - you'd be amazed at what people can capture with highly directional microphones pointed at the PA system speakers. And people have been able to do good audience sound recordings for longer than I'd have guessed. For example, there's a recording of U2 playing on a Mississippi riverboat outside of New Orleans as far back as 1982, and it sounds awesome. It's raw, it's energetic, and the sounds capture is very crisp.
I guess some folks just love the whole live aspect of music. I'm one of them, but YMMV.
garethw
If you ever saw Stevie Ray Vaugn live in concert, you would understand why. He was significantly better live than on tape. Some music has a more raw, edge to it live, with more energy. This is very common for Blues, but lots of music sounds better live, mistakes and all. Gives you a more real sound that many people, especially musicians like myself, like.
Then again, some musicians suck live. I try to avoid them on CD as well.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
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
- Soundboard recordings (directly recorded from house mix of the show).
- Audience recordings (recorded using microphones from the audience).
- A mix of the above two, often known as a "matrix" mix.
While you may scoff at the idea of using microphones to record a live show, I would rather listen to an audience recorded version of a show than its soundboard counterpart. Why? It has the feeling of being there. Soundboard recordings are just that, recordings off the venue's soundboard. These do not sound ideal because the mix is specific to the venue and will contain equalization and other processing to make it sound ideal if it were played back in that venue. Now, when you think of microphones you may think of the cheap $20 variety you can buy for a Karaoke machine. Bands that allow recording (Gov't Mule, Phish, The Dead, moe., etc.) have sections in the venue set up specifically for tapers. Some of these tapers will not hesitate to bring gear to a show worth more than the average car. Such a recording rig consists of microphones, shock absorbing mounts for those microphones, a pre-amp, an analog to digital converter, and a digital recorder in the form of a DAT deck, hard disk based recorder, or laptop. Such equipment produces incredible recordings, recordings which constitute the majority of the music I listen to on a daily basis. Just as a bit of trivia, when you purchase a "live" album in a record store, often times that album will be of the third variety mentioned above, as many sound engineers will have a set of microphones running to record the mix from the audience.If you're interested in breaking free from slavery to the RIAA, please visit http://www.etree.org or http://www.archive.org/audio/etree.php where you will find hundreds of artists who not only allow recording of their performances, but who encourage the free distribution thereof.
"Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman
...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.
Why should a recording of a live performance have any greater copyright protection than a pressed music CD? Under the current law, 1000 years from now, that recording of the live performance would still fall under protection, which is probably unconstitutional.
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.
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
I will concede, though, that the live music often has missed notes and other errors. It reminds me that professional musicians aren't perfect, they just spend enough time in the studio to perfect the product before release. (Using varying definitions of perfect.)
Language students: Don't try to learn English here. This ain't it.
Yea, those crazy MUSIC fans. Who can possible make sense of the things they do?
Because the recording shouldn't exist. If the artist wants to have a cd burner farm behind the stage that tosses mixboard recordings into the crowd, then that's fine and great.
You aren't understanding the situation. It isn't the recording of the live performance that has protection. Eric Clapton's live recordings that you can buy off Amazon have the same protection as his studio work. The problem is that with bootlegs, the artists aren't getting a say in whether a recording is made of their concert. If they wanted a live recording of their concert, they would exlicitly allow the listeners to make their own, or publish it themselves and make some more money off of their own efforts Terrible, I know. Why can't more artists take vows of poverty...
When someone who hasn't received permission to records the concert, that makes the recording illegal because it violates the artist's copyright.
When a concert is televised, do you think the networks didn't receive permission to do so? If they didn't, people would be charged, fined, and sued into bankruptsy. It is the same concept, just not on as grand of a scale.
Yeah I agree with you on this one. The bootlegs of course suck and aren't worth listening, but normal live recordings kick ass. Generally, I'd say that live albums have more energy, are heavier and faster than studio recordings. A few examples.
Deep Purple. I dunno, but Made In Japan is simply much better than any studio album. A song that is about 8 minutes on a studio album is almost 20 minutes live!
AC/DC, any live album. You can hear the crowd screaming "Angus! Angus!" and the solos are extra long, this adds lot to the music. Did I mention that the show itself is excellent?
Judas Priest. Almost any live recording. In addition to all the other benefits, they often include very old songs that are already rather dull on the original, however the live versions sound very fresh and new.
Iron Maiden. Something I didn't like... I was on their 2003 concert, and my main problem was that you often couldn hear the singer, words sometimes just dissapeard or sounded weird. That's the only case I can think of where I liked the studio versions more.
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
But that raises a intersting question: Namely, why is it that KISS didn't make their name until the first Alive record was released.
;) )
live records are a odd beast. A straight-up live show record can be great if the band is amazing live, but worthless if they're a better studio band. Live records can capture somethign studio albums will miss, a energy and ugency that 20 take, pitch-perfect version of a song can't, and I'd agrue that the power of that is what draws certain people, not the hardcoreness.
Though, granted, there are a lot of people who just buy them to be hardcore. ( says the ex Misfits fan
Where this gets complicated is when, despite the legalities, a recording does get made. The record dealer did not make the recording, so he cannot be in violation of copyright law as far as that goes. However, in theory, he (or his heirs!) should be able to hang on to the recording until copyright protection on that work ends, and then be able to copy it and sell it at that point.
Second, are most studios recordings from the mic mix, or from an actual listener's vantage point? If it was the completely fabricated and unnatural mic mix, I ask again, why would anyone want these things?
Personally, I don't know why studio recordings are sold. I don't think they're worth the money.
Yes, you are right, I was mistaken. In reality, the vast majority of Deadheads at the concerts are wearing suits and ties, and drinking champagne. I think most were even driving BMW's...
Obviously, you have never met any people who actually followed the Dead.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
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 artist isn't getting a chance to sell the concert recording. They weren't even asked. The intent of the person doing the recording doesn't change the fact that the artist needs a say.
The attitude of many artists suggests that they would probably not have any problem with you or me paying the mixer for a live recording. But that same artist will surely have a problem with me burning copies and selling them. And I KNOW the production company is going to have a problem with it. The record store owner should be glad that charges were pressed instead of a civil suit.
"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"
Maybe you couldn't make it to the concert, maybe you just didn't feel like paying 50 bucks for a cheap ticket. That comes down to what you feel is right. But if you paid your friend more than the cost of the CD for it, then we have a problem.
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!
Well, the other day, I did see a deadhead sticker on a Cadillac ;-)
"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."
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
"Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)
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 ----
Depends on the band. I went to a Primus concert where people in the crowd had some pretty amazing equipment. One guy had an ~8' high boom with dual condenser mic's at the top. He was recording a true stereo mix to both a laptop and DAT desk (so that he could be sure one device going down didn't leave him without a recording). He emailed me a link to the files a couple days later and they sounding freaking incredible. I know most bands wouldn't let you take that kind of stuff into the concert but it's possible to do with bands with a liberal live recording policy. Btw there are bands like Blues Travelers where their live performance bears almost no resembelance to their recorded material, sure they cover their hits but in a very different way then the recorded version. Then add all the covers and fun stuff they do and the live performance is very different from the albums and I would say much better.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
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.
If the record dealer didn't make the recordings, then he should still get nailed for disribution of stolen or illegal goods. And whoever did the actual recording should get hit too. I don't think the recording has any copyright protection, since it isn't a sanctioned recording. It should probably be destroyed by law enforcement.
Is it OK with you when a store makes money by selling copies of an artist's work without their consent, and without compensated them?
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
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.
There's a saying, "The smellier the hippy, the bigger the trust fund."
That being said, allow me to steer us back to the topic, by noting that the Dead had a sound business model. They made a great deal of money from their shows. They grew and maintained their fan base by such fan friendly policies.
I went to one Dead show in the 80s and never went to another, because I couldn't stand the Deadheads. On the other hand, I went to see the Jerry Garcia Band 8 times. I'm sure most of the audience at those performances were Deadheads, but they weren't the really annoying (and smelly) idiots.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Not mention in Technology
Not mention in Law
CNN/Money has the story
I'm sure, the Dead have fans that span all economic catagories. I was refering to the ones who used to follow them all over the US tho.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
...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.
Thanks for the answers, everyone. In my experience, aside from a few bands, I haven't liked the live experience. It's interesting to see how many do like tour sound quality.
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.
Hm. Still bootleg. While notices are *often* for people with no common sense, they are usually needed to make charges stick. Far too often, ignorance IS an excuse.
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.
That would be interesting in court. I would imagine that the judge would assume, or would hear testimony claiming verbal permission by the tribes being recorded. I would assume, that since they most likely want to get a high quality recording, that they would have the equipment out in the open. I would hope they explained to the tribe what the equipment was for. I would like to think that the people that can appreciate the tribal music can respect the tribe.
As to your first point, I imagine that if a band says "feel free to record", that the illegal recorders have already hit the button and have it on tape. Plus, there's a few thousand witnesses. And how many artists would risk alienating their fanbase like that?
my parent goes half the day with 2 positive mods, then gets nailed as flamebait?
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.
O know you were not askign me but...
> Is it OK with you when a store makes money by selling copies of an artist's work without their consent, and without compensated them?
I'd say that that is not ok.
However, in virtually all cases, at least the later is true. Only very succesfull artists will ever see such compensation in the regular music industry.
Also, and that was what the initial post was about, the fact that someone breaks the law does not mean you can ignore the law and especially the constitution with regards to the person who broke the law.
...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."
Tell it!
I admin the website for my brother's band Ahymsa (see sig), which has a few mp3's available for download. I keep telling him that the ones most often hit are the live recordings, and I'm forever pestering him for more. Unfortunately, the small venues (pubs and clubs) the band currently play tend not to have facilities for making recordings (some do, and at least one will, for a fee, provide you with a DVD of your performance along with copyright so that you can dupe and sell it). Even the most basic crossed-mics-at-the-back-of-the-room job would be something.
There seems to be an extra kudos about stuff that 'you just can't buy'.
Depending on the size of the club, the board recording could be a lousy mixed compared to what you're hearing. In a small place a stereo pair above the board (sometimes augmented by the board) can give you a much better mix. A lot of times if you look, the guy at the board is already recording the show with some combination of board and microphones. Bands always want copies of their shows just to hear how they sounded (the sound onstage is usually pretty different from the sound by the mix desk).
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?
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.
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?