Judge: Live Performance Copyright Unconstitutional

swiftstream writes "CNN reports that a federal judge has ruled in favor of the owner of a record store in NYC in a copyright case brought against him for selling recordings of live performances. The judge said the current copyright code on live performances is unconstitutional, because copyrights last forever, in conflict with the 'limited time' requirement of copyright law."

Comments

Pete and repete

[Lehk228]

are in a boat, Pete jumps out, who's left?

Re:Pete and repete

[Misinformed]

For clarification.

Re:Pete and repete

[Lehk228]

wow my penis did get bigger for getting a First Post, now i see why people go for it.

Re:Pete and repete

[Anonymous Coward]

"Twice nothing is still nothing" -- Cyrano Jones

Re:Pete and repete

[DJCouchyCouch]

Pete! No, wait... Bob! uh... no, that's not right. I know this, I know this... oh! REPETE! No, that's not it. Too obvious. Must've been Bob. Dang these trick questions. Math is hard.

Re:Pete and repete

[Anonymous Coward]

Timothy is pretty far left.

Re:Pete and repete

[Anonymous Coward]

Repete!

Pet et repette s'en vont en bateau
Pet tombe a l'eau
Qui est-ce qui reste?

re-posted article

[EdZ]

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/25/145420 4&tid=123&tid=141&tid=1 Been there, done that.

Re:re-posted article

[metlin]

Eh. Saw this in the subscriber's preview and even mailed the editor about it -- but seems like it doesn't matter.

Wonder why they bother saying, "see any problems with this story? mail our on-duty editor.."

Duh.

Re:re-posted article

[Anonymous Coward]

from today, no less

Re:re-posted article

[Fnkmaster]

Has anybody ever actually had the supposed editor-on-duty respond when they pointed out it was a dupe? Not saying it never happens, but the couple of times I tried to let them know (before I let my subscription lapse), it didn't do anything, and I always hear other people complaining about having the same experience.

Re:re-posted article

[orthogonal]

Has anybody ever actually had the supposed editor-on-duty respond when they pointed out it was a dupe?

I reported a plagiarized article, submitted by a troll as his own work, to Taco -- and never got a response.

I also notified the real author, who did get back to me.

To Slashdot's credit, the article was eventually corrected to note it had been plagiarized.

Re:re-posted article

[Baricom]

I've never e-mailed an editor, but I have experienced dupe removal. I commented on a duped article that disappeared into oblivion. Navigating to the link gave the standard "Nothing to see here. Please move along." (Oh, and I'm not a subscriber.)

Re:re-posted article

[BobPaul]

Wow! A dupe of an article on the main page! That's pretty impressive. I always though time had to pass between origionals and reposts.

Re:re-posted article

[singularity]

Several times I have emailed a Mysterious Future story being a duplication and then gone on to see it *not* go live.

So it does work, at least on occasion.

I always make sure to email the URLs to the old and new stories. I also keep it very short and to the point.

An example email:

Duplicate story.

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/1 1/1951238 is the same as
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/10/045322 6 which ran yesterday.


I *think* everytime I have emailed daddypants the story has not run, but I cannot remember, exactly. I have probably emailed about 4-5 times.

(Wow, now that I look at it, the story I mention above *did* go live, but only for a minute or two).

Re:re-posted article

[rd_syringe]

Yeah--AFTER it had sunk to the bottom of the front page (I assume you're talking about the Spider-man 2 review), and several dozen people had pointed it out in the comments. I think it's clear the editors barely read the site.

It's well-known that the editors don't listen to any feedback and aren't very open about things. This website is very "closed-source", if you will, which is amusing considering the readership that posts here.

Record?

[antiMStroll]

Record dupe. :)

Re:Record?

[CrazyGringo]

It's not a dupe. This article is about how Mike Judge has declared live performance copyrighting unconstitutional.
First, Beavis and Butthead, then Office Space, now fighting for fair use rights... Is there anything this guy can't do?

Re:Record?

[}InFuZeD{]

Now if we can just get the same author to post a dupe... ;)

dupe

[kinzillah]

The other one is still on the front page, no less.

Dupe

[Anonymous Coward]

Haven't we seen this already today?

Beat me to it

[mkop]

repost

Re:Beat me to it

[damned_in_davis]

repetition is a mother of learning

Flag on the play, this one's coming back.

[LostCluster]

Uhm... I wouldn't celebrate anything based on this one. It's going to get overturned on appeal. ...The judge said the current copyright code on live performances is unconstitutional, because copyrights last forever, in conflict with the 'limited time' requirement of copyright law."

That's a beautiful concept that I'd love to hear from the Supreme Court of the U.S., but it's actually one that SCotUS has already turned down in Eldred v. Ashcroft, saying that the Sonny Bono Copyright Extention Act was constitutional because 75 years is less than infinity, and you can't prove that they're going to jack it up to higher 20 years from now because that's in the mysterious future.

The idea that live performances are getting an infinite copyright out of anti-bootlegging laws is also incorrect. The copyright on a live performance lasts for 75 years. It's just in that first instant where a performance is happening that matters the most... if nobody is allowed to make a copy then, the work is gone and left to the memories of the people who were there and that's it. That's not a copyright that lasts forever... it's a copyright that was enforced for the critical seconds that makes sure all possible copies are never made.

Sorry... good constitutal law just doesn't come out of district courts. This one's just not going to fly.

Re:Flag on the play, this one's coming back.

[rokzy]

copyright isn't about recording, it's about copying. anyone can record (pretty much) anything. copyright just means you can't go distributing it.

you make a tit of yourself singing while pissed at a wedding and I record it with my camera. what the fuck does the SCoTUS care? I start selling copies without your permission then you might have a case.

Re:Flag on the play, this one's coming back.

[pigscanfly.ca]

All well and good , but the spirit of the constituational law must be considered not just the exact wording.
THe purpose is to increase innovation/creativity and allow artist/inventers to prosper from there work (within reason) and then, once that time has expired, allow all of the public to benefit.
By prevent the recording of the live concerts the spirt of the law, that at one point all of society will be able to benefit is obstructed (since there are no recordings).
So I say f33r my 13g41 skillzors (IE I am not a lawyer, not a law student, and I dont even watch law and order that much , but I took gr12 law awhile back and hey its slashdot :-)

Re:Flag on the play, this one's coming back.

[Duke Machesne]

...and allow artist/inventers to prosper from there work...

Actually, that's wrong. The SOLE constitutional purpose of copyright is to encourage innovation. Allowing artists or inventors to profit from creative work is unconstitutional unless it demonstrably contributes to that end.

But, then, nobody follows the constitution for shit anyway.

Re:Flag on the play, this one's coming back.

[pigscanfly.ca]

The idea though behind allowing arists and inventors to profit is to encourage inovattion.
For example if I cant make any money making music then I wont be able to spend a lot of time making music (I'd have to get a day job and only do music in my spare time).

Re:Flag on the play, this one's coming back.

[ThatsNotFunny]

RTEFA, RTFL and RTFC.

Nobody is saying that all live performances are being stripped of copyright protection. They are saying that this particular law which specifically dealt with UNAUTHORIZED recordings, is not constitutional because it did not specify a length of time. This is perfectly in line with the Eldred decision. No limit = unconstitutional.

And, while the songs themselves are certainly copyrighted, there is still gray area as to whether the performers who engage in a live performance in a public place should enjoy the same protection as as when they produce the same performance in a studio.

Re:Flag on the play, this one's coming back.

[theLOUDroom]

That's a beautiful concept that I'd love to hear from the Supreme Court of the U.S., but it's actually one that SCotUS has already turned down in Eldred v. Ashcroft, saying that the Sonny Bono Copyright Extention Act was constitutional because 75 years is less than infinity, and you can't prove that they're going to jack it up to higher 20 years from now because that's in the mysterious future.

Damn, you haven't read ANYTHING about this have you.

First off this case is about a totally seperate law than the Elred vs Ashcroft case.
Second, this law says that it is illegal to sell bootleg recordings FOREVER.
That's right, forever.
Not 75 years. Not 750 years. Forever.

That's what the law says. I have a tough time seeing how prohibiting the distribution of a copyrighted work forever does anything but really obviously run counter to the "limited time" provision set out in the constitution.

I'm sure that the RIAA is going to try to get this overturned, but they're going to have a much tougher time of it than you let on. It would probably be much easier for them to get a new law passed that only makes the sale of bootleg recording illegal for 999,999,999 years. At least then they could argue that the new law wasn't technically providing infinate copyright.

And now for the really cool part which no one else has brought up (that I have noticed).

This sets a great precedent for striking down the DMCA:
By prohibing the circumvention of copy-protection devices, even after copyright has expired, the DMCA is effectively establishing an infinate copyright (there is no legal way to distribute works in the public domain).

Re:Flag on the play, this one's coming back.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The copyright on a live performance lasts for 75 years."

According the the US Copyright Office, live performances are *NOT COPYRIGHTABLE*.

What is copyrightable is a recording of the event. That recording would be covered under standard copyright law.

The question here is - Who owns the copyright to a bootleg recording? If you take a recording device to a concert and make your own recording, *YOU* own the copyrights, unless you were allowed to attend the performance under the condition that no recordings be made, or any recordings that are made belong to the performers (or whoever normally steals their work under signed agreements). In that case, you would not be allowed to make or sell copies of the recording you physically made.

As expected, IANAL.

Re:Flag on the play, this one's coming back.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a beautiful concept that I'd love to hear from the Supreme Court of the U.S., but it's actually one that SCotUS has already turned down in Eldred v. Ashcroft, saying that the Sonny Bono Copyright Extention Act was constitutional because 75 years is less than infinity, and you can't prove that they're going to jack it up to higher 20 years from now because that's in the mysterious future.

IMHO, the argument against the extension was poorly thought-out and confused. What they failed to do was to focus exclusively on the retroactive extension of copyright, which is both against the principle of granting protection to encourage the production of new works, and the first step in a process effectively making copyright eternal.

Re:Flag on the play, this one's coming back.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

While I don't exactly think N'Syncs concerts should be preserved for posterity, there are concerts from 75 years ago that I wish we had a copy of... how will people 75 years from now feel about this?

More to the point, if the purpose of a concert is to earn money from people actually there listening... how can it be stealing to record this? They never intended to earn money from the recordings anyway.

Not that I expect anything even remotely resembling fair copyright policy from my own country.

Re:Flag on the play, this one's coming back.

[cpt kangarooski]

Copyright actually means a lot of different things. Distribution is one of them. Making a copy -- such as by recording one -- is also one of them. Read up on 17 USC 106 for the major rights involved. This particular case, however, dealt with 17 USC 1101.

Re:Flag on the play, this one's coming back.

[Richard_at_work]

That's what the law says. I have a tough time seeing how prohibiting the distribution of a copyrighted work forever does anything but really obviously run counter to the "limited time" provision set out in the constitution.

Technically, this law states that its illegal to sell unauthorised copies of a copyrighted performance. Wait 75 years, that performance is no longer copyrighted under law, and thus this ceases to be a bootleg. It was just struck off because there was no specific time limit on this law, and it wasnt specifically linked to the standard copyright length, which I dont think is an unreasonable thing to ask.

Re:Flag on the play, this one's coming back.

[einhverfr]

IANAL, of course, and this opinion comes with NO WARRANTY, etc....


IMHO, the argument against the extension was poorly thought-out and confused. What they failed to do was to focus exclusively on the retroactive extension of copyright, which is both against the principle of granting protection to encourage the production of new works, and the first step in a process effectively making copyright eternal.

Mr Lessig did focus on this side of things very well, IMO.

The court, IMO, rejected this argument and instead looked ot the intent of Congress. They concluded that Congress did not intend these copyrights to be perpetual and hence these limits were not in violation of the limited times clause.

The court's point (valid, I think) is that they are not to get involved in making consitutional decisions based primarily on tests involving subjective judgements of public policy interests. When in doubt, they defer power to Congress.

Anyone who thinks that Eldred established a precident for perpetual copyrights evidently has not read the decision. Unfortunately, it does leave open the question of what exactly the clause implies and it does not offer strong guidance to Congress or to other courts (much like Roe v. Wade), so it dooms the issue to come back again and again in slight variations.

Re:Flag on the play, this one's coming back.

[Anonymous Coward]

So any DRM is unconstitutional? Or just weak DRM?

Do content providers have to provide a mechanism for transition into public domain?

Re:Flag on the play, this one's coming back.

[Anonymous Coward]

Makes a mockery of things proper.

Music studios regulary DESTROY recordings, because they don't want to pay the storage and holding costs. Pigs will fly, before they hand out anything. Stuff is also lost. Like nitrocelluose films, no way will the media survive to make it out to be 'enjoyed'. .. whether it conflicts with the First Amendment rights of others to enjoy and use the material in the public domain after the limited time expires.

Given the present marketshare of public domain stuff that is 'enjoyed and used' - less than 1% after 50 years?

Back to the case. The Defendant should ask what percentage of live recording stuff - no longer exists. Copyright should expire at the point at which the materials safekeeping and survivability can no longer be guaranteed, AND be enjoyed - there must be a test that the custodian is capable of releasing all material at the end of its limited rights time. If that obligation can't be met, all claims of copyright should be shortened accordingly.

The extinguishment of knowledge, and works of art, is not a good thing. Artificial scarcity is flat out bad.

Re:Flag on the play, this one's coming back.

[Anonymous Coward]

It would probably be much easier for them to get a new law passed that only makes the sale of bootleg recording illegal for 999,999,999 years. At least then they could argue that the new law wasn't technically providing infinate copyright.

Shhhh! Don't give them ideas... :)

(on second thought, you could patent that as a 'business process' and charge them an arm and a leg for it)

Re:Flag on the play, this one's coming back.

[Ohreally_factor]

Allowing artists or inventors to profit from creative work is unconstitutional unless it demonstrably contributes to that end.

Wrong. The last part is somewhat* correct, insofar as that the reason for giving an artist a limited monopoly on his work is to encourage innovation. But to say that "allowing something is unconstitutional" is bullshit, or at the very least, poorly stated. There is nothing in the constitution that would expressly prohibit an artist from profiting from his work. It would be absurd if it did, but it doesn't. So, if it's not prohibited, it's permissible, i.e., allowed.

*There is nothing in the constitution that provides for such demonstrations (of contributions towards innovation). That copyright will benefit innovation is assumed, and (obviously) copyrights are not granted on a case by case basis depending on how well it can be demonstrated that the copyright will lead to innovation.

Re:Flag on the play, this one's coming back.

[silentbozo]

The extinguishment of knowledge, and works of art, is not a good thing. Artificial scarcity is flat out bad.

Best words on the subject yet. Now, how to get a public debate going so we can air some of the music/movie industry's dirty laundry?

Re:Flag on the play, this one's coming back.

[dipipanone]

> For example if I cant make any money making music
> then I wont be able to spend a lot of time making
> music (I'd have to get a day job and only do music
> in my spare time).

Given the history of musicians who produce one or two great albums (created while they were impoverished joes, working a regular day job) followed by a series of trite and tedious stinkers written and recorded after they become celebrities without any real or meaningful stimulus, it seems to me that your point is an argument *against* the way that copyright stifles innovation.

can you please just TRY?

[Speare]

Can you frickin' editors please just TRY not to post duplicates of stories that are still on your frickin' FRONT PAGE?

Re:can you please just TRY?

[OverlordQ]

Well atleast on the bright side (if there is one), timmothy didn't post both of em.

Re:can you please just TRY?

[dTaylorSingletary]

This attitude pisses me off so much. There's nothing wrong with a duplicate story. New spins on the old, even if semi-recent, should always be welcome because it will foster comments, some comments that actually hold some sort of communication, or relevancy to the topic...

This is not your website. It's not their website either. It's everyone's, even those people who have yet to read it, or this article, or this particular repeat of this article. And that's a good thing.

Are you mad because you feel taking the 10 seconds to read an article headline is too much of your precious time? Or your own memory eluding you, and perhaps clicking on the link to the article and reading the article a second time.. and then you remember -- I've already read this. You are wasting my time.

I'm done.

Re:can you please just TRY?

[Anonymous Coward]

Semi-recent? It's on the same fucking page for crying out loud.

Re:can you please just TRY?

[LiquidCoooled]

this time.

lol only joking, hope it hasn't really happened.

Re:can you please just TRY?

[PedanticSpellingTrol]

This is not your website. It's not their website either. It's everyone's, even those people who have yet to read it, or this article, or this particular repeat of this article. And that's a good thing.

Actually, I think lately it's been Rolay Piquepalle's website. Maybe they should put his name at the top, like fark does with that drew carey guy

Re:can you please just TRY?

[erick99]

I don't think everyone understand's that when he says still up "...on the same fucking page..." he means that it is on the Slashdo homepage and it is right around 30 hours old at the most.

-erick

Re:can you please just TRY?

[badasscat]

Are you mad because you feel taking the 10 seconds to read an article headline is too much of your precious time?

I'm sure he's "mad" because having nothing but a bunch of duplicate stories right on the front page of a site makes the site a lot less useful. And every story that's a dupe is another story that didn't get posted.

There are a lot of tech news sites and blogs out there - news.com, engadget.com, theregister.com, etc. Some of them overlap the content posted here, but there's generally a lot of info that only gets posted in one place, which makes each of those sites worth visiting on their own. But if one of those sites simply repeats the same story over and over, then it's not really providing you with news at all, which is the main purpose of their existence. I would think this would be of interest to the editors here; posting dupes very simply makes the site less useful and makes visitors less likely to keep visiting.

If you like visiting a site, and you suddenly see it become less useful than it used to be, then the natural human reaction would probably be disappointment and/or irritation. I don't think there's any reason for you to try to belittle those feelings among people who are just trying to get the editors to do a little better job for the good of the site as a whole.

Re:can you please just TRY?

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiot. His name is Rolaids Pickandpull.

Re:can you please just TRY?

[DAldredge]

You are wrong. Dupes like this cost /. subscribers which costs them money.

They do not make enought money, they go out of business.

Re:can you please just TRY?

[bXTr]

This is not your website. It's not their website either.

Actually, it is their website; just ask them, they'd be happy to tell you. And if they want to post the same article on the front page multiple times, well that's their right to do so. They may look like "gold medal winners at the Special Olympics(*)" doing it, but they can certainly do that. If people don't like it, they can go somewhere else. Nobody's putting a gun to anyone's head and making them read /.

(*) -- because although you may be the champ, you're still a retard.

Re:can you please just TRY?

[Tim C]

Are you mad because you feel taking the 10 seconds to read an article headline is too much of your precious time?

Maybe it's because the editors on this site essentially have one job - choose which stories to post, avoiding dupes. Hell, we've long since given up on any hope of objectivity, or fact-checking, not posting redundant stories is all we have left.

This one is a duplicate of a story that was posted only 6 huors previously, and that was (and at time of writing this, still is) on the front page. That doesn't take much effort to check - load the site and scroll down.

Every duplicate takes the place of a different story on a different topic that could've been posted in its stead. It's a waste of time, effort and resources for all concerned. No, it doesn't waste *much* time or effort, but that's not the point - it's wholly avoidable waste. We're not talking about some obscure little story that was posted to a section a couple of weeks ago, it's right there in front of you when you load the site!

Re:can you please just TRY?

[SEE]

Hell, we've long since given up on any hope of objectivity,[ grammar, spelling, reasonable color schemes,] or fact-checking, not posting redundant stories is all we have left.

Re:can you please just TRY?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus Christ... According to the Times of London, now he's The King Of Blogs

Re:can you please just TRY?

[dedeman]

And how many dupes of *quippy version of* "Isn't this a dupe" do I see? More then there are dupe articles, that's for sure. I think that some believe themselves to be quick witted (in the Fr1st p@st!!!) sort of way), that call out the dupes. Good job, you just earned yourself a worthless post. Maybe you'll get a lower slashID? I think not.

Re:can you please just TRY?

[Anonymous Coward]

Eat shit, Darren.

Re:can you please just TRY?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comment was a bigger waste of time.

DUPE DUPE DUPE

[cprice]

A dupe of a story posted earlier today. I emailed the onduty editor who did not take the story down. I am beginning to think the 'email the on duty editor' is just there for placebo effect...

Re:DUPE DUPE DUPE

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, it IS pointless. the "editor" CANNOT remove an article once up. it would require refunds for pay-for-pages and slashdot has enough trouble with basic HTML let alone that kind of stuff.

Re:DUPE DUPE DUPE

[Dave2 Wickham]

I dunno, I've occasionally seen articles marked "Dupe" in search.pl, which - when clicked - can't be viewed.

(Yes, holy crap, they sometimes spot dupes.)

Wonderful

[panxerox]

Another thing that will draw the congresscritters to muck about with copyright (as if the induce act wasn't bad enough). I'm sure that one of the RIAA's checks is being written out right now with the note: "See we have to fix this whole limited time loophole or the evil pirates/terrorists will jeopardize our business model"

Re:Wonderful

[mjbkinx]

Another thing that will draw the congresscritters to muck about with copyright (as if the induce act wasn't bad enough). I'm sure that one of the RIAA's checks is being written out right now with the note: "See we have to fix this whole limited time loophole or the evil pirates/terrorists will jeopardize our business model"

i think you meant to say that the story was a dupe.

Shh

[The-Bus]

Don't be mad. This is just a bootleg of the previous post.

This has to be a record

[ravenspear]

SIX STORIES DOWN!

It is a sad day at slashdot...

[Techie2000]

When the editors don't even read their own website...

Re:It is a sad day at slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be new here!

It's on the front page!

[YetAnotherName]

I mean, come on, really ...

Dupe

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, lets at least *try* to not dupe things that are STILL ON THE FRONT PAGE

*sigh*

[ender1598]

Do these editors even read their own news site? Maybe there needs to be a reader approval process after an editor submits a story.

Without belaboring the obvious...

[rco3]

Timothy, you might think about giving up now. That's got to be one of the most pitiful dupes I've ever seen - even on Slashdot.

Tell me again what those subscriptions are supposed to get me?

Re:Without belaboring the obvious...

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell me again what those subscriptions are supposed to get me?

Clearly not editors who RTFWS.

Re:Without belaboring the obvious...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you don't even have a subscription, it's unlikely you're interested in one. It's far more likely that you're just bitching without any real right to do so.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Re:Without belaboring the obvious...

[rco3]

OK, you're wrong.

"without any real right to do so"? Hey, check it out: 1) free speech. You're welcome. 'Nuff said. 2) I read the site regularly, I don't block the ads, I post informational and (occasionally) insightful commentary - I AM the target audience for subscription sales. 3) Slashdot offers subscriptions to people like me, I point out what needs to be done to sell me one - hint: decent editing is high on the list. This website is a product, and I pay for it by viewing ads. That gives me EVERY right to bitch, and to point out that I have NO reason to pay more for a product whose improvement continues to falter.

Did I leave anything out? Oh, yeah - BILLY GOAT! Get thee back under thy bridge, troll.

Re:Without belaboring the obvious...

[Fnkmaster]

Tell me again what those subscriptions are supposed to get me?

The right to see stories before everyone else so you can email the editors and tell them that it's a dupe - only to have your email ignored and see the story posted anyway?

Serious Question

[ravenspear]

Do the editors even read /.?

Re:Serious Question

[Anonymous Coward]

No, this is a new feature.

Normally, users don't RTFA.

Now, editors are introducing the concept of not even RTFP.

Re:Serious Question

[PhxBlue]

Do the editors even read /.?

No, but they do sometimes read the articles, and I find an ironic symmetry in that.

It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[turnstyle]

Even though this is a repeat, it is interesting to note what sort of stories get duplicated.

In this case, it seems to be an anti-copyright story -- but in this case, we have a store that is making money by selling copies of music, and giving the musicians nothing in return.

The vibe here tends to be anti-copyright, but is it so anti-copyright that we even think it's ok for a store to make a profit off musicians that never get paid?

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[Breakfast Pants]

Fix the law to one that isn't unconstistutional and it wouldn't be seen as a problem. Don't blame it on the store. Blame it on the rain.

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[turnstyle]

Yes, if a law is unconstistutional it should be fixed.

But there's nothing to cheer about a store making money by selling unauthorized copies of a musician's work, and giving nothing to the musician in return.

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[Monkelectric]

But there's nothing to cheer about a store making money by selling unauthorized copies of a musician's work, and giving nothing to the musician in return.

The RIAA does it every day.

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[turnstyle]

"But there's nothing to cheer about a store making money by selling unauthorized copies of a musician's work, and giving nothing to the musician in return."

• "The RIAA does it every day."

And what, so now you're happy to see a store doing it too? Geez.

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[Anonymous Coward]

this "natural right" theory you have is interesting. too bad it's nowhere to be found in the constitution. art. i sec. 8 cl. 8 is utilitarian, bitch. are you a gun-shooting redneck from montana? a retard? or a mpaa/riaa stooge?

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[turnstyle]

"this "natural right" theory you have is interesting. too bad it's nowhere to be found in the constitution. art. i sec. 8 cl. 8 is utilitarian, bitch."

Uh, when did I ever say anthing about any "natural right" theory?

"are you a gun-shooting redneck from montana? a retard? or a mpaa/riaa stooge?"

Charming. In any case, here's who I am. Ok, now it's your turn.

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[cpt kangarooski]

Really? What's wrong with it?

I mean, the bookstore in my neighborhood has copies of Shakespeare for sale every day. They're unauthorized, and he doesn't get a penny.

Are you saying that it's bad?

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[Anonymous Coward]

Musicians never get paid? I thought they were usually paid for their original performance. But you say not. Or are you an industry troll?

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[Monkelectric]

I'm just saying -- our country SUCKS. Corporations have rights that citizens do not -- if I write a program that takes over your computer and spies on you -- I'm a hacker/terrorist. A company does it -- its legit (spyware/adware).

Have you seen on TV advertisements for drug companies now selling drugs whose purpose is to "Provide positive energy?" another drugs actual slogan is "It takes the edge off" Yet if I want to do the same thing with marijuana I'm the criminal?

For the record, selling bootlegs is wrong. And so is everything the RIAA does. We are at the point where the government is taking away our rights so corporations can sell them back to us... Sorry for the bile -- I've just had it with our country right now.

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh, so you are an industry troll. Thought so.

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[turnstyle]

"Musicians never get paid? I thought they were usually paid for their original performance. But you say not. Or are you an industry troll?"

Yes, musicians never get paid by bootleg shops. Who's the troll?

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[Anonymous Coward]

The musicians were already paid when they made the original performance.

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[Nick_dm]

I don't see many people here approving of the actions of the shopowner, just saying it's good to see a judge taking a balanced approach on one of the issues. There will be some people here who think that copyright should be abolished entirely but most would just rather see it weakened a bit. This court case may not have helped the artist, but hopefully it will help push in a better law that can help the artist without screwing over the public, so long term it is better result.

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[turnstyle]

"I mean, the bookstore in my neighborhood has copies of Shakespeare for sale every day. They're unauthorized, and he doesn't get a penny. Are you saying that it's bad?"

I'm saying that taking a musician's work, and selling it, and giving them nothing in return is wrong.

Are you saying that it's ok to sell bootleg copies of their CDs too?

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[turnstyle]

"I don't see many people here approving of the actions of the shopowner"

That's not how I see it -- here's the top of this thread (in nested form), quoting:

"Don't blame it on the store."

"Really? What's wrong with it?"

"The musicians were already paid when they made the original performance."

etc...

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously, you are for trying to claim "musicians never get paid". What a load.

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[jc42]

The vibe here tends to be anti-copyright, but is it so anti-copyright that we even think it's ok for a store to make a profit off musicians that never get paid?

Time to once again mention that, unless your recording sells at least 1.5 million copies, you won't get paid. At least, this is the situation with "industry standard" recording-industry contracts.

If your recording sells under a million copies, you'll usually end up in debt to the recording company. So maybe this store was actually helping the musicians, by selling the recordings in such a way that they wouldn't put the musicians in debt to the store. ;-)

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[sv0f]

Yet if I want to do the same thing with marijuana I'm the criminal?
Yes, you are. That's the law. You can't sell marijuana. [...]

For the record, selling bootlegs is wrong
And so is everything the RIAA does.
No, thats provably false. The RIAA is validated by the massess. The music industry sells millions of records and is rather profitable. Logically that means something they are doing is filling a marketable demand.

Drug Dealer: I am validated by the masses. I sell lots of drugs and am rather profitable. Logically that means that something I am doing is filling a marketable demand.

(I think you should forget about "marketable demand" and simply say the RIAA's practices are allowed by the law.)

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, how clueless.

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[Anonymous Coward]

SO you agree that people are ripping of Shakespeare each and every day?

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[turnstyle]

So you actually think it's ok to just take a contemporary musician's CD, copy it, and sell it comercially, without their consent? I can see why you choose to remain anonymous... ;)

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

"Have you seen on TV advertisements for drug companies now selling drugs whose purpose is to "Provide positive energy?" another drugs actual slogan is "It takes the edge off" Yet if I want to do the same thing with marijuana I'm the criminal?"

I bet the drugs those companies are selling aren't restricted by the DEA.

"if I write a program that takes over your computer and spies on you -- I'm a hacker/terrorist. A company does it -- its legit (spyware/adware)."

Spyware/Adware is legal because the user agrees, albeit often without knowing it, to install it on their computer. You cna do this.

"Sorry for the bile -- I've just had it with our country right now."

I hope you plan on voting.

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[Anonymous Coward]

What a whiner.
Not a single human being was ever, in the history of the world, forced to sign a contract with any RIAA member record company. Ever.

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[mabhatter654]

but this guy has a "copyright" on that particular performance...

That's the real trouble with where the copyright laws have gone. Each "performance" is technically a different performance so his "copy" is unique from any others...should even have it's own protections!!!

More than that it's a perfect case to show the hillarity of the system... The idea of letting ANYTHING out of your mouth or pen be copyrighted is perposterous...especially for 150+ years!! The original intent was to have the works submitted to the Library of Congress for posterity... not to have every private letter supressed. If you look at the largest corperate push for protections, it's now "live" events, databases, and "pre recorded" software... these people don't ever plan on releasing the actual scripts, information, or source code to the "library" for posterity to enjoy ...it's just a form of corperate welfare.

on the flip side, we can't just eliminate the 1976 changes becase GNU DEPENDS on them. Otherwise getting offical copyrights for OSS would be prohibitvily time-consuming and expensive.

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, then I certainly hope that you've never bought a copy of Shakespeare.

I don't think it's wrong. I don't think that they have a natural or inherent claim on their work.

OTOH, I do think that it can be a good idea to have a copyright system. Not because it is morally right, because it isn't. But for utilitarian purposes, which is to say, because it leaves the public better off than it would be otherwise. That it involves artists getting paid, however, is purely secondary. It isn't the point, any more than a particular kind of vehicle, or engine, or fuel is important to me when I merely want to get someplace with a minimum amount of fuss. Copyright law is largely amoral.

And to the small degree that there is morality, it is in fact in favor of not giving artists rights, because who are they to stand in the way of the progress of an entire culture? Given unencumbered works, we can create new works, disseminate the works widely, ensure that the works survive, and generally provide for the education and entertainment of the world. Those are all excellent things. Letting a work rot on a shelf because the artist is greedy doesn't strike me as a good thing at all, if it can be rationally avoided.

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[Anonymous Coward]

Then leave

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[ragefan]

I bet the drugs those companies are selling aren't restricted by the DEA.

Does not mean that they should not be. Cocaine and opium derivatives used to be sold by similar companies (e.g. Coca-cola)

Spyware/Adware is legal because the user agrees, albeit often without knowing it, to install it on their computer. You cna do this.

Just because a vague Active X control window pops up asking to install a particular program, does not make it "legitimate" and safe.

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[Lord Flipper]

in this case, we have a store that is making money by selling copies of music, and giving the musicians nothing in return.

So the musician's 'gate' from the concert and all those sweatshop-produced T-shirt profits don't count?

When Bruce Springsteen was suing Columbia Records, and didn't record any material, (breaking the Recording Contract that he had signed)...he would start his shows, and resume them after the Intermissions, with words exactly 'like', "All right you bootleggers, roll them tapes!", and then pause a bit, to give the guys time to press 'Play', and attain tape speed.

Why?... Because it was in his interest to keep his name, material, and 'brand' alive, that's why. And, of course, as soon as it was no longer in his self-interest, he switched 'sides' on the issue. He was one of the first bigname artists to come out against mp3s, and file-sharing, in general.

I download his stuff off the Usenet once in a while, just to trash it. Is there material harm to Bruce then? No. I love Bruce, as a human and songwriter, but bullshit walks, pal, no matter to whom it belongs. And it's no different if some crybabies have a boot of one of their over-priced shows sitting in a rack on 8th Street, either...Hypocrisy sucks, and the copyright laws have gotta go.

-- "The purpose of the music business is to sell booze." -Duke Ellington,(sadly)

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[crucini]

Corporations have rights that citizen do not...

Not to any significant degree. In your two examples, you misrepresent legal distinctions between kinds of actions as legal distinctions between kinds of actors.

... if I write a program that takes over your computer and spies on you -- I'm a hacker/terrorist. A company does it -- its legit (spyware/adware).

If you obtain the user's informed consent, it's legit. Whether you are a corporation or individual is irrelevant. I also note that you are using the words corporation and company interchangeably. A company may be a sole proprietorship. In other words, an individual.

And what is your basis for claiming that malware authors are charged as terrorists?

Have you seen on TV advertisements for drug companies now selling drugs whose purpose is to "Provide positive energy?" another drugs actual slogan is "It takes the edge off" Yet if I want to do the same thing with marijuana I'm the criminal?

The important distinction here is not who is selling the drug; it's what drug is being sold. The company is selling an FDA-approved drug. If the company tries to sell marijuana under the current law, it will be in violation of the law just as an individual would. If you can develop a drug and obtain FDA approval for it, you can legally sell it.

Note that I am taking no position on either the ban on marijuana or the FDA's approval of these mood-altering drugs. I am merely pointing out that your thesis is incorrect; the corporate or individual nature of the seller has no bearing on the legality of the drug sale.

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a single human being was ever, in the history of the world, forced to sign a contract with any RIAA member record company. Ever.

"You want to have a successful music career? Play ball. You want to flip burgers, you can keep the copyright on your own work."

Yeah, sounds like a fair choice to me. Kinda like, "you can freely choose to worship Jesus, or burn in hell."

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[tricorn]

No, it isn't what drug is being sold that's important, it's how it is legal. How is it that certain patent-protected large-drug-company-controlled mood-altering drugs have been made legal, and non-patentable non-profitable mood-altering drugs are illegal? That one is legal and the other is not is a given. Why it should be that way is the question that emphasizes that corporations can get away with things that individuals can't, which was the point that was being made.

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[Anonymous Coward]

Ohhhh, too bad your sweetheart's writing is now locked away in a "pay only" site.

That's what happens when you sell out to Big Media.

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[Ohreally_factor]

The main diff is that those drugs you see advertised probably don't work, other than the placebo effect.

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[Jonti]

It *could* be -- it depends on the social milieu, for example, on the laws of the market. Look, the GPL makes exactly this sort of thing possible for code. It just so happens that the "default" position with the USA laws that affect this market is hostile to GPL-like ideas, so these have to be explicitly crafted.

But the default position on copyright could, quite legitimately under the Constitution, be legislated to be much more in accordance with GPL-like ideas. If that were the case, then, yes, it would be "ok to just take a contemporary musician's CD, copy it, and sell it comercially, without their consent".

The law can give that consent, under the US Constitution. Should the laws be changed in that way? Yes, I think so -- it is be better for our culture as a whole if the default position was that creative work be freely shared, and the real authors properly recognised.

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[dipipanone]

A refusal to express disapproval is not the same thing as approval.

It may mean that people don't give a shit one way or the other.

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[Anonymous Coward]

"a store to make a profit off musicians that never get paid?"

Business model for a concert is selling tickets and sponsorships. Musicians got paid from ticket sales and sponsorships. Musicians never expected to get extra cash from recording of concert, so they're still getting exactly what they expected.

No millionaire musicians were harmed in the making of this bootleg recording.

Yes, it's illegal, but don't pretend someone is actually getting hurt. (Except maybe any moron consumers expecting a studio quality recording from a concert bootleg, which is really their own fault, except in California where even bootleg recordings require warnings of certain death and dismemberment from the Surgeon General.)

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[stwrtpj]

I mean, the bookstore in my neighborhood has copies of Shakespeare for sale every day. They're unauthorized, and he doesn't get a penny.

No, they are not "unauthorized". Shakespeare is in the public domain.

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to once again mention that, unless your recording sells at least 1.5 million copies, you won't get paid.

My guess is that, even if they tried, the corner record store doesn't have the market or manufacturing capabilities to sell 1.5 million copies of an in-house bootleg. Not saying you're wrong in general, but we're not talking about Sony Music here, we're talking about a one-location store and website. They couldn't demand "industry standard contracts" if they tried.

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[tomhudson]

Your "Anromeda" may have been interesting, but it's obsolete. In SuSE 9.1, I stream mp3s from my web server by just dumping them in the right directory - no software, no scripts to add, no configuring.

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[tomhudson]

More than that it's a perfect case to show the hillarity of the system... The idea of letting ANYTHING out of your mouth or pen be copyrighted is perposterous...especially for 150+ years!!

So the next time the government sends you a survey, a tax form, etc.

1. stamp a copyright notice on your reply;
2. enclose a cover letter stating that your reply is covered by copyright, and mat not be duplicated, either physically or electronically, or entered into any information retrieval system, without your express consent and that the license fee is $[insert number here]
3. PROFIT! (and show that the system is broken)

Now, before someone tries to say this is BS, here's the law as it applies, for example, to the US Department of State vis. the Freedom of Informaton Act (all departments have similar obligations for copyrighted material). http://foia.state.gov/masterdocs/05fam/05m0480.pdf

5 FAM 480
USE OF COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL
(TL:IM-46; 12-05-2003)
(Office of Origin: IRM/BPC/RG)
5 FAM 481 GENERAL POLICY
(TL:IM-46; 12-05-2003)
a. There is no general license for Federal agencies to copy and disseminate, whether in printed, audio, video, or electronic form, (including facsimile transmission and electronic mail) copyrighted material. In addition to paper publications, copyright materials include non-printed material such as microfilm, software, sound recordings, video films or tapes, and Internet items. The purchase of subscriptions to periodicals, special reports, digital video discs, video tapes or sound recordings, and other copyrighted materials does not carry authority to copy and/or disseminate those materials.
[/snip]
...
[snip]

Under copyright law (Title 17 of the United States Code), the "fair use" doctrine (see 5 FAM 484 below) permits, under limited circumstances, the copying of small portions of copyrighted material for certain purposes.

b. The holders of copyrights are entitled to compensation for articles and other copyrighted materials copied by the Federal Government, beyond that permissible under the "fair use" doctrine, unless the holders grant permission for the use.

The Department of State expects its employees to
comply with the copyright law just as with any other applicable law.
[/snip]

The government has to obtain a license from YOU!

[snip]

5 FAM 482 OBTAINING LICENSES
(TL:IM-23; 05-15-1997)

a. Many publishers of copyrighted material, who do business with the Federal Government, may be willing to negotiate licenses that would allow copying in the volumes necessary to meet information needs of the Department.
[/snip]

Fair use is covered here:

5 FAM 484 FAIR USE
(TL:IM-23; 05-15-1997)
The copyright law provides that "fair use" may be made of copyrighted works for such purposes as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research.

Factors to consider in determining "fair use" are:
. The nature of the copyrighted work;
. The amount and substantiality of the portion used;
. The purpose and character of the use; and
. The effect of the use on the potential market for, or value of the copyrighted work.

Note that using ALL the work (in other words, the entire contents of whatever form you return) is not covered by "fair use".

So, wnat to show that it's broken? Push it to the extreme. It's the same tactics the **AAs have been using. (insert your own "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander comment here :-)

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[Bri3D]

That was what this whole story was about...in the case of recordings, it is illegal. RTFA. This doesn't make bootlegs legal. It has nothing really to do with them. It rules infinite copyright on recordings unconstitutional.

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[cpt kangarooski]

That has nothing to do with it. For a work to be in the public domain means that the government is going to permit the copies to be made and distributed; not that the author himself is allowing it or even happy about it. Thus, they're unauthorized.

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[shimmin]

on the flip side, we can't just eliminate the 1976 changes becase GNU DEPENDS on them. Otherwise getting offical copyrights for OSS would be prohibitvily time-consuming and expensive.

I think your implication is that GPL'd software depends on the provision of the Berne-compliant copyright law that copyright is inherent in the creation of the work, rather than requiring registration. But if that is what GPL-released software is depending on, it may be difficult to actually recover damages for infringement, because (at least in the U.S.), infringement suits for registered and unregistered copyrights are very different.

For a registered copyright, the plaintiff may pursue either actual damages (what the infringer made off the work plus what you lost) or statutory damages, which at the court's discretion may range up to $100,000. In addition, the court may, at its discretion, charge the infringer with the plaintiff's legal fees.

For an unregistered copyright, the plaintiff may recover only actual damages, which might be quite small and difficult to compute in either case, and legal fees are unrecoverable. So, while a copyright need not be registered to exist, in many cases it needs to be registered to be worth enforcing.

The U.S. copyright registration fee is only $20, and anyone who releases software under the GPL would be wise to pay it.

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[Zirnike]

You could probably do that, but photocopies for internal use is probably going to be ruled 'fair use', even if you can get a non-IRS judge to hear the case (they have their own court system, after all...), and expect to get audited until the end of time...

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[tomhudson]

but photocopies for internal use is probably going to be ruled 'fair use',

Copies of "parts" *may* be governed by fair use doctrine, but not the whole (here's the original quote):

Under copyright law (Title 17 of the United States Code), the "fair use" doctrine (see 5 FAM 484 below) permits, under limited circumstances, the copying of small portions of copyrighted material for certain purposes.

The doctrine of fair use (USC 17.107)http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.h tml states:

for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

Government surveys, and especially tax forms, are not enumerated in the above "fair use" exemption.

Section 108 provided the right to make 1 copy are for archives and libraries only.

As well, photocopies are not permitted unless permission has been granted. Here's one link of going rates charged to government agencies for the right to photocopy all your works for 1 year: http://www.loc.gov/flicc/svcdir/cr.html I'd license them on competitive terms (you have 200,000 employees, it's in finance, that makes it tier 3 - just send me the check for $1.6 million :-) Like I said, PROFIT!

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[inode_buddha]

Dunno; some of the best musicians I've ever heard measured success in terms of their audience, not their wallet. The wallet seems to take care of itself in those cases.

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[crucini]

How is it that certain patent-protected large-drug-company-controlled mood-altering drugs have been made legal, and non-patentable non-profitable mood-altering drugs are illegal?

Pursuing FDA approval is hard. As I understand it, nobody would pursue this approval without some assurance of exclusivity to make back the costs. This doesn't support the idea that corporations have more rights than individuals. Is an individual barred from seeking FDA approval for a drug of his own invention? Since our democratic leaders in their infinite wisdom have made the approval process very arduous, one would expect the majority of approvals to go to corporations, which are our society's way of pooling resources to meet a goal.

Is this the prototype of all the "extra corporate rights" arguments? Are you simply saying that some things are expensive and corporations have more money; therefore they can buy the expensive things, therefore they have more rights? Or have you got important examples of government recognizing rights in corporations that it does not recognize in individuals?

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[SillySlashdotName]

Now, before someone tries to say this is BS, here's the law as it applies, for example, to the US Department of State vis. the Freedom of Informaton Act (all departments have similar obligations for copyrighted material).

Interesting, but still BS.

IF you met the criteria for a copyrighted work, THEN the laws you quote would apply. You don't, so they don't, either.

You are submitting facts, not original creative work. You would not meet the criteria for copyright on your numbers/checkboxes/etc. Just claiming a copyright on your form would not mean you actually had a copyright if you don't meet the requirements for getting a copyright in the first place.

Although some tax returns really do fall into the 'Fiction' catagory...

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, when I see posts like this modded as trolls, it really, really pisses me off.

Dankheskett has written a well thought out, reasoned, point by point response to the grandparent post. Unfortunatly, far too many Slashdotters seem to think "troll" means "Any post I disagree with."

If you think the parent is wrong, say so. Don't mod it as troll.

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[tomhudson]

Everything you write is copywrited by default. You would have to show an exception.

Some collections of facts are copyrightable, if they are facts relating to you, the author. After all, that's what an autobiography is :-)

Also, you can rub Crisco or mineral oil on the little spaces that say "Don't write in this space." After all, you're just helping prevent anyone from breaking their order not to write in that space :-)

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[Zirnike]

I didn't say that the law states that it is fair use, I said that they will state that it is fair use. You'll probably get a ruling similar to 'while not explicitly mentioned, the court finds that the photocoping of a complete document by the government* for purposes of doing their job falls under fair use exemption.'

You have to remember the government we're dealing with here... This is a court system that stated that a farmer growing feed for his own animals, with no sales to anyone at all, violated a federal law and that because it was related to interstate commerce, the Fed had jurisdiction. Note the total lack of commerce, never mind interstate commerce, in my summary...

* At least, we can HOPE they limit it to 'government'...

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[tomhudson]

Until a court rules otherwise, you're acting in good faith in the framework of the current law, which is certainly a defensable position to work from :-)

If they were smart, they (the government) wouldn't argue "fair use", but "eminent domain" - but "smart government" must be another of those durn oxymorons.

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[Breakfast Pants]

We are talking "unauthorized" by the author, not by the government. Basically the argument arose because the poster made a statement which did not take public domain into account. You're going back and trying to defend the poster's statement on a technicallity when infact the post which you are responding to attacked the poster by bringing up the same technicallity. He didn't mention that Shakespeare was in the public domain explicitly but believe me: that was his whole point. Please join the conversation at any time.

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[Anonymous Coward]

How did this guy's comment get rated so high?!

I'm just saying -- our country SUCKS. ... I've just had it with our country right now. ... All I know about Bush is I had a job when Clinton was president.

Oh, yeah. Silly me.

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated

[Liora]

Hey there. I love you. Don't forget it.

(My karma is excellent, so I think even if this gets downmodded as offtopic I'll be ok. I think though that enough days have gone by that I'll be ok....)

If it's funny once, it's funny twice...

[Infinityis]

Maybe I'm too old, but I thought this was going to be an article about alcohol

------------------

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

------------------

From the article:
"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?

------------------

Oh, great...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.

------------------

Note: Upon request, I can also provide highly informative and insightful posts, provided that you have an extrememly short-term memory

Re:If it's funny once, it's funny twice...

[jc42]

So the performances were illegal?

Actually, it's quite likely they were. I've seen it mentioned in passing by assorted "IAAL" types that if you don't have prior written permission to perform a copyrighted work, your performance is probably illegal. The concept of "mechanical royalty" has been invented to legalize such things, but there are a few reasons this might not apply. One is that the intent of this concept was to legalize broadcasts of recorded works, not live performances. And how many performers actually pay such royalties? I know my gang of (mostly very amateur ;-) musical friends don't. Now, it possible that if you play in a bar or such public place, the management may have paid the annual license. That protects the place's owners from a complicity charge, but it doesn't actually protect the performers, who are the ones committing the illegal act, unless every one of them has also paid the annual license fee.

The only safe way to perform a copyrighted work is to have handy a signed letter of permission from the copyright holder (or agent).

Actually, there's another way: Only perform works that are well out of copyright. Of course, if you look into the "Happy Birthday" story, you'll find that this can be difficult. Works more than a century old may still be copyrighted.

Oh, well; in general the copyright laws are rather fscked up these days, and getting fsckeder by the month. It's not too surprising to hear of some judge raising a lonely voice and asking for some sanity. We can trust he'll be overturned on appeal.

Here's an interesting thought.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever notice that the only thing that doesn't get posted twice on Slashdot are the product advertisments?

Slashdot: Don't give them more than they pay for.

6:00 am

[porp]

Alarm clock goes off.

Babe.

I got you babe.

porp

Re:6:00 am

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure if this is funnier because of the Groundhog Day dupe reference, or the fact that the song is (partly) Sonny Bono's.

Re:6:00 am

[drinkypoo]

If that bastard is hitting that tree for eternity, this must be my heaven. Where's me fucken harp, eh?

Advice

[Sanity]

Even the most lax sources of information that purport to call themselves "news" exercise sufficient respect for their readers not to report the same thing twice within as many hours.

Slashdot must be making a reasonable amount of money out of its subscribers and advertising, perhaps a small fraction of that could be spent on vetting what is posted on the front page?

(And before I am dismissed as someone who should be dismissed, take a look at my /. id - which is lower than most, not to mention the fact that I have been interviewed on this site. /. is a great site, and so its popular, but it won't stay popular if the editors don't demonstrate more respect for their readership).

Re:Advice

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Even the most lax sources of information that purport to call themselves "news" exercise sufficient respect for their readers not to report the same thing twice within as many hours.

Never watched CNN, or Fox News have you?

Re:Advice

[quantaman]

Slashdot must be making a reasonable amount of money out of its subscribers and advertising, perhaps a small fraction of that could be spent on vetting what is posted on the front page?

I have to say I considered subscribing a couple times but then just took a look not just at the rampants dupes but even worse the massive factual errors that show up so often in the summary that even a cursory glance through the article would reveal. How many times I've read about a company doing some great evil in the summary only to find they've done nothing of the sort in the article, or about some event described as something completely different. Almost all of these errors could be caught with 3 min of research, it's gotten to the point where I don't even pay attention to the summary or even the title other then to see if it's something that might be interesting, it's the article and comments that I use for info.

Re:Advice

[hackstraw]

Never watched CNN, or Fox News have you?

Whats different is that CNN or Fox News is not an interactive forum like slashdot. If there were to be something significant in the cnn link that was not in the original post, then someone could post that like like the many other links. A duplicate story just unnecessarily divides the discussion. And also, most all of the discussion in a duplicate post is people like me bitching about it being a dupe.

I've never looked at the administrative part of slash, but I'm sure that there either could be an admin page that at least could at least show the titles of the past couple days of posts, or hell even just do a SQL query. Its not that tough.

Re:Advice

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Whats different is that CNN or Fox News is not an interactive forum like slashdot ... yada yada yada

Never read a joke before, have you?

Re:Advice

[TheSpoom]

If I had the space and the time, I would start a version of Slashdot that took Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View as a matter of policy.

You are absolutely right, things like this could be easily avoided. Day by day, Slashdot seems to appear less professional. I think it's time.

Re:Advice

[quantaman]

If I had the space and the time, I would start a version of Slashdot that took Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View as a matter of policy.

Damn fine idea, one of the things I find most irritating is blatant bias showing up in the summary, the summary is just that, a summary of the article or topic to be discussed. Bias should be found in the comments, where it belongs, a biased summary too often distracts from the topic that is to be discussed and makes the site appear shallow and childish.

I find the idea of a wiki based slashdot type site (not quite what you mentioned but I think it would work) interesting. There would be a bunch of sections, subitters could submit their stories to one of the sections and people would read through these sections, a story which achieves some metric for activity would then make it to the front page. It might take a couple hours for the story to make it to the front page depending on the metric but it's not like /. is known for its prompt reporting anyway. Furthermore we'll have some defense against lots of dupes or useless stories since by definition any story that makes it to the front page has generated a lot of interest. The only real class of dupes that could still be a problem is a current issue where two stories both have enough activity to make it to the front page, anyone have ideas for this (some kind of dupe checking code, ie link crawlers and keywords would really help here).

Re:Advice

[Tony-A]

If the news is significant I expect it to be in the headlines even when the headlines scroll down off the page. I expect this to happen whether or not there are any new developments. In many situations, the fact that there are no new developments can be the most newsworthy aspect to the information.

Some people grab a bit of /. whenever they have time and expect the top headlines to be whatever seems most important at the moment. I suspect that most of us do not want to have to dig through the archives to try to see whatever old stories are still of high importance.

If it bothers you, why even read it let alone post complaints about it?

Re:Advice

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot has a monopoly on its type of service and therefore remains popular despite its growing mediocrity. Just like... well you figure it out. We're all lusers for sticking around Slashdot XP.

Re:Advice

[TheSpoom]

Don't really need dupe checking code, from a programming perspective, it's quite simple to fix: Have users mark articles as dupes. If an article is marked as a dupe by enough users, it is excluded from front page posting, marked publically as a dupe, etc.

Re:Advice

[quantaman]

Sounds like a plan, have to indicate what it's a dupe of of course, maybe users will just mark stories as dupes of eachother rather than choosing saying a specific one is the dupe then you only promote the best one.

Where Do I Check My Soul?

[tilleyrw]

Now that we are firmly down the path to Armageddon and the New World Order of Our Esteemed Leader Dubya, where can we get our replacement souls for when we check our conscience at the door?

Subscribers

[Djupblue]

Next feature for subscribers: Dupe-filter Seriously, how hard is it to check if an article is already posted? Even the first-posters can do it!

Ah, /.

[Pikhq]

To all people announcing "DUPE!", you must realize one thing. /. wouldn't be /. without the ridiculously easy to avoid dupes.....

Summary

[sik0fewl]

For those of you who don't want to read the article, here's a quick summary:

It's about 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.

Ok, that does it

[ravenspear]

Dear Mr. Bainwol,

Please file a DMCA takedown request with Slashdot against the user Infinityis. This user is infringing on my intellectual property rights by illegally posting content that was authored by me. Please convey to Slashdot my desire to see appropriate action taken regarding this matter. You may let them know that I will refrain from pressing charges if Slashdot agrees to remove the infringing content and bitchslap the offending user.

Re:Ok, that does it

[Infinityis]

Your Honor,

The case ravenspear makes against our client is unfounded. As the "content" in question was posted on Slashdot, it constitutes a type of "live recording". As such, recent legal rulings support our client's right to distribute said content, as live recording laws do not limit the length of the copyright.

We would also like to submit Exhibit A as evidence. Note the similarity in the majority of these one-word posts: "dupe"

mod parent down: copyright infringement

[Anonymous Coward]

groundhog day was not a live performance,
schmuck,
this is offtopic.

Re:mod parent down: copyright infringement

[Anonymous Coward]

groundhog day was not a live performance,

True.

But this slashdot article is still a lot like groundhog day.

You get three guesses as to how this can be.

Bootlegged Story!

[0racle]

Sort of says it all.

dupe

[wikinerd]

I am happy I am not a subscriber...

NEW TOPIC GO

[Anonymous Coward]

Since this article is a dupe, I now declare the discussion to be about naked asian women.

DISCUSSION POWER UP

Re:NEW TOPIC GO

[Twisted Grind]

Mmmm....yummy!

Re:NEW TOPIC GO

[Anonymous Coward]

i find them hot and sexy. how does everyone else feel?

Re:NEW TOPIC GO

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say they vary about as much as naked white women.

Re:NEW TOPIC GO

[Anonymous Coward]

Why must someone always feel the need to inject reality into my racist fantasies?

Yeah, that sounds great, except...

[einer]

Before this ruling, the copyright never expired (clearly bad). Now what? There's NO copyright at all? You can copy and distribute at will? (No distinction is made in the article, so I'm asking.)

If that's the case, then that doesn't sound very fair to the artists. I mean come on, if concerts are going to be their bread and butter (like the herd thinks it should be), then this is stealing food out of their mouths. Sorry. Infringing food out of their mouths.

I'm not saying that all artists make money off sales of live performance recordings (some do), but the person that decides to spend 10 bucks on the unauthorized recording has 10 bucks less to spend on the authorized concert. A percentage of these people will wind up short of ticket money. Even if you don't buy that as an argument, at the very least the artist should have the first crack at releasing (and profiting) off of a live CD of the show.

Who actually thinks that people should be allowed to sell copies of performances without the artists permission (please reply)? Music isn't easy people. It takes time, hard work and discipline (for some) to put on a tight set. Why should J. Random Asshat profit off someone elses hard work?

If I write some code for a cool webapp, and someone steals it and sells it, I'm not okay with that.

Now the artist gets the worst of both worlds. I mean what the hell is the motive to produce or perform commercial music?

hmmmm...

Maybe this isn't such a bad thing after all.

Re:Yeah, that sounds great, except...

[Anonymous Coward]

shut up we're supposed to be talking about naked asian women now

Re:Yeah, that sounds great, except...

[Duke Machesne]

Have you ever heard a live recording of a band you loved and then said to yourself, "Gee, I guess I can skip the concert now"?

A percentage of the people buying the bootlegs will wind up short of ticket money? Are you fucking serious?

And, finally, I don't know how many times we're going to have to go through this:

Recording artists do not make money off of recordings. Recording companies make money off of recordings. Artists almost always lose money on recording. The value of going into massive debt on making an album is that it might induce more people to come to your shows.

If people are recording and distributing recordings of your shows for you, it's free advertisement.

Re:Yeah, that sounds great, except...

[ThatsNotFunny]

[...] if concerts are going to be their bread and butter (like the herd thinks it should be), then this is stealing food out of their mouths.

I can see the logic in the argument that downloading an mp3 is like "stealing food out of their mouths", because you likely are not going to buy the album if you've got the mp3.

But you can't use the same logic when it comes to bootlegging. You can't say "well, I'm not going to go back in time and go to the concert now because I've got a recording of it".

Re:Yeah, that sounds great, except...

[einer]

Let's start by addressing your concerns with my second and third paragraphs:

A percentage of the people buying the bootlegs will wind up short of ticket money? Are you fucking serious?

Yes. Clearly this is the case. A certain percentage of people will only be able to afford one or the other. Do you know some sort of magic math that allows for people of limitted means to purchase everything their hearts desire? Do you believe that being presented with the choice of "purchase infinitely replayable bootlegged live recording of expensive music show" or "pay through the nose for a concert you might not like" will have a singular and representative response?

If people are recording and distributing recordings of your shows for you, it's free advertisement.

I'll grant that more people may go to your show because your CD got bootlegged. That advertisement isn't free per se, because (according to you) each record that you didn't sell (possibly because someone downloaded it) affects your bottom line:

Recording artists do not make money off of recordings. Recording companies make money off of recordings. Artists almost always lose money on recording.

Why on earth would an artist lose money on a recording? There are several reasons, the fact that no one buys their album is certainly one. Spending the studio advance on bling bling is another. A crap album probably won't fly off the shelves.

Additionally, many artists do make money selling albums. Artists that lose money on record deals often have themselves to blame. Avarice does not avoid art. If the artist signs a crap contract, who's to blame? Live with not being a rock star, or deal with shady contracts.

Have you ever heard a live recording of a band you loved and then said to yourself, "Gee, I guess I can skip the concert now"?

Yeah. Especially when the live recording sucks. Were you expecting me to say "No. Never has listening to a sample of music affected my decision to spend more money obtaining said music."? Some bands don't sound good live. NOFX was so notorious for this they cut an album named "I heard they sucked live." Studio effects are so prevelant these days that everyone sounds like Cher (do you believe in life after love?), unless they play live, then they sound like Tom Waits.

Now, you seem to believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that artists need only to make money off of live performances, and should be happy that their music is being so widely heard (regardless of record contract obligations) because it will generate income for them. Worked great for the Dead and Phish didn't it? Should work for everyone else too. Right?

Let's journey to my favorite vacation spot at work: Idealist Land. In Idealist Land, artists are fairly compensated for their performances and give away their music freely on the internet. The RIAA has folded because their products are bland, homogenized and unattractive. Performances draw large crowds because the tickets are modestly priced and the artists aren't beholden to any large monopolies like TicketMaster. The audience forks over its money to hear the live show, and grabs a copy of it on the way out the door. Legislation has been passed so that internet radio can be broadcast freely, everyone has a highspeed wifi connection, Clear Channel implodes and it's no longer feast or famine for up and comers, sampling is re-legalized. Dogs and cats, living together...

It's a nice thought. The reality of today however is much different, and taking away an artists right to be the first to sell the product they've created is not a good solution (if, indeed, that is what this ruling means). The effect this ruling has is that artists don't have a choice. That's main problem and it stands regardless of whether or not it would benefit the artist to have their music distributed freely.

Pearl Jam made a lucrative choice to release a series of good live sets. If this r

Re:Yeah, that sounds great, except...

[einer]

I agree, and I wouldn't argue that hearing a bootleg makes a person less prone to see a concert (though it's certainly possible).

Basically, the ruling says that the record store owner can put bootlegged shows out for sale, but what if the artist wants to release a live cd? It will have to compete with a much less expensive version, right in the store. How many bands release live sets? I can't even begin to count. How many of those records wouldn't sell because a cheaper, identical version was available? I would guess that number depends on the amount of bootlegs produced. It's a pretty simple decision: buy the live cd of the show I saw for $20.00, or buy the live cd of the show I saw for $5.00. Guess which one benefits the artist?

I think file sharing helps record sales. I think selling bootlegged live albums helps no one but the bootlegger.

Re:Yeah, that sounds great, except...

[geekoid]

if it is play in public...then THAT performance should be available to the public domain.

IF it is the public domain, the artist can offer a sale of just like anybody. The artist has the opportunity for 'value add' by putting a couple of studio recordings on it.

At this point, if you can generate enough interest so people want to resell your recording, you are already signed, or have enough of an attendence that people will come to your next consert.
also, it has been shown that distributing your music increases concert attendence.

I mean, if the rolling stones put on a concert in a park, and I record it, do you really think they will lose any money at all?

Re:Yeah, that sounds great, except...

[Alsee]

Before this ruling, the copyright never expired (clearly bad). Now what? There's NO copyright at all? You can copy and distribute at will? (No distinction is made in the article, so I'm asking.)
If that's the case, then that doesn't sound very fair

I am going to set aside any issues of what copyright law is and should be and just address the legal process involved in your objection. Oh, and obviously everything below is US-centric :)

The courts have some flexibility in how they interpret laws, however they are forbidden to write text into law. Only congress can do that. When courts spot unconstitutional/invalid text the only power they have to to point out "Hey! This stuff isn't really a law! It never was!". The most the courts can try to do is to make creative use of which portions of the text they stike down, or to strike it down entirely.

In this case the problem with the text is that it grants a permanent right of copy. There is no invalid piece the courts can snip out to try to salvage the rest. Courts cannot write law, they can't just make up some random words to write in. The text is not a valid law, it never was, and there's nothing the court can do about it.

If the current situation is "unfair" then only congress has the power to create a (valid) law to deal with it. It was congress's screwup in the first place.

-

Re:Yeah, that sounds great, except...

[SEE]

Before this ruling, the copyright never expired (clearly bad). Now what? There's NO copyright at all? You can copy and distribute at will?

IANAL, but IIRC:

If the artist has arranged a recording of the performance, they're fixing the performance in a tangible medium and can get an ordinary copyright on it. So the artist does get first crack at releasing and profiting off a live CD of the show. (This is how the Kings make money off clips of the "I Have A Dream" speech -- MLK, Jr. arranged for it to be recorded.)

If, however, the artist is not recording the performance, the performance isn't under ordinary copyright. In that later case, it was covered by this bootleg law, but isn't any longer.

Now, while the performance isn't under copyright, the song itself still may be. In that case, you need to pay appropriate royalties (for a cumpulsory license) to the holders of the song's copyright, but owe nothing to the performers.

Re:Yeah, that sounds great, except...

[ThatsNotFunny]

A few points:

- The ruling does not give the store owner legal authority to put out the bootlegged shows. He can still be sued by the RIAA for illegal distribution of copyrighted material. Plus, I'm sure there are other lesser charges that can be (or perhaps, "could have been" if double-jeopardy applies) brought against him, but the Feds chose to charge this particular guy with the statute that carried the heaviest penalties.

- While I see your logic about $5.00 bootlegs competing with a $20.00 CD, you're really comparing apples to applesauce. The quality of bootlegs is notoriously low, and I'd venture most people would rather buy a "high quality, digitally recorded off the sound board and remastered by an engineer" rather than take a gamble with a bootleg of questionable quality.

- Some people *prefer* to hear a bootleg, quality be damned, rather than a CD. For one thing, bootlegs are usually the whole concert, with all the banter, encores, crowd noises, etc. that you get at a real concert. Plus there's the novelty of hearing a once-in-a-lifetime event. You don't get that with most commercially produced, "fit it on to one or two discs" stuff that comes from the studios, or from the bands themselves.

- Selling bootlegged live albums does not, as you suggest, help no one but the bootlegger. Bands make their money from performing live, and bootlegs promote that experience to a wider audience, which improves interest in the artist, which translates into increased ticket sales and album sales as well. Bands may not directly profit from the sale of that bootleg, but when factoring the above against the cost of producing, manufacturing, distributing and promoting a live album, chances are the band comes out ahead.

If you haven't already read Courtney Love's dissertation on this in salon.com, it's well worth a read.

Re:Yeah, that sounds great, except...

[TyrranzzX]

I think it would be more like, you write a cool webapp, and you throw it up on a server to do it's thing. I record every single little transaction it does. Not the same thing.

This is why we have LEGISLATION you moron. The courts ARE NOT there to correct the law, they are there to clearly say wheither or not the law is unconstitutional or clearly bad or not. They are NOT there to change the law through inerpretation. Sure, it isn't fair to the backstreet artist if someone records their show and sells it for $10 a copy, but it also isn't fair to us when their copyright of recordings of their show is forever.

Additionally, I dislike the idea of making bootlegging illegal. Perhaps making a profit off of selling copies of a concert performance can be illegal for a certain time period. However, if I bring a video camera to a concert to record the concert for future prosperity, I'm not supposed to be able to make copies of it? That's rediculous.

Re:Yeah, that sounds great, except...

[swb]

A percentage of the people buying the bootlegs will wind up short of ticket money? Are you fucking serious?

Yes. Clearly this is the case. A certain percentage of people will only be able to afford one or the other. Do you know some sort of magic math that allows for people of limitted means to purchase everything their hearts desire? Do you believe that being presented with the choice of "purchase infinitely replayable bootlegged live recording of expensive music show" or "pay through the nose for a concert you might not like" will have a singular and representative response?

What's being booted and by whom?

By and large most boots are live sets of past shows, usually of defunct artists who aren't playing anymore or by artists still worth recording live and doing something interesting live, but lacking the touring ability be everywhere; they're either collector's items (and in many cases, vital historical documentation) or fans making a key element of your favorite artist, available to you, because he only played a dozen clubs out east.

What they mostly aren't are arena shows by top-40 RIAA bands playing huge arenas. Those boots bite, they sound like crap, and nobody wants a 'concert' of Britney Spears lip-syncing to her own album.

Regardless, the people who buy or, more commonly, trade boots are the first ones in line for tickets at live shows, and often are traveling to the next city over to go to them.

Re:Yeah, that sounds great, except...

[einer]

but it also isn't fair to us when their copyright of recordings of their show is forever.

Jesus. Did you eat a whole box of dumbass this morning? Re-read the thread ass.

This is why we have LEGISLATION you moron. The courts ARE NOT there to correct the law, they are there to clearly say wheither or not the law is unconstitutional or clearly bad or not.

Not there to "correct" the law, merely to judge it's correctness. So if it's judged "incorrect" it's reinterpreted, not enforced, or stricken. Clearly the judicial system shapes law. They may not write it, but they damn sure define the meaning.

And I imagine you intended to say "However, if I bring a video camera to a concert to record the concert for future posterity" otherwise that is one apropos typo.

And no, if the artist whom you are paying to see feels that their show shouldn't be recorded, then you shouldn't be allowed to bring in your camera, no matter how "rediculous" it may seem to you. It should be the artists choice, you know the person producing the thing you're consuming. If you don't like it, find something else to consume. Leech.

Re:Yeah, that sounds great, except...

[einer]

I have read the salon piece and actually agree with it. I don't, in fact, disagree with most of your reply. I do see some nits worth picking though.

First of all, bootlegs can be of equal quality to any live show the artist could hope to release (if it's ripped from the soundboard, which is possible with the tiny inline recorders available today). So, in that case it's not "apples vs. applesauce."

The ruling does not give the store owner legal authority to put out the bootlegged shows. He can still be sued by the RIAA for illegal distribution of copyrighted material. Plus, I'm sure there are other lesser charges that can be (or perhaps, "could have been" if double-jeopardy applies) brought against him, but the Feds chose to charge this particular guy with the statute that carried the heaviest penalties.

Everything I have posted has used the article as a premise. The Feds charged him with a crime (selling bootlegs), the judge said "that's no crime" and the FBI said "we'll look into it later." To me that's the court saying "selling bootlegs is okay by us."

In the case that the bootlegged recording is of high quality, the artist is indebted to a recording company for advances against the sale of their forthcoming live album, then yes it can definitely hurt the artist. Sure it's an edge case, and in fact, I'm not saying that the artists can't benefit from the free distribution of their material, I am only saying that the artists should get to sell their product on a level playing field. The field is not level with this judge's ruling.

I think that it should be up to the artist to decide whether or not to grant the audience this "right to copy" the show.

Re:Yeah, that sounds great, except...

[einer]

No, but if the bootlegger owns a record store (as in the case of the article) and a judge decides that it's not the artist's call who gets to produce copies of his live show, what then? The artist can release a copy of the concert, but guess what? It's already out there, and only $5.00 to boot. The artist can't match the price point (he doesn't own a record store). The bootlegger has a huge advantage now and the artist has less incentive to produce.

Re:Yeah, that sounds great, except...

[MemoryDragon]

Some artists maybe, but the mp3-CD issue is a totally different problem. MP3-Recording not too much difference. Bootleg - Show like day and night. A bootleg often has lousy quality and lacks totally the experience and the visual aspects a show can give. Face it most people go to live performances, to actually see and experience the artist not to hear them. The Grateful Dead basically recognized that very early and although have been out of the charts for decades toured many years on top of the performance charts (audience number wise) and the bootlegs were a huge impact for that. Bootlegs could be for the tours, what radio is for selling records. The dimwits at the record industry just dont see that because they are too greedy as usual.

Re:Yeah, that sounds great, except...

[ThatsNotFunny]

The Feds charged him with a crime (selling bootlegs), the judge said "that's no crime" and the FBI said "we'll look into it later." To me that's the court saying "selling bootlegs is okay by us."

I took that to mean that, in this particular case, because of double jeopardy concerns, they may not be able to charge him with a lesser crime since the conviction has been overturned. The court is not saying "selling bootlegs is okay by us", they are saying "this guy may have violated a few laws by selling the bootlegs, but the particular law that you charged him with is bogus."

It's a subtle difference, one that may not have come across in the particular article linked by the original poster, but it's an important distinction.

Re:Yeah, that sounds great, except...

[TyrranzzX]

If the artist wants their concert not to be recorded, then they have the right to have it on private property where they can say you can't bring a camera around. If you decide to do a concert out in the middle of nowhere, then guess what? I can record you, don't like it? Pick up your equipment and leave.

Congress passes a law, that law says something very specific or something very general, the judicial system reinterprets that into something else.

Who's in power?

An artist has the right to make money off of their artwork, but they do not, nor should, have the right to make as much money as possible; it is when those in power begin worshipping money, and thus, power itself, that they inflict slavery on others, corpolitical swine.

Duping record: 6 Hours!

[reality-bytes]

This is a stunning new record for Slasdot!

They've almost cut the previous Duping record of 22hours down to just 6!

In other news, Olympic Duping is set to be an official sport at the next 2008 games.

Uhh...

[rampant mac]

I read the news today, oh boy...

About a lucky company, who made the grade...

Seems Like a Bad Decision

[darkmeridian]

Courts normally shouldn't interpret the law as unconstitutional unless it's hands are forced. The court could have interpreted the law as being legal as long as it complies with copyright law. For example, if the sale violates the copyright of the artist, then the law is valid.

Re:Seems Like a Bad Decision

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yes, it's a bad decision, but not for the reasons you're giving, as frankly you don't seem to understand the nature of constitutional review. It's a bad decision because the US Supreme Court has already decided this matter of law in favor of the existing law, and recently enough that they are very unlikely to reverse themselves. Courts SHOULD invalidate any law which is unconstitutional, as long as constitutional review of the given law is within their jurisdictional powers. A law by definition complies with itself, so your argument there is circular. And without this copyright law, the sale would NOT violate copyright law (unless one were to claim that it was a violation of the superceded Berne Convention-based copyright law, which I assume was what you were trying to say.

Timothy, you clown

[theolein]

This story was posted by CowboyNeal six hours ago and IS STILL ON THE FRONT PAGE!!!!!

Timothy, the slashdot dupe king.

And slashdot would like people to pay for subscriptions of duplicated atricles....

You don't understand, dupe == GOOD!

[FauxReal]

1. Look through posts in first iteration of article. 2. Decide which type of moderation you want. 3. Copy & Paste (elusive step answered!) 4. Profit!!!

This is going to be overturned in a heartbeat

[Stevyn]

There is NO FRIGGIN WAY this is going to stand. The RIAA and MPAA will see to that. $$$ ;)

lost in translation?

[poptones]

The original article was fairly correct, but this rerun is not only a dupe, it's a dupe of the worse kind - a troll. The article really reads nothing at all like this headline, it seems to have gained a great deal since the first time through.

The judge did NOT say "copyright law illegal" he said a law prohibiting the sale of live recorded works - bottlegs - recordings that technically HAVE no "real" copyright because they were not registered by the record companies that may have the artists under contract.

Somehow, in the last three hours, this has turned into "copyright law illegal." Maybe Timothy is taking journalism lessons from Dan "I'd Rather I hadn't done that."

And BTW, copyright law was never intended for that use you so obtusely outlined. If you keep a journal and drop dead, and I find it long after your death and decide to publish it, your estate is still going to have to rely on copyright law to prevent me from doing so... and if it's past the enforcement term, you're SOL. You may never have wanted your diary published, you may have said some incriminating things that would hurt your descendants - tough.

Same goes for live recordings. Until those ridiculous rulings in the paranoid 80s when the press was finding pedophiles in every daycare center, this even applied to stuff like child porn - essentially anything that has been recorded, published or otherwise (thanks to that other ruling that said "it's covered from the second you create it, no registration needed") is protected by copyright law. That means, once copyright has expired, your estate is gonna have to come up with something else to prevent publication of that diary I found.

Won't be overturned, and here's why...

[MacDork]

Uhm... I wouldn't celebrate anything based on this one. It's going to get overturned on appeal

<TINFOILHAT>It won't surprise me if this decision actually stands and used against The People. How you say? Read this.</ TINFOILHAT>

You are now returned to your regularly scheduled goodthink ;-)

I'm confused

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Are you saying that everyday spent reading slashdot is sad? Well, Is it us that are made sad by reading slashdot, or do we read slashdot because we are sad? Or is it the website that is sad? And do we make it sad, or do we read it because its sad? Inquiring minds want to know!

Re:I'm confused

[Tony Hoyle]

I'm a saaaaad panda.

Finally a judge "gets it"!

[Nom du Keyboard]

The judge said the current copyright code on live performances is unconstitutional, because copyrights last forever

W00t!

The actual Statue so we can all RTFL

[ThatsNotFunny]

http://www.cybercrime.gov/18usc2319A.htm

quit complaining...

[sootman]

...and take advantage of the situation! boost your karma by posting +5 comments from the earlier thread!

remember, don't plagarize the '+5, funny' ones because funny mods don't help your karma.

you can also take a +3 comment and preface it with "I know I'll get modded down for saying this, but..." or "I know this'll cost me karma, but..." That'll give it a good kick in the ratings.

Many bands are selling copies of concerts

[bitingduck]

More to the point, if the purpose of a concert is to earn money from people actually there listening... how can it be stealing to record this? They never intended to earn money from the recordings anyway.

Bands have always made recordings of live shows and later released them as records (often touched up in the studio-- sometimes really touched up). They don't necessarily record every show, but they'll often do a whole tour and take the best performances. The claim is that if people sell bootlegs then they can't sell the official version (even though most people who would buy bootlegs would buy the official version too-- they buy then because it's the only way to get the recording, not to save a buck.) There are more than a few official "label" recordings that were the result of a fan bringing a cassette recorder to a show (e.g. Velvet Underground Live at Max's Kansas City)

More recently, a lot of bands are recording the live shows and selling CDs of the show right at the end. There are a couple different approaches that people use for this, and there's even been some legal action because Clear Channel seems to think that it owns a patent on doing this (even though the concept isn't new, it's just easier with digital media)

the bill of rights has no place in a court of law

[t_allardyce]

Its these damn 'activist' judges again!! who do they think they are conforming to some 'bill of rights' when they damn well should be conforming to the laws politicians have been busting their asses getting passed! Its almost as if they are actually judging things instead of doing what they're told! tsk

Fool me once..

[bavander]

Post it twice, shame on you. Read it twice, shame on me!

Why does the world "owe" musicians money?

[Anonymous Coward]

"we even think it's ok for a store to make a profit off musicians that never get paid?"

Um ... they got paid when they did the performance. People paid money to attend a concert. Why isn't it okay for people to record something they've experienced and sell it?

Oh yeah, this is the RIAA's bizarro world, where society owes musicians (and by musicians, we really mean recording industry executives) money every time they copy or share data.

Re:Why does the world "owe" musicians money?

[FLEB]

-- Why isn't it okay for people to record something they've experienced and sell it?

Because the artists and promoters decided to distribute that music in the form of a live concert, strictly to those attending the event. This is within their rights as content producers, and, unless they allow further use or distribution of the music, you are usurping their given rights to control the content which they created.

At such point as you, yourself, start writing music, you can have the distinction of controlling the rights to your music. Until that day arrives, though, you have to live with the fact that you're on their terms, because they have an ability which you want to benefit from.

Yeah, the current system sucks and needs to be changed, but the underlying principles are still sound. If you don't like it, work on convincing artists and publishers to open up their rights, and only patronize and personally promote artists and publishers who do.

Re:Why does the world "owe" musicians money?

[neitzsche]

I cannot remember the last time I had control of copies of music I performed.

When I pay for a score (at outrageous prices!) and then perform that music in a public place, do I own the copyright to that performance? What if I didn't have to pay rent (say, for a wedding) is it still *my* performance? What if it is a one-time duet?

I am routinely warned against having *my* performances accessible on *my* web site, due to outrageous overzealous copyright law.

Personally, I'd like to release all my personal performances, especially after having paid the exorbitant sheet music prices, often for composers dead a long long long time ago.

The music industry is just fucked. My hobby is a serious legal vulnerability for me these days...due to the **AA fucking up the current laws.

Who am I supposed to patronize and promote again?

This just in...

[jpetts]

Judge rules that duplication of stories on /. illegal. Taco et. al. to go down for 20 years

Copycats!

[Doc Ruby]

There oughta be a law against dups.

penguin's out of the bag

[Doc Ruby]

Except that you can now buy it, when before, the record company didn't sell it. What has changed is that now we can listen to the music. And if the law doesn't prevent it, the record store won't charge $25, as more competition enters without the risk. And the record companies, now facing competition, can release their version, with all the extras that their connection to the artist and their copyrighted studio recordings enable. Bands have more products to make money, and we have more products to consume.

It's a lot like Linux, where anyone can charge anything they want for a copy, but we don't have to buy it from them. The interesting wrinkle will come when people start sampling the live performances for derivative works.

The important thing is...

[serutan]

What is the Supreme Court going to say about this? Because you know that's where this case is gonna go. Last paragraph:

The U.S. Attorney's Office... [said it] would "evaluate what steps ought to be taken going forward."

So don't go firing your machine guns in the air and yelling "Allah is Great" just yet.

Firefox?

[serutan]

Looks fine to me (0.9.2, XP). Also on my Linux box (forget what version).

Re:Firefox?

[drinkypoo]

Firefox mangles slashdot on me on a regular basis (0.9.2, XP). Mozilla 1.7.2 seems to do just fine on Windows 2000, I haven't tried firefox from work. IE6 renders it properly on both 2k and XP.

Re:Firefox?

[Tibe]

Me too. Firefox screws up under XP and Linux. Mozilla works better under Linux. I don't use Mozilla in XP. IE6 and Safari do fine. Seems to screw up more when a user is logged in too.

Checks and Balances

[EmagGeek]

Unless those laws are unconstitutional. The whole point of the Judicial system is to check the power of the other branches of government. If one branch of government oversteps is bounds, either of the other, or both, of the other branches can tell them they did so and reverse whatever it was that they did.

Re:Sig

[curtoid]

Moderators: Don't moderate this. It's for the parent poster.

Romans 13
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

why the bands don't do this.

[blackest_k]

great that a judge shows some common sense.

But the poor suffering artists. I hear so many people say.

Would be pretty cool if the tape from the mixing desk after a show finished up on the bands website a moderate price set for the download fee.
wouldn't you love to have something better than your fading memories to treasure
after the show. The bands would make a solid profit.

Think of some of the shows you've seen over the years wouldn't you like to be able to rekindle your memories.

It doesn't happen, why not because the Record labels might lose sales.
not the artists not the people who actually make the music.

however on a plus point not all bands are signed.
these bands could release live show recordings not as polished performances
fans would understand.

all it takes is a simple store format that can take cash for downloads.
every band should be taping off the mixing desk and making each show available for download.

whats the problem?

wish it had been an option when i was younger the number of shows i know i enjoyed but what the music was like I hae no idea;)

Re:the bill of rights has no place in a court of l

[0x0d0a]

You are wrong -- this is determining whether or not this is covered by the Consitution.

However, from my reading of just the summary (didn't read the article), the judge is probably still out of line, just because federal courts (Might be US Supreme Court, don't remember) have said that the length of copyright is not an issue.

I personally agree with the judge, but that's irrelevant -- according to the rules of the system, he probably should have ruled that the case has already been ruled on.

Two words:

[Anonymous Coward]

Grateful Dead

You could record all you want. Trade tapes. Charge a buck for the tape if someone didn't want to trade.

So long as you didn't make a profit on it, they didn't really give a shit what you did. They *encouraged* recording the live shows. As a result, most of their shows live on ad infinitum thru the power of the Internet.

Want to know how many GD bootlegs I have? So do I. I've got so many I can't count em all... Wanna know how many CD's of their stuff I have? At least 25. Why? Because I wanted some "clean" versions of the stuff I heard at the show w/o all the hootin/hollerin, etc in the background... The price was right, so I bought 'em...

If the technology had been such that I could have picked up a CD of the concert I just heard as I was leaving the gates, (or even downloaded the next day) - shit - I'd have paid for that because it would have been better sounding than the shit someone captured on their tape... (well, except the guys plugged into the board, but I digress).

If someone had wanted to start making a business of selling the bootlegs - fuck, you can bet that Jerry would have said HELL YES... let's talk, work out a deal, and run with it.

But the RIAA? What do they do? Try to control it... and the more they try, the more it slips away... Oh well.. their loss, our gain... fuck em...

Re:Two words:

[einer]

Love the Dead and how they approached the bootlegging thing. Should be done that way always. Also, more and more bootlegs are coming through the mixing boards these days and the free air recording equipment is getting better every day. I digress. ;)

Here's my problem. The article says that a judge decided that store owners could sell bootlegged concerts. What chance does a struggling artist have against someone who runs a record shop and sells board ripped copies of your shows, if that artist wants to sell his own board recorded versions of the same show? Not much. Purists will always buy the "official" album, and may even buy the unofficial version, but not everyone is a purist.

I don't think that bootlegging should be illegal. I think that it should be legal with the artists consent. I think artists that refuse to allow board recorded bootlegs will be doing their fans a diservice and will eventually (hopefully) fall off the face.

even better

[Anonymous Coward]

Allow your fans to tape the show and trade them with their friends. You can't be downloading illegal stuff when the internet pipe is too busy with a bittorrent download of the flacs from last weekend's show. Then train the fans to descend like Mongol hordes on anyone trying to sell a show and then point the buyer to archive.org, easytree, stg, and etree.

That's funny...

[Anonymous Coward]

It says nothing about any infinite time limits in copyright here.

In fact it says *nothing* about any time periods, except for punishments.

I remember reading that Italy had no copyright laws for fixing public performances, which is why some performers refused to play there.... but that was several years (many years ago)....

-- Ender, Duke_of_URL

Re:That's funny...

[ThatsNotFunny]

Um, I think you answered your own question, there. It's the lack of time limit that makes it unconstitutional, at least playing by post-Eldred rules.

Not so much the artist as the Industry...

[BobPaul]

We aren't really happy the artist isn't getting money. As far as I can tell, most of us want the musicians to earn a living.

It's that the recording companies don't get any money that makes us so ecstatic we dupe articles 6 hours after it appears on the main page.

3 examples

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh they attempted it once:
"launching a malicious program that harms a system, like a virus"
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/257

Patrick Gregory (web defacer)
Kevin Mitnick
Jonathan "Gatsby" Bosanac
Eric Burns (web defacer)

And the UK version passed.
"anyone who seriously interferes with, or seriously disrupts an electronic system will be dealt with under the anti-terrorism law"
http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/internet/02/20/ hacker s.terrorists.idg/

Have you visited your local municipal jail, assuming that you live in a large city? Check how many people are being charged with terrorism...

-- Ender, Duke_of_URL

Violation of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Amongst other violations.

Depending on the state you're also in violation of wiretapping statutes and the like.

Welcome to legal hell, should I decide to sue you :)

-- Ender, Duke_of_URL

Link to the opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/martignon-smal ler.pdf

Everyone RTFO

[Anonymous Coward]

Read The Fine Opinion. (courtesy of Larry Lessig)

Re:Sig

[dipipanone]

> Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers

So let me get this straight? What you're saying is that Congress has no right to pass laws regulating copyright, that only God himself has that right?

And he's ordained that modern technology is like the miracle of the loaves and the fishes, and God wants us all 5000 of us to feed on as much Britney Spears and Eminem as our heart desires?

Cool. I'm glad I've got that straight.

won't get fooled again

[Anonymous Coward]

great clips if you haven't seen them yet.

About your sig.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, your criticism is invalid because the Karma Bonus is a form of rating a.k.a. self-moderation. You have been giving all of your comments the +1 Karma Bonus. Unless you are sure you have something amazingly interesting to say, it is better to post comments at a +1 score by clicking the "No Karma Bonus" option before you post. If you choose the Karma Bonus without a very good reason, you will have to learn to accept the risk of being modded as "Overrated". Be prepared...

test

[fr0dicus]

test

Re:test

[Anonymous Coward]

testes, testes, 1... 2... 3???

Re:Sig

[Alsee]

Moderators: Don't moderate this. It's for the parent poster. Apparently he likes Bible quotes, however there's more than one Bible

I

1 In this arid wilderness of steel and stone I raise up my voice that you may hear. To the East and to the West I beckon. To the North and to the South I show a sign proclaiming: Death to the weakling, wealth to the strong!

2 Open your eyes that you may see, Oh men of mildewed minds, and listen to me ye bewildered millions!

3 For I stand forth to challenge the wisdom of the world; to interrogate the "laws" of man and of "God"!

4 I request reasons for your golden rule and ask the why and wherefore of your ten commands.

5 Before none of your printed idols do I bend in acquiescence, and he who saith "thou shalt" to me is my mortal foe!

6 I dip my forefinger in the watery blood of your impotent mad redeemer, and write over his thorn-torn brow: the TRUE prince of evil- the king of slaves!

7 No hoary falsehood shall be a truth to me; no stifling dogma shall encramp my pen!

8 I break away from all conventions that do not lead to my earthly success and happiness.

9 I raise up in stern invasion the standard of the strong!

10 I gaze into the glassy eye of your fearsome Jehovah, and pluck him by the beard; I uplift a broad-axe, and split open his worm-eaten skull!

11 I blast out the ghastly contents of philosophically whited sepulchers and laugh with sardonic wrath!

II

1 Behold the crucifix; what does it symbolize? Pallid incompetence hanging on a tree.

2 I question all things. As I stand before the festering and varnished facades of your haughtiest moral dogmas, I write thereon in letters of blazing scorn: "Lo and behold; all this is fraud!"

3 Gather around me, oh, ye death defiant, and the Earth itself shall be thine, to have and to hold!

4 Too long the dead hand has been permited to sterilize living thought!

5 Too long right and wrong, good and evil have been inverted by false prophets!

6 No creed must be accepted upon authority of a "divine" nature. Religions must be put to the question. No moral dogma must be taken for granted, no standard of measurement deified. There is nothing inherently sacred about moral codes. Like the wooden idols of long ago, they are the work of human hands and what man has made, man can destroy!

7 He that is slow to believe anything and everything is of great understanding, for belief is one false principle is the beginning of all unwisdom.

8 The chief duty of every new age is to upraise new men to determinate its liberties, to lead it towards material success, to rend the rusty padlocks and chains of dead customs that always prevent healthy expansions. Theories and ideas that may have meant Life, Hope and Freedom for our ancestors may now mean Destruction, Slavery and Dishonor to us!

9 As environments changes, no human ideal standeth sure!

10 Whenever, therefore, a lie has built unto itself a throne, let it be assailed without pity and without regret, for under the domination of an incovenient falsehood, no one can prosper.

11 Let established sophisms be dethroned, rooted out, burnt and destroyed, for they are a standing menace to all true nobility of thought and action!

12 Whatever alleged "truth" is proven by results to be but an empty fiction, let it be unceremoniously flung into the outer darkness, among the dead gods, dead empires, dead philosophies and other useless lumber and wreckage!

13 The most dangerous of all enthroned lies is the holy, the sanctified, the privileged lie, the lie everyone believes to be a model truth. It is the fruitful mother of all other popular errors and delusions. It is a hydra-headed tree of unreason with a thousand roots. It is a social cancer!

14 The lie that is know to be a lie is half eradicated, but the lie that even intelligent persons accept as a fact, the lie

What about performer and their personal agents?

[tommywho70x]

Yeah, this user is one of those. Yeah, i like for me and my buddies to get our piece of the action when somebody makes money off of our work. Like, what de-flock is "AUTHORITY" any wais? A signed informed consent document owned by what type of ENTITY, the Microsoft Certificate Revocation List?

God Bless Jerry Garcia and The Grateful Dead for inviting their GUESTS to bring recording equipment to their LIVE PERFORMANCES. An incredible body of audio and video tape belongs to their FRIENDS and FAMILY to be shared in any way they see FIT.

Visit THEWELL.COM/~deadindex to see what I mean.

Also, my good friend Jim Purvis, owner of STARSHIPNET.COM in Milwaukee has a tape exchange service that allows customers to get free dead show tapes by buying the blanks from him and requesting the dates they want.

To me, that epitomizes the best qualities of a Fair Market capitalistic economic system. Note that I say Fair Market and not Free Market which is dominated by syndicates of wealthy scumsuckers.

BTW - I am not a Grateful Dead devotee, merely someone who attended a few shows and respects their talent and the scene they built by being REAL in spite of the MUSIC INDUSTRY RULES AND REGULATIONS. GOD made MUSIC and gave it to ALL PEOPLE for FREE, the greedy white man sells "IT".

The Revolution will not be televised! It is going on now LIVE365.COM Plus! Listen to URL = http://www.triadradio.net (saxmania.index.html)

Re:Sig

[curtoid]

Sounds like you're angry.

There may be more than one Bible, but there is only one "Word." Sorry 'bout yer luck.
God is the final authority on all things. He will judge perfectly each and every thing that has ever happened during history, good and bad. Perfectly.
So your job is to find out who He is and see to it that He approves of you by acknowledging him, by name, for who He really is.
And His name is not Allah. I guarantee it.
Forget the past. Your future is more important. Get this right and you'll be golden.

Respectfully,

Curt

Re:Sig

[curtoid]

Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids....

I was responding to the parents signature line....

Anyhoo, Congress passes laws - you obey them. Got it?

It is perfectly acceptable to lobby for whatever you want, maybe even help write laws if you're good. You just can't do "whatever you want" and expect to get away with it. It's that omnipresence, omniscience thing...

P.S. BSMnM: Garbage in garbage out...

Re:Sig

[Alsee]

First lets be clear on my sig. Its purpose is to inform people that Bush thinks he is the voice of God. A story which has unbelievably been ignored by the general press. Being a "Good and Faithful man" is one thing, but thinking you're the voice of God, well that's something completely different. That's not something you want in the man with his finger on the nuclear button. I am proud to say my sig has directly resulted in at least one person switching their planned vote from Bush to Kerry. Hopefully it has resulted in many others as well.

Sounds like you're angry.

???
The only thing I said was that you apparently like Bible quotes.

Did you not realize that everything after the first line was merely Bible quote? I echoed your post, I just selected a different source. I wasn't angry, I was laughing (I have a peculiar sense of humor).

My point was that if you're going to toss quotes from some random Bible at strangers then you have to expect strangers to toss quotes at you from some other random Bible. It was just icing on the cake that I was able to provide a Bible quote which directly called yours "falsehood" and "fraud".

There may be more than one Bible, but there is only one "Word."

Oooookaaaayyy.... lets go with that.
Some random shmo (figuratively) walks up to me on the internet, says nothing himself, and throws some random quote from some random Bible at me, and I'm supposed to buy that this guy is the holder of The One True Word?

At least the Hare Krishna's at the airport offer me a flower first, before trying to tell me THEY are giving me The One True Word.

God is the final authority on all things.

That may be, but you are not. Nor is your random pet Bible.

And His name is not Allah.

Hahahaha! I just fell off my chair laughing! Did you think I was Muslim and referring to the Koran? I admit the quote I gave was long, but had you fully read it you would have been able to pretty well identify which Bible it came from, chuckle. I could tell you which Bible, but that would ruin all the fun of you discovering it yourself. Of course you probably won't read it, seeing as how you already have The One True Word.

-

Re:Sig

[curtoid]

Come on.... I know you picked references from a book that you know can't possibly be about or from the absolute highest authority in existence. That makes no sense.

When I say "one true Word" I mean it. It isn't KJV, NIV, NASB, blah blah blah. The "Word" is God himself. Learn it, know it, live it (or Him).
The reason I said he isn't Allah is because that is the religion of the world second choice, and to make sure to indicate that point.

Satan is obviously NOT God.

As far your Bush comment, did you actually READ the reference I gave you? Also, let me explain something else to you. A "good and Faithful" man (with a capital F" can communicate with God. If he speaks to others what he has understood - that makes the man's voice God's voice. Simple as that. You could even be the voice of God to me if you spent time and effort to hear what God has to say. Of course I would weigh what you say according to the proper protocols. I stake my life into knowing the truth about God. I will not get it wrong. I will change anything I need to change to get it right. I set my mind to accept the true and reject the false. That's it.

I suggest you do the same.

Re:Sig

[Alsee]

I know you picked references from a book that you know can't possibly be about

There were certainly parts I had a problem with, however I was quite happy with other parts. For example you suggest I "set my mind to accept the true and reject the false". Well, the passage I posted said that at least seven times:

1:7 No hoary falsehood shall be a truth to me

2:7 belief in one false principle is the beginning of all unwisdom

2:10 Whenever, therefore, a lie has built unto itself a throne, let it be assailed without pity and without regret

2:11 Let established sophisms be dethroned, rooted out, burnt and destroyed, for they are a standing menace to all true nobility of thought and action!

2:12 Whatever alleged "truth" is proven by results to be but an empty fiction, let it be unceremoniously flung into the outer darkness, among the dead gods, dead empires, dead philosophies

2:13 The most dangerous of all enthroned lies is the holy, the sanctified, the privileged lie, the lie everyone believes to be a model truth.

2:14 the lie that even intelligent persons accept as a fact, the lie that has been inculcated in a little child at its mother's knee, is more dangerous to contend against than a creeping pestilence! Popular lies have ever been the most potent enemies

I am indeed "about" about accepting the true and rejecting the false. In particular that religious falsehoods are often the most dangerous and harmful falsehoods.

did you actually READ the reference I gave you?

Yes. I was rather amused that you were witnessing to me a mean and nasty God. Romans 13:4 says God is to be feared, a vengeful and wrathful God.

I find it amusing that modern Christianity tries to sell its brand of God as all sugar and spice and everything nice, but constantly trips over it's own holy historical scriptures that in various places show God as a mean ugly bastard, especially if you go back to Old Testament.

A "good and Faithful" man (with a capital F" can communicate with God.

If you are hearing God's voice in your head then you need to be institutionalized and medicated, but I'll assume that's not what you mean. Chuckle. If you are basing this on various Holy Scriptures involving a talking snake in the Garden of Eden and some guy walking on water and rising from the dead, well, thats no better than the ancient Romans who thought the sun was the flaming wheel of Helios's chariot crossing the sky and prayed to Neptune for calm seas.

Your choice of scriptures can certianly contain some truth and wisdom, just as the Satanic Bible contains some truth and wisdom. But there's no way you're going to convince my that your favorite scripture is any more divine than the Koran or anything else. Ancient fiction and tales mixed with ordinary human wisoms and human flaws.

If God had indeed given us some Holy Text there is no way it would be caught up in the petty squabbles between this book and that book of the various religions. The most common branch of religion is Christianity, and even if you roll all of the various branches of Christianity togther, it still only accounts for 1/3 of the global religion. I find it hard to believe any genuine True Word from God could have failed so miserably.

-

Re:Sig

[pete-classic]

So your job is to find out who He is and see to it that He approves of you by acknowledging him, by name, for who He really is.

So your God made me for the purpose of finding Him, but imbued me with an intellect inadequate to the task.

He's quite the sicko, isn't He?

-Peter

Re:Sig

[curtoid]

You are most definitely intelligent enough. I know you can do it!

-Curt

P.S. It's OK to cheat (get hints from others), but you still have to check your answers.

P.P.S. They're in the back of the book!

Re:Sig

[pete-classic]

What book?

-Peter

PS: Beware, you stand at the brink of a circular argument.

-P

Re: What book?

[curtoid]

...... Not circular if you follow the direction I have been taking. But definitely a downward spiral if you follow the original poster's tack.

I realize it's hard to find the truth when there is so much corruption and hypocrisy in [pick your favorite flavor]. That's why you need to go to the source. Ask the all knowing God to reveal Himself to you, and in the mean time call Him "Lord of All" until He tells you His name (through whatever means He chooses). If you set your intention on getting the absolute truth about the matter, it will be revealed to you.

I also realize I sound a little cryptic, but I don't want to come off as "I have the answer, and no one else does"... If you are serious, I'll tell you anything you want to know.

-Curt

Re: What book?

[pete-classic]

You clearly noticed the question, since you moved it to the title. You don't seem to have offered any sort of answer. I am asking sincerely. What book are you referring to, and why should I believe in its divinity?

As to asking for a revelation, I have been seeking answers my entire life. Nothing I have found strikes me as credible evidence of a sentient, all powerful creator.

Are you saying that I need to kneel down and ask someone that I am not at all convinced exists his name? If you present me with a specific proposal I will try it.

I have to admit that I will feel ridiculous.

Imagine that I suggested that if you ask the easter bunny for his phone number that you will get it, along with salvation. How would you feel? Would you try it? What would it take to convince you that it was true?

-Peter

Re: What book?

[curtoid]

Don't worry about feeling ridiculous, just talk to Him privately between you and Him, no one else watching or criticizing you. God knows who He is, and God knows who you are. So there's no problem.

But now for the straight stuff directly from me. His name is Jesus. Not just the man Jesus. The God who existed before time Jesus. The God who created the earth and all that is within it Jesus. The book is called the Holy Bible, and it testifies of Him. I know it seems confusing because there is so much crazy stuff in it, like making Man out of the dust, and taking a piece out of his side and making Woman, but don't let the words confuse you, let the Word (The Spirit of God) convince you.
Read the book of John from beginning to end and ask yourself - "Why would Jesus do that?", or "Why would God do that?" I recommend reading the "New King James" translation, since it's very readable and not full of thy and thee (Old English).
If you want to see the movie "The Passion of the Christ" do that and ask the same question. Why?

Then read Isaiah chapter 53 and realize that it is talking about this very same Jesus. Now look and see when this was written - a very long time prior to the events. The "Messiah" was prophesied to come. Jesus is the Messiah.

It's true. It really is. It's because God loves you, and wants to restore you to the family of God. His family. He wants you as a son.

And the way that works is by acknowledging Him as your Lord and Savior. And then He becomes your Heavenly Father. It's not meant to be difficult. It's supposed to be easy.

-Curt

Re: What book?

[pete-classic]

Don't worry about feeling ridiculous, just talk to Him privately between you and Him, no one else watching or criticizing you. God knows who He is, and God knows who you are. So there's no problem.

It's not that I think someone is watching me. Quite the contrary. It's that I get the distinct impression that I'm talking to myself. I appreciate that you feel that there is a presence in your life; I don't. I try, and I don't. I wish, and I don't.

Since I want it, but I don't feel it, I can only conclude that 1. God made me wrong or 2. God isn't as he is described in the Bible (i.e. He doesn't care) or 3. God doesn't exist.

Number three is the only conclusion I can live with.

Can you propose any other rational conclusion?

I recommend reading the "New King James" translation

I have read the Bible. History, allegory, tradition, and parable. There's a lot of good stuff in there. (There's some real tripe in there too.) I desperately wanted to believe in it. I cannot force my mind to accept the words in a book over the evidence of my senses. Why did God make me that way if it isn't what he wants? Again, the only conclusion I can reach is that He didn't.

-Peter

Re: What book?

[curtoid]

I understand where you are coming from. I think you have touched on the single most difficult barrier - our senses, and our understanding.

I know this is going be tough to take, but, here's the deal: God cannot be "derived" scientifically. God doesn't want you to put Him in a position that He has to "prove" Himself to you. He won't give any more "proof" than He already has. 1 Corinthians 1:17-29 gives a discussion of this.

Here's one thing I can tell you to help you with your senses: God made us in different parts. We have three pieces, a Spirit, a Soul, and a Body. The first and last ones are easy to grasp, but the middle one needs clarification: The "Soul" is really our Mind, Will, and Emotions all together. It isn't the same as our Spirit. Now our Spirit is the piece of us that is considered the innermost part - that is the one piece that can connect to God if we allow it. We naturally know our own self as our Soul, and we are forgetting all about our spirit, except for maybe our conscience, which is the only piece of our Spirit that works when we are born and live out our natural lives. But REAL LIFE is supernatural life given by God to our Spirit when we acknowledge and accept Him. Until then, we are practically dead. So I am not surprised you don't sense Him.

It's possible you have heard all this before, but I want to make it clear to you. If you have any questions at all, let me know. But I say this: I have asked God to reveal Himself to you and I know He will. And I also pray for you that you will recognize the truth when you see it. I see that your heart is in the right place, too, so I am not seeing a problem there.

It does take faith. You have to accept the truth and not require a "feeling"...

I hope this helps you.

- one final thing: Do you have a specific request of God that you would like us (people at my church) to pray for on your behalf? Something like "I desperately need a job", or "a loved one is sick" or something like that? Let me know. Tonight we share requests and pray before the service. If you will put your trust in Him and look to Him for the answer, He will answer you.

-Curt

Re: What book?

[pete-classic]

I know this is going be tough to take, but, here's the deal: God cannot be "derived" scientifically.

And here is the rub. Muslims say the exact same thing. How do I know if I am looking for Jesus or Allah? Or Yahweh (or Jehovah, place the vowels where you will)? Or the Buddha? Or Baal?

The only answer I see is through some proof or inspiration. Despite my seeking, I've found neither.

Do you have a specific request of God that you would like us (people at my church) to pray for on your behalf?

I can't turn down such a kind-hearted and generous request. I'm accustomed to taking on my personal challenges without asking for help. (Yes, I am familiar with "Footprints." ;-) I'm sure they are already on your list, but my heart really goes out to the armed forces personnel and civilian support crews in harms way in Iraq. If you have some extra time you could dedicate to praying for them I would appreciate the gesture, if not the sentiment ;-)

I've enjoyed this conversation. If you ever want to pick it up again you can reach me at the email address above.

-Peter