Slashdot Mirror
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."
Can you frickin' editors please just TRY not to post duplicates of stories that are still on your frickin' FRONT PAGE?
[
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?
Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
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).
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
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.
Art Schools Dietzilla
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?
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
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.
W00t!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
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.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
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.)
"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.
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.
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 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?
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.
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.