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

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.

[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.

[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).

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"

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

[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.

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.

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.

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;)