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."
are in a boat, Pete jumps out, who's left?
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/25/145420 4&tid=123&tid=141&tid=1
Been there, done that.
The other one is still on the front page, no less.
Douglas P. Price
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.
Can you frickin' editors please just TRY not to post duplicates of stories that are still on your frickin' FRONT PAGE?
[
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 so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
Don't be mad. This is just a bootleg of the previous post.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
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!
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?
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
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
Alarm clock goes off.
Babe.
I got you babe.
porp
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).
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.
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!!!
Deltron 3030 - Virus (music video)
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.
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
...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.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Post it twice, shame on you. Read it twice, shame on me!
Judge rules that duplication of stories on /. illegal. Taco et. al. to go down for 20 years
Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
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;)
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants