Slashdot Mirror
The Grateful Dead vs. Archive.org
An anonymous reader writes "E! Online has an article about friction between archive.org and the surviving members of the Grateful Dead. They have come to an amicable understanding after some confusion involving online bootlegs." From the article: "A week after some of the surviving members of the Grateful Dead ordered a nonprofit site to remove free downloads of the seminal jam band's concerts--sparking massive online backlash and a Deadhead petition calling for a boycott of all band-related merchandise--the band has reversed its position. 'The Grateful Dead remains as it always has--in favor of tape trading,' spokesman Dennis McNally tells the Associated Press. "
The Grateful Dead has been one (big) example of a band that succeeded without the need for coercive copyright protections. One could argue that they did still use trademark, but they are closer to the anarchocapitalist goal than most popular bands.
The Dead made their money the right way -- by performing a service for their customers worthy of continual profits. No job requires copyyright.
I don't believe in copyright as I don't see how anyone can use Congress and the courts to enforce income on non-continuing work. It is ridiculous.
The Dead's backtrack on their standards shows how corrupting law can be. How a band that has made millions over decades could turn is beyond me. The law is culpable -- the temptation to forcibly control what isn't in your possession is that strong.
I think this could be a huge blow to that scene (as well as the aging of the fanbase and the unconstitutional drug laws). I've been supporting (financially) only bands who don't support copyright, and I'm meeting and convincing more bands to forgo the protections in order to command a higher ticket price. Give away 1000 CDs ($215), include your next 4 months concert schedule and ask for $1 more per ticket. If the music is good, you'll profit with no use of force.
The strict anarchocapitalist view hoods that property rights are what sets all other rights. Property is physical, not ethereal. Once the physical item is bartered, you lose control of that particular item. Copyright started as a 7 year protective mechanism solely for the creator. We can see that all legal coercion is bad as there are no checks on the extension of power.
(note I blogged about this today)
Much like Metallica and any other band that stuck their nose into this whole issue, they have every right to try to control their music any way they want to. It's their intellectual property.
That saidm as the Grateful Dead has always stood in favor of tape trading, going so far as to set up special areas at shows for "tapers", they really should have seen the backlash and shut their mouths. I am a life long deadhead, with many tapes of shows...the unique thing that set them apart from the pack is the fact they were not a studio band, they were a live band. No recording, audio or video, will ever capture the moment of a show. I have seen many, the vibe in the room, among the people and the band, the long shows, long free for all jams inspired by the moment can be replayed and replayed again, but those same notes, same chords, same jams on tape will never match standing there, beer (or whatever) in hand, watching it unfold live.
It's not the music with the Grateful Dead, it's the experience.
dB Masters
What a long, strange trip it's been...
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Too bad more bands aren't like Mojo Nixon. This kerfuffle never would happen. He actively encourages you to download his music and share it. Mind you, he doesn't have to wrassle other members of the band.
"Illinois could criminalize drugs, but the federal government absolutely cannot. The use of force by the feds to criminalize non-violent drug use is treason and worthy of the ultimate penalty for those enforcing these unconstitutional laws."
:-) The federal gov't's position is that regardless of how this is intended to be instate only, there is nothing stopping these drugs from eventually ending up out of the state and thus invoking the interstate commerce clause.
The federal gov't can if it can rationalize that drugs are an interstate concern.
This was one of the arguements for San Francisco's medical marijuna laws -- that this was grown in state and used in state (the other arguement was We're A Bunch Of Hippies And We Just Don't Care...personally, I respect that more than I do technicalities...even if I hate hippies
To be honest, I don't know what side of this I belong on...I hate drugs and I think that even the harmless ones end up being a gateway -- especially when there is no roadblock from trying more. At the same time, I think people should be given the chance to kill themselves if they want to and its of no concern to me as long as they aren't taking up too much of my gov't's (local or federal) time or resources...and getting into the emergency room when stupid people have done stupid things that could have been avoidable while I'm trying to get in for something entirely unavoidable is a concern for me (and given my current health -- f'd up genetic disease -- this isn't entirely theoretical...I've had to wait once because of someone OD'ing in the emergency room...his was a choice, mine was something imposed by causes outside of my control).
But back to the point, drug use does become an interstate problem at many levels and as such is in the realm of the federal. Nothing unconstitutional about that. Thats the whole idea of the interstate commerce clause...
Way off topic...and posted anonymously because of my current employer (I work for state gov't and occasionally consult with federal)...
i believe jerry's widow was part of the decision making process considering she's probably not making that much money off his estate. regardless, it was a dick move by those who decided... phil wasn't included because phil would've been completely against the decision (and he's the one making the most money from other projects now).
please me, have no regrets.
This kind of reminds me of the "This land is your land"-debacle. Woody Guthrie, who originally wrote the song, used the following copyright:
This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright # 154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin' it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don't give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that's all we wanted to do.
Still, somehow the above copyright notice was revoked, and after Guthries death, the song passed into ownership of a record label, that claims ownership to it.
I am a strong beliver in the capitalist system and right to own property, but that right _must_ include the right to give property away.
Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
so how should writers be compesated for the books they write?
How about, by being the only ones allowed to publish their material for profit?
It's not the act of private copying or private downloading that is inherently unfair for authors --- after all, each copy taken makes them better known, which is what all upcoming authors want. It's the act of taking their material and then selling it for your own personal gain without having done the work that the authors did that is inherently unfair. This applies to all media.
The problem is REPUBLICATION FOR PROFIT, not copying.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Bob, Bill, Mickey, I had great respect for you but now I think it's time you guys move on as it's gone now and there's really no way to get it back. Don't expect any sales of your collaborative works as I refuse to support you should you decide to try this again.
Phil, be prepared for a rise in merchandise sales. You sir, show great integrity both in your music and in your belief system and for that you will be rewarded.
0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
I have used this archive on archive.org of Dead music with my students. I'm interested in teaching students not only that downloading music can be illegal, but that much content is completely legal (as well as free and open source/Creative Commons, etc.).
The Dead music has one of the clearest statements that non-commercial sharing of their live recordings (save a few dates that were listed in the agreement) is legal, and I like to have my students make a mix CD of great tunes, with liner notes, etc. Fun, legal, and the music is also interesting to talk about.
I was truly disappointed in the news initially, and think that this is an acceptable compromise.
To extend the debate, I have been downloading and burning Dave Matthews shows like crazy. They are widely available, easy to find, and for the most part, are very high quality. I've seen one of the band's shows live and own exactly one Dave Matthews DVD, that I bought with a gift certificate, no less.
So what do I own the band? Technically, I'm breaking no laws and am not selling these shows for profit. If Dave Matthews gets tired of my free-loading and decides taping at DMB shows is no longer allowed, do I have the right to be upset? It would appear not. But having something taken away that I enjoyed would probably hurt.
The answer? Do what Pearl Jam did a few years ago. Sell a bunch of "bootlegs" in the stores for $15 apiece, and watch as the rabid fan base eats it up. Sigh.
Copyright helps protect the owner from several bad things including: keeping someone else from modifying your work in a way you do not want it to be and then attributing it to you (What if someone changed Schindlers List to be favourable to the Nazi's and then stamped Speilbergs name on it? It's copyright law, among others, that protects against this. In most of Europe, the original copyright owner cannot give up his right of "creative control" although in the US you can sell that right and it is usually demanded), knockoffs and forgeries (I am all for sampling, etc. and so are some copyright holders, but full fledged forgeries are out and out stealing. It takes a lot of work and money to make a brand or name, etc. and when someone co-ops that for financial gain, it is theft of real value.)
If you want to go after someone about how screwed up copyright laws are (especially in the US but it is having a viral effect accross the pond), then go after Congressmen and the lawyers egging them on. I like the idea put forth by a Judge in Canada (sorry, can't remember my source to cite) where he proposed limiting the length applied (it used to be 28 years max here) and change copyright to fall under tort rules. Meaning that you could never really criminalize it. Tort law litigation would mean that a plaintiff would actually have to prove they were legally "wronged" and further prove real damages. The only results would either be an order to stop the injurous activity and/or monetary damages. None of this "you will go to jail if you copy that CD" BS. I think that makes a whole lot more sense than the pseudo-criminalization we have now.
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
"The site will restore fan-made recordings; however, the more pristine soundboard recordings will remain off-limits for now."
That article is full of PR - known to Deadheads as "BS". The band has not reversed its decision: they are keeping the soundboards off Archive.org, just like they originally did. Obviously their lawyers told them it would be much harder to control audience mic recordings that they sanctioned, which they authorized people to make, and which people likely own their own copyrights on.
Phil Lesh, the best musician (bass) in the band after Garcia, and long the innovator in their archives, said " "I was not part of this decision-making process and was not notified that the shows were to be pulled". This is the guy who instigated Grefolded, probably the best production of GD recordings, and also the only post-GD performer consistently worth seeing (if you're into that kind of thing). Not only did the band change their policy against his own, but they didn't even ask or even notify him that his "legacy" was now interrupted.
David Gans, professional Deadhead (selling "official" Deadhead books and ads on his Deadhead radio show), spewed doubletalk:
'"First of all, when Jerry said that...tape trading was an important aspect of life in the Deadhead community. It was a one-to-one affair, for the most part...largely a manifestation of our love for the music and our desire to enlighten the world and turn our friends on.
"That is a far cry from what is happening now. The Internet Archive and all the other online distribution sources are high-speed, mass-distribution systems that make the best quality recording available to all who know where to look for them. That is a good thing, of course, culturally--but there is an economic element to this that must be taken into account."'
Even as he admits the Archive.org soundboards are "good culturally", he introduces his own vested interest opposing that culture: the "economic element" that appears nowhere in Garcia's original policy, or anywhere in the love for music or desire to enlighten the world or turn friends on. FWIW, Gans never respected archives except when he could profit from them. The archivist of Bill Graham Presents (long their show producer in the SF area, NYC and beyond) was shocked to find that Gans, after being left alone with the BGP archive of GD material (photos, posters, letters, etc), had cut them up and stolen a lot of irreplaceable material, to make his 1980s book. This guy doesn't care about the legacy, the archives, the music, or anyone else's access to it, except after he has taken his cut, regardless of the damage he does.
The fact is that the Grateful Dead lasted a lot longer than anyone expected: 30 years. Along the way, lots of people got a ride on the gravy train. The Dead's commercial recording releases were never that good, never made them as much money as their neverending tours. They mismanaged most of their careers, paying for a huge, fun extended family that required 200 performances a year for decades, rather than creating a self-perpetuating system to profit off the vast audience that has outlived the band (and several of its members). Free distribution among fans kept the dream going, promoting music that the music industry, including the band, never could promote commercially. Deadhead traders have always been at the forefront of field recording, reproduction/remastering, the Internet itself, as well as psychedelic frontiers for which they're better known. But now that the drummers and some hangers-on can't sell tickets to their shows, haven't invested their totally unexpectedly profitable youth in sustainable champagne and caviar for their old age, they're grabbing at any profits they see dancing away. They have become just like the rest of the poser hippies-turned-yuppies who lied about seeing them at Woodstock. Too bad they're trying to fight the Internet they helped create: just another gang of Baby Boomers who won't even be noticed as the Net drives over their carcass, roadkill on the Info Superhighway.
--
make install -not war
And yet the JibJab guys still got threatened with a lawsuit last year, even though a), their Flash was satire/parody and should fall under fair use, and b), the song has been public domain since the 70s?
So was the publisher that claimed ownership and threatened the lawsuit just clueless?
The "surviving member" is nobody but the woman who inherited control of the trademark and partial interest in the songwriting and performance rights.
Nobody in the band can stand her. She's why they started performing as "The Dead", so separate themselves profesionally from what was left of the management organization that found itself under control of Garcia's widow.
Archive.org got threats and responded to them, but Phil didn't know this was going on. See, Phil actually has the right to permit this material to be distributed, and he's not too happy about someing going over his head, essentially, abridging his own rights as one of the artists involved. I predict this incident will have the effect of reducing Debra Koons' influence again, and also, another resource for this material will manifest, better than Archive.org was, perhaps under control of someone like the Rex foundation, or someone like that who won't be disposed to cave in the first time they get a letter from a lawyer.
Personally I think Archive.org should have insisted on a court order, since they have powerful enough allies who have equal claim to the distribution rights of this material.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
The illeagalization of hemp was protested by the AMA, at that the only ones who showed up at congress to argue the illegalization of hemp were doctors.
The main reasons for making hemp illegal was that it threatened industry. Hearst was bringing pulp wood paper out and hemp threatened the pulpwood paper industry by producing more paper per acre and also higher quality paper.
Dupont was branching out from being mostly a pure military supplier and hemp fiber threatened their new product called nylon (also rayon).
Hemp seed oil competed with the oil industry.
Also there was a lot of unemployed G-men after prohibition ended who needed a new job.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
When Metallica played at Download Festival in the UK earlier this year, Lars Ulrich wasn't there so they recruited Joey Jordison (Slipknot) and Dave Lombardo (Slayer) to play in his place. After alledgedly only an hour of practice, they did a flawless set easily matching Lars's playing.
Incidentally, Hetfield's guitar was cringingly flat and his voice was all over the place. Funny how those problems disappeared on official "recordings" and when I watched it on TV...