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. "

Comments

WWJD

[Anonymous Coward]

What Would Jerry Do?

Re:WWJD

[/ASCII]

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Still, somehow the above copyright notice was revoked, and after Guthries death, the song passed into ownership of a record label, that claims ownership to it.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.

Re:WWJD

[BodhiCat]

Jerry and the rest of the band were part of the idealized Haight Asbury community. Although it later collapsed into hard drugs and violence the community was visualized as one where everything was shared in common. This is expressed in their song Box of Rain, "What can I do for you to see you through ..."

The Grateful Dead like most of the others of the 60's counter culture eventually became part of the main stream, signed a record deal (for which they were chastised at the time by many Haight-Asburians as sell outs) and went to work, making money from touring, record sales and merchandise sales. The taping of the shows was a carryover from the ideal days of the late 60's. "Hey we are just here making music, if you want to sit in front with a tape recorder that's cool with us."

The tape network grew over the year as tapers traded recordings of shows. However, this was a network which required a "buy in" of having some tapes that you made your self or that you scored from a friend.

The internet and digital media changed all that. It was now easy for someone to put their recordings on a web site where any one could download them. There was no re-precocity involved. This has led to many who have never attend a show to build up a sizable collection of recordings. (Including, admittedly, Bodhicat himself)

I don't really have any conclusion to this. Should the 60's ideals be carried over into the internet? Should the "surviving members" be willing to give up profits from CD sales to preserve these ideas? Who owns music? "Its just sounds in the air, man." In the sixties there was an idea that everything should be free, can these ideals be carried over into the digital age?

Re:WWJD

[91degrees]

Yes. It turned out Copyright hadn't been renewed (and that was a requirement at the time), so it had been public domain since the 1970's.

Surprisingly large protest

[PurifyYourMind]

Fans pissed off at the merchanise type people put up a petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/. Theirs is one of the largest petitions on the site.

Forgetting the most basic right: property

[dada21]

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)

Re:Forgetting the most basic right: property

[dada21]

How exactly is an author going to make any money if not from selling his non-continuing work?

I am an author and I have always offered my writing (books, newsletters, e-mails) for free. As the Internet progresses, more and more books and writings will be available illegally (freely), so authors need to now adjust before they miss out as the music industry did.

Authors have many ways to make money on their books. First, authors can co-op (not in the forceway way that the MPAA and the RIAA have) to go to book sellers and agree to not provide their stores if the book sellers sell third party copies of the books. Books can be freely copied, yet MANY readers will want to buy the official author's book, as long as it is reasonably priced. When I see $2 bootleg CDs, I know the original band isn't making jack. When I see $15 official CDs, I know the original band isn't making jack. I won't purchase either copy. Yet when an indie band is offering CDs for $10, I know I am helping the author.

This viewpoint is something we need to work on as a society, yet we won't because the current system (protected by copyright) puts the power of media in the **AA companies, not the bands. The distributors control the radio, MTV and even the rock trades. The Internet is changing all this. Copyright isn't useful for authors, anyway. Most "bestsellers" net their authors very little. You can write a best seller and make less than $30,000.

How do I, as an author, make money? Public speaking engagements. Consulting. Distribution of new text to those who want it first. It is very lucrative, moreso than the actual book sale.

Re:Forgetting the most basic right: property

[Spacejock]

It's well known that the average book signing is attended by 4 people. At $1 - $2 per copy royalty the author can just about buy themselves a cup of coffee and a muffin with the proceeds.

Authors make money by taking a small percentage from the cover price of each book sold. They can't make money from live performances (authors are usually a pretty boring bunch) and the money they DO make from selling their books isn't enough to live on in 99% of cases. Therefore they teach or lecture or work as writers-in-residence or have part- or full- time jobs, all of which means they write less than they would if they were full time writers.

Yes, I'm a published author and no, I can't see how any system other than what we have now is going to work better - or even come close. Forget about six-figure advances and 'richer than the queen' - only 2 percent of books released each year sell more than 1000 copies. 1000 copies == peanuts in royalties == don't give up the day job. The occasional mega-best-seller skews public perception so that published author equals mega wealthy. As if, and if only.

The first book in my Hal Spacejock SF/Humour series is selling well (Reached #3 on the Dymocks SF/Fantasy bestseller list), although I'm still a complete unknown and my books are only available in Australia so far. On the bright side, anything better than 1000 copies puts me in the top 2% of all published authors ;-)

Not quite reversed

[LiquidCoooled]

From boingboing (where I saw this initially) comes the following:

He said the band consented to making audience recordings available for download again, although live recordings made directly from concert soundboards, which are the legal property of the Grateful Dead, should only be made available for listening from now on.

They are not reopening it back up fully. They are removing something which was granted to them earlier.

Quotes from the band

[rsidd]

Phil Lesh (bassist) was not consulted about the takedown.

John Perry Barlow (lyricist, but he has other claims to fame outside the Dead) was not happy. In this story he blames it on the drummers (Mickey Hart and Bill Kreutzmann). The NYT quoted him as having had a "pretty heated discussion" with Weir, guitarist and his songwriting partner. Robert Hunter (Jerry Garcia's lyricist) was reportedly not happy either but is silent.

I'm just disappointed, that's all.

Re:Quotes from the band

[JabberWokky]

The drummer is the least significant component of any rock band. How these guys managed to call the tune is beyfond me. Just sit at the back and bash the pads, would you

You are clearly not a Grateful Dead fan... or at least have not listened to the long jam sessions in their live shows. The reason they have two drummers is because they are real percussionists -- rather than being in the band because they were "Nick's friend who owns a kit". The two of them work together and do some very spacey and complex stuff.

Unlike in most bands, the bassist doesn't simply repeat six notes and the drummers not only actually work hard, they use more than just the one drum kit in one song (another reason for two drummers -- so one can keep the beat while the other is running to a new instrument). Much of the quality that people like about the Dead is the fact that the underlying music is complex and slowly rotates across a long jam.

--
Evan

Let them eat Stream

[warmcat]

''Grateful Dead "reversal" on fan-recordings is a smokescreen

Yesterday, I blogged stories about various Grateful Dead spokespeople and band-alumni making promises to reverse their attack on fan-recordings that are hosted at the the Internet Archive (these recordings were made by dedicated fans with the band's explicit blessing, and have been the core of an decades-old evangelical unpaid promotional campaign by Deadheads that has returned a gigantic fortune for the band).

However, it appears that all the talk about "communications SNAFUs" was a smokescreen for a half-assed compromise that leaves the highest-quality recordings available only as streams, meaning that they can no longer be simply downloaded from the Archive and traded on. ...''

Whole article

SUMMARY

[GreyPoopon]

In summary:

Bob Weir, Mickey Hart and Bill Kreutzmann were greedy because they felt the 50,000,000 per year that the band earned while Jerry Garcia was alive just wasn't enough to retire on. They threw a tantrum. Archive.org attempted to do what they though the Dead wanted and removed all the music.

John Perry Barlow, Phil Lesh and others disagreed, holding true to Garcia's attitude about trading. Live-recorded music (by fans) is restored to Archive.org; studio recordings are not.

Deadheads are freaking out and suffering from disillusionment. The question of whether the more pristine studio recordings should be allowed is not yet answered.

Re:SUMMARY

[BushCheney08]

Close. My understanding is that it's the soundboard recordings of concerts that are still being disallowed. Obviously, studio recordings wouldn't be allowed anyway under copyright law.

Nice transition

[GroeFaZ]

From Grateful over Ungrateful back to Grateful. The REAL news, however, would be if that transition happened with the other part of their name.

It's just a matter of time...

[SlashAmpersand]

The RIAA announced lawsuits against 1244 Deadheads today. Although the Deadheads are downloading the music legally, the RIAA is going after them anyway. "These Deadheads, they're sitting there with their tie-dye t-shirts, their sunglasses and bandannas, and their downloading music! We're confident that we'll prevail, because downloading music is wrong in the strict Biblical sense. Have you ever heard of Jesus downloading music? Did Moses use Limewire? No. Let's face it, we're on the right side here." The latest set of hearings were delayed when the RIAA representative noticed that the courtroom stenographer was wearing a set of earphones, and accused her of downloading music, leading to an attack by the RIAA lawyers. The courtroom was cleared, but not before the stenographer's wallet was picked bare and she'd been served with two separate lawsuits.

Jerry wanted the music to be free...

[digitaldc]

"once we're done with [the music], you can have it." - Jerry Garcia
Bassist Phil Lesh echoed that sentiment--quoting Garcia in an interview with Charlie Rose on CBS's 60 Minutes in 2004: "Jerry put it the best, as he frequently did, 'Let 'em have it. When we play it, we're done with it."
from: http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id= 49496

The Dead also released a disclaimer about their live music:
MP3 STATEMENT TO MP3 SITE OPERATORS
The Grateful Dead and our managing organizations have long encouraged the purely non-commercial exchange of music taped at our concerts and those of our individual members. That a new medium of distribution has arisen - digital audio files being traded over the Internet - does not change our policy in this regard.
Our stipulations regarding digital distribution are merely extensions of those long-standing principles and they are as follows:
No commercial gain may be sought by websites offering digital files of our music, whether through advertising, exploiting databases compiled from their traffic, or any other means.
All participants in such digital exchange acknowledge and respect the copyrights of the performers, writers and publishers of the music.
This notice should be clearly posted on all sites engaged in this activity.
We reserve the ability to withdraw our sanction of non-commercial digital music should circumstances arise that compromise our ability to protect and steward the integrity of our work.

Jerry Garcia did not care about people taping or downloading their music, he thought any live show could be shared and traded by anyone for their personal use, but not to copy and sell for profit. I would think the rest of the band would respect his wishes. Long live Jerry.
http://www.people4peace.net/pix/people4peace/jerry -garcia.jpg

Re:Forgetting the most basic right: property[OT]

[dada21]

The federal gov't can if it can rationalize that drugs are an interstate concern.

The Interstate Commerce clause is the most widely abused clause in the Constitution. It was originally provisioned so that the Federal government had a check on States abusing commerce between them. There was to be no taxation, tariff or other regulations in trade between States.

The clause now extends the federal government numerous powers (DUI laws, speed limits, drug use, porn, Internet controls, telecommunications controls, etc).

Reading up what the founding fathers intended isn't needed if you just read the text of the interstate commerce clause. It is also one clause I'd dump completely if I had a hand in Constitution version 3.0.

To protect you against imposters, etc.

[charnov]

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.