The Feds charged him with a crime (selling bootlegs), the judge said "that's no crime" and the FBI said "we'll look into it later." To me that's the court saying "selling bootlegs is okay by us."
I took that to mean that, in this particular case, because of double jeopardy concerns, they may not be able to charge him with a lesser crime since the conviction has been overturned. The court is not saying "selling bootlegs is okay by us", they are saying "this guy may have violated a few laws by selling the bootlegs, but the particular law that you charged him with is bogus."
It's a subtle difference, one that may not have come across in the particular article linked by the original poster, but it's an important distinction.
- The ruling does not give the store owner legal authority to put out the bootlegged shows. He can still be sued by the RIAA for illegal distribution of copyrighted material. Plus, I'm sure there are other lesser charges that can be (or perhaps, "could have been" if double-jeopardy applies) brought against him, but the Feds chose to charge this particular guy with the statute that carried the heaviest penalties.
- While I see your logic about $5.00 bootlegs competing with a $20.00 CD, you're really comparing apples to applesauce. The quality of bootlegs is notoriously low, and I'd venture most people would rather buy a "high quality, digitally recorded off the sound board and remastered by an engineer" rather than take a gamble with a bootleg of questionable quality.
- Some people *prefer* to hear a bootleg, quality be damned, rather than a CD. For one thing, bootlegs are usually the whole concert, with all the banter, encores, crowd noises, etc. that you get at a real concert. Plus there's the novelty of hearing a once-in-a-lifetime event. You don't get that with most commercially produced, "fit it on to one or two discs" stuff that comes from the studios, or from the bands themselves.
- Selling bootlegged live albums does not, as you suggest, help no one but the bootlegger. Bands make their money from performing live, and bootlegs promote that experience to a wider audience, which improves interest in the artist, which translates into increased ticket sales and album sales as well. Bands may not directly profit from the sale of that bootleg, but when factoring the above against the cost of producing, manufacturing, distributing and promoting a live album, chances are the band comes out ahead.
If you haven't already read Courtney Love's dissertation on this in salon.com, it's well worth a read.
[...] if concerts are going to be their bread and butter (like the herd thinks it should be), then this is stealing food out of their mouths.
I can see the logic in the argument that downloading an mp3 is like "stealing food out of their mouths", because you likely are not going to buy the album if you've got the mp3.
But you can't use the same logic when it comes to bootlegging. You can't say "well, I'm not going to go back in time and go to the concert now because I've got a recording of it".
Nobody is saying that all live performances are being stripped of copyright protection. They are saying that this particular law which specifically dealt with UNAUTHORIZED recordings, is not constitutional because it did not specify a length of time. This is perfectly in line with the Eldred decision. No limit = unconstitutional.
And, while the songs themselves are certainly copyrighted, there is still gray area as to whether the performers who engage in a live performance in a public place should enjoy the same protection as as when they produce the same performance in a studio.
Point? I don't really have one, I just wanted to somehow work "jacking off into the rose bushes" into the conversation. Didn't expect you to go all Grammar Nazi on me or anything... Sheesh!
If we are equating outright theft of an artists recording (i.e. selling a bogus dupe of their CD on the street corner) with rape, then selling a bootleg recording, a recording which was not created by the artist, is more akin to standing outside someone's window, watching them undress and jacking off in the rose bushes.
Besides, in case you haven't heard, recording companies and the RIAA rip off artists every day, to a much greater extent and at a much larger scale than the small fry who sells bootlegs of live performances.
Besides, I only watch FNC because I've got an unholy, unhealthy obsession with Heather Nauert and Molly Hennenberg. If only Molly Falconer were still there... (sigh)...
Orange? Nah... If we really must name it after a citrus, I think Kumquat Computers has a nice ring to it, plus there's the added bonus of alliteration.
Usage Note: Principal and principle are often confused but have no meanings in common. Principle is only a noun and usually refers to a rule or standard. Principal is both a noun and an adjective. As a noun, it has specialized meanings in law and finance, but in general usage it refers to a person who holds a high position or plays an important role: a meeting among all the principals in the transaction. As an adjective it has the sense of "chief" or "leading": The coach's principal concern is the quarterback's health.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny, I translated "Ate lurks barry wall" as "It works terrible".
Me and all of my friends are 29-year-old convicted felons from Vancouver, you insensitive clod!
World's Deepest Cave? Shouldn't articles about George W. Bush's head be in the new Politics category?
You thought you had problems going through airport security before!
The Feds charged him with a crime (selling bootlegs), the judge said "that's no crime" and the FBI said "we'll look into it later." To me that's the court saying "selling bootlegs is okay by us."
I took that to mean that, in this particular case, because of double jeopardy concerns, they may not be able to charge him with a lesser crime since the conviction has been overturned. The court is not saying "selling bootlegs is okay by us", they are saying "this guy may have violated a few laws by selling the bootlegs, but the particular law that you charged him with is bogus."
It's a subtle difference, one that may not have come across in the particular article linked by the original poster, but it's an important distinction.
Um, I think you answered your own question, there. It's the lack of time limit that makes it unconstitutional, at least playing by post-Eldred rules.
A few points:
- The ruling does not give the store owner legal authority to put out the bootlegged shows. He can still be sued by the RIAA for illegal distribution of copyrighted material. Plus, I'm sure there are other lesser charges that can be (or perhaps, "could have been" if double-jeopardy applies) brought against him, but the Feds chose to charge this particular guy with the statute that carried the heaviest penalties.
- While I see your logic about $5.00 bootlegs competing with a $20.00 CD, you're really comparing apples to applesauce. The quality of bootlegs is notoriously low, and I'd venture most people would rather buy a "high quality, digitally recorded off the sound board and remastered by an engineer" rather than take a gamble with a bootleg of questionable quality.
- Some people *prefer* to hear a bootleg, quality be damned, rather than a CD. For one thing, bootlegs are usually the whole concert, with all the banter, encores, crowd noises, etc. that you get at a real concert. Plus there's the novelty of hearing a once-in-a-lifetime event. You don't get that with most commercially produced, "fit it on to one or two discs" stuff that comes from the studios, or from the bands themselves.
- Selling bootlegged live albums does not, as you suggest, help no one but the bootlegger. Bands make their money from performing live, and bootlegs promote that experience to a wider audience, which improves interest in the artist, which translates into increased ticket sales and album sales as well. Bands may not directly profit from the sale of that bootleg, but when factoring the above against the cost of producing, manufacturing, distributing and promoting a live album, chances are the band comes out ahead.
If you haven't already read Courtney Love's dissertation on this in salon.com, it's well worth a read.
http://www.cybercrime.gov/18usc2319A.htm
[...] if concerts are going to be their bread and butter (like the herd thinks it should be), then this is stealing food out of their mouths.
I can see the logic in the argument that downloading an mp3 is like "stealing food out of their mouths", because you likely are not going to buy the album if you've got the mp3.
But you can't use the same logic when it comes to bootlegging. You can't say "well, I'm not going to go back in time and go to the concert now because I've got a recording of it".
RNC, oops, I mean FNC and the Post are owned by the same company.
RTEFA, RTFL and RTFC.
Nobody is saying that all live performances are being stripped of copyright protection. They are saying that this particular law which specifically dealt with UNAUTHORIZED recordings, is not constitutional because it did not specify a length of time. This is perfectly in line with the Eldred decision. No limit = unconstitutional.
And, while the songs themselves are certainly copyrighted, there is still gray area as to whether the performers who engage in a live performance in a public place should enjoy the same protection as as when they produce the same performance in a studio.
Ouch indeed, perhaps I should've said "into" the rose bushes.
If your name happens to be Rose, my apologies to you and your bush.
What is the purpose of your stupid analogy?
Dude, relax!
Point? I don't really have one, I just wanted to somehow work "jacking off into the rose bushes" into the conversation. Didn't expect you to go all Grammar Nazi on me or anything... Sheesh!
Bad analogy.
If we are equating outright theft of an artists recording (i.e. selling a bogus dupe of their CD on the street corner) with rape, then selling a bootleg recording, a recording which was not created by the artist, is more akin to standing outside someone's window, watching them undress and jacking off in the rose bushes.
Besides, in case you haven't heard, recording companies and the RIAA rip off artists every day, to a much greater extent and at a much larger scale than the small fry who sells bootlegs of live performances.
Great... The Post or USA Today. Nice choice. It's like asking a man with peanut allergies if he'd prefer smooth or chunky.
Insert a 3.5"er? I wish! I'm a white guy; it's more like a USB micro-drive.
Won't be long before we're all solving impossible encryption problems.
Who's this "we"? I still can't get my VCR to stop blinking 12:00...
It's subtle ironic humor like that that makes me wish I had mod points for you, even if you are an AC...
I would agree, but since I'm typing this on my stolen copy of Windows. I'd better not.
It's still better compared to low bidders in nursing. At least with watching porn, if exposed to an inept low-bidder, only certain organs will fail!
Unless, of course, the insulation is manufactured by a subsidiary of Halliburton!
Lord knows with so many companies under the corporate boot, er... umbrella, that one of them makes insulation.
Besides, I only watch FNC because I've got an unholy, unhealthy obsession with Heather Nauert and Molly Hennenberg. If only Molly Falconer were still there... (sigh)...
Stop looking at Richard Simmons' gym shorts. Talk about a low hanging fruit!
I don't know, let's ask the chip...
Orange? Nah... If we really must name it after a citrus, I think Kumquat Computers has a nice ring to it, plus there's the added bonus of alliteration.
;)
That and it sounds a little dirty.