Slashdot Log In
Judge: Live Performance Copyright Unconstitutional
Posted by
timothy
on Sat Sep 25, 2004 05:50 PM
from the but-unauthorized-recording-is-still-out dept.
from the but-unauthorized-recording-is-still-out dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Pete and repete (Score:5, Funny)
re-posted article (Score:3, Informative)
Re:re-posted article (Score:5, Informative)
Wonder why they bother saying, "see any problems with this story? mail our on-duty editor.."
Duh.
Parent
Re:re-posted article (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:re-posted article (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent
It's interesting to note what gets duplicated (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Parent
Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated (Score:2)
Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated (Score:2)
But there's nothing to cheer about a store making money by selling unauthorized copies of a musician's work, and giving nothing to the musician in return.
Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated (Score:3, Funny)
The RIAA does it every day.
Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, the bookstore in my neighborhood has copies of Shakespeare for sale every day. They're unauthorized, and he doesn't get a penny.
Are you saying that it's bad?
Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated (Score:3, Insightful)
I bet the drugs those companies are selling aren't restricted by the DEA.
"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)."
Spyware/Adware is legal because the user agrees,
Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to any significant degree. In your two examples, you misrepresent legal distinctions between kinds of actions as legal distinctions between kinds of actors.
If you obtain the user's informed consent, it's legit. Whether you are a corporation or individual is irrelevant. I also note that you are using the wo
Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it isn't what drug is being sold that's important, it's how it is legal. How is it that certain patent-protected large-drug-company-controlled mood-altering drugs have been made legal, and non-patentable non-profitable mood-altering drugs are illegal? That one is legal and the other is not is a given. Why it should be that way is the question that emphasizes that corporations can get away with things that individuals can't, which was the point that was being made.
Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated (Score:4, Insightful)
Drug Dealer: I am validated by the masses. I sell lots of drugs and am rather profitable. Logically that means that something I am doing is filling a marketable demand.
(I think you should forget about "marketable demand" and simply say the RIAA's practices are allowed by the law.)
Parent
Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated (Score:3, Insightful)
Time to once again mention that, unless your recording sells at least 1.5 million copies, you won't get paid. At least, this is the situation with "industry standard" recording-industry contracts.
If your recording sells under a million copies, you'll usually end up in debt to the recording company. So maybe this store was actually helping the
Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated (Score:4, Insightful)
That's the real trouble with where the copyright laws have gone. Each "performance" is technically a different performance so his "copy" is unique from any others...should even have it's own protections!!!
More than that it's a perfect case to show the hillarity of the system... The idea of letting ANYTHING out of your mouth or pen be copyrighted is perposterous...especially for 150+ years!! The original intent was to have the works submitted to the Library of Congress for posterity... not to have every private letter supressed. If you look at the largest corperate push for protections, it's now "live" events, databases, and "pre recorded" software... these people don't ever plan on releasing the actual scripts, information, or source code to the "library" for posterity to enjoy ...it's just a form of corperate welfare.
on the flip side, we can't just eliminate the 1976 changes becase GNU DEPENDS on them. Otherwise getting offical copyrights for OSS would be prohibitvily time-consuming and expensive.
Parent
Record? (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:Record? (Score:2)
Duping record: 6 Hours! (Score:2)
They've almost cut the previous Duping record of 22hours down to just 6!
In other news, Olympic Duping is set to be an official sport at the next 2008 games.
dupe (Score:5, Funny)
Flag on the play, this one's coming back. (Score:4, Interesting)
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. (Score:2)
you make a tit of yourself singing while pissed at a wedding and I record it with my camera. what the fuck does the SCoTUS care? I start selling copies without your permission then you might have a case.
Re:Flag on the play, this one's coming back. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Flag on the play, this one's coming back. (Score:2, Insightful)
THe purpose is to increase innovation/creativity and allow artist/inventers to prosper from there work (within reason) and then, once that time has expired, allow all of the public to benefit.
By prevent the recording of the live concerts the spirt of the law, that at one point all of society will be able to benefit is obstructed (since there are no recordings).
So I say f33r my 13g41 skillzors (IE I am
Re:Flag on the play, this one's coming back. (Score:3, Interesting)
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. (Score:5, Interesting)
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).
Parent
lost in translation? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
can you please just TRY? (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you frickin' editors please just TRY not to post duplicates of stories that are still on your frickin' FRONT PAGE?
Re:can you please just TRY? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:can you please just TRY? (Score:2, Insightful)
This is not your website. It's not their website either. It's everyone's, even those people who have yet to read it, or this article, or this particular repeat of this article. And that's a good thing.
Are you mad because you feel taking
Re:can you please just TRY? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure he's "mad" because having nothing but a bunch of duplicate stories right on the front page of a site makes the site a lot less useful. And every story that's a dupe is another story that didn't get posted.
There are a lot of tech news sites and blogs out there - news.com, engadget.com, theregister.com, etc. Some of them overlap the content posted here, but there's generally a lot of info that only gets posted in one place, which makes each of those sites worth visiting on their own. But if one of those sites simply repeats the same story over and over, then it's not really providing you with news at all, which is the main purpose of their existence. I would think this would be of interest to the editors here; posting dupes very simply makes the site less useful and makes visitors less likely to keep visiting.
If you like visiting a site, and you suddenly see it become less useful than it used to be, then the natural human reaction would probably be disappointment and/or irritation. I don't think there's any reason for you to try to belittle those feelings among people who are just trying to get the editors to do a little better job for the good of the site as a whole.
Parent
Wonderful (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Wonderful (Score:3, Funny)
i think you meant to say that the story was a dupe.
Shh (Score:5, Funny)
It's on the front page! (Score:2)
Without belaboring the obvious... (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell me again what those subscriptions are supposed to get me?
Re:Without belaboring the obvious... (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell me again what those subscriptions are supposed to get me?
The right to see stories before everyone else so you can email the editors and tell them that it's a dupe - only to have your email ignored and see the story posted anyway?
Parent
Re:Without belaboring the obvious... (Score:3, Insightful)
"without any real right to do so"? Hey, check it out: 1) free speech. You're welcome. 'Nuff said. 2) I read the site regularly, I don't block the ads, I post informational and (occasionally) insightful commentary - I AM the target audience for subscription sales. 3) Slashdot offers subscriptions to people like me, I point out what needs to be done to sell me one - hint: decent editing is high on the list. This website is a product, and I pay for it by viewing ads. That gives me EVERY
If it's funny once, it's funny twice... (Score:5, Funny)
------------------
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
Ok, that does it (Score:3, Funny)
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.
6:00 am (Score:4, Funny)
Babe.
I got you babe.
porp
Advice (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Re:Advice (Score:3, Insightful)
Never watched CNN, or Fox News have you?
Re:Advice (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to say I considered subscribing a couple times but then just took a look not just at the rampants dupes but even worse the massive factual errors that show up so often in the summary that even a cursory glance through the article would reveal. How many times I've read about a company doing some great evil in the summary only to find they've done nothing of the sort in the article, or about some event described as something completely different. Almost all of these errors could be caught with 3 min of research, it's gotten to the point where I don't even pay attention to the summary or even the title other then to see if it's something that might be interesting, it's the article and comments that I use for info.
Parent
Yeah, that sounds great, except... (Score:2, Interesting)
If that's the case, then that doesn't sound very fair to the artists. I mean come on, 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. Sorry. Infringing food out of their mouths.
I'm not saying that all artists make money o
quit complaining... (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Fool me once.. (Score:4, Funny)
This just in... (Score:3, Funny)
why the bands don't do this. (Score:3, Interesting)
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;)