Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Media Music United States News

Judge: Live Performance Copyright Unconstitutional 249

Posted by timothy 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This discussion has been archived.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.

Judge: Live Performance Copyright Unconstitutional More

Judge: Live Performance Copyright Unconstitutional

Comments Filter:

  • Pete and repete (Score:5, Funny)

    by Lehk228 ( 705449 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @05:51PM (#10351307) Journal
    are in a boat, Pete jumps out, who's left?

  • re-posted article (Score:3, Informative)

    by EdZ ( 755139 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @05:51PM (#10351309)
    http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/25/145420 4&tid=123&tid=141&tid=1 Been there, done that.

    • Re:re-posted article (Score:5, Informative)

      by metlin ( 258108 ) * on Saturday September 25, 2004 @05:54PM (#10351336) Journal
      Eh. Saw this in the subscriber's preview and even mailed the editor about it -- but seems like it doesn't matter.

      Wonder why they bother saying, "see any problems with this story? mail our on-duty editor.."

      Duh.

      • Re:re-posted article (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Fnkmaster ( 89084 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @07:11PM (#10351783)
        Has anybody ever actually had the supposed editor-on-duty respond when they pointed out it was a dupe? Not saying it never happens, but the couple of times I tried to let them know (before I let my subscription lapse), it didn't do anything, and I always hear other people complaining about having the same experience.

        • Re:re-posted article (Score:4, Interesting)

          by orthogonal ( 588627 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @07:22PM (#10351843) Journal
          Has anybody ever actually had the supposed editor-on-duty respond when they pointed out it was a dupe?

          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.

    • It's interesting to note what gets duplicated (Score:5, Interesting)

      by turnstyle ( 588788 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @06:00PM (#10351370) Homepage
      Even though this is a repeat, it is interesting to note what sort of stories get duplicated.

      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?

      • Fix the law to one that isn't unconstistutional and it wouldn't be seen as a problem. Don't blame it on the store. Blame it on the rain.
        • Yes, if a law is unconstistutional it should be fixed.

          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.

          • 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.

            The RIAA does it every day.

            • "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."

              • "The RIAA does it every day."

              And what, so now you're happy to see a store doing it too? Geez.

              • I'm just saying -- our country SUCKS. Corporations have rights that citizens do not -- 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).

                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.

                • "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?"

                  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,

                • Corporations have rights that citizen do not...

                  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 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).

                  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

                  • 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.

            • Really? What's wrong with it?

              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?
              • "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?"

                I'm saying that taking a musician's work, and selling it, and giving them nothing in return is wrong.

                Are you saying that it's ok to sell bootleg copies of their CDs too?

                • Well, then I certainly hope that you've never bought a copy of Shakespeare.

                  I don't think it's wrong. I don't think that they have a natural or inherent claim on their work.

                  OTOH, I do think that it can be a good idea to have a copyright system. Not because it is morally right, because it isn't. But for utilitarian purposes, which is to say, because it leaves the public better off than it would be otherwise. That it involves artists getting paid, however, is purely secondary. It isn't the point, any more th
          • Except that you can now buy it, when before, the record company didn't sell it. What has changed is that now we can listen to the music. And if the law doesn't prevent it, the record store won't charge $25, as more competition enters without the risk. And the record companies, now facing competition, can release their version, with all the extras that their connection to the artist and their copyrighted studio recordings enable. Bands have more products to make money, and we have more products to consume.

            I
      • 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?

        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)

        by mabhatter654 ( 561290 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @09:58PM (#10352719)
        but this guy has a "copyright" on that particular performance...

        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.

      • We aren't really happy the artist isn't getting money. As far as I can tell, most of us want the musicians to earn a living.

        It's that the recording companies don't get any money that makes us so ecstatic we dupe articles 6 hours after it appears on the main page.

  • Record? (Score:2, Redundant)

    by antiMStroll ( 664213 )
    Record dupe. :)

  • dupe (Score:5, Funny)

    by kinzillah ( 662884 ) <[ude.tir.liam] [ta] [ecirp.salguod]> on Saturday September 25, 2004 @05:52PM (#10351314)
    The other one is still on the front page, no less.

  • Flag on the play, this one's coming back. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Saturday September 25, 2004 @05:53PM (#10351320)
    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.
    • copyright isn't about recording, it's about copying. anyone can record (pretty much) anything. copyright just means you can't go distributing it.

      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.
    • All well and good , but the spirit of the constituational law must be considered not just the exact wording.
      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
      • ...and allow artist/inventers to prosper from there work...

        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.
        • Allowing artists or inventors to profit from creative work is unconstitutional unless it demonstrably contributes to that end.

          Wrong. The last part is somewhat* correct, insofar as that the reason for giving an artist a limited monopoly on his work is to encourage innovation. But to say that "allowing something is unconstitutional" is bullshit, or at the very least, poorly stated. There is nothing in the constitution that would expressly prohibit an artist from profiting from his work. It would be absurd i
    • 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 publi

    • Re:Flag on the play, this one's coming back. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by theLOUDroom ( 556455 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @06:33PM (#10351533)
      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.

      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).

      • 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.

        Technically, this law states that its illegal to sell unauthorised copies of a copyrighted performance. Wait 75 years, that performance is no longer copyrighted under law, and thus this ceases to be a bootleg. It was just struck off because there was no specific time limit on this l

    • lost in translation? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by poptones ( 653660 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @06:39PM (#10351571) Journal
      The original article was fairly correct, but this rerun is not only a dupe, it's a dupe of the worse kind - a troll. The article really reads nothing at all like this headline, it seems to have gained a great deal since the first time through.

      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.

    • Uhm... I wouldn't celebrate anything based on this one. It's going to get overturned on appeal

      <TINFOILHAT>It won't surprise me if this decision actually stands and used against The People. How you say? Read this. [slashdot.org]</ TINFOILHAT>

      You are now returned to your regularly scheduled goodthink ;-)

    • While I don't exactly think N'Syncs concerts should be preserved for posterity, there are concerts from 75 years ago that I wish we had a copy of... how will people 75 years from now feel about this?

      More to the point, if the purpose of a concert is to earn money from people actually there listening... how can it be stealing to record this? They never intended to earn money from the recordings anyway.

      Not that I expect anything even remotely resembling fair copyright policy from my own country.

  • can you please just TRY? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Speare ( 84249 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @05:53PM (#10351321) Homepage Journal

    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)

      by OverlordQ ( 264228 ) * on Saturday September 25, 2004 @06:04PM (#10351400) Journal
      Well atleast on the bright side (if there is one), timmothy didn't post both of em.
    • This attitude pisses me off so much. There's nothing wrong with a duplicate story. New spins on the old, even if semi-recent, should always be welcome because it will foster comments, some comments that actually hold some sort of communication, or relevancy to the topic...

      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
      • 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.

        Actually, I think lately it's been Rolay Piquepalle's website. Maybe they should put his name at the top, like fark does with that drew carey guy

      • Re:can you please just TRY? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by badasscat ( 563442 ) <basscadet75.yahoo@com> on Saturday September 25, 2004 @06:31PM (#10351525)
        Are you mad because you feel taking the 10 seconds to read an article headline is too much of your precious time?

        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.
      • Are you mad because you feel taking the 10 seconds to read an article headline is too much of your precious time?

        Maybe it's because the editors on this site essentially have one job - choose which stories to post, avoiding dupes. Hell, we've long since given up on any hope of objectivity, or fact-checking, not posting redundant stories is all we have left.

        This one is a duplicate of a story that was posted only 6 huors previously, and that was (and at time of writing this, still is) on the front page. Tha

  • Wonderful (Score:2, Interesting)

    by panxerox ( 575545 ) *
    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"

    • Re:Wonderful (Score:3, Funny)

      by mjbkinx ( 800231 )
      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"

      i think you meant to say that the story was a dupe.

  • Shh (Score:5, Funny)

    by The-Bus ( 138060 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @05:53PM (#10351327)
    Don't be mad. This is just a bootleg of the previous post.

  • Without belaboring the obvious... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rco3 ( 198978 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @05:56PM (#10351349) Homepage
    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?

    • Re:Without belaboring the obvious... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Fnkmaster ( 89084 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @07:08PM (#10351757)

      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?

  • If it's funny once, it's funny twice... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Infinityis ( 807294 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @06:00PM (#10351372) Homepage
    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
    • 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.
    • So the performances were illegal?

      Actually, it's quite likely they were. I've seen it mentioned in passing by assorted "IAAL" types that if you don't have prior written permission to perform a copyrighted work, your performance is probably illegal. The concept of "mechanical royalty" has been invented to legalize such things, but there are a few reasons this might not apply. One is that the intent of this concept was to legalize broadcasts of recorded works, not live performances. And how many performers

  • 6:00 am (Score:4, Funny)

    by porp ( 24384 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @06:02PM (#10351385)
    Alarm clock goes off.

    Babe.

    I got you babe.

    porp

  • Advice (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sanity ( 1431 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @06:03PM (#10351391) Homepage Journal
    Even the most lax sources of information that purport to call themselves "news" exercise sufficient respect for their readers not to report the same thing twice within as many hours.

    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)

      by Jah-Wren Ryel ( 80510 )
      Even the most lax sources of information that purport to call themselves "news" exercise sufficient respect for their readers not to report the same thing twice within as many hours.

      Never watched CNN, or Fox News have you?
      • Never watched CNN, or Fox News have you?

        Whats different is that CNN or Fox News is not an interactive forum like slashdot. If there were to be something significant in the cnn link that was not in the original post, then someone could post that like like the many other links. A duplicate story just unnecessarily divides the discussion. And also, most all of the discussion in a duplicate post is people like me bitching about it being a dupe.

        I've never looked at the administrative part of slash, but I'

    • Re:Advice (Score:5, Insightful)

      by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @06:53PM (#10351658)
      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?
      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.
      • If I had the space and the time, I would start a version of Slashdot that took Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]'s Neutral Point of View [wikipedia.org] as a matter of policy.

        You are absolutely right, things like this could be easily avoided. Day by day, Slashdot seems to appear less professional. I think it's time.
        • If I had the space and the time, I would start a version of Slashdot that took Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View as a matter of policy.
          Damn fine idea, one of the things I find most irritating is blatant bias showing up in the summary, the summary is just that, a summary of the article or topic to be discussed. Bias should be found in the comments, where it belongs, a biased summary too often distracts from the topic that is to be discussed and makes the site appear shallow and childish.

          I find the idea
    • If the news is significant I expect it to be in the headlines even when the headlines scroll down off the page. I expect this to happen whether or not there are any new developments. In many situations, the fact that there are no new developments can be the most newsworthy aspect to the information.

      Some people grab a bit of /. whenever they have time and expect the top headlines to be whatever seems most important at the moment. I suspect that most of us do not want to have to dig through the archives to t
  • Before this ruling, the copyright never expired (clearly bad). Now what? There's NO copyright at all? You can copy and distribute at will? (No distinction is made in the article, so I'm asking.)

    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
    • 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 mak
      • Let's start by addressing your concerns with my second and third paragraphs:

        A percentage of the people buying the bootlegs will wind up short of ticket money? Are you fucking serious?

        Yes. Clearly this is the case. A certain percentage of people will only be able to afford one or the other. Do you know some sort of magic math that allows for people of limitted means to purchase everything their hearts desire? Do you believe that being presented with the choice of "purchase infinitely replayable bootl
        • A percentage of the people buying the bootlegs will wind up short of ticket money? Are you fucking serious?

          Yes. Clearly this is the case. A certain percentage of people will only be able to afford one or the other. Do you know some sort of magic math that allows for people of limitted means to purchase everything their hearts desire? Do you believe that being presented with the choice of "purchase infinitely replayable bootlegged live recording of expensive music show" or "pay through the nose for a concer
    • if it is play in public...then THAT performance should be available to the public domain.

      IF it is the public domain, the artist can offer a sale of just like anybody. The artist has the opportunity for 'value add' by putting a couple of studio recordings on it.

      At this point, if you can generate enough interest so people want to resell your recording, you are already signed, or have enough of an attendence that people will come to your next consert.
      also, it has been shown that distributing your music incre
    • Before this ruling, the copyright never expired (clearly bad). Now what? There's NO copyright at all? You can copy and distribute at will? (No distinction is made in the article, so I'm asking.)
      If that's the case, then that doesn't sound very fair

      I am going to set aside any issues of what copyright law is and should be and just address the legal process involved in your objection. Oh, and obviously everything below is US-centric :)

      The courts have some flexibility in how they interpret laws, however they
    • Before this ruling, the copyright never expired (clearly bad). Now what? There's NO copyright at all? You can copy and distribute at will?

      IANAL, but IIRC:

      If the artist has arranged a recording of the performance, they're fixing the performance in a tangible medium and can get an ordinary copyright on it. So the artist does get first crack at releasing and profiting off a live CD of the show. (This is how the Kings make money off clips of the "I Have A Dream" speech -- MLK, Jr. arranged for it to be rec
    • I think it would be more like, you write a cool webapp, and you throw it up on a server to do it's thing. I record every single little transaction it does. Not the same thing.

      This is why we have LEGISLATION you moron. The courts ARE NOT there to correct the law, they are there to clearly say wheither or not the law is unconstitutional or clearly bad or not. They are NOT there to change the law through inerpretation. Sure, it isn't fair to the backstreet artist if someone records their show and sell
      • but it also isn't fair to us when their copyright of recordings of their show is forever.

        Jesus. Did you eat a whole box of dumbass this morning? Re-read the thread ass.

        This is why we have LEGISLATION you moron. The courts ARE NOT there to correct the law, they are there to clearly say wheither or not the law is unconstitutional or clearly bad or not.

        Not there to "correct" the law, merely to judge it's correctness. So if it's judged "incorrect" it's reinterpreted, not enforced, or stricken. Clearly
  • This story was posted by CowboyNeal six hours ago and IS STILL ON THE FRONT PAGE!!!!!

    Timothy, the slashdot dupe king.

    And slashdot would like people to pay for subscriptions of duplicated atricles....
  • 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!!!
  • The judge said the current copyright code on live performances is unconstitutional, because copyrights last forever

    W00t!

  • quit complaining... (Score:4, Funny)

    by sootman ( 158191 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @07:48PM (#10352002) Homepage Journal
    ...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.
  • Its these damn 'activist' judges again!! who do they think they are conforming to some 'bill of rights' when they damn well should be conforming to the laws politicians have been busting their asses getting passed! Its almost as if they are actually judging things instead of doing what they're told! tsk
    • You are wrong -- this is determining whether or not this is covered by the Consitution.

      However, from my reading of just the summary (didn't read the article), the judge is probably still out of line, just because federal courts (Might be US Supreme Court, don't remember) have said that the length of copyright is not an issue.

      I personally agree with the judge, but that's irrelevant -- according to the rules of the system, he probably should have ruled that the case has already been ruled on.

  • Fool me once.. (Score:4, Funny)

    by bavander ( 316929 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @07:57PM (#10352071)
    Post it twice, shame on you. Read it twice, shame on me!

  • This just in... (Score:3, Funny)

    by jpetts ( 208163 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @08:17PM (#10352181)
    Judge rules that duplication of stories on /. illegal. Taco et. al. to go down for 20 years
  • There oughta be a law against dups [slashdot.org].
  • What is the Supreme Court going to say about this? Because you know that's where this case is gonna go. Last paragraph:

    The U.S. Attorney's Office... [said it] would "evaluate what steps ought to be taken going forward."

    So don't go firing your machine guns in the air and yelling "Allah is Great" just yet.

  • why the bands don't do this. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by blackest_k ( 761565 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @09:51PM (#10352686) Homepage Journal
    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;)

Slashdot Top Deals

10 to the minus 6th power Movie = 1 Microfilm

Close