US Judge Strikes Down Bootleg Law 312
lee writes "BBC News reports briefly on a federal judge declaring a 10-year-old anti-bootlegging law unconstitutional, because it sets no limits on the length of copyright of live performances, and grants "seemingly perpetual protection" to copyright holders."
This is going to get overturned in a heartbeat. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:BBC (Score:5, Insightful)
The US press considers judgements that are not in favor of copyright holders to not be news. (At least all together too frequently.)
Rusty
Re:BBC (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:BBC (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is going to get overturned in a heartbeat. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Duh, they were *selling* the recordings... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because the law is wrong doesn't mean the court endorses the crime. Take Miranda vs. Arizona [findlaw.com] . Even though the rapist is freed, and precedent is set, the court isn't saying it's okay to rape someone.
Re:BBC (Score:2, Insightful)
isn't that the point? (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't that the point of copyright laws? to protect the author/creator/composer/whatever?
"Managed" news in the US? The hell you say! (Score:4, Insightful)
I still can't believe that the first time I saw that footage or even heard that it happened was when I saw Fahrenheit 9/11.
In light of that, it won't surprise me at all if this ruling doesn't merit a mention by any big-media news outlet.
Re:Confused; could use some answers... (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, it also happens that the studio mix simply isn't very good but that live recordings sound astounding.
It all comes down to preference, live recordings can add excitement, overview of an artists growth and they can show you songs in a different light, as live artists are prone to let a song breath some more, giving it the room to blossom that simply isn't always possible in studio recordings!
Re:isn't that the point? (Score:4, Insightful)
The point of copyright is to let the creator profit off of his/her work for a time, but not to keep the work out of the public domain perpetually.
That's weird... (Score:2, Insightful)
But when you consider that it's illegal to record live performances ANYWAY there's no copyright on those recordings to begin with (because their illegit recordings the very nature of those recordings are outlawed) If the band makes a recording of that performance then normal copyright (and the usual limitations) apply.
So if it's illegal to make those recordings, then it's illegal to sale those recordings and it doesn't make sense for the judge to rule that those illegally made recordings should someday become legal because the copyright term has passed.
On the FLIP side however, if this ruling stands and it'll eventually become legal to sell bootleg copies... then it should be LEGAL to make bootlegs to begin with... because it's infringing on my right to someday sell those recordings!
Re:BBC (Score:4, Insightful)
not wanting to come across as troll, but as a UK citizen the BBC is one of the things that makes me proud and optimistic. the idea of mixing facts and profits just seems like a really Bad Idea(tm) to be avoided as much as possible.
Re:That's weird... (Score:1, Insightful)
many bands allow this.
Fly by Night Express (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Duh, they were *selling* the recordings... (Score:2, Insightful)
To follow your analogy, would you then consider profiting by selling unauthorized shows to be such a "rape"? (obviously that's too strong a word, and I'm sure neither of us mean to equate it that way)
It seems to me that the prevailing sentiment (like the parent post) sees everything in a "Fuck the RIAA" kind of way -- but if the artist is being ripped off, is that something to cheer?
Re:for crying out loud! (Score:2, Insightful)
if the artist isnt selling the concert recording, they are not losing anything.
a concert is a one time deal, if i listen to a recording of a concert last night, did the artist lose money because i didnt attend it?
doubtful
Re:isn't that the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no law of nature that stops an idea from spreading from one person to another, even if the idea is in the form of a catchy tune or a long set of words that make up a novel. Copyright law is therefore a restriction of the people's freedom, and it's not in the spirit of the Constitution to restrict the people's freedom without giving them some benefit in return. The "limited time" concept is that benefit: by giving creators extra incentive to create, it says to the people, "Hold off spreading new ideas around for a little while, and there will be more of them for you to play with later." Without the second part of that sentence, the law is simply a restriction of freedom with very little public benefit to make up for it.
That's the theory, anyway. In my opinion current copyright law is already excessive in that a work created the day you're born will not be available to you to build upon until you're on your deathbed.
It is worth observing that the people who argue most strenuously for infinite copyright terms are very rarely the creators of copyrighted works -- they're the publishers of those works. Listen to what the actual artists say and you'll hear a different tune: artists realize that they stand on the shoulders of giants, and that everything they create is based on what's come before. Without that cultural heritage to freely draw upon, creators suffer just as much as everyone else.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:BBC (Score:3, Insightful)
The public is dumb, they don't care where they get their news from, whether its "Bush is King" Fox news, or "Save the planet and think of the children" CNN, or the entirely fabricated tablioid "news". Public apathy and poor education are a far bigger threat to democracy than a homoginized media.
As for a "responsible" media, that doesn't happen, the free press has always slanted news reporting to fit their individual agendas.
Re:BBC (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is going to get overturned in a heartbeat. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, if anything, the past was actually worse. The internet has not only allowed us to keep more apprised of what's going on, but it's also led to increased availability of bootlegs and other illicit material. It used to be that if you wanted a live recording of a show, and you didn't have the ability to go to the show yourself, you basically had to go to one of these little record stores in New York or some other big city and buy one. And of course, it was very easy for the feds to figure out where these dealers were and shut them down. (More would pop up later, but it wasn't this rising tide that the internet has now wrought.)
I used to work at one of these record stores - Zapp Records in New York. One day in the mid 90's I came in to work only to see a whole mess of US Customs agents rifling through our shelves. They ended up confiscating half of our inventory and the store shut down a month or two later after the owner fled to Germany to escape federal prosecution.
This is the way it used to be. What goes on now is no different, but because supply is now outstripping law enforcement's ability to deal with it, it's probably actually easier to get away with breaking bootlegging laws at this point.
My point being, there were no "good old days", as the original question seemed to be implying. These laws have always been enforced and in fact were probably easier to enforce before the internet became mainstream.
Re:BBC (Score:3, Insightful)
You're joking, right? I suppose that CBS was "rolling over for Bush" when they started this whole mess [google.com].
Re:isn't that the point? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:isn't that the point? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not alone (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:isn't that the point? (Score:3, Insightful)
A point of clarification.
The original intent of copyright law was to let the public enjoy the benefits of the work perpetually in exchange for a temporary monopoly. The temporary monopoly was only granted as a side-effect of the original intent, it was not even the original intent.
So if you had been an artist who refused to share your work with the public, your work would not have received the benefit of copyright protection.
Re:Duh, they were *selling* the recordings... (Score:4, Insightful)
An analogy exists to illustrate a point! You can't prove something by analogy. It's not the same situation. Since it's a different situation, the conclusions from one do not automatically apply to the other.
And while we're at it, nobody was equating theft of a recording with rape. He was using one specific case as an analogy to another to illlustrate the point.
What is the purpose of your stupid analogy?
Re:rights are transferable (Score:3, Insightful)
Monetary value is what I think you mean. Obviously, even things that cost nothing have value (as in; linux? love?).
Rights end at the time of death all the time. While it's inconvenient, death puts a stop to deals all the time. What happens to your cell phone contract? The lease on you house? Still businesses enter into these contracts with mere mortals.
You cannot make them die with the author, since those rights would then have substantially less value (imagine if his rights to the white Album died the day Lennon was shot - all that money from the inevitable "death windfall" made by the remaining beatles and the record companies and nothing at all to his widow and son? No Justice there.)
The remaining beatles not being dead they would still have had a claim. The widow and son? Well, when your local neighborhood wageslave dies, the widow and son usually don't get wages for the work the dead man isn't doing, do they? Where's the justice in that?
And besides, copyright is there to promote science and the arts, not Yoko and Damien's wellbeing. It's not like they weren't well off already, surely they'd saved up for a rainy day.
Actually, those rights were already sold, so who benefits? Corporations (at least, the corporation that owns the copyright, not the corporations that want to reproduce the works el cheapo - the big guys vs the small guys), and not the public.
The constitution clearly spells out the formla - that those rights are to be a limited time, and they be exclusive - meaning I can license my work to you and not your competitor
The constitution doesn't preclude you from entering into non-exclusive licenses. That's why the GPL is constitutional, for example.
Actually, the constitution allows congress to make such laws, but mandatory licensing is also A-OK.
Without this exlcusive right to license, artists and creators of all flavors - even programmers who work under contract - would have even less protection from corporate exploitation.
Programmers who work under contract typically produce works-for-hire and are afforded no copyright protection at all, not even moral rights (e.g. the right of attribution).
Re:BBC (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes it is, it has a lot more variation and thus gives you a better chance on seeing different sides.
> Public apathy and poor education are a far bigger threat to democracy than a homoginized media.
AH yes, and we have no idea what role media plays in education..
> As for a "responsible" media, that doesn't happen, the free press has always slanted news reporting to fit their individual agendas.
Which in itself is not bad as long as there are different agendas so that diversity can exist.
THere is this very very very usefull concept called competition. It can only work if there are enough players and the playign field is somewhat equal.
Re:Duh, they were *selling* the recordings... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:BBC (Score:3, Insightful)
People may not find it easy to understand the bias of what they see, but it wont be difficult at all for them to see that bias exists especially when different programs on the same station have a very different bias. It is quite likely to help them also in makigng a start to actually realize there is this thing called bias and that it is everywhere.
> If media is educating us, we are very far gone. Media is the entertainment business, it's there to keep our eyes on the TV. If they can get their own agenda across while keeping ratings up, then all the better for them.
You see, that is exactly why a large part of TV in the USA is uninteresting and mediacore at best.
You would really do wise to take a peek over your borders and look at other systems. Most notably the UK has a relatively well working system that has both public and commercial TV. Somehow it seems that having a big station there that is forced to focus part of its time on (initially) less popular things seems to do a good job there in not letting advertisement income rule everything.
They also do a lot of educational programs, which for that matter are pretty good in quality.
The same applies to at least some extent to other countries in Europe. Most have a combined system with actual competition but also with a strong public presense.
> There is also concept called market consolidation. Newspapers, TV, radio, it's all business. If people don't like your "version" of the news, you lose out. Just look at the internet, so many options yet people go mostly to CNN.com, or MSNBC.com. People will flock to the news they like, so having many options really doesn't make much of a difference.
And there is the wisdom that a free market without soem set of rules results in anarchy and survival of the fittest at the expense of everything else.
Free market is good ONLY when you can ensure competition exists. That may at times require government intervention or even participation.
There are very good reasons for special laws that apply to those who manage to obtain a monopoly in the USA even if those laws don't seem to work very well anymore.
Then, having choices matters. Yes, peopel may go to cnn.com and msnbc.com and actually, to get their version of the news, I'll go there as well (or watch their news bulletin if I get a chance), but they can goto bbc.co.uk as well or to anova.com or to news.com or to a zillion different sites, and the last time I checked, many such sites actually get quite a few visitors, so I am surely not the only one doing so.
The difference between the internet and cable networks is that few of the news sources actually own the means by which their news is delivered, and none have a strong enough position to dictate terms for now. Also, there is virtually no barrier to entry.
This all is completely different for cable networks, hence there is no way of even trying without either having a huge amount of money to start out with, or the blessing and financial support from one of the current players.
I don't know.. where I live, there is a law that actually makes it impossible for any publisher to own more then 40% of the publishing market for newspapers for example. Why? because we believe guaranteeing diversity of news sources is extremely important for a democracy. So important that the rules for it should me much stricter then normal rules concerning (partial) monopolies.
But then... we also learn at school that you should read more then one newspaper and make sure we see different news programs and background programs.