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."
If everybody (Score:3, Interesting)
I hate the Grateful Dead, but their attitude to the recording and distribution of their live performances is spot on!
Re:This is going to get overturned in a heartbeat. (Score:2, Interesting)
Duh, they were *selling* the recordings... (Score:3, Interesting)
What, that's now ok too?
Re:Confused; could use some answers... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Confused; could use some answers... (Score:5, Interesting)
Secondly, I find most bootlegs are recorded off the soundboard and not some guy with a casette player in the crowd - maybe I just like lenient bands or perhaps I've just been lucky - Bootlegs recorded from the crowd are notoriously awful.
I think bootlegs are really only for the hardcore fans - regular people won't want them or wont have the will to seek them out. But if you're a dedicated fan, and owning everything there is to possibly own to do with your favourite band is important to you, then a good bootleg of a great performance is more than worth the money.
Re:for crying out loud! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:for crying out loud! (Score:2, Interesting)
You aren't understanding the situation. It isn't the recording of the live performance that has protection. Eric Clapton's live recordings that you can buy off Amazon have the same protection as his studio work. The problem is that with bootlegs, the artists aren't getting a say in whether a recording is made of their concert. If they wanted a live recording of their concert, they would exlicitly allow the listeners to make their own, or publish it themselves and make some more money off of their own efforts Terrible, I know. Why can't more artists take vows of poverty...
When someone who hasn't received permission to records the concert, that makes the recording illegal because it violates the artist's copyright.
When a concert is televised, do you think the networks didn't receive permission to do so? If they didn't, people would be charged, fined, and sued into bankruptsy. It is the same concept, just not on as grand of a scale.
Re:"Managed" news in the US? The hell you say! (Score:1, Interesting)
I, for one, am saddened that most people don't investigate issues they care about; whichever side of the fence they stand on. Moore, in my opinion, twisted things around in BfC a little too much (and I'm a Democrat), but also in my opinion, he did pretty good in F-9/11.
It's like McCain bitching to Moore at the Repblican party thing-a-magig. He never even seen the movie, and just jumped to conclusions.
If people would just investigate a LITTLE more, the world would be a better place.
Re:That's weird... (Score:2, Interesting)
It'd seem that such a recording would clearly then fall as illegal/legal based on fair use. Ie, recording a concert you went to to relive it surely is for personal, non-commercial use and would likely be fair use. So would having background music you're singing to in a recording that you end up playing for your friends some times. But, when you start selling such recordings, it seems reasonable to see that as illegal because it's against fair use.
I'd assume that the ban was put in place to stop personal use and to better clarify that bootlegs couldn't be sold. Case-law, though, should have been sufficient though, given how clear selling bootlegs is commercial which almost always innately throws out the exception of fair use.
Famous Churchill quote on prepositions (Score:2, Interesting)
How CNN thinks (Score:3, Interesting)
Not mention in Law
CNN/Money has the story [cnn.com]
Bootlegging concerts... (Score:2, Interesting)
Try stealing some minor toy at Disneyland. If you don't steal a 2m high Winnie the Pooh, they will let you get away with it. Just because the tagline "Disneyland, the kingdom of dreams where they jail poor shoplifting kids" just wouldn't fit.
In the same perspective, would you go to a concert of that cool rebel band that will put you to jail for making some shitty recording ? Don't think so.
Come back! (Score:3, Interesting)
Suppose I like your music and want to support you without supporting the RIAA and your record label.
How do I go about doing this? Take it for granted that I've already downloaded your music. If I went ahead and bought $25 or so in merch, would that settle your need to get compensated for your work?
Re:Duh, they were *selling* the recordings... (Score:2, Interesting)