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:This is going to get overturned in a heartbeat. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This is going to get overturned in a heartbeat. (Score:3, 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.
Duh, they were *selling* the recordings... (Score:3, Interesting)
What, that's now ok too?
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:Duh, they were *selling* the recordings... (Score:5, Informative)
Ernesto Miranda was not freed. He was re-tried (after being read his rights), convicted, and sentenced to 11 years in prison.
In one of the lesser-known ironies of the century, Miranda was also stabbed to death while on parole. His likely killer was released because he invoked his right to remain silent.
Re:Duh, they were *selling* the recordings... (Score:3, 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: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:Duh, they were *selling* the recordings... (Score:3, Funny)
absolutely!
All analogies are false, just like all generalisations are false!
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:This is going to get overturned in a heartbeat. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:This is going to get overturned in a heartbeat. (Score:2)
or.... not.
Actually it very well may stand (Score:2)
The only thing you have to worry about are
Re:This is going to get overturned in a heartbeat. (Score:2)
Re:This is going to get overturned in a heartbeat. (Score:2)
> the original recording was illegal.
Illegal how?
> Therefore the constitutional requirement that
> copyright protection (accorded to legally
> published works) be granted only for a limited
> time does not apply.
The patent and copyright clause is the only authority Congress has for enacting laws restricting copying.
BTW copyright protection is not accorded only to published works (though it should be).
BBC (Score:2)
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
"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:BBC (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:BBC (Score:2, Insightful)
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:BBC (Score:2)
Re:BBC (Score:2)
--Fabricated stories.
--Fabricated quotes.
--Fabricated people.
--Poor grammar.
--Inexcusable spelling errors.
Since I haven't gotten past these problems, it's hard to take a position on this "death & scandal" subject matter that you speak of.
Re:BBC (Score:3, Funny)
If you're going to get your panties in a wad over grammar and spelling, perhaps its worth pointing out that you should have said "...subject matter of which you speak." Not that I disagree with you, but really...
Re:BBC (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:BBC (Score:5, Informative)
The bottom line is, in a democracy there's no good reason for a very few major media players to own the game. A free and *responsible* press, along with good education, is something without which a democracy cannot function. Media consolidation, and the rampant homogeniety and misinformation it engenders time and time again, are probably the biggest internal threat to American democracy today.
On the plus side, there's always blogs...
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 d
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 new
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 i
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].
Here's Reuters... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:BBC (Score:2, Insightful)
NY Post (Score:4, Informative)
Or did you want a legitimate source? Try USA Today [usatoday.com].
Re:NY Post (Score:2, Funny)
Re:BBC (Score:4, Funny)
No news on whether BBC executives will be extradited due to their crimes against humanity or not. The RIAA has already donated lawyers to the judge involved saying that his rights to hold intellectual property are being violated. WIPO [wipo.int] is also on the case.
Re:BBC (Score:2)
Please (Score:2)
Re:Please (Score:3, Funny)
Longer Article here with links (Score:5, Informative)
By ERIN McCLAM
Associated Press Writer
September 24, 2004, 8:27 PM EDT
NEW YORK -- A federal judge Friday struck down a 1994 law banning the sale of bootleg recordings of live music, ruling the law unfairly grants "seemingly perpetual protection" to the original performances.
U.S. District Judge Harold Baer Jr. dismissed a federal indictment of Jean Martignon, who runs a Manhattan mail-order and Internet business that sells bootleg recordings.
Baer found the bootleg law was written by Congress in the spirit of federal copyright law, which protects writing for a fixed period of time _ typically for the life of the author and 70 years after the author's death.
But the judge said the bootleg law, which was passed "primarily to cloak artists with copyright protection," could not stand because it places no time limit on the ban.
Baer also noted that copyright law protects "fixed" works _ such as books or recorded music releases _ while bootlegs, by definition, are of live performances.
A federal grand jury indicted Martignon in October 2003 for selling "unauthorized recordings of live performances by certain musical artists through his business."
The business, Midnight Records, once had a store in Manhattan but now operates solely by mail and Internet. It sells hundreds of recordings, specializing in rock artists, from the Beatles to Led Zeppelin.
An e-mail message to Martignon from The Associated Press was not immediately returned Friday, and a phone number could not immediately be located.
Megan Gaffney, a spokeswoman for the Manhattan U.S. attorney, said federal prosecutors were "reviewing the decision and will evaluate what steps ought to be taken going forward."
The Recording Industry Association of America, a trade group that fights piracy and bootlegging, also disagreed with the ruling.
The decision "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 unauthorized recordings of live performances," said Jonathan Lamy, a spokesman for the RIAA.
The bootleg law calls for prison terms of up to five years for first offenders and 10 years for second offenders, plus fines. It requires courts to order the destruction of any bootlegs created in violation of the law.
The law did not apply to piracy, which is the unauthorized copying or sale of recorded music, such as albums.
On the Net:
Midnight Records: http://www.midnightrecords.com
Bootleg law: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2319A.html
Copyright © 2004, The Associated Press
Offtopic (Score:5, Funny)
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!
Position of Dead (Score:2)
Re:Position of Dead (Score:3, Informative)
Taping was allowed, and even encouraged, but they prefered that you do so in the "Taper's Section" right near the sound board. The most experienced tapers would have thousands of dollars tied up in their rigs, using Neumann microphones, custom microphone pre-amps, etc. The last I read about them, they were using DAT machines, but I have no doubt they are now
Re:The Dead are Dead and suck. (Score:2)
bootleg (Score:5, Funny)
Not alone (Score:2)
Never even considered the thought about concert tapes
Story couldn't have been about illegal copies of released works, since everyone incorrectly calls that piracy now..
Re:Not alone (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it possible? (Score:5, Funny)
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
Re:No appeal (Score:3, Funny)
Hello again sir, just a quick follow up. It seems our options may be more limited than I originally thought. Some guy on Slashdot just gave me a better grounding in law. I thought I was supposed to know everything already?
Your Confused Lobbyist
Now if they could just ... (Score:3, Informative)
Related links to this story (Score:2, Informative)
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&ta
isn't that the point? (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't that the point of copyright laws? to protect the author/creator/composer/whatever?
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.
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, y
Re:isn't that the point? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:isn't that the point? (Score:2)
Re:isn't that the point? (Score:2)
Not perpetual: "perpetual". Two lifetimes isn't really forever, it only appears that way to mortals. SCOTUS can't help it if you don't live for 300 years, excercise more.
Re:isn't that the point? (Score:2)
Re:isn't that the point? (Score:2)
Re:isn't that the point? (Score:3, Informative)
You know, Disney using stuff from the public domain and copyrights stifling innovation are not mutually exclusive. In fact, if Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, etc were still under copyright, Disney may well not have been able to make their versions, would they?
Re:isn't that the point? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:isn't that the point? (Score:2)
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.
Re:isn't that the point? (Score:3, Insightful)
Confusion (Score:4, Funny)
"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?
Re:Confusion (Score:2)
not illegal.
unauthorised.
Article text, in case of slashdotting (Score:4, Funny)
A judge has struck down a law which bans the sale of bootleg recordings of live music in the United States.
Judge Harold Baer Jr, sitting in New York, dismissed charges against a Manhattan-based record dealer which had been brought under the law.
He said the law could not stand because it placed no time limit on the ban - unlike the limits placed on books or recorded music releases.
Prosecutors said they were "reviewing the decision" the judge made.
A federal grand jury indicted Jean Martignon in October 2003 for selling "unauthorised recordings of live performances by certain music artists through his business".
But Judge Baer said US law unfairly granted "seemingly perpetual protection" to the original performances.
US law defines bootlegs as being recordings of the original performances, as opposed to copies of already released music, such as live albums, which are dealt with under piracy legislation.
The Recording Industry Association of America criticised the judge's ruling.
"It stands in marked contrast to existing law and prior decisions that have determined that the RIAA can do whatever it wants to you, bitch," greedy spokesman Jonathan Lamy said.
More details (Score:2, Informative)
BY LOU DOLINAR
STAFF WRITER
September 25, 2004
Long before there was Napster, there were concert tapes, live recordings made and swapped by fans of groups like the Grateful Dead and Country Joe and the Fish. Those recordings have narrow constitutional protection from copyright, a judge in Manhattan ruled Friday, handing the Recording Industry Association of America's anti-piracy crusade another defeat.
The ruling came in the criminal case against a longtime fixture in the New York music scen
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 j
Re:That's weird... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:That's weird... (Score:5, Informative)
Many bands are now allowing their live shows to be posted on the archive http://www.archive.org/audio/etree.php [archive.org] and there's always bit torrent as well http://tracker.bargainville.org/ [bargainville.org] http://bt.easytree.org/ [easytree.org]
Taping shows for personal, non-commercial use should be ok. Selling is what should be illegal
Yeah... (Score:2)
And thank you for giving me a chance to correct myself!
Re:That's weird... (Score:2)
Um - come again: "trafficking in copies of unauthorised performances of live music"
Who said those performances were unauthorised? By whom?
Sheesh.
Fly by Night Express (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, great (Score:5, Funny)
Well, this is certainly great for all those 10-year-old bootleggers out there.
See the USC (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the text:
Congress shall have the power
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:See the USC (Score:2)
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'
Did you see the article's photograph? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Did you see the article's photograph? (Score:2)
How CNN thinks (Score:3, Interesting)
Not mention in Law
CNN/Money has the story [cnn.com]
Re:Confused; could use some answers... (Score:2)
As for pure live recordings, either bootleged or offical ones, i agree. 90% are not worth the trouble.
Re:Confused; could use some answers... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Confused; could use some answers... (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Confused; could use some answers... (Score:2)
Deep Purple. I dunno, but Made In Japan is simply much better than any studio album. A song that is about 8 minutes on a studio album is almost 20 minutes live!
AC/DC, any live album. You can hear the crowd screaming "Angus! Angus!" and the solos are extra long, this
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:Confused; could use some answers... (Score:2)
Re:Confused; could use some answers... (Score:2)
I love live music - IMHO, it's what music is supposed to be. It's organic, spontaneous and human. I really enjoy hearing my favourite bands as they translate their material to a live setting, where they have to deal with the fact that whereas their album was recorded to 64 tracks, they are now just 3 or 4 guys with their instruments, trying to recreate the complexity and richness of a modern studio production.
A lot of bands ad-lib, insert fragments of other songs into th
Re:Confused; could use some answers... (Score:2)
Then again, some musicians suck live. I try to avoid them on CD as well.
Burn Live® by your pals at ClearChannel (Score:3, Informative)
ClearChannel has a program called Burn Live (the name was changed to "Instant Live"® after an unfortuante incident [newcenturyfriends.net]) that records most of the entire concert direct from the soundboards. Their deal with Worst^H^H^H^H^HBestBuy also has the CDs in those stores after the show.
Some people don't think Burn Live is all that [pitchforkmedia.com], either. Note that ClearChannel is trying to lock out competition [weblogsinc.com] of their live CD burninating model by using the patent system.
Re:Confused; could use some answers... (Score:2)
I will concede, though, that the live music often has missed notes and other errors. It reminds me that professional musicians aren't perfect, they just spend enough time in the studio to perfect the product before release. (Using varying definitio
Re:Confused; could use some answers... (Score:2)
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.
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:for crying out loud! (Score:2)