Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Judge: Live Performance Copyright Unconstitutional

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the but-unauthorized-recording-is-still-out dept.

The Courts 249

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."

cancel ×

249 comments

Pete and repete (4, Funny)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351307)

are in a boat, Pete jumps out, who's left?

Re:Pete and repete (1)

Misinformed (741937) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351318)

For clarification [slashdot.org] .

Re:Pete and repete (0, Offtopic)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351331)

wow my penis did get bigger for getting a First Post, now i see why people go for it.

Re:Pete and repete (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10351376)

"Twice nothing is still nothing" -- Cyrano Jones

Hmmmm. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10351425)

This article was better on Fark.

Re:Pete and repete (1)

DJCouchyCouch (622482) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351724)

Pete! No, wait... Bob! uh... no, that's not right. I know this, I know this... oh! REPETE! No, that's not it. Too obvious. Must've been Bob. Dang these trick questions. Math is hard.

re-posted article (3, Informative)

EdZ (755139) | more than 9 years ago | (#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 (4, Informative)

metlin (258108) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351336)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10351337)

from today, no less

It's interesting to note what gets duplicated (4, Interesting)

turnstyle (588788) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351370)

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?

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated (1)

Breakfast Pants (323698) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351415)

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.

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated (1)

turnstyle (588788) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351447)

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.

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated (2, Funny)

Monkelectric (546685) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351494)

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.

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated (1)

turnstyle (588788) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351516)

"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.

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated (4, Interesting)

Monkelectric (546685) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351765)

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.

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated (2, Insightful)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351665)

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?

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10351521)

this "natural right" theory you have is interesting. too bad it's nowhere to be found in the constitution. art. i sec. 8 cl. 8 is utilitarian, bitch. are you a gun-shooting redneck from montana? a retard? or a mpaa/riaa stooge?

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated (1)

turnstyle (588788) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351536)

"this "natural right" theory you have is interesting. too bad it's nowhere to be found in the constitution. art. i sec. 8 cl. 8 is utilitarian, bitch."

Uh, when did I ever say anthing about any "natural right" theory?

"are you a gun-shooting redneck from montana? a retard? or a mpaa/riaa stooge?"

Charming. In any case, here's who I am [turnstyle.com] . Ok, now it's your turn.

Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10351756)

Musicians never get paid? I thought they were usually paid for their original performance. But you say not. Or are you an industry troll?

Record? (1, Redundant)

antiMStroll (664213) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351313)

Record dupe. :)

Re:Record? (1)

CrazyGringo (672487) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351362)

It's not a dupe. This article is about how Mike Judge has declared live performance copyrighting unconstitutional.
First, Beavis and Butthead, then Office Space, now fighting for fair use rights... Is there anything this guy can't do?

Re:Record? (1)

}InFuZeD{ (52430) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351414)

Now if we can just get the same author to post a dupe... ;)

Duping record: 6 Hours! (1)

reality-bytes (119275) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351440)

This is a stunning new record for Slasdot!

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 (4, Funny)

kinzillah (662884) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351314)

The other one is still on the front page, no less.

Dupe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10351316)

Haven't we seen this already today?

Beat me to it (0, Redundant)

mkop (714476) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351317)

repost

Re:Beat me to it (1)

damned_in_davis (804771) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351423)

repetition is a mother of learning

Flag on the play, this one's coming back. (3, Interesting)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 9 years ago | (#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.

Re:Flag on the play, this one's coming back. (1)

rokzy (687636) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351429)

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.

Re:Flag on the play, this one's coming back. (2, Informative)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351677)

Copyright actually means a lot of different things. Distribution is one of them. Making a copy -- such as by recording one -- is also one of them. Read up on 17 USC 106 for the major rights involved. This particular case, however, dealt with 17 USC 1101.

Re:Flag on the play, this one's coming back. (2, Insightful)

pigscanfly.ca (664381) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351448)

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 not a lawyer, not a law student, and I dont even watch law and order that much , but I took gr12 law awhile back and hey its slashdot :-)

Re:Flag on the play, this one's coming back. (3, Interesting)

Duke Machesne (453316) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351491)

...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.

Re:Flag on the play, this one's coming back. (1)

pigscanfly.ca (664381) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351509)

The idea though behind allowing arists and inventors to profit is to encourage inovattion.
For example if I cant make any money making music then I wont be able to spend a lot of time making music (I'd have to get a day job and only do music in my spare time).

Re:Flag on the play, this one's coming back. (2, Informative)

ThatsNotFunny (775189) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351528)

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 public place should enjoy the same protection as as when they produce the same performance in a studio.

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

theLOUDroom (556455) | more than 9 years ago | (#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).

Re:Flag on the play, this one's coming back. (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351747)

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 law, and it wasnt specifically linked to the standard copyright length, which I dont think is an unreasonable thing to ask.

Re:Flag on the play, this one's coming back. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10351547)

"The copyright on a live performance lasts for 75 years."

According the the US Copyright Office, live performances are *NOT COPYRIGHTABLE*.

What is copyrightable is a recording of the event. That recording would be covered under standard copyright law.

The question here is - Who owns the copyright to a bootleg recording? If you take a recording device to a concert and make your own recording, *YOU* own the copyrights, unless you were allowed to attend the performance under the condition that no recordings be made, or any recordings that are made belong to the performers (or whoever normally steals their work under signed agreements). In that case, you would not be allowed to make or sell copies of the recording you physically made.

As expected, IANAL.

Re:Flag on the play, this one's coming back. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10351560)

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.

IMHO, the argument against the extension was poorly thought-out and confused. What they failed to do was to focus exclusively on the retroactive extension of copyright, which is both against the principle of granting protection to encourage the production of new works, and the first step in a process effectively making copyright eternal.

lost in translation? (4, Interesting)

poptones (653660) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351571)

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.

Won't be overturned, and here's why... (1)

MacDork (560499) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351579)

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 ;-)

Re:Flag on the play, this one's coming back. (1)

NoMoreNicksLeft (516230) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351649)

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? (3, Insightful)

Speare (84249) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351321)

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? (3, Funny)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351400)

Well atleast on the bright side (if there is one), timmothy didn't post both of em.

Re:can you please just TRY? (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351468)

this time.

lol only joking, hope it hasn't really happened.

Re:can you please just TRY? (2, Insightful)

dTaylorSingletary (448723) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351401)

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 the 10 seconds to read an article headline is too much of your precious time? Or your own memory eluding you, and perhaps clicking on the link to the article and reading the article a second time.. and then you remember -- I've already read this. You are wasting my time.

I'm done.

Re:can you please just TRY? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10351430)

Semi-recent? It's on the same fucking page for crying out loud.

Re:can you please just TRY? (1)

erick99 (743982) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351519)

I don't think everyone understand's that when he says still up "...on the same fucking page..." he means that it is on the Slashdo homepage and it is right around 30 hours old at the most.

-erick

Re:can you please just TRY? (2, Insightful)

PedanticSpellingTrol (746300) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351506)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10351558)

Idiot. His name is Rolaids Pickandpull.

Re:can you please just TRY? (4, Insightful)

badasscat (563442) | more than 9 years ago | (#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.

Re:can you please just TRY? (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351562)

You are wrong. Dupes like this cost /. subscribers which costs them money.

They do not make enought money, they go out of business.

Re:can you please just TRY? (1)

bXTr (123510) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351589)

This is not your website. It's not their website either.
Actually, it is their website; just ask them, they'd be happy to tell you. And if they want to post the same article on the front page multiple times, well that's their right to do so. They may look like "gold medal winners at the Special Olympics(*)" doing it, but they can certainly do that. If people don't like it, they can go somewhere else. Nobody's putting a gun to anyone's head and making them read /.

(*) -- because although you may be the champ, you're still a retard.

Re:can you please just TRY? (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351698)

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. That doesn't take much effort to check - load the site and scroll down.

Every duplicate takes the place of a different story on a different topic that could've been posted in its stead. It's a waste of time, effort and resources for all concerned. No, it doesn't waste *much* time or effort, but that's not the point - it's wholly avoidable waste. We're not talking about some obscure little story that was posted to a section a couple of weeks ago, it's right there in front of you when you load the site!

DUPE DUPE DUPE (0, Redundant)

cprice (143407) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351322)

A dupe of a story posted earlier today. I emailed the onduty editor who did not take the story down. I am beginning to think the 'email the on duty editor' is just there for placebo effect...

Re:DUPE DUPE DUPE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10351442)

yes, it IS pointless. the "editor" CANNOT remove an article once up. it would require refunds for pay-for-pages and slashdot has enough trouble with basic HTML let alone that kind of stuff.

Re:DUPE DUPE DUPE (1)

Dave2 Wickham (600202) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351614)

I dunno, I've occasionally seen articles marked "Dupe" in search.pl, which - when clicked - can't be viewed.

(Yes, holy crap, they sometimes spot dupes.)

Wonderful (2, Interesting)

panxerox (575545) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351325)

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 (3, Funny)

mjbkinx (800231) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351374)

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 (5, Funny)

The-Bus (138060) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351327)

Don't be mad. This is just a bootleg of the previous post.

This has to be a record (0, Redundant)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351329)

SIX STORIES DOWN!

It is a sad day at slashdot... (0, Redundant)

Techie2000 (517233) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351333)

When the editors don't even read their own website...

Re:It is a sad day at slashdot... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10351454)

You must be new here!

I'm confused (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351586)

Are you saying that everyday spent reading slashdot is sad? Well, Is it us that are made sad by reading slashdot, or do we read slashdot because we are sad? Or is it the website that is sad? And do we make it sad, or do we read it because its sad? Inquiring minds want to know!

Dupe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10351346)

Seriously, lets at least *try* to not dupe things that are STILL ON THE FRONT PAGE

*sigh* (1)

ender1598 (266355) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351347)

Do these editors even read their own news site? Maybe there needs to be a reader approval process after an editor submits a story.

Without belaboring the obvious... (4, Insightful)

rco3 (198978) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351349)

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... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10351523)

Tell me again what those subscriptions are supposed to get me?

Clearly not editors who RTFWS.

Re:Without belaboring the obvious... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10351529)

Since you don't even have a subscription, it's unlikely you're interested in one. It's far more likely that you're just bitching without any real right to do so.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Re:Without belaboring the obvious... (2, Insightful)

rco3 (198978) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351669)

OK, you're wrong.

"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 right to bitch, and to point out that I have NO reason to pay more for a product whose improvement continues to falter.

Did I leave anything out? Oh, yeah - BILLY GOAT! Get thee back under thy bridge, troll.

Re:Without belaboring the obvious... (4, Insightful)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 9 years ago | (#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?

Serious Question (1)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351350)

Do the editors even read /.?

Re:Serious Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10351367)

No, this is a new feature.

Normally, users don't RTFA.

Now, editors are introducing the concept of not even RTFP.

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

Infinityis (807294) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351372)

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

Ok, that does it (3, Funny)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351417)

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.

Re:Ok, that does it (1)

Infinityis (807294) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351472)

Your Honor,

The case ravenspear makes against our client is unfounded. As the "content" in question was posted on Slashdot, it constitutes a type of "live recording". As such, recent legal rulings support our client's right to distribute said content, as live recording laws do not limit the length of the copyright.

We would also like to submit Exhibit A as evidence. Note the similarity in the majority of these one-word posts: "dupe"

Here's an interesting thought. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10351380)

Ever notice that the only thing that doesn't get posted twice on Slashdot are the product advertisments?

Slashdot: Don't give them more than they pay for.

6:00 am (4, Funny)

porp (24384) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351385)

Alarm clock goes off.

Babe.

I got you babe.

porp

mod parent down: copyright infringement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10351418)

groundhog day was not a live performance,
schmuck,
this is offtopic.

Advice (5, Insightful)

Sanity (1431) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351391)

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 (2, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351480)

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?

Re:Advice (5, Insightful)

quantaman (517394) | more than 9 years ago | (#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.

Where Do I Check My Soul? (1)

tilleyrw (56427) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351398)

Now that we are firmly down the path to Armageddon and the New World Order of Our Esteemed Leader Dubya, where can we get our replacement souls for when we check our conscience at the door?

Subscribers (1)

Djupblue (780563) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351408)

Next feature for subscribers: Dupe-filter Seriously, how hard is it to check if an article is already posted? Even the first-posters can do it!

Ah, /. (2, Funny)

Pikhq (728580) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351411)

To all people announcing "DUPE!", you must realize one thing. /. wouldn't be /. without the ridiculously easy to avoid dupes.....

Summary (1)

sik0fewl (561285) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351412)

For those of you who don't want to read the article, here's a quick summary:

It's about
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.

Bootlegged Story! (0)

0racle (667029) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351420)

Sort of says it all.

dupe (1)

wikinerd (809585) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351427)

I am happy I am not a subscriber...

NEW TOPIC GO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10351431)

Since this article is a dupe, I now declare the discussion to be about naked asian women.

DISCUSSION POWER UP

Re:NEW TOPIC GO (1)

Twisted Grind (815318) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351446)

Mmmm....yummy!

Re:NEW TOPIC GO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10351767)

i find them hot and sexy. how does everyone else feel?

Yeah, that sounds great, except... (1, Interesting)

einer (459199) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351434)

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 off sales of live performance recordings (some do), but the person that decides to spend 10 bucks on the unauthorized recording has 10 bucks less to spend on the authorized concert. A percentage of these people will wind up short of ticket money. Even if you don't buy that as an argument, at the very least the artist should have the first crack at releasing (and profiting) off of a live CD of the show.

Who actually thinks that people should be allowed to sell copies of performances without the artists permission (please reply)? Music isn't easy people. It takes time, hard work and discipline (for some) to put on a tight set. Why should J. Random Asshat profit off someone elses hard work?

If I write some code for a cool webapp, and someone steals it and sells it, I'm not okay with that.

Now the artist gets the worst of both worlds. I mean what the hell is the motive to produce or perform commercial music?

hmmmm...

Maybe this isn't such a bad thing after all.

Re:Yeah, that sounds great, except... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10351457)

shut up we're supposed to be talking about naked asian women now

Re:Yeah, that sounds great, except... (2, Insightful)

Duke Machesne (453316) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351575)

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 making an album is that it might induce more people to come to your shows.

If people are recording and distributing recordings of your shows for you, it's free advertisement.

Re:Yeah, that sounds great, except... (1)

ThatsNotFunny (775189) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351755)

[...] 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.

I can see the logic in the argument that downloading an mp3 is like "stealing food out of their mouths", because you likely are not going to buy the album if you've got the mp3.

But you can't use the same logic when it comes to bootlegging. You can't say "well, I'm not going to go back in time and go to the concert now because I've got a recording of it".

Uhh... (0)

rampant mac (561036) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351460)

I read the news today, oh boy...

About a lucky company, who made the grade...

Seems Like a Bad Decision (0)

darkmeridian (119044) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351476)

Courts normally shouldn't interpret the law as unconstitutional unless it's hands are forced. The court could have interpreted the law as being legal as long as it complies with copyright law. For example, if the sale violates the copyright of the artist, then the law is valid.

Timothy, you clown (1)

theolein (316044) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351483)

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....

You don't understand, dupe == GOOD! (2, Funny)

FauxReal (653820) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351485)

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!!!

This is going to be overturned in a heartbeat (1)

Stevyn (691306) | more than 9 years ago | (#10351522)

There is NO FRIGGIN WAY this is going to stand. The RIAA and MPAA will see to that. $$$ ;)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...