[peel] Re: New Tracklisting

[Alasdair Macdonald]

Wrong on many counts.

I am not a lawyer, but ...

1. Sites that share unreleased music (including BBC session
recordings) proliferate under the eyes of the record industry. Such
sites have not been targeted except when entities such as (some) TV
broadcasters, artist managements, or other legal entities (such as
Bill Graham archives / Wolfgangs vault) have asserted ownership of
their [claimed] copyrights. Although the [allegedly] infringing
material has been brought down, the site as a whole is not threatened.

2. The right to timeshifted home recording for personal use is
established in law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.
So far as I know (and again, IANAL), there is no such equivalent UK
test case, but the concept of fair use does exist within UK copyright
law. If you accept this, then the conclusion is that "taping the shows
in the first place" is entirely legal.

3. Distribution of any potentially infringing material has most likely
different legal status to receiving; for instance the penalty that may
be applied to an individual for receiving stolen goods is not the same
as the penalty that may be applied to an individual that distributes
1000 infringing items.

4. You claim on the one hand "I don't think anyone is too worried
about extremely delayed podcasts of entire shows with tape flips" and
on the other hand you think the copyright owners should be looking at
web sites hosting material that is packaged differently. Conceptually
and technically there does not seem to be any difference between the
two; if you are conceiving that the former are shared in a slightly
more private way than the latter, do you really think that the legal
issues are different?

The bottom line is that anyone who distributes audio material on which
the copyright has been asserted (ie released commercially) is opening
themselves up to copyright infringement (why do you think the samples
provided by amazon are limited to low quality and 30 seconds
duration?), but material that has not been released is fair game.
(After that material has been released, it is no longer fair game -
see the policies of sites such as dimeadozen, thetradersden etc).


On 21 July 2010 13:49, Stuart <stuartb@...> wrote:
> Ironically enough it may be packaged sessions that attract most "interest" especially if the BBC start to make these available for a fee! I don't think anyone is too worried about extremely delayed podcasts of entire shows with tape flips, interference and occasionally AM sound with a maximum of 70 downloads ever.
> If I were working for a record company or was I musician I would be more concerned with all these Blogspot sites which upload entire  EPs and albums in CD rip quality.
> But yes this is no more legit than taping the shows in the first place!
>
> --- In peel@yahoogroups.com, Martin Wheatley <martinw@...> wrote:
>>
>> At 01:26 21/07/2010, Si It Goes wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >That's great news. So shall I just stop what I have been doing right now?
>>
>> I doubt if I've said anything you don't already know!
>>
>> It has to be said every so often so people don't get careless