[peel] Re: New Tracklisting

[RobF]

Also a non-lawyer here..

Whilst much of what you say is true - it's pretty clear that the laws as
they stand have become hopelessly out of date with the rapid rise of digital
technology. We are operating in such a grey area that I can't believe any
rights holder would even go there.

Establishing the difference between sharing a bit-for-bit digital copy of
the original work and sharing a sub-optimal quality copy of a song contained
buried within a larger digital file of a rip of a tape of an old radio
broadcast would take some serious time to get through in a court of law.

The former is relatively easy for the record companies to identify, police
and prosecute where necessary - the latter would be a battle that only a
fool would engage in. Even more so in our case where the John Peel legacy
would doubtless generate a groundswell of support from the artists end of
the industry. It would be too much bad publicity and expense in an area
where record companies really don't need to be spending money/losing face in
the current climate.

Not arguing with the facts of law and those on the list who choose to err on
the side of caution in such matters but personally I'm distinctly unworried
about it.





On 21 July 2010 15:02, Alasdair Macdonald <wewalkforonereason@...>wrote:

> 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
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>