New Tracklisting

[brockleyal]

As someone once said ..

C30 C60 C90 ... GO !


--- In peel@yahoogroups.com, RobF <robfleay@...> wrote:
>
> 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 they stand have become hopelessly out of date with the rapid rise of digital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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>