[peel] Re: New Tracklisting

[Davidquantick]

Anyone got any Talisman?



On 21 Jul 2010, at 16:59, "Stuart" <stuartb@brooks22.plus.com> wrote:

> All very interesting and undoubtedly true but my points are hardly wrong when they are all prefaced by "it may be" and "I think" and "If I were". Regarding the "no more legit than taping in the first place" statement, well that's true, even if it turns out that it was legal to tape in the first place, sharing then becomes "less legit". Remember also at the time most of these tapes were made, the law had not caught up with fair use time shifting and the slogan was "home taping is killing music".
> 
> (Pedant's hat off now).
> 
> Also I am not disputing that sharing old battered tapes is any less illegal than creating and distributing perfect digital copies of commercially available material. The sub-optimal and possibly incomplete copy is likely to increase official sales of the genuine article while freely available perfect copies will have the opposite effect. If I were an artist I know who I would be asserting my rights to!
> 
> --- In peel@yahoogroups.com, 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
> >
> 
>