Live Electronic music performances

[David W. Richardson]

Is it a sellable product though? I don't think it is. The reason you stop (or at least talk to) the guy with the nice(er) equipment is because he could make a sellable product. But this...I mean, yes, you could post it somewhere and say DVDs were for sale, but I don't think these sorts of concert videos are sellable in the sense that anybody would buy them.

The law doesn't differentiate between a 'sellable' copy and a non-sellable one. Copying is copying. Period. If it did create such a distinction, then it would be very hard to find that dividing line between what would be acceptable and what wouldn't.

Yes, the same rules apply, but the action isn't the same. He's using music he doesn't have rights to as part of a larger piece that's then made public. This isn't the same as illegally downloading MP3s. The rules are the same, but the actions are not the same, fundamentally speaking. If what he did were the same as downloading MP3s, then he would have been downloading MP3s, because anything that's the same as downloading MP3s is also going to be downloading MP3s.

Again, this is like saying robbing a bank or embezzling from your employer isn't the same as stealing a car. Certainly it's a different action, but it violates the same laws.

Using your analogy, if he copies a CD that's wrong, but if he plays the CD through speakers and uses a microphone to record it, then that's okay. It's not, of course.

Sure, but it's not your right to make that decision for these artists either. My point is just that if the OP has talked to them, and they feel the same way I do -- and it sounds like they do if we are to take the OP at his word here -- then there's no real reason to tell this kid he has to stop making these videos, even if it's technically copyright infringement.

I'm not making the decision for the artists. I'm protecting their right to decide for themselves.

For heaven's sake, if the OP has permission from the rightful copyright holders, then he's NOT committing copyright infringement, not even "technically". That's not what we're talking about here. Never has been.

I understand you feel differently, but I don't think that my being OK with what's technically infringement in this case has any bearing or implications for my take on it in other cases, nor do I think being soft on this case has any impact on other cases, or in any way indicates that I'm betraying other content creators or destroying their livelihoods.

As I've said, it's fine if you are okay with people copying your music. But what right do you have to tell them it's okay to copy the music of others?

 

[custerc]

The law doesn't differentiate between a 'sellable' copy and a non-sellable one. Copying is copying. Period. If it did create such a distinction, then it would be very hard to find that dividing line between what would be acceptable and what wouldn't.

Agreed. My point is that though the law -- for the sound reasons you point out -- doesn't make that distinction, most musical artists would. That probably explains why (as far as anyone can find) no one has ever been sued for posting amateur concert videos on Youtube or Vimeo. Even Jimmy Buffet appears to be OK with it as there seem to be plenty of amateur concert videos of him on Youtube.

Again, this is like saying robbing a bank or embezzling from your employer isn't the same as stealing a car. Certainly it's a different action, but it violates the same laws.

True.

Using your analogy, if he copies a CD that's wrong, but if he plays the CD through speakers and uses a microphone to record it, then that's okay. It's not, of course.

Not really. If he copies a CD for himself, I don't care at all. If he copies a CD to sell, that's wrong. If he copies a CD through speakers using a microphone to record it and then tries to sell it, that's wrong but I don't care because no one would buy that kind of recording. And if he copies a CD through speakers using a mic for himself, that's dumb, but I don't care at all.

As I've said, it's fine if you are okay with people copying your music. But what right do you have to tell them it's okay to copy the music of others?

Never said it was OK, I just said I think everyone is making a much bigger deal out of this than is really warranted by the situation. As evidence for that assertion, I mentioned a lot of different things including my own opinion as a musical artist and the lack of legal prosecutions on this specific issue, etc. But my main point has always just been "we don't need to be this harsh."

 

[David W. Richardson]

I understand what you're saying. And I really don't think our response was at all 'harsh'. But maybe we can get some others to chime in with their opinions.

Anyone?

 

[Gregg Juke]

It's funny, but all over the web, on various arts/entertainment/music/ a/v production forums, you see the same topics over and over and over, and the same arguments played-out in the same way again and again. I guess in a way it makes sense-- The Internet/WWW/"interwebs" is the new intellectual property frontier...

The truth is, the OP is out of compliance with Copyright law. Have we all been at one time or another? Sure. But as an artist and a content creator, I find it hard to believe that custerc would spend so much time and energy slicing and dicing and mincing words, and then accuse others of "lawyering." Why put up such an impassioned, but obviously flawed defense?

The law is plain and simple. In a nutshell, "Don't Violate Copyright." What else is there to say?

Endless "what if" and "and/or/but" arguments do not change the fact that Copyright infringement is involved here.

Is this discussion what the OP was looking for when he asked his initial question? No. Is it dad-gum important info for him to know? Dang straight.

GJ