Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court: No royalties with Internet music downloads
MSN ^ | 10/03/11 | Reuters

Posted on 10/04/2011 3:14:11 PM PDT by TennesseeGirl

The Supreme Court let stand on Monday a ruling that a traditional Internet download of sound recording does not constitute a public performance of the recorded musical work under federal copyright law.

The justices refused to review a ruling by an appeals court in New York that the download itself of a musical work does not fall within the law's definition of a public performance of that work.

The not-for-profit American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) appealed to the Supreme Court. It said the ruling has profound implications for the nation's music industry, costing its members tens of millions of dollars in potential royalties each year.(Excerpted)

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: court; downloads; gypsies; homos; minstrels; music; royalties; worthless
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 last
To: TennesseeGirl

how does that relate to the copyright of the artist on the music?

my thoughts are... change artist to programmer and music to software... is the ‘performance’ only the first moment the compiler produces the binary? after all, running a program would be akin to playing back music

this seems a bit whacked (maybe i’m just not understanding)

and how does this effect itunes? would apple now be able to ‘sell’ the music without having to pay royalties??

41 posted on 10/04/2011 4:23:58 PM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

“Finally, a bit of sanity in the digital domain...

A FReeper for theft!”

A lot of us aren’t all that happy about being SCREWED big-time by the labels...particularly when the cassettes were the only way to have portable music. They sold their music on tapes that were total crap, knowing that they would fall apart after so many uses (yea, I know, technically I didn’t have to buy them...but they could have put 25 cents more into the product).

Now it’s payback time.

42 posted on 10/04/2011 4:25:36 PM PDT by BobL (I want a Conservative for 2012, not Perry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

If the supreme court rules what she did was not illegal - how can that not affect it.

43 posted on 10/04/2011 4:27:05 PM PDT by edcoil (The will to win is important, but the will to prepare is vital. -- Joe Paterno)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: edcoil
The ruling in her case stands, it was a different topic. She was copying music and selling it wasn't she. This was, the music industry saying that if you watched a youtube video of a music performance you owed money, the court said no.
44 posted on 10/04/2011 4:35:44 PM PDT by org.whodat (Just another heartless American, hated by Perry and his fellow democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: sten

Dang, a complete misconception, you cannot steal and make money off of someones art without paying them.

45 posted on 10/04/2011 4:38:22 PM PDT by org.whodat (Just another heartless American, hated by Perry and his fellow democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
ASCAP was wanting something more akin to the act of shuffling through records on a counter to be considered a public performance so they could collect a royalty.

There's a real problem in the use of current technology when it comes to copies ~ they really can't be controlled short of community spies and totalitarian torture chambers.

probably be best for "artists" and their marketing buddies to figure out how to vend their stuff in a technology where copies aren't easily made.

46 posted on 10/04/2011 4:39:18 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
If it were private, you wouldn't know about it. Right?


So after reading all the different ways you were wrong here, still want to tell me "duh"? ;)
47 posted on 10/04/2011 4:44:53 PM PDT by DTxAg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

Not the same thing as the Napster issue. Downloading music can be done legally on numerous websites such as This does not legalize theft of music. It finds that the mere act of downloading the song is not a public performance - just as the shipment of CDs is not a public performance.

48 posted on 10/04/2011 4:47:56 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TennesseeGirl

Will Wally World bring back their digital download service?

49 posted on 10/04/2011 4:54:33 PM PDT by metesky (Brethren, leave us go amongst them! - Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton - Ward Bond, The Searchers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TennesseeGirl

So I take it streaming would be a performance, but a download would not?

50 posted on 10/04/2011 4:56:53 PM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FrankR

>Does that mean “Limewire” will be coming back?<

Nah. For every limewire shut down or paralyzed, new entities show up like Filestube,Frostwire and the always-ready bit torrent sites like kat or torrentfunk..

umm, not that I use them (cough)

51 posted on 10/04/2011 5:17:20 PM PDT by max americana (FUBO NATION 2012 FK BARAK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rottndog
Theft is theft.

I am not so sure.

I believe this is very much a gray area.

Jim Robinson, the founder of this site, was hounded by bats of left wing media lawyers for many years for allowing Freepers to commit the cardinal sin of pasting some words into a reply box.

52 posted on 10/04/2011 5:40:25 PM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: discostu

No it was still a normal copyright violation. This was ASCAP trying to get extra money from legal digital downloads, saying it’s a public performance (the only time ASCAP ever comes into play, shows and jukeboxes basically).

First post on track.

Nothing in this ruling affects the right of the owner of the recording from preventing unauthorized copying.

This is about treating downloading like playing a 45 in a saloon jukebox, which is a public performance of the recording that generates small royalties.

53 posted on 10/04/2011 5:41:13 PM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Author of - Makes You a Precious Metal Expert, Guaranteed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: TennesseeGirl
The Federal Appeals Court had said, "Music authors are already fairly compensated for downloads...they are already paid each time a copyrighted work is lawfully downloaded" and "Congress charged the Copyright Royalty Judges with establishing reasonable rates and terms of Royalty rates..." They basically told ASCAP to take it up with the Royalty Judges if they feel music authors are unfairly compensated.
54 posted on 10/04/2011 5:57:36 PM PDT by TennesseeGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

The genie is well out of that bottle. There are semi-viable schemes to protect videos, but a sound can always be captured at the speakers regardless of the acrobatic gyrations needed to get it there.

55 posted on 10/04/2011 9:35:29 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (There's gonna be a Redneck Revolution! (See my freep page) [rednecks come in many colors])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson