Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
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) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44761240/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/t/supreme-court-no-royalties-internet-music-downloads/

(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...


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 1-5051-55 next last
"ASCAP argued that digital downloads were also public performances for which the copyright owners must be compensated. But a federal judge and the appeals court rejected that argument.

At issue was a section of the Copyright Act stating that to perform a work means to recite, render, play, dance or act it either directly or by means of any device or process.

"Music is neither recited, rendered, nor played when a recording (electronic or otherwise) is simply delivered to a potential listener," the appeals court ruled."

1 posted on 10/04/2011 3:14:15 PM PDT by TennesseeGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TennesseeGirl

SCOTUS to Napster, all is forgiven?


2 posted on 10/04/2011 3:16:53 PM PDT by NonValueAdded (So much stress was put on Bush's Fault that it finally let go, magnitude 6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TennesseeGirl

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


3 posted on 10/04/2011 3:18:56 PM PDT by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TennesseeGirl

Does that mean “Limewire” will be coming back?


4 posted on 10/04/2011 3:19:51 PM PDT by FrankR (What you resist...PERSISTS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 04-Bravo; aimhigh; andyandval; Arizona Carolyn; Bahbah; bert; bilhosty; Caipirabob; carmenbmw; ...

Dinosaur Media DeathWatch™


5 posted on 10/04/2011 3:20:25 PM PDT by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TennesseeGirl

Yeah, the ASCAP line of reasoning seems a bit weird. Does the shipping of CDs to a Barnes and Noble constitute a performance? Please.


6 posted on 10/04/2011 3:20:29 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigbob
Finally, a bit of sanity in the digital domain...

A FReeper for theft!

ML/NJ

7 posted on 10/04/2011 3:24:03 PM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

I wonder if that women that was sued for 250,000 will get her money back - if she ever paid.


8 posted on 10/04/2011 3:24:22 PM PDT by edcoil (The will to win is important, but the will to prepare is vital. -- Joe Paterno)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TennesseeGirl

I’m not a lawyer, so I’m confused. Does it mean that downloading any performance (music, video, and so on) is fair game now? I mean, following the judges’ reasoning, the artists are not performing since it’s only a playback of recording.


9 posted on 10/04/2011 3:24:37 PM PDT by paudio (0bama is like a bad mechanic who couldn't fix your car; he just makes it worse. Get somebody else!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

So please explain how a digital download is a public performance.


10 posted on 10/04/2011 3:25:52 PM PDT by DTxAg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: FrankR

I’m dusting off my copy of eMule right now!


11 posted on 10/04/2011 3:28:02 PM PDT by VanDeKoik (1 million in stimulus dollars paid for this tagline!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TennesseeGirl

ASCAP, /aka/ ASSHAT, has been one of the most asinine bullies in the entire copyright fiasco. The first lie is that ASCAP is really a not-for-profit organization. ASCAP by refusing to acknowledge that the era of music you can hold in your hand is over, has done more to kill the rights of artists than they have ever done to protect them. Had they been thinking forward to a larger audience at a lower cost per unit, they probably would have avoided all this BS.


12 posted on 10/04/2011 3:31:03 PM PDT by Steamburg (The contents of your wallet is the only language Politicians understand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
Finally, a bit of sanity in the digital domain...

Now, we need to get those Judicial sticks-in-the-mud to decriminalize computer hacking money out of someone's bank account, right?

13 posted on 10/04/2011 3:35:00 PM PDT by sklar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

>> Finally, a bit of sanity in the digital domain...
> A FReeper for theft!
> ML/NJ

Not everyone on FR is here to help.
We also have trolls, RATs and others who do not prescribe to Freeper thinking.


14 posted on 10/04/2011 3:36:00 PM PDT by BuffaloJack (Defeat Obama. End Obama's War On Freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DTxAg

You’d have to have a digital tap direct to the brain to even give you a chance of appreciating a digital download as a “performance”. Eventually we’ll have that but you won’t like it.


15 posted on 10/04/2011 3:40:15 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DTxAg
So please explain how a digital download is a public performance.

If it were private, you wouldn't know about it. Right?

Duh.

Any person who creates anything is entitled to copyright protection for some period of years. Arguing that:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
doesn't apply to "digital downloads" is akin to suggesting that the Constitution doesn't provide for an Air Force.

ML/NJ

16 posted on 10/04/2011 3:40:15 PM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TennesseeGirl

Seems to me like this is a job for Congress—downloads would be protected by copyright laws if Congress changed the copyright law to reflect this.


17 posted on 10/04/2011 3:40:45 PM PDT by rottndog (Be Prepared for what's coming AFTER America....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuffaloJack

So maybe you can explain how under “Freeper thinking” a download is a public performance. This court decision doesn’t say downloads are now free of copyright infringement claims.


18 posted on 10/04/2011 3:41:49 PM PDT by DTxAg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TennesseeGirl
Someone, (an honest, hard-working American who believes in Capitalism) invests their time & talent & energy to write a really good song...

They then invest their hard-earned money to record, mix & master that song to professional standards...

Then some stranger puts that song on a file sharing site and lots of people download it for FREE.

Screw the Capitalist who created & recorded the song, RIGHT FREEPERS?

19 posted on 10/04/2011 3:42:15 PM PDT by sklar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

The download doesn’t require paying a royalty as the law is written.

of course one must pay the royalty to play it after downloading it...


20 posted on 10/04/2011 3:45:04 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TennesseeGirl

Here is the problem. Say instead of the dictaphone and phonograph being first, CDs were first, or better still the Internet existed first. There would never have been a production house bottleneck where someone could force a price on the buying of songs - so the current business model is defective. The air is everywhere and is therefore free. By analogy, in the digital world bits are everwhere and music (and information) are headed towards being free.

This is not fair, just as it is not fair that you can’t make a profit bottling air (unless it is for divers or air compressors).


21 posted on 10/04/2011 3:45:21 PM PDT by DaxtonBrown (http://www.futurnamics.com/reid.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sklar

Theft is theft.


22 posted on 10/04/2011 3:45:56 PM PDT by rottndog (Be Prepared for what's coming AFTER America....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

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).


23 posted on 10/04/2011 3:48:26 PM PDT by discostu (How Will I Laugh Tomorrow When I Can't Even Smile Today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TennesseeGirl

This is great news for the consumer. If ASCAP and BMI had won, they could have jacked up the cost of a downloaded song to Whatever They Wanted.


24 posted on 10/04/2011 3:49:14 PM PDT by radioone ("2012 can't come soon enough")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
SCOTUS didn't say that file sharing was now legal. They said that the download wasn't a public performance. THAT'S ALL. They defined a public performance. You misunderstand their ruling.
25 posted on 10/04/2011 3:49:29 PM PDT by SunTzuWu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

I think people are misunderstanding. I think ASCAP was trying to double-dip. The artist gets a publishing royalty for the sale of a track online, but there’s also a separate royalty for performing the song. It sounds like they were trying to argue that the mere act of downloading a track purchased from Amazon or Itunes or whatever was a “performance” of the song. The court was saying that it was not.

That doesn’t legalize music piracy at all, it just means that there aren’t two payments due for the track.


26 posted on 10/04/2011 3:53:09 PM PDT by Der_Hirnfänger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sklar

Way to blatantly and foolishly misread the situation. This isn’t about illegal downloads, this is about ASCAP trying to horn extra money out of LEGAL downloads by declaring them to be something they aren’t. The artists will still get their normal pay for the sale of the goods, they just don’t get the performance royalty because it’s not a performance.


27 posted on 10/04/2011 3:53:35 PM PDT by discostu (How Will I Laugh Tomorrow When I Can't Even Smile Today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

Pardon me, but no where in the Constitution does it say Air Force or digital downloads. Is there a new version I have missed?


28 posted on 10/04/2011 3:54:41 PM PDT by packrat35 (America is rapidly becoming a police state that East Germany could be proud of!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: All

Everybody stupidly throwing around the “theft” word needs to ACTUALLY READ THE ARTICLE. The guys that brought this all to court were Yahoo Inc and RealNetworks Inc. This has NOTHING to do with illegal file sharing and every time you act like it does you’re announcing that you’re ad idiot that didn’t bother to read the article.


29 posted on 10/04/2011 3:56:26 PM PDT by discostu (How Will I Laugh Tomorrow When I Can't Even Smile Today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

They didn’t say that doesn’t apply to digital download. They said digital downloads aren’t performances. Read the article.


30 posted on 10/04/2011 3:57:34 PM PDT by discostu (How Will I Laugh Tomorrow When I Can't Even Smile Today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
"doesn't apply to "digital downloads" is akin to suggesting that the Constitution doesn't provide for an Air Force."

ASCAP was wanting a royalty for DELIVERING music to the customer. So what you are arguing for is akin to making Amazon pay a royalty for selling the music then paying another royalty for UPS to deliver the CD to your home but in this case instead of UPS its downloaded via the Internet.

This ruling has nothing to do with royalties for sale of a recording.

31 posted on 10/04/2011 3:57:52 PM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SunTzuWu

Don’t interupt him. He’s on a roll. Apparently, reading the actual ruling without leaping in logic eludes many here.


32 posted on 10/04/2011 3:57:52 PM PDT by packrat35 (America is rapidly becoming a police state that East Germany could be proud of!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: sklar

Read it again. It doesn’t say that. They only ruled on whether it constituted a “public” performance. No one’s copyright is being annulled.


33 posted on 10/04/2011 3:59:24 PM PDT by packrat35 (America is rapidly becoming a police state that East Germany could be proud of!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: discostu

If I misunderstood the decision forgive me. I can’t tell you how many people I know who believe downloading songs, or books or movies from file sharing sites should be legal & free, and the consequences to the artists should be irrelevant.


34 posted on 10/04/2011 4:01:33 PM PDT by sklar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

Uh wow. A man listening to a song in his home is not a public performance. Some people are so intent on defending RIAA/MPAA they lose their common sense.


35 posted on 10/04/2011 4:02:36 PM PDT by rwfromkansas ("Carve your name on hearts, not marble." - C.H. Spurgeon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

Wrong.


36 posted on 10/04/2011 4:06:05 PM PDT by org.whodat (Just another heartless American, hated by Perry and his fellow democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: edcoil
Different case, one has no bearing on the other.
37 posted on 10/04/2011 4:07:28 PM PDT by org.whodat (Just another heartless American, hated by Perry and his fellow democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sklar

This has nothing to do with file sharing sites. This started because Yahoo and Real Network thought the fees they were being told to pay were in correct. People on this thread, and you’re no where near the only one, are assuming “digital download” must be illegal sharing, probably because 99% of the time that phrase is in the news it is. This is the other 1%, ASCAP is trying to define legal downloads as performances. ASCAP has nothing to do with sales (or theft for that matter), they are entirely about getting royalties from performances.


38 posted on 10/04/2011 4:07:37 PM PDT by discostu (How Will I Laugh Tomorrow When I Can't Even Smile Today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: rottndog

Whatever law governs copying would govern a digital download. The money was there for ASCAP — they would stand to profit by such acts of copying being called performances — but unfortunately the logic wasn’t there. If Congress wishes to set up a royalty system for such copying, parallel to broadcast licensing, it is free to do so. ASCAP should go cry to Congress that the copyright law is in the stone age.


39 posted on 10/04/2011 4:13:24 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 17 | View Replies]

To: sklar

You look like a fool. Do you think the USSC would even come close to annulling copyright per se?


40 posted on 10/04/2011 4:18:53 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 34 | View Replies]

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?

Duh.


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 amazon.com 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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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