Judge: File-swapping tools are legal !!!!

CNET ^ | 4/25/2004 | John Borland

[aspiring.hillbilly]

Any release on the public airwaves, i.e. radio play, is an intentional release of the waveforms of music into the public domain and cannot be protected by copyright. If this is done at least once, the sounds themselves are transferred to the public domain. Its the same as a person reading a copyrighted book on a streetcorner, the sounds of the words cannot be subjected to copyright, but the book as a work can be. You can however copyright the whole CD as a artistic work, the graphics on the CD, the case it came in. One cannot reproduce or counterfit the CD in toto without violating the copyright. Therefore music sharing of the waveforms of previously aired matererial is beyond copyright protections.

[William McKinley]

I think that the recording industry is going eventually to have to come up with a technology solution. I don't think the technological genie that always stood in the way of massive copying of music is ever going back in the bottle.

[=Intervention=]

*LOL* You can't concieve of a world without record companies, can you? Amazing. Music has always been and always will be. It's a part of the human experience.

[The Old Hoosier]

Therefore music sharing of the waveforms of previously aired matererial is beyond copyright protections.

Or rather, sharing of the waveforms as previously aired is beyond protection.

[William McKinley]

ROFLMAO

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Maybe, maybe not. Just remember that these same predictions were made when audio and video cassettes came out. The music market is still around.

I could just as easily make a reasonable claim that this will be a good thing for the music industry. It will allow artists to get into the recording game much more cheaply and get rid of much of the middle-man. I would think that this could give us a much more lively and vibrant music world than now exists (similar to tin-pan alley in Chicago in the late 1800s).

[Sloth]

That's true -- music never existed before copyright law.

[The Old Hoosier]

It has always been part of the human experience, but only as long as there has been someone to feed the artists. You have a very naive view of the economics involved.

[KevinB]

Well, looks like the court nailed it. Not bad...not bad at all.

Yes, finally a judge with a brain. It is the downloaders who are breaking the law, not the site operators. We'd have to close every library if the opposite conclusion were to prevail.

[The Old Hoosier]

It did because musicians had royal patrons feeding them.

[Billy_bob_bob]

I'll be happy to. My "band" is called Artilect, you can download the songs from MP3.com, and if you want to check out the music I like to listen to from MP3.com check out my station "Twice Filtered Radio", which has a selection of ten great songs from three of my "networks" (Best of the Big Sounds, AEGIS Network, and Recession Radio). Enjoy!

[The Old Hoosier]

these same predictions were made when audio and video cassettes came out.

Back then, it took hours to dupe a movie, and the quality was questionable. Now it's so easy that even pirates won't be able to make money, and the quality is as good as the real thing.

[=Intervention=]

Do I? The existing megopolis of A&R men, promo men, hustlers, previewers, stage hands, recording producers, executive producers, producer producers, and so forth is construct of the 1960s-1990s America and the technology available at that time. You really think that with the demise of this construct , there's no way to make a buck off of music? Now my friend, that is niave. (If the old order perishes, there will not not be a new order. A power vaccum will always be filled.)

[plain talk]

You are wrong. Sounds like you are way behind the curve on this one. Check out mp3.com You'd be surprised at the number of people who create and share music and get almost nothing in return. It may not be Sargent Pepper quality but music will go on and more and more people will create it, not fewer. The quality has already gone down. But the kids don't care.

[The Old Hoosier]

I don't think the technological genie that always stood in the way of massive copying of music is ever going back in the bottle.

You're right, because people lack the virtue to respect private property. But there could be no more professional musicians.

Or you may have to pay for them through the NEA in the future, because no one else will pay.

[eno_]

Well, that means you can kiss the recording industry--and rock music--goodbye permanently.

Like the song says: "I feel fine."

[AndyTheBear]

As soon as artists stop writing songs--the logical economic conclusion of this ruling--

I have to disagree with this premis for two reasons:

1) Under the ruling it is still illegal to copy songs without permission.

2) No software can copy a live concert.

Furthermore, there are the rights of us software developers to consider. Unless the software was specifically designed for illegal activity, the musicians should have no right to go after us. Do you expect the courts to force musicical products to adhere to the best interests of other industries over their own?

[Dirk McQuickly]

No, it means you can kiss the incentive to create music goodbye. Will this be replaced with the incentive to create good music instead?

[The Old Hoosier]

Yeah, I have downloaded free music made available by the artist. But if it's crap then I don't want to waste my time on it.

And if it's any good, the artists won't be able to dedicate time to it, because they won't get anything for it. Have to have day jobs.

[SauronOfMordor]

As soon as artists stop writing songs--the logical economic conclusion of this ruling--then people will not be used to getting them for free any more.

The vast majority of composers these days do it because the enjoy doing it. Only a hundred or so actually make any money in the recording industry paradigm. This may INCREASE the amount of composing that happens, as non-RIAA music gets more exposure, leading to more opportunities for live music