Brad

Copyright

48 posts in this topic

2 minutes ago, Brad said:

That’s a different issue. I was just keying on whether there is a difference between the two terms, nothing more.

On your point, statute interpretation is part of what attorneys do. 

Understood.  I guess I meant that in certain situations there can be a practical difference between the two terms, depending on who is telling you what is unlawful.  Does that make sense? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Chuck Nessa said:

I believe the domestic "infringer" is the importer - unfortunately the US law has no teeth and victims are left to pursue civil litigation against all the perps. Not a workable situation for the transgressed.

Perfect world scenario = class action lawsuit against the most egregious importer of these things, filed with the backing os one or two billionaire "jazz fans". Argue the case really well, win it, set precedent, and then have a big stick to wave when threatening forth litigation against further importers.

I mean, I see all kinds of ways for that to never even begin to happen, but...

It seems though, that if the violation is in the importing itself, then whatever crime there would be at the retail level would be in obtaining these things, not necessarily in actually selling them? But if I buy one from Amazon.fr where it is legal, am I then "importing" it? And if I then sell it, how would that be different from selling any other personal property?

And since corporations are now people...

It seems that the law not only has no teeth, it also has no gums in which to hold them.

And it also seems that the law is not interested in having teeth, just in letting predators eat all they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brad said:

That’s a different issue. I was just keying on whether there is a difference between the two terms, nothing more.

Thanks for the clarification. Now I'm curious, though: what's the purpose of Black's giving two different definitions? Is it just historical? It seems pretty insistent that there is a difference, even if the difference isn't always maintained!

https://thelawdictionary.org/illegal/

https://thelawdictionary.org/unlawful/

"“Unlawful” and “illegal” are frequently used as synonymous terms, but, in the proper sense of the word, “unlawful,” as applied to promises, agreements, considerations, and the like, denotes that they are ineffectual in law because they involve acts which, although not illegal, i. e., positively forbidden, are disapproved of by the law, and are therefore not recognized as the ground of legal rights, either because they are immoral or because they are against public policy. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Teasing the Korean said:

Understood.  I guess I meant that in certain situations there can be a practical difference between the two terms, depending on who is telling you what is unlawful.  Does that make sense? 

Yes, it does. It’s a question of interpretation and which side of the case you’re on. 

1 hour ago, lipi said:

Thanks for the clarification. Now I'm curious, though: what's the purpose of Black's giving two different definitions? Is it just historical? It seems pretty insistent that there is a difference, even if the difference isn't always maintained!

https://thelawdictionary.org/illegal/

https://thelawdictionary.org/unlawful/

"“Unlawful” and “illegal” are frequently used as synonymous terms, but, in the proper sense of the word, “unlawful,” as applied to promises, agreements, considerations, and the like, denotes that they are ineffectual in law because they involve acts which, although not illegal, i. e., positively forbidden, are disapproved of by the law, and are therefore not recognized as the ground of legal rights, either because they are immoral or because they are against public policy. "

I think they’re trying to make a distinction between what is prohibited by statute and acts which are contrary to accepted norms of behavior.

The only thing I will say about Blacks is that when Stewart Graham, my Contracts Professor, gave his introductory remarks at the beginning of the course and was giving his dos and donts, he said that if anyone ever cited Blacks in discussion or in a paper, he would fail them on the spot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the middle of all this is the fact that a huge amount of classic jazz is on Youtube, from which it can be downloaded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't read it but "hits" are never a problem.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Brad said:

An interesting article on music copyright lawsuits in Rolling Stone.

How Music Copyright Lawsuits Are Scaring Away New Hits

From the article, and rather shocking I think too...

How did this culture of fear drift into the recording studio? The answer is twofold. While copyright laws used to protect only lyrics and melodies (a prime example is the Chiffons’ successful suit against George Harrison in 1976 for the strong compositional similarities between his “My Sweet Lord” and their “He’s So Fine”), the “Blurred Lines” case raised the stakes by suggesting that the far more abstract qualities of rhythm, tempo, and even the general feel of a song are also eligible for protection — and thus that a song can be sued for feeling like an earlier one. Sure enough, a jury in 2019 ruled that Katy Perry owed millions for ostensibly copying the beat of her hit “Dark Horse” from a little-known song by Christian rapper Flame, stunning both the music business and the legal community. “They’re trying to own basic building blocks of music, the alphabet of music that should be available to everyone,” Perry’s lawyer Christine Lepera warned in the case’s closing arguments.

Edited by Rooster_Ties

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“They’re trying to own basic building blocks of music, the alphabet of music that should be available to everyone,” Perry’s lawyer Christine Lepera warned in the case’s closing arguments.

Oh boo hoo, get some new blocks then, you unimaginative fucks who can't even tell the difference between a block and an alphabet, like if you're a baby, they're the same thing. You make baby music, so I see why.

Or if you like, now that it's been decided that somebody is going to own this shit at some level, don't act surprised when people want to get paid, especially people who own shit without actually creating it.

Guarandamtee you - if and when "people" start wanting to hear something truly different than what's been going on since their grandparent's time, this will stop being a "problem", at least for a bit of a good while.

Until then, intellectual inbreeding is still inbreeding, and the long term effects are predictable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing I will say about Blacks is that when Stewart Graham, my Contracts Professor, gave his introductory remarks at the beginning of the course and was giving his dos and donts, he said that if anyone ever cited Blacks in discussion or in a paper, he would fail them on the spot. 

Even if you could cite case law, or other relevant authority, which had relied on it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps one reason why the Japanese Blue Note CDs from 2012 through 2015 have previously unissued tracks is to counter the European pirate issues. 

I repeat that the availability of so much jazz on Youtube makes a mockery of all this legal stuff. Quite frankly, I am surprised that Youtube allows it when it routinely deletes freedom of expression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shrdlu said:

Perhaps one reason why the Japanese Blue Note CDs from 2012 through 2015 have previously unissued tracks is to counter the European pirate issues. 

I repeat that the availability of so much jazz on Youtube makes a mockery of all this legal stuff. Quite frankly, I am surprised that Youtube allows it when it routinely deletes freedom of expression.

I think — but am not absolutely sure — that it’s up to the copyright holder to object. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2020 at 10:05 PM, danasgoodstuff said:

The only thing I will say about Blacks is that when Stewart Graham, my Contracts Professor, gave his introductory remarks at the beginning of the course and was giving his dos and donts, he said that if anyone ever cited Blacks in discussion or in a paper, he would fail them on the spot. 

Even if you could cite case law, or other relevant authority, which had relied on it?

I just happened across this while googling and chuckled:

Sony BMG Asks Judge To Dismiss Toto Lawsuit: Music giant points to Black's Law Dictionary on the difference between a "license" and a "lease," an alleged distinction that could be worth a lot of money. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/sony-bmg-asks-judge-dismiss-toto-africa-lawsuit-304172

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Captain Howdy said:

I just happened across this while googling and chuckled:

Sony BMG Asks Judge To Dismiss Toto Lawsuit: Music giant points to Black's Law Dictionary on the difference between a "license" and a "lease," an alleged distinction that could be worth a lot of money. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/sony-bmg-asks-judge-dismiss-toto-africa-lawsuit-304172

Talk about being lazy. I think their attorney or outside counsel could find plenty of case law demonstrating the difference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Brad said:

Talk about being lazy. I think their attorney or outside counsel could find plenty of case law demonstrating the difference. 

Could be that they did, and the reporting is just lazy/sloppy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, danasgoodstuff said:

Could be that they did, and the reporting is just lazy/sloppy...

This article indicates that the Judge in the case, in deciding in favor of Sony, used Black’s and Webster’s dictionaries. Seems odd to me but there it is.

https://www.courthousenews.com/sony-ducks-royalty-lawsuit-from-toto/

Edited by Brad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The judge relying on the dictionary can be a subtle way of saying 'your argument was absurd'...or not.  Contracts are generally construed to follow the usual meaning of the words, unless there's a good reason why not.

Edited by danasgoodstuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to belabor the subject too much more since I’m sure it’s of limited interest but the Loyola University (Chicago) School of Law Library Guides says that “Never think of a legal dictionary as a final stop in your research.  While some, like Black's, are considered very trustworthy, remember that the definitions in a legal dictionary are not official, authoritative statements of the law.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brad said:

Not to belabor the subject too much more since I’m sure it’s of limited interest but the Loyola University (Chicago) School of Law Library Guides says that “Never think of a legal dictionary as a final stop in your research.  While some, like Black's, are considered very trustworthy, remember that the definitions in a legal dictionary are not official, authoritative statements of the law.”

Unless a court says it is, kinda like the Restatement or Prosser on Torts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, danasgoodstuff said:

Unless a court says it is, kinda like the Restatement or Prosser on Torts.

I believe the Restatement has more force than a law dictionary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always felt that while the Restatement was eminently quotable and great for jury instructions, that if you actually wanted to understand shit you'd go to Prosser,,, but I was infamous in law school for being far more interested in what things should be than what they actually were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, danasgoodstuff said:

I always felt that while the Restatement was eminently quotable and great for jury instructions, that if you actually wanted to understand shit you'd go to Prosser,,, but I was infamous in law school for being far more interested in what things should be than what they actually were.

Torts wasn’t my favorite course. I took naturally to Contracts and one of the benefits of the course was that I learned Article 2, which served me well later in my professional life. The same professor also drilled us on Bankruptcy Law and I later on had a few bankruptcy cases involving suppliers; nothing complicated, mind you.

Never really cared for Real Property Law, too cute and dry for me.  Same for Trust and Estates. I think the most important thing I learned from those courses that it wasn’t malpractice in California to draft a will that violated the rule against perpetuities :D Oddly enough, in the latter part of my career, when our company was acquired, most of my work centered around real property.

Edited by Brad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing to do with music but here’s an article on “the most interesting authors and their works that have entered into public domain in all jurisdictions where the economic component of copyright is exhausted on January 1 of the year following the 70th anniversary of the year in which the author has died.”

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4e97e694-538f-48f3-9234-eef0cd14b874&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email&utm_campaign=ACC+Newsstand+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2020-01-17&utm_term=

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.