Larry Kart Posted September 3, 2012 Report Share Posted September 3, 2012 Just to save all of us (especially the moderators) trouble -- forum rules state that no links to unauthorized recordings are allowed. I didn't plan to spend a fair-sized portion of my life as the man with a broom who sweeps up the elephant crap after a circus parade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John L Posted September 3, 2012 Report Share Posted September 3, 2012 I assume that this means "unauthorized in the United States," i.e. all recordings released by labels that did not obtain official copyright and permission from companies and Estates no matter what year. The would rule out the discussion of perhaps the majority of recent reissues, most of which are coming from Europe where they are "authorized." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted O'Reilly Posted September 3, 2012 Report Share Posted September 3, 2012 ....the man with a broom who sweeps up the elephant crap after a circus parade. "Why don't you quit?" "What, and leave showbiz?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.A.W. Posted September 3, 2012 Report Share Posted September 3, 2012 (edited) I assume that this means "unauthorized in the United States," i.e. all recordings released by labels that did not obtain official copyright and permission from companies and Estates no matter what year. The would rule out the discussion of perhaps the majority of recent reissues, most of which are coming from Europe where they are "authorized." There's a difference between unauthorized recordings (wherever they are released) and authorized recordings that are in the public domain in some parts of the world. The forum rule is about links to releases (wherever they are issued) of unauthorized recordings, i.e. recordings the artists did not give permission for, a.k.a. bootlegs. Discussions about these releases are fine, as long as they aren't linked to. The rule does not say anything about links to releases of authorized recordings that are in the public domain in some parts of the world. Edited September 3, 2012 by J.A.W. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fasstrack Posted September 3, 2012 Report Share Posted September 3, 2012 Just to save all of us (especially the moderators) trouble -- forum rules state that no links to unauthorized recordings are allowed. I didn't plan to spend a fair-sized portion of my life as the man with a broom who sweeps up the elephant crap after a circus parade. OK, Jumbo... (; You pose a more complex question, though: what about the proliferation of youtube videos put up unauthorized by sneaky cell phone recorders. Performer nor especially (often deceased) composer whose work is so cavalierly posted are paid a penny. Theft, pure and simple-and way worse than a bootleg b/c they are viewable world wide w/a click. How about a rule concerning THAT? Moral folk IMO don't steal-or allow posting of the booty. My-strongly felt-opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertrand Posted September 3, 2012 Report Share Posted September 3, 2012 I agree with the concept of the rule, but how does one know? The example at hand: Coltrane at the Sutherland 1961. How does one know it is a boot? Amazon does not say 'note: this is a boot'. I know because I've been around the block, but how does a newbie know? We don't always have George Russell's widow around to helpully point out the rip-off labels. Another example: the new Uptown stuff. I assume Dr. Bob is totally on the up-and-up and have always assumed so. He does a beautiful job with his reissues and vault releases - the way these things should always be done. Yet one musician who made a recording for him (non-reissue) claims he was never paid. So how can I know for sure these are legit; if I believe my source, his record is not legit in the sense where the artist was not compensated. Yet I find it hard to believe that Sunenblick's product is not legit; he even won the lawsuit that Sue Mingus brought on. Perhaps my contact did not understand his contract. My point is: it's very hard to tell what is legit or not, especially when it is sold by legitimate vendors such as Amazon. We are not talking about a case of 'the internet is your friend'. This is a billion dollar company we are looking at. My suggestion: change the rule to forbid posting of links to any recordings, just to be safe. Limiting it to 'major labels' is an option but I think it would be too vague. Someone could just post something along the lines of: 'Amazon shows a new issue of Coltrane at the Sutherland coming out. I don't know if it's legit or not, but it sure sounds interesting'. My two cents. Flame away. Bertrand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papsrus Posted September 3, 2012 Report Share Posted September 3, 2012 Just an observation: Because a given rule doesn't cover every possible transgression doesn't mean it's necessarily a bad rule, or one that is impossible to follow. I don't think the rules are meant to be legally bullet-proof, just a guideline. But, as always, I could be way off base. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcello Posted September 3, 2012 Report Share Posted September 3, 2012 (edited) Just to save all of us (especially the moderators) trouble -- forum rules state that no links to unauthorized recordings are allowed. I didn't plan to spend a fair-sized portion of my life as the man with a broom who sweeps up the elephant crap after a circus parade. OK, Jumbo... (; You pose a more complex question, though: what about the proliferation of youtube videos put up unauthorized by sneaky cell phone recorders. Performer nor especially (often deceased) composer whose work is so cavalierly posted are paid a penny. Theft, pure and simple-and way worse than a bootleg b/c they are viewable world wide w/a click. How about a rule concerning THAT? Moral folk IMO don't steal-or allow posting of the booty. My-strongly felt-opinion. Nobody is selling a YouTube video. The rule is very easy to understand. You can discuss a possible or probable boot recording, but don't post a link so someone can easily buy the recording. Edited September 3, 2012 by marcello Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA Russell Posted September 3, 2012 Report Share Posted September 3, 2012 I respectfully disagree with Bertrand's suggestion to do away with all links. I find the links in the Bargain Box and Bargain DVD Box threads to be very valuable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzbo Posted September 3, 2012 Report Share Posted September 3, 2012 I disagree with this as well. And in general, I don't think any of these recordings in question are mistaken as bootlegs. They are bootlegs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLowe Posted September 3, 2012 Report Share Posted September 3, 2012 (edited) I'm confused so I won't offer an opinion - does this include reissues of dead jazz musicians where the musician is no longer alive to authorize the release, and the major label is too lazy to make an honest attempt to contact his estate or survivors? in which case we're only gonna have mention of Nessa releases, which is ok by me. Edited September 3, 2012 by AllenLowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul secor Posted September 3, 2012 Report Share Posted September 3, 2012 If it looks like a bootleg, it probably is a bootleg. Don't post a link and let people find their own way to it. If they want it, they'll find it. Simple enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Kart Posted September 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 3, 2012 All Uptown releases are legit. Otherwise, Paul Secor's point seems sound to me: "If it looks like a bootleg, it probably is a bootleg. Don't post a link and let people find their own way to it. If they want it, they'll find it. Simple enough." So if you have ANY doubts, don't post a link. And don't ask the moderators to supply you with a Sky King secret-decoder ring and a ten-page set of directions and don't dream up outre, logic-chopping examples; just use common sense. As for Amazon, we've known for a good while that they don't care about screening out bootlegs or can't take the trouble to do it , so the presence of album on the Amazon site doesn't make it authorized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted September 3, 2012 Report Share Posted September 3, 2012 My understanding has always been that we don't link to sharity blogs or to bit-torrent sites. Those are the ONLY verboten links, because they are explicitly violating copyright laws. It has never been said that links to commercially available recordings are not allowed. Haven't we had links to Pujols label releases or Absolute Distributors site? Jim's worries were about wholesale violation of copyright and the potential impact on the band. Show me where he's ever said "don't link to bootlegs". Perhaps we should ban links to Wolfgang's Vault too ... I've heard that at least some bands aren't getting paid by them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Kart Posted September 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 3, 2012 My understanding has always been that we don't link to sharity blogs or to bit-torrent sites. Those are the ONLY verboten links, because they are explicitly violating copyright laws. It has never been said that links to commercially available recordings are not allowed. Haven't we had links to Pujols label releases or Absolute Distributors site? Jim's worries were about wholesale violation of copyright and the potential impact on the band. Show me where he's ever said "don't link to bootlegs". Perhaps we should ban links to Wolfgang's Vault too ... I've heard that at least some bands aren't getting paid by them. READ THE FORUM RULES: 7) We do not allow sharing, trading, or linking copyrighted material that is being offered illegally, including bootlegs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonnymax Posted September 3, 2012 Report Share Posted September 3, 2012 ...And don't ask the moderators to supply you with a Sky King secret-decoder ring... That's fine. I'll settle for a Sky King Tele-Blinker ring! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA Russell Posted September 3, 2012 Report Share Posted September 3, 2012 I disagree with this as well. And in general, I don't think any of these recordings in question are mistaken as bootlegs. They are bootlegs. Lon, not to split hairs, but as I understand European law, nothing recorded before 1962 is a bootleg in Europe. All pre-1962 recordings are public domain. So items that were bootlegs ten years ago are no longer. Of course, the US has different copyright law, and US law controls this board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.A.W. Posted September 3, 2012 Report Share Posted September 3, 2012 (edited) My understanding has always been that we don't link to sharity blogs or to bit-torrent sites. Those are the ONLY verboten links, because they are explicitly violating copyright laws. It has never been said that links to commercially available recordings are not allowed. Haven't we had links to Pujols label releases or Absolute Distributors site? Jim's worries were about wholesale violation of copyright and the potential impact on the band. Show me where he's ever said "don't link to bootlegs". Perhaps we should ban links to Wolfgang's Vault too ... I've heard that at least some bands aren't getting paid by them. Larry quoted forum rule 7 earlier: Jim has explicitly outlawed links to bootlegs. I disagree with this as well. And in general, I don't think any of these recordings in question are mistaken as bootlegs. They are bootlegs. Lon, not to split hairs, but as I understand European law, nothing recorded before 1962 is a bootleg in Europe. All pre-1962 recordings are public domain. So items that were bootlegs ten years ago are no longer. Of course, the US has different copyright law, and US law controls this board. As I said in post #4: There's a difference between unauthorized recordings (wherever they are released) and authorized recordings that are in the public domain in some parts of the world. The forum rule is about links to releases (wherever they are issued) of unauthorized recordings, i.e. recordings the artists did not give permission for, a.k.a. bootlegs. Discussions about these releases are fine, as long as they aren't linked to. The rule does not say anything about links to releases of authorized recordings that are in the public domain in some parts of the world. The release of an unauthorized recording is a bootleg everywhere, no matter when the recording was made. People don't seem to understand the difference between a bootleg (i.e. the release of an unauthorized recording) and the release of an authorized recording that is in the public domain in some parts of the world; they're two different animals. By the way, the 70-year copyright limit in the European Union applies only to recordings that weren't yet in the public domain when the limit was extended from 50 to 70 years, in other words pre-1962 recordings that weren't in the public domain yet when the rule was changed (for instance pre-1962 recordings that hadn't been published yet) fall under the new 70-year limit. Edited September 3, 2012 by J.A.W. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fasstrack Posted September 3, 2012 Report Share Posted September 3, 2012 Marcello:And everyone, just indulge me one minute, I won't beat the drum to death, and already said what I needed to. But to say Youtube isn't 'selling anything' is a rather short-sighted assessment. Youtube promotes an environment that winks at, PROMOTES piracy. And ASCAP should have their asses sued for the mealy-mouthed deal they cut w/them where a song licenced by them needs 240,000 hits before its creators collect a dime. A bootleg only robs the artist once. Besides composers does youtube pay the estates of ANY of the artists we click on and enjoy? Do we have a RIGHT to take, take, take? With all due respect to you and all the good people here, what part of intellectual property theft are you not understanding? Respectfully, WAKE UP gentlemen. We're clicking our way down an evil road. Would anyone here be willing to pay a fee that would go to youtube artist royalties? We have to change direction and bootlegs (which I also am against FWIW) is chump change next to this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Wheel Posted September 3, 2012 Report Share Posted September 3, 2012 the presence of album on the Amazon site doesn't make it authorized. But it does demolish any legal logic used to justify this board policy. The point of the policy, I presume, is to immunize Jim from lawsuits lodged by copyright holders. But if the world's largest online retailer is selling the product, arguing that linking to such products will amount to likely lawsuits for Jim makes no sense. The point of a lawsuit is to obtain relief from harm; if nobody is bothering to sue Amazon, which is causing about 1,000,000x the harm Jim is in such a case...then why does Jim have anything to fear? It's asinine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul secor Posted September 3, 2012 Report Share Posted September 3, 2012 the presence of album on the Amazon site doesn't make it authorized. But it does demolish any legal logic used to justify this board policy. The point of the policy, I presume, is to immunize Jim from lawsuits lodged by copyright holders. But if the world's largest online retailer is selling the product, arguing that linking to such products will amount to likely lawsuits for Jim makes no sense. The point of a lawsuit is to obtain relief from harm; if nobody is bothering to sue Amazon, which is causing about 1,000,000x the harm Jim is in such a case...then why does Jim have anything to fear? It's asinine. Jim established the Organissimo board. He made the rules. If we want to remain here, we follow them. It's as simple as that. It seems ridiculous that people have to quibble over nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn Posted September 3, 2012 Report Share Posted September 3, 2012 It seems ridiculous that people have to quibble over nonsense. I thought that was the sole purpose of the internet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Wheel Posted September 3, 2012 Report Share Posted September 3, 2012 the presence of album on the Amazon site doesn't make it authorized. But it does demolish any legal logic used to justify this board policy. The point of the policy, I presume, is to immunize Jim from lawsuits lodged by copyright holders. But if the world's largest online retailer is selling the product, arguing that linking to such products will amount to likely lawsuits for Jim makes no sense. The point of a lawsuit is to obtain relief from harm; if nobody is bothering to sue Amazon, which is causing about 1,000,000x the harm Jim is in such a case...then why does Jim have anything to fear? It's asinine. Jim established the Organissimo board. He made the rules. If we want to remain here, we follow them. It's as simple as that. It seems ridiculous that people have to quibble over nonsense. Nice. Then if that's the rationale, let's just replace Forums Discussion with a pinned thread that says BECAUSE JIM IS THE DAD AND HE SAYS SO and leave it at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeBop Posted September 3, 2012 Report Share Posted September 3, 2012 My rule is that I won't do anything to get Jim (or any other kind volunteers here) I trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Wheel Posted September 3, 2012 Report Share Posted September 3, 2012 (edited) My rule is that I won't do anything to get Jim (or any other kind volunteers here) I trouble. I hope there are no credit union lawyers with a penchant for defamation cases lurking, in that case... Edited September 3, 2012 by Big Wheel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.