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. 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. Jim isn't my dad, but it's his site and I know I have to abide by the rules if I want to continue posting here. If I don't want to abide by Jim's rules, I can start my own site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Wheel Posted September 3, 2012 Report Share Posted September 3, 2012 (edited) Hey, I abide by the rule - I'm not interested in paying for the vast majority of boots, so I'm pretty sure I've never linked to one. But abiding by the rule doesn't mean we can't point out when we think the rule is dumb and without grounding in reality or sound legal advice. Saying JIM SAYS SO, SO STFU OR LEAVE is not much of an argument in its favor. Edited September 3, 2012 by Big Wheel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjzee 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. I believe the point of the policy is not just a legal one but a moral one: people should not profit from the sale of bootlegs because the true owners of that music have not given their permission and are not being paid for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nessa 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. This seems to be the "relax and enjoy it" answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry 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? But...what about porn? /"relax and enjoy it" answer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Wheel Posted September 4, 2012 Report Share Posted September 4, 2012 I don't compensate the copyright owners of that work, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Kart Posted September 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 4, 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. I believe the point of the policy is not just a legal one but a moral one: people should not profit from the sale of bootlegs because the true owners of that music have not given their permission and are not being paid for it. That is my understanding of the point of the policy. Jim, as a professional musician, has the moral imagination to put himself in the shoes of other professional musicians -- simple as that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Berger Posted September 4, 2012 Report Share Posted September 4, 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. I agree with Big Wheel here. Applying this rule in a way that forbids amazon links just doesn't make sense. Out of curiosity, can people just type the text "this recording is available via amazon.com" instead of linking it? Seems like this rule can be easily evaded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonnymax Posted September 4, 2012 Report Share Posted September 4, 2012 I'd like to add two points, if I may. To say that Jim has "nothing to fear" in a potential copyright lawsuit argues the point that he would win any such litigation. Such an argument misses the point that he nonetheless could be harassed with the threat of legal action. That harassment, brought on by our actions, would be inexcusable, imo. My second point is this: if a member is interested in obtaining or sharing a questionable title mentioned in someone's post, they need only send a PM to that person. A private message is an easy and effective way of communicating information that might raise questions or concern in a public forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Wheel Posted September 4, 2012 Report Share Posted September 4, 2012 (edited) I'd like to add two points, if I may. To say that Jim has "nothing to fear" in a potential copyright lawsuit argues the point that he would win any such litigation. Such an argument misses the point that he nonetheless could be harassed with the threat of legal action. That harassment, brought on by our actions, would be inexcusable, imo. No, that's not really the point. The logic here is that even the threat of legal action is exceedingly unlikely - it's never going to come to winning or losing. Amazon and other Internet retailers are pretty risk-averse: rather than dick around with fighting to keep up boots here and there, they're going to invariably respond to even a C&D by simply taking down access to the boot. Which means that if you see a boot up there, Amazon hasn't been served with a C&D. Why someone would serve Jim with a C&D for board members' linking and not Amazon for actual selling...again, it really doesn't make any sense. The moral argument against linking is stronger...but I think it's unrealistic to think you can proactively rid the board of more than a small fraction of such links ("proactively" as opposed to moderators taking them down after the fact). Contrary to Larry's point, I don't think most who are linking to boots are intentionally doing so or know better; only some of us are walking discographies, and many do not think too hard about things like record labels (this board is about discussing MUSIC, amirite?). Hectoring a la Larry is not going to meaningfully reduce the instance of this problem. Edited September 4, 2012 by Big Wheel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonnymax Posted September 4, 2012 Report Share Posted September 4, 2012 No, that's not really the point... Well, it's not your point, but that doesn't mean that my views are irrelevant. Threats, no matter how unlikely, are still a possibility, and in this matter they are unnecessary and easily avoided. There is absolutely no need to publicly share information that might in any way reflect negatively on our host. What we say privately is our own business. I can't understand why this alternative would not satisfy the different positions expressed here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fasstrack Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 This is getting unnecessarily nasty and childish even. There are only a couple of rules here-this place is pretty damn freewheeling. I was once asked to tone it down-something I wrote was offensive. I grumbled a bit-then toned it down. Aoyone that can't abide by a few rules should start their own site or take their beach ball and go. But stop breaking the moderators balls-grow up, will you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Wheel Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 (edited) No, that's not really the point... Well, it's not your point, but that doesn't mean that my views are irrelevant. Threats, no matter how unlikely, are still a possibility, and in this matter they are unnecessary and easily avoided. There is absolutely no need to publicly share information that might in any way reflect negatively on our host. What we say privately is our own business. I can't understand why this alternative would not satisfy the different positions expressed here. I didn't say your views were irrelevant. Let's back up for a second. What I was responding to was this: To say that Jim has "nothing to fear" in a potential copyright lawsuit argues the point that he would win any such litigation. Those are my words between the quotation marks, but that's not what I was arguing at all - the bit about winning litigation is a misrepresentation of my actual post. That's all I was saying - that the point you're contesting is attributed to me but in fact is not really mine at all. I'll accept the imprecision as my fault though and will try to be clearer in the future. As for the substantive content of our posts, reasonable people can disagree on that stuff. Edited September 5, 2012 by Big Wheel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.A.W. Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 This is getting unnecessarily nasty and childish even. There are only a couple of rules here-this place is pretty damn freewheeling. I was once asked to tone it down-something I wrote was offensive. I grumbled a bit-then toned it down. Aoyone that can't abide by a few rules should start their own site or take their beach ball and go. But stop breaking the moderators balls-grow up, will you? Couldn't agree more. There are very few rules here and it's simple as far as I'm concerned: abide by them or leave, but don't harass the moderators - in this case Larry, who's doing a great job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fasstrack Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 It's useful to remember that Branford Marsalis just shut his forum down when the shit got out of hand-this is nowhere near where that nuthouse was (sad b/c he was trying a noble experiment in democratic free expression and certain morons ruined it). The point: no one is OWED a damn thing here. Just folllow a few guidlines-and don't shoot the messenger charged w/enforcing them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 don't shoot the messenger Sage advice offered too late... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fasstrack Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 Ouch. Actually, Lee was on his own for years by then-but I nit-pick... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clunky Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 Once a messenger always a messenger... On topic, this is Jim's place, please just accept his rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Kart Posted September 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 I'd like to add two points, if I may. To say that Jim has "nothing to fear" in a potential copyright lawsuit argues the point that he would win any such litigation. Such an argument misses the point that he nonetheless could be harassed with the threat of legal action. That harassment, brought on by our actions, would be inexcusable, imo. No, that's not really the point. The logic here is that even the threat of legal action is exceedingly unlikely - it's never going to come to winning or losing. Amazon and other Internet retailers are pretty risk-averse: rather than dick around with fighting to keep up boots here and there, they're going to invariably respond to even a C&D by simply taking down access to the boot. Which means that if you see a boot up there, Amazon hasn't been served with a C&D. Why someone would serve Jim with a C&D for board members' linking and not Amazon for actual selling...again, it really doesn't make any sense. The moral argument against linking is stronger...but I think it's unrealistic to think you can proactively rid the board of more than a small fraction of such links ("proactively" as opposed to moderators taking them down after the fact). Contrary to Larry's point, I don't think most who are linking to boots are intentionally doing so or know better; only some of us are walking discographies, and many do not think too hard about things like record labels (this board is about discussing MUSIC, amirite?). Hectoring a la Larry is not going to meaningfully reduce the instance of this problem. I didn't say that the people who were posting those links were doing so to intentionally violate the form rules -- rather, I think that in almost every case they were unaware of this rule in the first place or had forgotten about it. Thus, I wasn't hectoring anyone, just reminding people not to post those links. And I have more faith in the good sense and good will all of us than you do -- I'd be surprised if the number of those links doesn't go way down in the future. Yes, this board is about discussing music, but it's also about doing so within the boundaries of good behavior that Jim, the most beneficent of hosts IMO, has set up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlhoots Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 If I want to get it, I can find it. Don't need the links. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Wheel Posted September 6, 2012 Report Share Posted September 6, 2012 (edited) I'd like to add two points, if I may. To say that Jim has "nothing to fear" in a potential copyright lawsuit argues the point that he would win any such litigation. Such an argument misses the point that he nonetheless could be harassed with the threat of legal action. That harassment, brought on by our actions, would be inexcusable, imo. No, that's not really the point. The logic here is that even the threat of legal action is exceedingly unlikely - it's never going to come to winning or losing. Amazon and other Internet retailers are pretty risk-averse: rather than dick around with fighting to keep up boots here and there, they're going to invariably respond to even a C&D by simply taking down access to the boot. Which means that if you see a boot up there, Amazon hasn't been served with a C&D. Why someone would serve Jim with a C&D for board members' linking and not Amazon for actual selling...again, it really doesn't make any sense. The moral argument against linking is stronger...but I think it's unrealistic to think you can proactively rid the board of more than a small fraction of such links ("proactively" as opposed to moderators taking them down after the fact). Contrary to Larry's point, I don't think most who are linking to boots are intentionally doing so or know better; only some of us are walking discographies, and many do not think too hard about things like record labels (this board is about discussing MUSIC, amirite?). Hectoring a la Larry is not going to meaningfully reduce the instance of this problem. I didn't say that the people who were posting those links were doing so to intentionally violate the form rules -- rather, I think that in almost every case they were unaware of this rule in the first place or had forgotten about it. Thus, I wasn't hectoring anyone, just reminding people not to post those links. And I have more faith in the good sense and good will all of us than you do -- I'd be surprised if the number of those links doesn't go way down in the future. Yes, this board is about discussing music, but it's also about doing so within the boundaries of good behavior that Jim, the most beneficent of hosts IMO, has set up. To me it's not a matter of sense or good will, but of having highly specialized knowledge of recording circumstances that even many board veterans may not possess. I still can't tell precisely what is considered kosher under the rule. Is this an unauthorized recording? This 4cd box is from a European outfit called Solar Records that I've never heard of. The cover art and so forth make me skeptical that this label pays the Coltrane estate anything for these recordings or obtained permission to reissue them. However, the records are old enough that the material is probably PD in Europe. Plus, and this seems like the key criterion, the recordings themselves were consented to. Therefore I'm guessing that it is considered "authorized" under the rule. How about this? Unauthorized or authorized? I know a fair amount about Andrew Hill but I don't know anything about Warwick Records. Plus the reissue was done by our friends the Catalonians at Fresh Sound. So while again we can reasonably conclude that the Hill estate isn't making anything off the record, I don't know for sure whether this is authorized or not because I don't know what the specific history of this obscure label was. Next. Are these authorized? These recordings were most definitely NOT authorized at the time they were made. I think it's safe to say that Bird would find the idea of selling fragments of his solos for >$100 deeply weird at the very least. However, the records were made "authorized" by some kind of contract negotiations well after the artists themselves died. So I guess this counts as authorized under the rule, though at this point things are starting to get very confusing in light of the spirit of the rule (artist compensation). Finally, how about this: This video footage has never been officially released in the US but will be next month. So, it's "authorized" in the sense that Miles recorded the video for Sony. But this is definitely not the Sony version! Given that the Sony version has not even come out yet, would linking to this be kosher or not? Does that status change at all once Sony puts out its version? Point being, I try to think about this stuff and know a fair amount about the artists and I still can't tell for sure what's OK. A newbie is going to think about this stuff much, much less than that. Edited September 6, 2012 by Big Wheel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted September 6, 2012 Report Share Posted September 6, 2012 It's not that complicated. Really, it's not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted September 6, 2012 Report Share Posted September 6, 2012 Why someone would serve Jim with a C&D for board members' linking and not Amazon for actual selling...again, it really doesn't make any sense. Tell that to PirateBay. They didn't actually host any of the torrents, they just linked to them. I'm just trying to cover my butt here and not be slapped with a lawsuit for providing easy access to copyrighted, that's all. If anyone has any suggestions on how this can be improved, I'm all ears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Wheel Posted September 6, 2012 Report Share Posted September 6, 2012 (edited) Why someone would serve Jim with a C&D for board members' linking and not Amazon for actual selling...again, it really doesn't make any sense. Tell that to PirateBay. They didn't actually host any of the torrents, they just linked to them. Interesting example, though I think it actually proves my point. The authorities, I would guess, go after torrent trackers only because it's so difficult to go after the infringers themselves - the torrenters. And from the point of view of actually stopping infringement it makes much more sense to go after the hubs that enable infringement. Prosecuting or suing seeders here and there not only is like playing an endless and not-very-lucrative game of whack-a-mole, it doesn't even succeed at stopping the filesharing because there are a million other seeders out there who can access the tracker. You can only stop the filesharing by taking down the tracker. But if people are linking from here (and other sites) to boots on Amazon, then Amazon is the main hub enabling the infringement's distribution, not here. Taking you out isn't effective at stopping the boot and yelling at Amazon to take down the page is. Why would someone go after you and not Amazon? I still don't get it. Don't get me wrong; I think it's generally wise to be cautious about this stuff. I just have trouble understanding the fear of a kind of litigation I've never even heard of occurring (suing individuals for linking to reputable retailers). Edited September 6, 2012 by Big Wheel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul secor Posted September 6, 2012 Report Share Posted September 6, 2012 Some folks just have the need for attention. 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.