|
Audioblogs spread the musical word
http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/music/ny-etblog4111811jan13,0,885476.story?coll=nyc-manheadlines-music
January 13, 2005
Soul Sides is where O-Dub can express his thoughts on Memphis soul and Latin jazz, on Billy Butler's "Twang Thang" and Jack McDuff's "Electric Surfboard." It's where you can read his astute criticism and download his favorite music. For free.
He knows he's breaking the law, to the tune of about 1,500 hits per day. And he has plenty of company in the booming audioblog world.
"Posting copyrighted material online for people to download without permission is not legal," says Wang, whose writing has appeared in music magazines including Vibe and XXL. "The question is whether or not the recording industry would want to apply their limited resources to enforcing the law with bloggers."
The audioblog has become a staple of the MP3 age. New sites pop up every week to serve a wide variety of musical tastes.
Unlike Napster, the original file-sharing service, which the recording industry successfully sued for copyright violation, audioblogs are part diary, part criticism and part jukebox. They're run by individual music aficionados eager to spread the word on music. Most sites include MP3 files, for listening and downloading.
Audioblog postings are eclectic, a reflection of the a la carte culture that brought us pay per view and video on demand. Recently on Soul Sides, you could hear Bill Cosby's old band, Badfoot Brown and the Bunions, performing "Martin's Funeral" and "The Mouth of Fish." Over at the Tofu Hut (www.tofuhut.blogspot.com), the catch of the day was David Boyle's "The Rapping of the Christ." And Locust St., as usual, kicked it really old school with Gene Autry's "Little Big Dry." Not surprisingly, as iPods fly off the shelves, audioblogs are multiplying like rabbits.
Most sites encourage visitors to buy the record if they like a song. Audioblog keepers generally leave MP3s up for a short time, and the postings are often not CD-quality. Some sites even address the legal implications.
"If you are the copyright holder of a posted song and do not want the song posted, by all means contact me and I will remove the song," reads the disclaimer on Locust St. (http://inkhornterm.blog spot.com), an audioblog devoted to older music, particularly jazz. "But think for a minute first, and consider whether there is any possible harm in giving 50+-year-old music exposure to a new audience. If anything, it's an advertisement to buy old records from the '40s and '50s," says Chris O'Leary of Queens, who runs Locust St.
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) feels differently. "If the copyright owner and artist is making the choice to use this tool to distribute their music, we think that's a great thing," says RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy in an e-mailed statement. "The more ways fans can enjoy music online legitimately, the better. What concerns us is when someone else has taken it upon themselves to make that choice and distribute music they do not own, when the copyright owner has not given permission."
User Comments
(These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)
|
TotallyFrust...
|
Date: January 13, 2005 @ 7:11 PM
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) feels differently. "If the copyright owner and artist is making the choice to use this tool to distribute their music, we think that's a great thing," says RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy in an e-mailed statement. "The more ways fans can enjoy music online legitimately, the better. What concerns us is when someone else has taken it upon themselves to make that choice and distribute music they do not own, when the copyright owner has not given permission."
Artist???? Of fifty year old music????
Note how the dialogue swiftly and smoothly changed to only "copyright holder"
I maintain to the end that the Constitution does not authorize in the selling, stealing or otherwise claiming of any copyright by anyone other than the creator.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution:
"the Congress shall have power . . . 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."
Authors and inventors....Seems pretty clear to me.....
Check out
http://www.arl.org/info/frn/copy/timeline.html
For a pretty good list of events concerning copyright law. I intead to dig into the original text, but in going through the entire history posted hear, I never saw where the consittuion itself was ammended to allong for anyone other than the author to claim a copyright.
For any lawyers out there, help me understand how we can make such a significant change to the wording in our law without first addressing the issue of changing the Consittution. Does not the First Ammendment specifically prohibit the creation of any laws that supercede the Constitution?
|
|
TotallyFrust...
|
Date: January 13, 2005 @ 7:14 PM
#@#$%^ TYPOS
Here not hear....Allow not allong.... |
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: January 13, 2005 @ 8:01 PM
Lamy = L A M E R ...
next topic :) |
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: January 13, 2005 @ 8:06 PM
"Posting copyrighted material online for people to download without permission is not legal," says Wang, whose writing has appeared in music magazines including Vibe and XXL. "The question is whether or not the recording industry would want to apply their limited resources to enforcing the law with bloggers."
Every website , according to the point of creation model set by the Copyright Office, would technically be copyrighted at the point of creation. Very few sites that I have ever been to (none actually), have a javascript popup created by the site creator, that gives visitors prior expression permission to make copies of every image, sound, bit of code or script on the site...but, when you load a page, you are doing just that, making unauthorized copies of copyrighted material.
Thus, if a person uploads a website, and doesn't give the visitors express permission to load the site prior to its loading...even the copyright owner would be committing a violaton under Mr. "Wang's" assertion.
Mr. Wang, may think he's a big "Thang"...but he ain't all "dat" when creating a legal guide for downloading.
|
|
independentm...
|
Date: January 14, 2005 @ 12:22 AM
I discourage the posting and sharing (thereby, the promotion) of RIAA tunes. I think there is no real "wrong" being done when someone like this Mr. Wang and these audiobloggers do so. So long as it is non-commercial, my oppinion is that it falls under the realm of "fair use" even if highly debatable from a legal standpoint. You SHOULD be able to swap songs on the Internet for free.
...but for the time being, and for the forseeable future, PLEASE folks...
ONLY share independent NON-RIAA/NON-DRM infected songs!
Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support Local and Independent Music!
Boycott-Riaa |
|
wet1
|
Date: January 14, 2005 @ 12:37 AM
Isn't it amazing? The copywrite holder is the key here. As if most 50 year old songs have any commercial value today! By the time the copywrite expires and these works become public domain the revalance of them will have been milked for every penny and you can be sure the attempt will be made to extend even that.
The majors have bigger fish to fry with the p2p. Should they be able to close down p2p then you can be sure small fry will be next on the hit list. For now it is all about "net presence" and big brother watching you. Yes sir, step right up, pay your 99 cents and we will sell it to you again later. DRM ensures that at some point you will indeed have to do so. All you got to do is get a virus and you will find out just how much value that purchased song will be worth when you have to clean the drive to get rid of the virus. With the majors sponsoring the release of ad laden false songs and the like it will be most likely sooner than later.
Were this any other place other than p2p those responcible for such releases of spyware (which walks, talks, and looks so simular to a virus) it would be considered that they would be eligable for some serious jail time and fines.
To think the likes of "Oral Hatch" was in support of the idea of damaging your computer on a government sponsored program shows he has been paid well through the song writer scheme. As such almost unlimited funds can be funneled with the same "creative accounting" that masks the royalites coming to those artist that actually do deserve the money.
The magician show is once again playing at media centers near you. The best show that smoke and mirrors can provide.
|
|
autodidact
|
Date: January 14, 2005 @ 1:30 AM
Audioblogs rock. However, they are promoting a lot of RIAA music (as well as indie stuff), so beware if you are allergic to anything tainted by them.
The selection on an audioblog is like what you might play on a radio station if you owned one, and didn't care whether you attracted an audience or not. There is no regard to what is popular, only regard for what the site owner personally likes.
I certainly dl a lot that I don't like on MP3blogs. But it sure as heck beats listening to the radio.
By the way, wet1, it is copyright, as in the right to copy, not copywrite. Or are you doing that deliberately to make a point? If so, the point escaped me. |
|
wet1
|
Date: January 14, 2005 @ 4:18 AM
lols, autodidact. You are not the first one to say that on the spelling of copyright. I believe Mroop was the first one to mention that.
For some reason copyright as opposed to copywrite sticks to my mind as not being the correct way to write a wrong.
Anyway in the above articles for the day, prehaps copywrong fits even better. :)
|
|
independentm...
|
Date: January 14, 2005 @ 4:44 AM
Try also "copyleft"
:) |
|
|