From: owner-joni-digest@smoe.org (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2005 #255 Reply-To: joni@smoe.org Sender: owner-joni-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-joni-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk Unsubscribe: mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe Archives: http://www.smoe.org/lists/joni Websites: http://www.jmdl.com http://www.jonimitchell.com JMDL Digest Friday, June 24 2005 Volume 2005 : Number 255 ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Joni bit torrent ["Laurent Olszer" ] Re: Joni bit torrent [Catherine McKay ] NJC Re: Joni cover synchronicity NJC [Bob Muller ] Re: Joni fete -- njc [Bob Muller ] Re: BitTorrent Covers CDs NJC [Bob Muller ] Re: BitTorrent Covers CDs NJC [Jerry Notaro ] Re: BitTorrent Covers CDs NJC [Jerry Notaro ] From a recent interview with Wayne Shorter.... [Jenny Goodspeed ] Re: BitTorrent Covers CDs NJC [Catherine McKay ] Re: BitTorrent Covers CDs NJC ["Gerald A. Notaro" ] RE: BitTorrent Covers CDs NJC [Les Irvin ] NJC what is Chicago today??? NJC [Em ] Re: BitTorrent Covers CDs NJC [Jerry Notaro ] Re: onlyJMDL Digest V2005 #181 [Kate ] Re: BitTorrent Covers CDs NJC [Jerry Notaro ] Joni stuff [jrmco1@aol.com] Re: BitTorrent Covers CDs NJC [Catherine McKay ] Re: BitTorrent Covers CDs NJC [Jerry Notaro ] Re: BitTorrent Covers CDs NJC [jrmco1@aol.com] Re: BitTorrent Covers CDs NJC [Jerry Notaro ] Re: Joni stuff now incredibly njc [Catherine McKay ] Re: BitTorrent Covers CDs NJC ["John T. Folden" ] Re: BitTorrent Covers CDs NJC [jrmco1@aol.com] Re: BitTorrent Covers CDs NJC [Jerry Notaro ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 12:56:50 +0200 From: "Laurent Olszer" Subject: Joni bit torrent Hi I'm trying to download Joni with the Persuasions 79 and Berkeley 79. My download has been stuck at 69% for over a week now. It seems there are no seeders. What can be done? Laurent ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 07:15:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: Joni bit torrent - --- Laurent Olszer wrote: > Hi > I'm trying to download Joni with the Persuasions 79 > and Berkeley 79. My > download has been stuck at 69% for over a week now. > It seems there are no > seeders. What can be done? > Laurent > I did download that and I was seeding but after a while, it looked like there were no peers left. And it also looks like maybe the tracker is down (?) I checked the trading page & it says there are no torrents being offered. If/when whatever it is, is resolved, I can jump back on that & help seed it. Catherine Toronto - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 05:39:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Bob Muller Subject: NJC Re: Joni cover synchronicity NJC Michael Paz wrote: Typo or Freudian slip? Discuss. < If you have that much dough at least you could take an accompanist. I wanna go but the possibilities are endless for reasons I can't. > OK, I'll pay your way but you'll have to submit to my never-ending battery of sexual favors & fetishes - and I'm not just talking about you & Smurf that time down south between the trailers. Pack the gourd. I wish you could be too, mon ami!! Rest assured that we'll hoist some beverages in your honor and you can expect full reports. And if you see you can swing it, get your butt on board. You've been a major playa in every Jonifest I've been to - won't be the same without you. Thanks to Mike P & John van T for helping out with lodging and transportation! Bob NP: Kathleen A. Martin, "Carey" - --------------------------------- Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 05:42:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Bob Muller Subject: Re: Joni fete -- njc Hey hey, watch it - lots of blood sweat and tears (and cash) goes into my little frisbees, so have some respect. Besides, if one of them hits the water there's no telling what size fish you'd catch with it. Bob NP: Monica Borrfors, "Twisted" Michael Paz wrote: How about we meet on the beach a block east of Atty May's Beach Coma and pitch the little fuckers of which I have 50 some (even tho I've transferred all the wicked cover contents into my Itunes, but I digress) and see if we can hit anyone from this side?? Frothing, Paz NP-Jack In-Jack DeJohnette (with Pat on guitar) > --- Bob wrote: > >> I was researching the airfares last night >> and it looks like it's a do-able thing for me, so >> Eurofest here I come! > > > If I hadn't started a new job a few months ago, I > would be relentlessly looking for a way to get ma > derriere au france. Mais c'est impossible because I > don't get vacation time until I've been at the new job > for at least a year. (Otherwise, I have an excellent > benefits package, thank Dieu.) You're all going to > have a great time. I can only imagine how wonderful > Covers Frisbee will be as the shiny little discs fly > through a nighttime French summer sky... > > Sigh, > > --M. Smurf - --------------------------------- Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 05:47:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Bob Muller Subject: Re: BitTorrent Covers CDs NJC Thanks for the interest, Mark - I have no problem with it, my only concern is putting copyrighted material on a P2P site, I don't want anyone getting in trouble. If I'm offbase in my thinking I'd love to have someone with more knowledge of the subject step up. I just don't know if our hub is technically different from Kazaa, Grokster, etc. Thoughts? Bob NP: Kelly Smith, "Both Sides Now" Mark-Leon Thorne wrote: Hi Bob! I would love it if you were able to package up the covers CDs and put them on the BitTorrent site. It would make it so much easier for those of us across the pond. Mark in Sydney. Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 09:05:20 -0500 From: Jerry Notaro Subject: Re: BitTorrent Covers CDs NJC > Thanks for the interest, Mark - I have no problem with it, my only concern is > putting copyrighted material on a P2P site, I don't want anyone getting in > trouble. If I'm offbase in my thinking I'd love to have someone with more > knowledge of the subject step up. I just don't know if our hub is technically > different from Kazaa, Grokster, etc. > > Thoughts? It is absolutely no different. Everything on there is copyrighted by the Copyright Law of 1976 standards. We have a higher comfort level than others because I doubt is the copyright owner, presumably Joni, though not necessarily Joni, would not come after us for what we are doing. Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 09:22:09 -0500 From: Jerry Notaro Subject: Re: BitTorrent Covers CDs NJC > As I have just explained to Bob, BitTorrent was created to get around > copyright laws. BitTorrent files are not the songs, they are only > locator files and therefore, don't breach any copyright laws. If the > full songs were there on the JMDL website, that would breach the > copyright laws. > > Mark in Sydney. That was exactly Napster's defense. And they ultimately lost in court. Maybe the laws are different in Australia, Every day people here are prosecuted in the United States for using peer-to-peer technology to share copyrighted files. Let us not fool ourselves. Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 07:18:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Jenny Goodspeed Subject: From a recent interview with Wayne Shorter.... Q: Joni Mitchell is also on Nonesuch. What is it about her music that attracted you to play on so many of her albums? A: She's talking about things in her lyrics, and she's a fighter. She told me that around the time when she recorded "Don Juan's Reckless Daughter" and "Mingus" that someone sent her a letter accusing her of playing a minor second within a chord and how that was destroying the [pop] feeling she was known for. It was like saying she was going over to some other side. It's like her song "Both Sides Now" that she wrote when she was 20 or 21. It was about an encounter she had with a man and the daughter she had. She recorded it and a record executive said to her, "You know, don't you?" The words struck him on a business side. She said she had to think fast, on her feet, so she said yes. And the executive detailed it out: We get young artists, squeeze the blood out of the stone, then throw them away and get another young artist. That's what the industry is like. for the whole interview: http://www.billboard.com/bb/feature/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000966682 Jenny Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 08:38:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Bob Muller Subject: Re: BitTorrent Covers CDs NJC Well, what we've done in the past with some success and are overdue to do again is to establish a "vine" with a block of them. While that process is probably not totally kosher with regard to copyright laws, it's far away from the RIAA radar screen and not a process that they seem concerned about. Mark, if you're interested in getting a package of (10) Covers CD's let me know and I'll get them going. After you get them and listen to them/copy them, you send them to the next person that wants them and so on and so on. In the meantime, I'll work with Richard and get some more uncopyrighted Joni stuff on the BitTorrent site as well. Bob - --------------------------------- Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 12:42:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: BitTorrent Covers CDs NJC - --- Jerry Notaro wrote: > > As I have just explained to Bob, BitTorrent was > created to get around > > copyright laws. BitTorrent files are not the > songs, they are only > > locator files and therefore, don't breach any > copyright laws. If the > > full songs were there on the JMDL website, that > would breach the > > copyright laws. > > > > Mark in Sydney. > > That was exactly Napster's defense. And they > ultimately lost in court. Maybe > the laws are different in Australia, Every day > people here are prosecuted in > the United States for using peer-to-peer technology > to share copyrighted > files. Let us not fool ourselves. > > Jerry There most likely are bit-torrent groups out there that post mp3s and copyrighted works. Our group doesn't work like that. We gots rules! The rules are (quoting from the "trade" site): "The JMDL supports music trading as long as the following guidelines are met: "- The music is shared for free - no profit is made by the anyone involved in the transaction. "- The shared recordings are not commercially available. "If you agree to these terms, read on! If not, we kindly ask that you look elsewhere." In the beginning, when there were only a few people on the hub, there was some sharing of mp3s, but now it's just lossless and uncopyrighted stuff (i.e. things like the live Joni shows that haven't been published). I haven't been on the hub for a little while and don't remember if the rule banning mp3s is in force there. Part of the purpose of this whole thing is to share lossless music, which are huge files 10x the size of an mp3 but which retain all the dynamic range & yada-yada (as you can see, I guess I can't call myself an "audiophile", but that has always sounded kinda perverted to these wonky ears.) There aren't mp3s on the torrents. I'm sure Richard or Les could explain some of this stuff better than I can, but I wanted to reinforce that we're not sharing any copyrighted stuff, and mp3s are frowned upon for a variety of reasons. It's already a bit dodgy to share unpublished works without getting the artists' permission, so, it's very important that the trading rules be observed, not just out of respect for the artists, but also out of respect for our webmasters that host this stuff. Catherine Toronto - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 12:54:19 -0400 (EDT) From: "Gerald A. Notaro" Subject: Re: BitTorrent Covers CDs NJC Catherine, Maybe the rules of copyright are different in Canada, you can word it any way you want, but the sharing of files is a violation of U.S. Copyright Law. Whether or not they have ever been commercially available, they are still copyrighted. Wheter they are MP3's, AAC's, WAV, or Bit Torrent files makes no difference. The copying of ANY copyrighted material with any method in any file without permission of the copyright owner is illegal in the U.S. Jerry Catherine McKay wrote: > > --- Jerry Notaro wrote: > >> > As I have just explained to Bob, BitTorrent was >> created to get around >> > copyright laws. BitTorrent files are not the >> songs, they are only >> > locator files and therefore, don't breach any >> copyright laws. If the >> > full songs were there on the JMDL website, that >> would breach the >> > copyright laws. >> > >> > Mark in Sydney. >> >> That was exactly Napster's defense. And they >> ultimately lost in court. Maybe >> the laws are different in Australia, Every day >> people here are prosecuted in >> the United States for using peer-to-peer technology >> to share copyrighted >> files. Let us not fool ourselves. >> >> Jerry > > There most likely are bit-torrent groups out there > that post mp3s and copyrighted works. Our group > doesn't work like that. We gots rules! > > The rules are (quoting from the "trade" site): > > "The JMDL supports music trading as long as the > following guidelines are met: > > "- The music is shared for free - no profit is made by > the anyone involved in the transaction. > "- The shared recordings are not commercially > available. > > "If you agree to these terms, read on! If not, we > kindly ask that you look elsewhere." > > In the beginning, when there were only a few people on > the hub, there was some sharing of mp3s, but now it's > just lossless and uncopyrighted stuff (i.e. things > like the live Joni shows that haven't been published). > I haven't been on the hub for a little while and don't > remember if the rule banning mp3s is in force there. > Part of the purpose of this whole thing is to share > lossless music, which are huge files 10x the size of > an mp3 but which retain all the dynamic range & > yada-yada (as you can see, I guess I can't call myself > an "audiophile", but that has always sounded kinda > perverted to these wonky ears.) > > There aren't mp3s on the torrents. > > I'm sure Richard or Les could explain some of this > stuff better than I can, but I wanted to reinforce > that we're not sharing any copyrighted stuff, and mp3s > are frowned upon for a variety of reasons. > > It's already a bit dodgy to share unpublished works > without getting the artists' permission, so, it's very > important that the trading rules be observed, not just > out of respect for the artists, but also out of > respect for our webmasters that host this stuff. > > > > Catherine > Toronto > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 10:58:47 -0600 From: Les Irvin Subject: RE: BitTorrent Covers CDs NJC > Maybe the laws are different in Australia, Every > day people here are prosecuted in the United States for using > peer-to-peer technology to share copyrighted files. Let us > not fool ourselves. Just to clarify, we don't share "copyrighted" files at the JMDL hub or via BitTorrent. In fact, commercially available, officially copyrighted files are banned from our trading system. We do not and will not distribute products you can buy in stores and we are not interested in undercutting the profit of any artist's product. The p2p traders you speak of that are being prosecuted are those dealing in commercially available recordings, such as on Kazaa and a whole host of others. There are a number of high-profile "legitimate" p2p websites (such as dimeadozen.org) dealing in concert recordings. These sites are vigilant about keeping commercial recordings out of their system and therefore have had no legal threats placed upon them. P2P trading such as we do here is ethically no different than the tape trees we used to do (and hope to still do) by mail. It's just infinitely faster! Les ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 11:41:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Em Subject: NJC what is Chicago today??? NJC this is so perverty..but I'm actually considering going to a show with Earth Wind and Fire and Chicago. Wondering if anyone knows what's up with Chicago? If they, by some miracle, are once again a horn and percussion section-heavy jam band like when they started out then I'm way interested, but if they are the sappy crappola (yep, just an opinion) they became in the late 70's then I surely SURELY want to NOT go. Anybody know the skinny on the current band? Are they smarm, or do they wail? I do love fat punchy horns... :) thx! happy Friday all you childs of god.... Em ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:01:08 -0500 From: Jerry Notaro Subject: Re: BitTorrent Covers CDs NJC >> Maybe the laws are different in Australia, Every >> day people here are prosecuted in the United States for using >> peer-to-peer technology to share copyrighted files. Let us >> not fool ourselves. > > Just to clarify, we don't share "copyrighted" files at the JMDL hub or via > BitTorrent. In fact, commercially available, officially copyrighted files > are banned from our trading system. We do not and will not distribute > products you can buy in stores and we are not interested in undercutting the > profit of any artist's product. Sorry, Les, but I disagree. Those file ARE copyrighted and protected by U.S. Copyright law. Let me quote: Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code Circular 92 Chapter 111 Sound Recordings and Music Videos 1101. Unauthorized fixation and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos ' 1101. Unauthorized fixation and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos (a) Unauthorized Acts. - Anyone who, without the consent of the performer or performers involved - (1) fixes the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance in a copy or phonorecord, or reproduces copies or phonorecords of such a performance from an unauthorized fixation, (2) transmits or otherwise communicates to the public the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance, or (3) distributes or offers to distribute, sells or offers to sell, rents or offers to rent, or traffics in any copy or phonorecord fixed as described in paragraph (1), regardless of whether the fixations occurred in the United States, shall be subject to the remedies provided in sections 502 through 505, to the same extent as an infringer of copyright. It makes no difference whether they are commercially available, or not. And it does not matter whether they are being distributed for free, or not. Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 12:11:54 -0700 From: Kate Subject: Re: onlyJMDL Digest V2005 #181 onlyJMDL Digest: > Forgive me if this has been around the list for a while. This online entry > is a fairly concise and flattering summary of Joni's carreer. > > http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=U1ARTU0002397 > > Michael in Quebec I think it's been updated since some of our listmembers got on their case for calling Joni a folksinger. Anyone know for sure? I haven't been watching closely. Kate Kate Johnson Subject editor, architecture, dance, film, and theatre The Canadian Encyclopedia The Historica Foundation of Canada http://www.histori.ca ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:04:26 -0500 From: Jerry Notaro Subject: Re: BitTorrent Covers CDs NJC > P2P trading such as we do here is ethically no different than the tape trees > we used to do (and hope to still do) by mail. It's just infinitely faster! Not talking ethics here, talking law. And the tape trees were equally illegal. Ethics is a whole nuther game. Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:25:46 -0400 From: jrmco1@aol.com Subject: Joni stuff Gail walks into my home office this morning and goes "Holy sh**! It's turning into a Jonifest in here!" So, I've gotta unload some stuff. Rather than go the ebay route, I'm going to offer up some real good Joni-related memorabilia right here, for free. Stay tuned for the list of giveaways under this subject soon. - -Julius ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:27:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: BitTorrent Covers CDs NJC Jerry, I don't think what we're talking about has anything to do with differences in copyright laws from one country to the next. Either you're not understanding what I was trying to say, or I'm not understanding what you were trying to say. I had two points The first is, there's no sharing of copyrighted materials. Period. So that means that sharing the Joni covers, because they're already out there, commercially available & all that, would be a no-no, regardless of whether you get a burned disc from someone, or share it either as a torrent or on the hub. Are you saying that it violates copyright laws to distribute *any* recordings of live works, even if that particular concert isn't commercially available, without the express permission of the owner of the work? If so, you may be right. I also believe that MANY of us would willingly buy these things if the record companies made them available to buy. Apart from that, there are some artists who have said they absolutely do NOT want any live concerts circulated and trading groups such as Dime-A-Dozen don't allow these to be torrented. If anyone tries to upload one of these, it's banned. If the person tries it again, they're kicked out. In other cases, some artists are "taper friendly" and don't object. Others haven't said one way or another. If what you're saying is that people shouldn't distribute live recordings (whether it's by trading discs, torrenting or DC++ file-sharing hubs) whatsoever, then there's a whole lot of us that should immediately get rid of our copies of the Joni and James at the BBC concert and anything else that's not commercially available, unless we get Joni's permission. I don't think she has said NOT to do it and she must know that people have these things. My second point wasn't related to copyright. It was simply about mp3s themselves as a format. Many people simply don't like the format, because it's lossy. Many of us wouldn't know the difference between lossy and lossless, most of the time. But, to preserve the integrity of the files, I wouldn't want to share mp3 versions of Joni concerts when I could provide a lossless format (and possibly be breaking the law.) - --- "Gerald A. Notaro" wrote: > Catherine, > > Maybe the rules of copyright are different in > Canada, you can word it any > way you want, but the sharing of files is a > violation of U.S. Copyright > Law. Whether or not they have ever been commercially > available, they are > still copyrighted. Wheter they are MP3's, AAC's, > WAV, or Bit Torrent files > makes no difference. The copying of ANY copyrighted > material with any > method in any file without permission of the > copyright owner is illegal in > the U.S. > > Jerry > > Catherine McKay wrote: > > > > --- Jerry Notaro wrote: > > > >> > As I have just explained to Bob, BitTorrent was > >> created to get around > >> > copyright laws. BitTorrent files are not the > >> songs, they are only > >> > locator files and therefore, don't breach any > >> copyright laws. If the > >> > full songs were there on the JMDL website, that > >> would breach the > >> > copyright laws. > >> > > >> > Mark in Sydney. > >> > >> That was exactly Napster's defense. And they > >> ultimately lost in court. Maybe > >> the laws are different in Australia, Every day > >> people here are prosecuted in > >> the United States for using peer-to-peer > technology > >> to share copyrighted > >> files. Let us not fool ourselves. > >> > >> Jerry > > > > There most likely are bit-torrent groups out there > > that post mp3s and copyrighted works. Our group > > doesn't work like that. We gots rules! > > > > The rules are (quoting from the "trade" site): > > > > "The JMDL supports music trading as long as the > > following guidelines are met: > > > > "- The music is shared for free - no profit is > made by > > the anyone involved in the transaction. > > "- The shared recordings are not commercially > > available. > > > > "If you agree to these terms, read on! If not, we > > kindly ask that you look elsewhere." > > > > In the beginning, when there were only a few > people on > > the hub, there was some sharing of mp3s, but now > it's > > just lossless and uncopyrighted stuff (i.e. things > > like the live Joni shows that haven't been > published). > > I haven't been on the hub for a little while and > don't > > remember if the rule banning mp3s is in force > there. > > Part of the purpose of this whole thing is to > share > > lossless music, which are huge files 10x the size > of > > an mp3 but which retain all the dynamic range & > > yada-yada (as you can see, I guess I can't call > myself > > an "audiophile", but that has always sounded kinda > > perverted to these wonky ears.) > > > > There aren't mp3s on the torrents. > > > > I'm sure Richard or Les could explain some of this > > stuff better than I can, but I wanted to reinforce > > that we're not sharing any copyrighted stuff, and > mp3s > > are frowned upon for a variety of reasons. > > > > It's already a bit dodgy to share unpublished > works > > without getting the artists' permission, so, it's > very > > important that the trading rules be observed, not > just > > out of respect for the artists, but also out of > > respect for our webmasters that host this stuff. > > > > > > > > Catherine > > Toronto > > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > > http://mail.yahoo.com > Catherine Toronto - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:35:04 -0500 From: Jerry Notaro Subject: Re: BitTorrent Covers CDs NJC > Jerry, I don't think what we're talking about has > anything to do with differences in copyright laws from > one country to the next. But it does. There are vast differences in copyright from country to country. > > Either you're not understanding what I was trying to > say, or I'm not understanding what you were trying to > say. > > I had two points > > The first is, there's no sharing of copyrighted > materials. Period. So that means that sharing the Joni > covers, because they're already out there, > commercially available & all that, would be a no-no, > regardless of whether you get a burned disc from > someone, or share it either as a torrent or on the > hub. > > Are you saying that it violates copyright laws to > distribute *any* recordings of live works, even if > that particular concert isn't commercially available, > without the express permission of the owner of the > work? If so, you may be right. I am. That exactly is what I am saying. Recordings of live performances are copyrighted the same instant they are performed in the U.S. It has nothing to do with being commercially available, or not. I also believe that > MANY of us would willingly buy these things if the > record companies made them available to buy. > > Apart from that, there are some artists who have said > they absolutely do NOT want any live concerts > circulated and trading groups such as Dime-A-Dozen > don't allow these to be torrented. If anyone tries to > upload one of these, it's banned. If the person tries > it again, they're kicked out. > > In other cases, some artists are "taper friendly" and > don't object. Others haven't said one way or another. > > If what you're saying is that people shouldn't > distribute live recordings (whether it's by trading > discs, torrenting or DC++ file-sharing hubs) > whatsoever, I'm not discussing what anyone should or should not do. I have been a huge part of distributing these files myself, so I'm not being at all judgmental. What I am responding to is the legal description of the music as being not copyrighted. That simply is not the case. They are, and any copying, or distribution is an infringement of copyright. Period. Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:41:38 -0400 From: jrmco1@aol.com Subject: Re: BitTorrent Covers CDs NJC Do you have Sections 502 through 505, Jerry? I'd like to see what the regs say re: "remedies." It may be that if no money is being made as a result of such "unauthorized acts," there would be essentially nothing to recover under such remedies, and no artist so violated would bother to sue to try to squeeze blood out of a turnip. I'd be interested in seeing those sections. - -Julius >>shall be subject to the remedies provided in sections 502 through 505, to >>the same extent as an infringer of copyright. >>It makes no difference whether they are commercially available, or not. And >>it does not matter whether they are being distributed for free, or not. >>Jerry - -----Original Message----- From: Jerry Notaro To: Les Irvin ; Joni List Sent: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:01:08 -0500 Subject: Re: BitTorrent Covers CDs NJC Sound Recordings and Music Videos 1101. Unauthorized fixation and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos ' 1101. Unauthorized fixation and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos (a) Unauthorized Acts. - Anyone who, without the consent of the performer or performers involved - (1) fixes the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance in a copy or phonorecord, or reproduces copies or phonorecords of such a performance from an unauthorized fixation, (2) transmits or otherwise communicates to the public the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance, or (3) distributes or offers to distribute, sells or offers to sell, rents or offers to rent, or traffics in any copy or phonorecord fixed as described in paragraph (1), regardless of whether the fixations occurred in the United States, shall be subject to the remedies provided in sections 502 through 505, to the same extent as an infringer of copyright. It makes no difference whether they are commercially available, or not. And it does not matter whether they are being distributed for free, or not. Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:48:33 -0500 From: Jerry Notaro Subject: Re: BitTorrent Covers CDs NJC > Do you have Sections 502 through 505, Jerry? Sure. Here it is: 502. Remedies for infringement: Injunctions (a) Any court having jurisdiction of a civil action arising under this title may, subject to the provisions of section 1498 of title 28, grant temporary and final injunctions on such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright. (b) Any such injunction may be served anywhere in the United States on the person enjoined; it shall be operative throughout the United States and shall be enforceable, by proceedings in contempt or otherwise, by any United States court having jurisdiction of that person. The clerk of the court granting the injunction shall, when requested by any other court in which enforcement of the injunction is sought, transmit promptly to the other court a certified copy of all the papers in the case on file in such clerk's office. ' 503. Remedies for infringement: Impounding and disposition of infringing articles (a) At any time while an action under this title is pending, the court may order the impounding, on such terms as it may deem reasonable, of all copies or phonorecords claimed to have been made or used in violation of the copyright owner's exclusive rights, and of all plates, molds, matrices, masters, tapes, film negatives, or other articles by means of which such copies or phonorecords may be reproduced. (b) As part of a final judgment or decree, the court may order the destruction or other reasonable disposition of all copies or phonorecords found to have been made or used in violation of the copyright owner's exclusive rights, and of all plates, molds, matrices, masters, tapes, film negatives, or other articles by means of which such copies or phonorecords may be reproduced. ' 504. Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits4 (a) In General. - Except as otherwise provided by this title, an infringer of copyright is liable for either - (1) the copyright owner's actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer, as provided by subsection (b); or (2) statutory damages, as provided by subsection (c). (b) Actual Damages and Profits. - The copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement, and any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing the infringer's profits, the copyright owner is required to present proof only of the infringer's gross revenue, and the infringer is required to prove his or her deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work. (c) Statutory Damages. - (1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work. (2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was: (i) an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her employment who, or such institution, library, or archives itself, which infringed by reproducing the work in copies or phonorecords; or (ii) a public broadcasting entity which or a person who, as a regular part of the nonprofit activities of a public broadcasting entity (as defined in subsection (g) of section 118) infringed by performing a published nondramatic literary work or by reproducing a transmission program embodying a performance of such a work. (d) Additional Damages in Certain Cases. - In any case in which the court finds that a defendant proprietor of an establishment who claims as a defense that its activities were exempt under section 110(5) did not have reasonable grounds to believe that its use of a copyrighted work was exempt under such section, the plaintiff shall be entitled to, in addition to any award of damages under this section, an additional award of two times the amount of the license fee that the proprietor of the establishment concerned should have paid the plaintiff for such use during the preceding period of up to 3 years. ' 505. Remedies for infringement: Costs and attorney's fees In any civil action under this title, the court in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party other than the United States or an officer thereof. Except as otherwise provided by this title, the court may also award a reasonable attorney's fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs. There have been artists who have sued and recovered damages for the "future" earnings the recordings may bring. In any case, they ARE copyrighted materials. I get the same thing from people here on campus who want to borrow a DVD and show it to a large group in an auditorium. They always claim they aren't charging admission, so it is OK. It is not OK. A dvd is for home, not public viewing. You must pay a license fee for a public showing, whether an admission is charged, or not. Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:55:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: Joni stuff now incredibly njc - --- jrmco1@aol.com wrote: > Gail walks into my home office this morning and goes > "Holy sh**! It's > turning into a Jonifest in here!" > > So, I've gotta unload some stuff. This makes me wonder... at what point does one person's hobby become the other's bete noire? Or, at what point does one's own hobby change from harmless passtime to obsessive compulsive behaviour? If someone is addicted to drugs or alcohol or gambling, it's a recognized problem for which treatment must be sought. How do you recognize the signs of impulsive collection of *stuff* and when do you seek treatment? I'm not talking about packrats that save every newspaper they ever receive, or that kind of stuff. Y'see, I've been downloading all these live shows, probably committing a major felony in the US of A, such that maybe I'll be arrested if I ever cross the border again, but... it's gotten to the point where my house is filling up with silver frisbees and probably kind of sort of looks a bit like, oh, say, Muller's house. The evening sun glinting off those things makes it necessary sometimes to wear sunglasses in the house. I wonder, for example: does Mrs Muller have conniptions about the covers collection, or does she see it as a harmless hobby, or possibly even... encourage it? (once again, not picking on any individual, so don't feel compelled to answer that, Muller!) Most of us have some kind of weird semi-obsessional thing that we do. Apart from the recent collection of more friggin' music than I'll probably ever be able to listen to, I sometimes go off on collecting jags of other stuff. I used to have tons of makeup, for example, that I hardly ever wore (which is a whole 'nother form of stupid OCD-like behaviour, I guess), but that has kind of died down now. And I think the music-collecting has kind of peaked. Now I'm worried about what might be coming next, although my big thing now is trying to get rid of junk I never use but have hung on to for years. I seem to go through phases like this, obsessing or almost-obsessing about something but there reaches a point where I just don't want to do it anymore, so am not sure if that qualifies as addictive behaviour or not. So, tongue-in-cheeky though this may all sound, I really do wonder sometimes - at what point does a hobby become a neurotic obsession and, is it fair for one's partner to say enough is enough? This isn't any kind of comment or judgement on whether it's right or wrong, Julius, for Gail to influence your decision on whether or not to keep the Joni stuff, but it brings up in my mind something I was already wondering about anyway. Please don't take this as any kind of negative comment about either of you. I suppose there's a point where a person can become so consumed by their "hobby" that they spend the food money on it, depriving partner and/or kids and it's pretty obvious at that point that it's harming someone and needs to be dealt with. Or that they spend so much time on it, that their partner/kids miss their sad company. But ... what is that point? And maybe the other party is too clingy, which is a problem they will need to deal with (by finding their own hobby?) You can consider this just another rant, if you like, but I'd be curious to know how many of you have some kind of hobby/obsession and when you decide if it's too much of a good thing, or, if, when your partner comments on it, is that because they're honestly concerned about your welfare and recognizing some kind of possibly addictive behaviour, or if they're exhibiting some kind of controlling behaviour? What would happen if two Joni collectors joined forces? Would the wave grow into a tidal wave, or would two waves cancel one another out? OK. I'll shut up now. Catherine Toronto - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:12:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: BitTorrent Covers CDs NJC - --- Jerry Notaro wrote: > > Jerry, I don't think what we're talking about has > > anything to do with differences in copyright laws > from > > one country to the next. > > But it does. There are vast differences in copyright > from country to > country. It's true that there are, but, if the party that's distributing stuff (illegally) is physically located in the USA, then s/he would be subject to US law, and that's what I meant. They can charge them, or sue them, or whatever. If it's legal (or at least, not illegal) to share files in Canada, for example, then at present, Canadians would still be able to do this without having to worry about being charged with anything. (The moral/ethical arguments are separate.) They know they're not going to stop all of it, but they hope to put a dent in the distribution and halt, if only temporarily, the illegal activity. With some of the mp3 trading groups, like kazaa and all those, their servers and/or whoever operates these things are not located in the US, so it's hard to shut them down, and that's why they've been going after individuals who share files, rather than the operators, if they know that person is in the US. And they've been going after the ones that have huge amounts of stuff, because that's where the impact will most be felt. (Go after the big fish and set an example to the small fry.) Catherine Toronto - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:19:04 -0400 From: "John T. Folden" Subject: Re: BitTorrent Covers CDs NJC On Jun 24, 2005, at 3:27 PM, Catherine McKay wrote: > Are you saying that it violates copyright laws to > distribute *any* recordings of live works, even if > that particular concert isn't commercially available, > without the express permission of the owner of the > work? I'm always surprised at the number of people who don't think of these things. On top of the fact that just because something is not (yet) a released work has no effect on it's copyright status it, also, has no bearing on whether the artists - or other copyright holders - may be damaged by it's availability. Even when certain artists are 'taper friendly' their record company may not feel so generous. A record company might feel, for example, that the unlawful availability of 50 different concert recordings will damage the eventual release of an official live performance disc, among other things. A concert or other unreleased bit of work are just as protected by copyright as anything you can walk into a store and purchase. Prince is a perfect example of someone who totally hates and does litigate against people who bootleg/pirate/share unreleased material, to the point that when he's been in a location and finds bootleg material he'll pick it up and walk out with it himself. :-) John ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 20:41:15 +0000 From: "Sherelle Smith" Subject: The date is set Hi my friends, What once was just a dream has just become a reality. I've booked a date for my first concert. (knees wobbling!) It will be September 17th at 8:30 pm at Market 5 Gallery in Eastern Market. (Tickets will be $25) I went down there to meet with the proprietor yesterday and I signed a contract, gave him my deposit duckies and it's a deal. He was very no-nonsense, but I could tell that he really wants to help me make this a success. I was very touched. His experience came through loud and clear. He suggested that I have a reception after the concert. I was happy with the idea. I just have to work out the details. I feel good about this. I have a group of family members to help out as staff, almost all of the musicians are on board (playing phone tag with the most important one though!) and I think I've given myself enough time to do this properly. My number one concern is putting together a very tight show. I have friends here at Washington Sports and Entertainment who are willing to help me and at Black Entertainment Television (BET) who have also agreed to spread the word. All of these people know people and so I am hoping for a ripple effect. I also plan to do some advertising on the radio station that is playing my music on certain Sundays. My company deals with them so I am going to try to set it up that way. Another coworker in our Corporate Marketing department who is a musician in her spare time has shown interest in helping me as well. Even my HR manager is rooting for me! Whew! I'm not trying to make a profit for myself personally, but am trying to make sure everyone gets paid and that the concert goes well. When I cost everything out, this is what I get. The venue can hold about 200 so I have to base things on that number. I don't want to bend ears too much so please feel free to email me off list if you want the gory details! This all started from singing Dreamland, Edith and the Kingpin and Hissing of Summer Lawns into a pocket tape recorder in my bathroom for "A Tape of You". That's when I got the nerve to try this again so I am perclempt with gratitude to this list. This place gives you the freedom to dream.....Ah...yes.... Love, Sherelle ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:45:55 -0400 From: jrmco1@aol.com Subject: Re: BitTorrent Covers CDs NJC If I were a lawyer (and I am *so* NOT one), I would argue that, while distribution of the music products in question, as engaged in on the bit current site is *technically* a copyright violation by *definition*, the JMDL librarians who administer the site in their *official, non-profit, educational* capacity, are protected by the following section of the law from being assessed damages of any consequence: (2) ... In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was: (i) an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her employment who, or such institution, library, or archives itself, which infringed by reproducing the work in copies or phonorecords; or (ii) a public broadcasting entity which or a person who, as a regular part of the nonprofit activities of a public broadcasting entity (as defined in subsection (g) of section 118) infringed by performing a published nondramatic literary work or by reproducing a transmission program embodying a performance of such a work. - -Julius - -----Original Message----- From: Jerry Notaro To: jrmco1@aol.com; les.jonilist@gmail.com; Joni List Sent: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:48:33 -0500 Subject: Re: BitTorrent Covers CDs NJC > Do you have Sections 502 through 505, Jerry? Sure. Here it is: ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:50:22 -0500 From: Jerry Notaro Subject: Re: BitTorrent Covers CDs NJC A BIG stretch. The JMDL is not a nonprofit, educational institution, AND we are not its employees. The exception in the copyright law has to do with face-to-face teaching in a classroom: 10. Limitations on exclusive rights: Exemption of certain performances and displays1 Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the following are not infringements of copyright: (2)2 except with respect to a work produced or marketed primarily for performance or display as part of mediated instructional activities transmitted via digital networks, or a performance or display that is given by means of a copy or phonorecord that is not lawfully made and acquired under this title, and the transmitting government body or accredited nonprofit educational institution knew or had reason to believe was not lawfully made and acquired, the performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work or reasonable and limited portions of any other work, or display of a work in an amount comparable to that which is typically displayed in the course of a live classroom session, by or in the course of a transmission, if-- (A) the performance or display is made by, at the direction of, or under the actual supervision of an instructor as an integral part of a class session offered as a regular part of the systematic mediated instructional activities of a governmental body or an accredited nonprofit educational institution; (B) the performance or display is directly related and of material assistance to the teaching content of the transmission; (C) the transmission is made solely for, and, to the extent technologically feasible, the reception of such transmission is limited to-- (i) students officially enrolled in the course for which the transmission is made; or (ii) officers or employees of governmental bodies as a part of their official duties or employment; and (D) the transmitting body or institution-- (i) institutes policies regarding copyright, provides informational materials to faculty, students, and relevant staff members that accurately describe, and promote compliance with, the laws of the United States relating to copyright, and provides notice to students that materials used in connection with the course may be subject to copyright protection; and (ii) in the case of digital transmissions-- (I) applies technological measures that reasonably prevent-- (aa) retention of the work in accessible form by recipients of the transmission from the transmitting body or institution for longer than the class session; and (bb) unauthorized further dissemination of the work in accessible form by such recipients to others; and (II) does not engage in conduct that could reasonably be expected to interfere with technological measures used by copyright owners to prevent such retention or unauthorized further dissemination; [The TEACH Act further added this definition at the end of Section 110:] In paragraph (2), the term `mediated instructional activities' with respect to the performance or display of a work by digital transmission under this section refers to activities that use such work as an integral part of the class experience, controlled by or under the actual supervision of the instructor and analogous to the type of performance or display that would take place in a live classroom setting. The term does not refer to activities that use, in 1 or more class sessions of a single course, such works as textbooks, course packs, or other material in any media, copies or phonorecords of which are typically purchased or acquired by the students in higher education for their independent use and retention or are typically purchased or acquired for elementary and secondary students for their possession and independent use. For purposes of paragraph (2), accreditation-- (A) with respect to an institution providing post-secondary education, shall be as determined by a regional or national accrediting agency recognized by the Council on Higher Education Accreditation or the United States Department of Education; and (B) with respect to an institution providing elementary or secondary education, shall be as recognized by the applicable state certification or licensing procedures. For purposes of paragraph (2), no governmental body or accredited nonprofit educational institution shall be liable for infringement by reason of the transient or temporary storage of material carried out through the automatic technical process of a digital transmission of the performance or display of that material as authorized under paragraph (2). No such material stored on the system or network controlled or operated by the transmitting body or institution under this paragraph shall be maintained on such system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients. No such copy shall be maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to such anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary to facilitate the transmissions for which it was made. Jerry > If I were a lawyer (and I am *so* NOT one), I would argue that, while > distribution of the music products in question, as engaged in on the > bit current site is *technically* a copyright violation by > *definition*, the JMDL librarians who administer the site in their > *official, non-profit, educational* capacity, are protected by the > following section of the law from being assessed damages of any > consequence: > > (2) ... In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, > and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no > reason to > believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, > the > court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a > sum > of not less than $200. The court shall remit statutory damages in any > case > where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing > that > his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section > 107, if > the infringer was: (i) an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational > institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her > employment who, or such institution, library, or archives itself, which > infringed by reproducing the work in copies or phonorecords; or (ii) a > public broadcasting entity which or a person who, as a regular part of > the > nonprofit activities of a public broadcasting entity (as defined in > subsection (g) of section 118) infringed by performing a published > nondramatic literary work or by reproducing a transmission program > embodying > a performance of such a work. > > -Julius > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jerry Notaro > To: jrmco1@aol.com; les.jonilist@gmail.com; Joni List > Sent: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:48:33 -0500 > Subject: Re: BitTorrent Covers CDs NJC > >> Do you have Sections 502 through 505, Jerry? > > Sure. Here it is: ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2005 #255 ***************************** ------- Post messages to the list by clicking here: mailto:joni@smoe.org Unsubscribe by clicking here: mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe ------- Siquomb, isn't she? (http://www.siquomb.com/siquomb.cfm)