Posted on 06/15/2007 11:14:18 AM PDT by weegee
NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. Congress criminalizing boot-leg recordings of music performers is constitutional and does not conflict with copyright laws, a federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday in a decision that reopened charges against a New York record store owner.
The U.S. Second Circuit of Appeals disagreed with a lower court judge who dismissed the case against the store owner, Jean Martignon, after the government charged he sold unauthorized recordings of concerts.
In 2004 U.S. District Judge Harold Baer ruled that the statute banning boot-legging was unconstitutional because it says that copyrights on live performances are protected forever. This conflicted with the "limited time" requirements of copyright law, the judge ruled at the time.
But on Wednesday, the court of appeals sided with the government, which appealed and argued that Congress did have the power to outlaw boot-legs under the Commerce Clause.
The appeals panel did not rule on whether Martignon could challenge the case under the First Amendment and whether the anti-bootlegging statute is overboard and limited access to artists. That argument will be left to the lower court.
Unlike the anti-bootlegging statute, which was adopted in April 1994 as part of the General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade, most U.S. copyright protection lasts for 70 years after the death of an author or artist.
David E. Patton, the lawyer for Martignon, said the decision was disappointing.
"It is unfortunately part of a broader pattern of limiting the public's access to artistic creation and intellectual property of all types," he said.
In 2004 U.S. District Judge Harold Baer ruled that the statute banning boot-legging was unconstitutional because it says that copyrights on live performances are protected forever. This conflicted with the "limited time" requirements of copyright law, the judge ruled at the time.But on Wednesday, the court of appeals sided with the government, which appealed and argued that Congress did have the power to outlaw boot-legs under the Commerce Clause.
Good grief. By that logic, anything sold in interstate commerce can be copyrighted forever.
I thought bootlegs had always been illegal?
I recall as a teenager in the 1980s going to a seedy, corner record store and quietly whispering to the old hippie lady who worked there, "Hey, ya' got any Zeppelin?" She'd look around and retrieve a her latest batch of Led Zeppelin live bootleg LPs from under the counter. I felt like I was buying drugs!
It was a little like buying drugs! Those LPs were expensive and sometimes they were really bad. Other times, they were very, very good!
This is an asinine ruling. It was crafted by Hollywood, to be sure. It is interesting how Disney Corp. has pushed to prolong copyright while also fighting to see that Winnie the Pooh becomes public domain so they don’t have to pay the family anymore.
All works should eventually lapse into the public domain.
The book on bootlegs begins with some history on how the works of Shakespeare are known today because of bootleggers (reportedly there were no collections officially published in his lifetime).
Good find and good post. This is why I am 100% pro-taping and 100% anti-selling of bootlegs. I routinely report bootleggers on E-Bay but also receive about 1-3 new trades every week. I have hundreds of bootleg recordings but I haven’t paid for nor have I sold a single one. Most bands are taper friendly because they know we see their shows regularly and buy their dry goods directly from the source. It’s a community of people trading on the honor system and kicking ass on anyone that sells shows.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.