RE: Bootlegs, Morality and Legality

Deseree Stukes ([email protected])
Thu, 6 Aug 1998 11:56:31 -0400

The purpose of my post was not to *scare* anyone. I specifically
mentioned that if you chose to deal with bootlegs it was your business.
Josh started a thread and i gave my opinion. U2GreekGod told me to
check at the bottom of his list for his copyright information. This is
it:

A NOTE ON COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: I don't trade copyrighted material,
since my trading conforms with theAudio Home Recording Act of 1992 and
the "Fair Use Exception" of the UScopyright code (17 USC 107) and common
law "Fair Use" which relates toperformance rights recently added to the
US copyright code (17 USCA 1101),since I collect to study, and not for a
monetary gain. Further, the band is not losing money on my studying of
their live music,Island does not offer any of the above material. If
they do, I will nottrade that item. U2, Island, and Polygram have made
just about all the money they can off of me, I have just about
everything they have released. If I could pay royalties, I would. ;)
Thank you for listening.

You indicate you don't trade copyrighted material. Yet you list that
you have for trade the Live-Aid performance (broadcast on TV), the
Mexico City Popmart performance (also broadcast on TV). There was no
copyright information during the credits on these shows? And why
wouldn't the band's live performances of their recorded material (which
is copyrighted) not be protected by copyright laws.

I went to the grayzone site you suggested and looked at the FAQ and they
mentioned this about bootlegged recordings.

Bootleg recordings are the unauthorized recording of a musical broadcast
on radio or television or of a live concert. Note the word
*unauthorized*.

With President Clinton's signing of the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (GATT) in December 1994, a federal anti-bootleg statute was
created. Up until then, generally only state statutes had been available
to law enforcement and the RIAA's anti-piracy unit to protect artists'
recording rights against bootleggers.
Like the pre-existing state statutes, the new federal statute
criminalizes the unauthorized manufacture, distribution or trafficking
in sound recordings and music videos of "live" musical performances
and further down:

4) Anti-Bootleg Statute {Section 2319A}: This federal anti-bootleg
statute was created in December 1994. Like the pre-existing state
statutes, the new federal statute criminalizes the unauthorized
manufacture, distribution or trafficking in sound recordings and music
videos of "live" musical performances. However, the federal statute also
provides for the seizure of bootleg recordings or music videos
manufactured outside the United States by U.S. Customs at the point of
importation. In effect, bootleg recordings are now subject to seizure
and forfeiture in the same manner as other property in violation of
customs laws.

Let's look at the state laws:

State Laws
Nearly all states have piracy related laws that make it a criminal
offense to pirate, counterfeit or bootleg audio recordings. The three
most commonly used state laws are:
3) Anti-Bootleg Statute:Arenas, promoters and performers are protected
against piracy under this statute, making it a crime to manufacture the
sounds of a live performance of an artist and to *distribute* these
reproductions. (my emphasis, doesn't specify sell or trade)
 Here the word bootleg is used specifically, not pirate. Where does it
say that trading in bootlegs is legal as opposed to profiting?

deseree

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Thu Aug 06 1998 - 09:00:34 PDT