Previous Next Index Thread

Re: Would like O&ITW Reunion@Telluride

 Ryan Dickey <> wrote:
 >>Well, Tim. I know a bunch of the people at Planet Bluegrass and I have to
 >>take exception at your charactarizing them by their "capitalistic
 >>attitude." They work very hard to make this happen and none of them are
 >>people I would consider even close to living a middle class lifestyle.
 >>through the policy of allowing taping. When an artist requests that you
 >>don't tape it is not fundamentally a legal issue, it is a moral one. It is
 >>their music and they have the right to give it away or not. We should not
 >>base our actions soley on the legal ramifications or whether or not we get
 >>caught. We need to respect our fellow people, especially those who are
 >Your post was interesting, but your argument lacked essentials, such as
 >JUSTIFICATION. You say it is not based on greed or capitalism, but why
 >else would the artist NOT let you tape? If he doesn't want people to hear
 >the music, he won't put on a concert. So we know that's not it. You
 >say to ignore legal justifications, and that you don't care. Whatever.
 >Your post is gobbledygook. Your whole justification is based on the
 >legal doctrine of private property, rooted in English Common Law.
 Actually, his post was easily understandable and made perfect sense.
 You have gobbledygook-ized it by viewing it in a legalistic way rather
 than the way it was obviously intended. 
 In response to the accusation that the record company is acting in a
 "capitalistic" manner (in a derogatory sense), he explained that the
 people involved are not "capitalistic" (i.e. driven primarily by the
 profit motive), but are rather doing it out of love for the music,
 while trying to earn enough money form the venture to make ends meet.
 Furthermore, although the artist does in fact have a legal right to
 control taping and could in fact pursue a lawsuit against a taper if
 the taper were caught, we shouldn't tape just because we know we can
 get away with it. We should respect the wishes of the artist to
 control distribution of his music, not because of the threat of a
 lawsuit, but because we respect the artist's wishes.
 >Come on! No one is breaking into his (or her's of course) house and
 >taping sessions that are incomplete or that the artist never wanted
 >anyone else to hear. These are public performances.
 Here's where things are starting to look like gobbledygook. The
 statement "These are public performances" appears to be an attempt at
 justifying the right to tape. However, that statement provides no
 justification for anything on either legal or moral grounds.
 Legally, copyright law is quite clear. The songwriter has the right to
 control copying of his work. Technically, the performer has no right
 to allow taping if he is performing the work of other writers. So the
 fact that it's a public performance has no relevance from a legal
 point of view.
 Morally, you can justify taping against the wishes of the artist only
 if you believe that the artist has no right to control the
 distribution of his music and to earn income from it. And even that's
 not sufficient justification, because to tape against an artist's
 wishes means nothing less than disrespect on a personal level towards
 that artist. If I ask you not to tape when I'm playing, and you tape
 anyway, that's a loud and clear message that you don't respect my
 >I'm not saying that there aren't good reasons not to tape. But a broken 
 >down truck filled with tents is not one of them, nor is the class status
 >of the artist. Not only is NOBODY making a profit from these tapes, but
 >individuals are going out of their way and investing serious capital
 >into recording equipment because they LOVE THE ARTIST'S MUSIC. If
 >you're going to make a silly argument like that on a Dead newsgroup
 >filled with tapers, please, at least make it coherent.
 The part about the truck, as I read it, was not intended to prove