Topic: Legal info on recording

[ero3030]

The prosecutor would have the burden of proof to prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Of course -- successful prosecution would be all-but-impossible if a requisite element of the crime could not be proved.  However, the issue I'm raising isn't a conviction under the statutes/ordinances/regulations, but rather the hassle and expense that would be involved with "beating" such a conviction. 

one thing to keep in mind...

copyright is a civil case, not a criminal prosecution.

Civil cases do not require "guilt beyond reasonable doubt". They are a lot easier to win a case/lawsuit. But, that said, I've been in the business of talking copyright law, being a musician & photographer. Copyright claims are not cut & dry.

......

So, being a musician, having someone record one of your shows, & maybe trading it to friends, or keeping it to him/herself, there's going to be all that damages thing to prove. They might shell out thousands of dollars & the best they might get, is a copy of the recording from you... which, you'd probably give them if they wanted it anyway.

Now, think of the thousands of people recording your shows...

The moral of that story is don't listen to your friends.  Everyone seems to break life down into financial terms all the time.  Sue McDonalds if you burn yourself on a hot cup of coffee.  Sue a homeowner because you tripped over something on his property.   I believe in personal accountability so I've been over that bullshit forever.  Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. 

With respect to recording, I've never taken money for my recordings even when its been offered and never will.  Once in a while, I've accepted a ticket in exchange for recording but more often than not I've rejected that as well because I like supporting a band on the road.  Over the years, a few bands have sold my recordings on theie website to make a few bucks.  My reward is the honor that they appreciate my work enough to do so.  That said, I realize some people have studios and record for a living...I'm not passing judgement on them...I expect to be paid when I work my given profession.  But taping is my passion and hobby.  Monetizing it runs counter to my purpose for doing it.  I know this adds nothing to the strict legal discussion, but it's germane to the motivations I (and I think most of us here on ts.com) have for taping.

💯

[moondust.and.solitude]

18-4-604.3.1 is very poorly worded. If you look closely it doesn't speak on the intent to sell the recording, but intent to sell the device the performance is recorded upon. 

I know this is an old topic, but seeing that it has been recently resurrected, I'm adding a correction to your comment. You changed the wording from "article" to "device", which is incorrect.  The law is written as "to sell the article on which the live performance is recorded", meaning tape/CDR or some other sort of media.

[morst]

BUMP on the old thread...


How long are copyrights on ROIOs?
70 years?



At some point, mostly after I’m long gone, everything I recorded will cease to be subject to intellectual property monetization considerations.


Hm.
This fascinates me, to look forward…

[Scooter123]

Copyrights belong to the artist not the person that captured the recording in my judgment.

[morst]

Copyrights belong to the artist not the person that captured the recording in my judgment.

the underlying composition is not the property of the recordist, but I think a "sound recording" is. Copyright office says that there is not an automatic right to public display however.

"A sound recording is a series of musical, spoken, or other sounds fixed in a recording medium, such as a CD or digital file, called a “phonorecord.” Sound recordings can be created by the recording’s performer, the producer, or others. Note that there is no public display right for sound recordings and the public performance right is limited to “digital audio transmissions,” for example, digital streaming."
https://www.copyright.gov/engage/musicians/

[Scooter123]

There is a difference between publishing rights, which are typically owned by the artist for writing a song, the distribution of which without consent would be a civil infraction subjecting anyone using the song without consent to civil liability and copyright rights, usually once it has been fixed in a form that can be copied, such as being written down (sheet music) or recorded in a physical form.  It is hard for me to envision how any taper making a recording without the consent of the artist would possess either publishing or copyright rights. 

All that said, to me its really like how many angels can dance on the end of a pin.  Unless the taper publicly distributed the tape or sold it, the artist (publishing rights) or the record label (copyright rights) really wouldn't care.