Herbie Hancock Quintet Plays "Cantaloupe Island":
Herbie Hancock recorded a string of wonderful Blue Note records in the 1960s, and one of his best was his 1964 recording Empyrean Isles with Freddie Hubbard on trumpet, Ron Carter on bass, and Tony Williams on drums. The album featured one very catchy tune, Cantaloupe Island, amidst the otherwise not-particularly-commercial music. Here's the original group joined by Joe Henderson playing the song on February 22, 1985, at a reunion concert celebrating the rebirth of Blue Note Records:
This performance is taken from a terrific DVD, One Night With Blue Note. Definitely worth checking out. (Oh, and for the copyright folks out there, I note that the clip has been up for almost a year and has over 125,000 views; I'm assuming that the copyright holders don't object to it being posted.)
This performance is taken from a terrific DVD, One Night With Blue Note. Definitely worth checking out. (Oh, and for the copyright folks out there, I note that the clip has been up for almost a year and has over 125,000 views; I'm assuming that the copyright holders don't object to it being posted.)
I'm totally behind you philosophically on this one but I'm certain that a lawyer of your caliber knows that this is no defense.
i dont think he means...if they do complain im in the clear...
i think he means..they wont complain..and if they do..then i loose..but its worth the risk because the risk is so slight.
The only "penalty" the blog suffers from its hosting of Kerr's continual copyright infringement (he posts these kinds of videos periodically) is that it weakens the philosophical underpinnings of the blog's stated commitment to the rule of law and of the constitution. Because Kerr and Volokh both financially benefit from copyright enforcement - seeing as how they both have books that they most emphatically do not put in the public domain - this also makes Kerr's copyright infringement fairly hypocritical.
Is this clear? Even though noone will sue Kerr (or Volokh for that matter), when Volokh turns around and tries to argue that "the First Amendment protects the Phelps" or that "the Second Amendment protects the individual right to bear arms" he loses credibility. If he can fudge on the copyright clause of the constitution to gain readership, why shouldn't he fudge on other aspects?
Could you elaborate on this point?
Copyright holders for something like the DVD in question ultimately trace back to a huge conglomerate, or at least that is my impression. I doubt they'd be much scared of taking on a sole law professor.
Even if they didn't, I would think law profs and lawyers in general don't want to spend the vast amounts of time and money (opportunity costs) on their hobbies.
A professor at my law school had action taken against him for comments left on his blog; instead of fighting (he would probably have won) he simply complied with the complainant's request. I'm sure Orin has a lot of other things to do with his free time, and I'd wager a guess that defending against a lawsuit--even if he felt very strongly about it--is pretty low on his priority list.
Plus as far as financially benefiting from this blog...I don't think they make much of anything (Orin said $1.50/hour or so, IIRC.) Furthermore, I doubt many visitors check this blog for the occasional video post by Orin. In short, removing these types of posts wouldn't harm their financial benefits, if any.
Frankly, I'm glad Orin posts these videos. I've just recently started to listen to the blues and it's hard to know where to start. I've picked up a few CDs based on what I've heard.
Since I believe there are courts which have held that even linking to a source without embedding it can be infringement, I wouldn't rest too heavily on this argument. On-topic, I love this piece, but because of Civilization II it always makes me think of Leonardo Da Vinci.
The issue isn't exactly the same but the 2ndC upheld and injunction against merely linking to the infringing work.
Similarly, linking can be contributory infringement.
The requests for settlement are usually sent out for file-sharing. Those rely on the fact that very few people actually challenge them, so sending one to computer law professor might be a bad idea.
It is because this blog frequently argues that the constitution and the laws protect people even when those protections are inconvenient. For example, Volokh argues that the First Amendment protects the Phelps demonstrations, even though nobody likes them. He also argues that the Second Amendment protects individuals' right to bear arms in Washington, even if the majority feels the state's and even gun-owners' interests are better served by abrogating the right. Many other legal positions on this blog take that pattern.
By contrast, as to copyright, the blog takes the position that because it's convenient and fun to violate artists' copyright, it's OK.
To the extent that (1) this site wants to build popular readership, it should continue to violate copyright rights of artists by contributorily infringing their works. To the extent that (2) the site wants to foster its general stance of respect for law and the constitution the site should respect copyright.
As another caveat, however, the kind of reader supporting or enticed by the first kind of violation is the kind of reader unlikely to be sympathetic to the strong constitutional interpretations of the rest of the blog. So even if the blog does draw readers by violating copyright, those readers will necessarily create an unfriendly atmosphere for, say, the Second Amendment philosophy here. That's because those readers are precisely the readers for whom expediency and self-interest trump disinterested legal analysis.
I don't ask Kerr or Volokh to act one way or other, nor for readers to accept approach (1) or (2) as better or worse. I don't argue that the libertarian or constitutionalist orientation of this blog is correct. I only ask that the philosophical and practical consequences to that orientation of condoning contributory infringement be understood.
Siona, this site has great discussion of law and its growth. Copyright law is nowhere near a decided and final issue, so what is the problem?
Your own ignorance of DMCA is astounding. The RIAA would post a DMCA notice to Youtube's ISP, and Youtube's ISP would remove the content - no need to notify Youtube directly. The ISP's are protected as common carriers, so they have no skin in the game to fight a DMCA notice that may not be legit. They simply remove the content without a fight. Typically the ISP and not the uploader is contacted regarding a DMCA notice, as it can be tricky to determine who a particular user is at any given moment, but the ISP has a clear "whois" brick &mortar or webmaster address for easy lawyering.
Youtube is well-known for removing potentially infringing content, and they are just as responsible and more visible than Volokh to a watchdog, so I see little moral issue here with contributory linking. Now, if the Conspiracy were linking to a bittorrent file or some other murky file, a bigger ethical question is raised.
In short, lighten up Francis.
Rights holders are reluctant to wield the full might of the law, knowing that public opinion will change those laws if aroused. I will be stunned if this sort of thing provokes more than a takedown request, even if this level of infringement would technically allow more.
@Siona: Unlike freedom of speech, copyright protection is only obliquely mentioned by the Consitution (as amended). Every infringement of free speech must be balanced against the constitutional forbidding its "abridgement". Current copyright protection is far stronger than the Constitution requires; in fact it is growing to the extent that it borders on too strong for the constitution. See Eldred v. Ashcroft. While respect for rule of law might restrain even socially acceptable copyright infringement, respect for the constitution would not.
Objection: irrelevant.
I thought this was a music website. The only reason I come here is for the free jazz