Rules/Policy on Digital Music (MP3/AAC/etc). Copyrighted Material

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
dmbfan825 said:
I understand the policy, as it's a policy for many other boards I post at, but I still have the same question/comment:

If I wanted to try and purchase, let's say an "Out Of Control" single with the money actually going to U2, it is impossible. The only way to obtain such an item is through eBay or something like that. It is not comercially available to the public. Yes, the songs are copyrighted, but the single is not available to the public in which the band would receive money. Yet we still aren't able to spread those tracks. I'm confused on that part of the ordeal. Not ripping on Interference or anything like that, but just in general.
Click to expand...

I think U2 just made this point moot, since you can buy it officially at iTunes. Now, iTunes isn't available everywhere yet, but it is in the USA (and UK, Germany, France, Netherlands and a bunch of other countries). So now you can get that song and pay U2 for it.

C ya!

Marty
 
Popmartijn said:


I think U2 just made this point moot, since you can buy it officially at iTunes. Now, iTunes isn't available everywhere yet, but it is in the USA (and UK, Germany, France, Netherlands and a bunch of other countries). So now you can get that song and pay U2 for it.

C ya!

Marty
Click to expand...

I hate to say this... but Marty is very very right. In fact, I believe that it is music being available digiitally that is aiding/supporting the labels with their draconian ways.
 
Mark when did this become about who is risking more?

You guys run fan sites that are ostensibly not for profit. I don't want to see any site I'm a member of shut down, Interference included. Note that I am a paying member.

But in the end, it is just a fan site. Would Elvis and hundreds if not thousands of Interference fans be upset/devastated/whatever if it was shut down? Of course, and I would be in that group. Would life go on? Probably.

But think if these "laws" were applied to the extent of the points which I first raised, which you even acknowledged as being good points....just how devastating to me would it be if I could no longer do what I love 3 or more times a week, that being perform U2 songs, let others know about our shows, or if, in an extreme case, I couldn't even walk into a local pub with my acoustic and play a few U2 songs? Just how radically do you think that would change my life?

Do you think this is what U2 intended when they signed the agreement? I don't, yet with the way the points have been worded, i.e., 'any use of lyrics and compositions', worst-case scenarios might involve something like this happening.

That is why I'm making noise about it. Everyone's risk and liability is completely relevant to their situation, and given that we do have to charge for our performances, we could be on a bigger hook than either of you, if you want comparisons.
 
Sorry, I didn't mean to make it a debate. My point was simply that Elvis and I could be legally liable (lawsuits, etc.).

Yes, it would greatly affect everyone. I didn't make the connection that you were in a U2 cover band. Sorry, I missed that.
 
Actually, therefore, you could also be sued if you performed their songs, so it could affect you just as much from a legal standpoint.

That sucks.
 
Yeah, it does. Glad you saw my response was totally not in anger, it's more dismay at this point.

I think there is one area we are ok in though, I have to check on it to make sure under Canadian regulations...I think venues are responsible for paying performance rights royalties to an agency here called SOCAN who in turn distribute to the labels/artists. Same for DJs etc.

I have to look into that more though. Ultimately, can they ever really stop the music though?

:shrug:
 
I have a question...

Let's just say, I'm working in NYC, close to the Brooklyn Bridge. I happen to have a video recording device with me (phone, camera, recorder). I think it's a day like any other, but then, I see a crowd of people. I'm curious... I check it out - and realize it's U2! They're performing!! I can't believe it! So I whip out my phone or camera and try to capture some video of that performance.

Now, it's a free concert. U2's in my "back yard" performing "unannounced". I just happen to be in the right place at the right time. I want to share my good fortune by playing my captured video clips on-line.

Are the governing bodies going to tell me that I can't share these video clips I took? They are my video clips! I have the right to do with them what I want!

If the answer, though, is that the government can come after me for daring to share my video clips, what's next? No more home movies for fear of the government taking them away from me? Do I dare take a photo of my friend/family member in front of the White House because I don't have a "license" to do so? At what point is something considered public?

I get not sharing songs from an album. This is copyrighted material.

But if U2 is performing a free concert, is that copyrighted? Because if that's the case, can't the architecht for the White House sue me for taking a picture of it without his permission?

There is some nasty legal treading going on here and I don't like the way it's going. :mad:
 
I am in the Philippines and have no access to those songs. Please email me the songs or the yoursendit links privately at atyclb4ever@yahoo.com

I will email a high quality yousendit of the SNL performance of Vertigo in return - around 70 MB.

Thanks people.

Cheers,

J
 
doctorwho said:
I have a question...
Are the governing bodies going to tell me that I can't share these video clips I took? They are my video clips! I have the right to do with them what I want!

If the answer, though, is that the government can come after me for daring to share my video clips, what's next? No more home movies for fear of the government taking them away from me? Do I dare take a photo of my friend/family member in front of the White House because I don't have a "license" to do so? At what point is something considered public?

But if U2 is performing a free concert, is that copyrighted?

Because if that's the case, can't the architecht for the White House sue me for taking a picture of it without his permission?

There is some nasty legal treading going on here and I don't like the way it's going. :mad:
Click to expand...



a) Showing a few friends and family, even making a couple of copies for personal keepsake... is fine. Distribution over the net is a completely different ball game. Of course, it also depends on the content... is it mostly of U2? or mostly of you/family?

b) Whats next? ermm.. copyright lockdown. the end of innovation, creativity, and art in general.

c) See (a)

d) See (a)

e) Very few copyrighted works today will ever enter the 'public domain'. If it's copyright, which everything AUTOMATICALLY is now, its not public.

f) yes... a free u2 concert is copyrighted.

g) The white House is a public/govt building, and I believe most govt things of that nature fall under public domain. However, a building like the Rock Hall Museum is copyright... and you cant sell or publish a picture w/o permission.

h) And as far as nasty legal stuff... I completely agree. See (b)
 
I must say that I was surprised when I realised that commercial mp3’s were being post here. It seemed to be OK to everybody, so I posted some that were being requested. I understand that it’s not correct and I won’t be posting any from now on.
Concerning the lyrics, I’m not sure I understood what was discussed here. So, Elvis, please tell me is there anything wrong in my signature? Is it illicit to use a few words from my favourite lyricist and favourite band in a forum that pays tribute to them? It worries me that people might suggest that I’m stealing something from my favourite band, without having knowledge of it.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if the band's stance on bootlegs will change if, as rumoured, they sign a deal to distribute live shows via iTunes?
 
ascender_RS said:
I wonder if the band's stance on bootlegs will change if, as rumoured, they sign a deal to distribute live shows via iTunes?
Click to expand...


Then trading bootlegs will be as illegal as trading a studio album.
 
Man this sucks...and by definition I guess New Year's Dublin & Boston '81 are now "official releases" on iTunes, so I can't share them? What's really a joke is my recordings of those shows are better quality (lossless) than what's being sold...I do think it's scaremongering by the way, and I don't see how it's cost-effective to go prosecuting everybody that shares an mp3. Now if they went after the boot-sellers on ebay that's another story. Seems it would make more sense for the industry to get in on blank media (cdr, dvdr) as they did with blank tape in the past, get their money that way, instead of creating this conflict with the average music fan; in effect, biting the hand that feeds it. Interestingly enough, I recently had a torrent pulled at bt.easytree.org because some of the tracks were officially released...though the recording I was sharing (an R.E.M. boot) was an audience recording and not the same as what was released.

Anyway, back on topic...OK, no sharing official material, and if it comes to no sharing at all, I'd continue to post (and share where I can for as long as I can anyway).
 
I think the movie industry has handled this much better. They simply keep raising ticket prices in response to bootlegging and have not really clamped down on torrent downloading or bootlegs overseas.

What I'm wondering is, as a Canadian, I am legally allowed to download music from the internet, according to the Supreme Court. So, how do you deal with something like this?

Second, not all of us have access to iTunes, so it seems to me that we are shit out of luck, which is completely ridiculous. I have an iPod, I obviously wouldn't mind downloading off iTunes, but if I am given no such option, do they really believe that people are going to sit idly by and not find some way to help themselves?
 
The Supreme Court of Canada's decision on downloading was more along the lines of 'not illegal' (as opposed to expressly 'legal'). What the case boils down to is privacy concerns--the Supreme Court wasn't willing to allow a regulatory agency to monitor or collect information on individuals' activities on the Internet. Even if the industry wanted to press charges (like the RIAA did), our privacy laws do not allow for personal information attached to an Internet account to be divulged. If you can't name the person, you can't file charges against them. So, it's not technically 'illegal' to download music in Canada.

A link to the decision, if anyone cares to read it:
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2004scc045.wpd.html
 
I've removed the link to my website that was under my sig pic, but since my sig pic is not an active link, nor does it have the specific link written, I'm going to assume it's ok unless one of you kindly PM me & ask I remove it. (I do not want you guys to get in to trouble).

Shall I also remove said link from my profile or does that not count?

Lastly, I just want to give a shout out to all that I will continue to host what I host (which I don't really want to totally explain here & now for obvious reasons, but most of you should now what it all is, lol)...

I've been in touch with reps re: this issue & they have agreed to give me warnings if I breach any laws, at which point I have 3 days to remove said materials before being shut down. Thus far I've removed these items ASAP & worked very hard to keep up to date on changes in policies, laws, or just keeping informed on what does & does not count.

Well, that all being said, I completely and totally understand Elvis' decision. This site, if I am correct, was never intended for the trading, sharing, or downloading of music... Rather the discussion of... Granted, things change & grow over time, but this is a forum more for discussion & news, right? I dunno... It's early & I'm rambling...

I guess I'm just saying that I support your decision while simultaneously alerting others that I shall keep my site open (since it's purpose was originally to distribute, not discuss)...

Yeah, ok, I'm gonna go shut up now.

Happy Thanksgiving to all those celebrating it today!

Cheers,
Mel
 
dream chaser said:
I've removed the link to my website that was under my sig pic, but since my sig pic is not an active link, nor does it have the specific link written, I'm going to assume it's ok unless one of you kindly PM me & ask I remove it. (I do not want you guys to get in to trouble).

Shall I also remove said link from my profile or does that not count?
Click to expand...

It's fine to have a (text) link to your site in your sig, the profile link is fine as well. You just can't start threads saying "Hey dudes come check out my site!!111". ;)
 
neutral said:


It's fine to have a (text) link to your site in your sig, the profile link is fine as well. You just can't start threads saying "Hey dudes come check out my site!!111". ;)
Click to expand...

Ah, man, and I totally wanted to post, "Hey Dudes!!" :p ~jk

Thanks neutral. :)
 
I find it quite hard to believe that Interference STICKIED, MERGED and basically Kept threads with leaked 'Atomic Bomb' material in the spotlight...then decides "Oh, no more commercially released MP3s"...I am strongly against downloading and sharing commercially released stuff, so I'm not complaining about the new policy...just the timing! Why did you let tons of people post links to a leaked album and then decide to suddenly disallow any commercial MP3s...!

Oh crap! I've just realised...U2rome.com! What's going to happen to them? They have the Boston '81 bootleg, which is one of the greatest in existence, and it's now Officially released on the iTunes set...!!
 
Originally posted by
I find it quite hard to believe that Interference STICKIED, MERGED and basically Kept threads with leaked 'Atomic Bomb' material in the spotlight...then decides "Oh, no more commercially released MP3s"...I am strongly against downloading and sharing commercially released stuff, so I'm not complaining about the new policy...just the timing! Why did you let tons of people post links to a leaked album and then decide to suddenly disallow any commercial MP3s...!
Click to expand...

Because Elvis received a C&D letter between then and now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
Looking for the best storyteller of U2 - Garage to Stadius
Replies
0
Views
80
Dave A
D
Scorpionac
Songs that would fit better on SOI vs. SOE?
Replies
1
Views
417
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
LuckyNumber7
Desert Island Mini - LP Island - Rules & Sign Up Thread
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
4K
Axver
Axver
TheWanderer
2022 subscriber gift: Achtung Baby 30 Live
3 4 5
Replies
148
Views
16K
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
bono_212
B&C's 2020 Albums of the Year Thread
8 9 10
Replies
295
Views
11K
lazarus
lazarus

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom