According to this website, “A public performance is considered under many national laws to include any performance of a work at a place where the public is or can be present; or at a place not open to the public, but where a substantial number of persons outside the normal circle of a family and its close acquaintances is present. The right of public performance entitles the author or other copyright owner to authorize live performances of a work, such as a play in a theater, or an orchestra performance of a symphony in a concert hall. Public performance also includes performance by means of recordings. Thus a musical work is considered publicly performed when a sound recording of that work, or phonogram, is played over amplification equipment, for example in a discotheque, airplane, or shopping mall.”  Until reading this, I had never considered publicly playing a song to be considered a public performance.  I guess this means that with the weather warming up, people who play music on the quad need to get some kind of permission from the artist to play their music.

Although this may be a bit extreme, from my experiences, it seems as if going to a live concert is a completely different experience than listening to music on my ipod. Even though it is a lot more fun to go to a concert as the atmosphere is amazing, listening to the same songs on my ipod I find that they sound better; and in some cases they sound completely different. For example, here is a live version of one of Ke$ha’s live concerts, Rock in Rio; here are her published versions of the first two songs from that concert: We R Who We R and Take It Off. After listening to those songs it is hard not to realize the huge difference between her live performance and her better published versions. Thus, the fact that there is such a big difference I do not think that they should have the same restrictions in regard to copyright. I know that when people go to concerts they take videos on their phones and post them to youtube or facebook; and I think that there is nothing wrong with that. However, taking a video or recording a published song and then reposting it, without any consent is infringing on copyright.

Speeches are very different than published work. Even though the author of each may be the same (in some cases it’s not if there is a speech writer), published work is more polished than a speech.  A speech has structure, but there is room for the speaker to say what they want to.  A book has structure and there is no way of changing it.

In this video, (it is a very good video by the way), the canditate is talking about how America isn’t the greatest country in the world. People are video taping it. What someone video tapes someone saying something, it is obvious it is that person who said it.  Was the speech a public speech? Because if it was, it should be allowed to get distributed to the public because anyone could have gone.

If you need tickets to a speech, then there should be more regulations; especially if you have to buy tickets.  That means it is a private speech and there is a limit on the amount of people who could see it.  And this is the case for a reason.  If the speaker wanted everyone to have access to the speech, they would make it public.

I probably could have video taped Tony Blair’s speech, I didn’t try. I can try for the Goodall speech, but I don’t want to be kicked out.

Recently I have become aware of artists putting on online concerts for their fans to enjoy in the comfort of their own homes, for free. Usually such artists are not too popular, but this type of idea reminds me of how concerts used to be according to a clip from the sweet spot – not to make money, but rather to just get the music out there and share it. One may think that this type of concert is basically the same as looking up the songs on youtube; however, it does have the live aspect to it that makes it different. I wonder what would happen if someone were to audio record or videotape a concert like that? Would anyone ever even know it was being recorded? And the fact that its already free- would that mean it’s completely okay to be recorded?

Audio recordings deal with producers and other artists that contributed to the song and want a cut.  This makes recorded songs more strict with regards to copyright because of its expected payout.  Concerts on the other hand are sometimes more lenient with regards to recording when they understand the aura that results from a live performance.  A band that appreciates the presence of their aura is the Dave Matthews band.  In the legal section of their website they state, “Dave Matthews Band allows audiotaping at almost every live performance. We feel that each show is unique and want to offer our fans the opportunity to recreate the live experience through the audio reproduction of our shows.”  Hopefully more bands will begin to understand this concept and allow more recording.  Its interesting though that they only allow audio and no video recording..

This article explains laws with regards to recording live performances, the most important excerpt from this article explains what is legal vs what is practiced:

“Taping a portion of a show for your personal use is almost certainly fair use.  Except, since everyone realizes that stopping the taping is much much easier than pulling down videos from the internet, the venue might confiscate your phone until the end of the show or shorten your night by throwing you out of the show.  Both of which they can do.”

Copyright with regards to concerts and recorded music is similar.  they both must adhere to the 4 basic principles.  Recording a concert or copying a song are both mainly in violation of rules 3 and 4: the amount of the work as well as affecting the market for the work by obtaining it for free.  But since the amount is a determinant of a violation of copyright, video taping short personal segments is not against copyright laws.

I was thinking about this weeks prompt and the great speakers that are coming to Lafayette. I completely understand why we are not allowed to record their speeches. But what about our class lectures? The other day I noticed that two girls in my art history class were recording the lecture. I know that they never asked the teacher if this was okay. I was thinking about a book that my aunt gave me called “College Success”. It had a section on recording I noticed when I flipped through it and it mentioned that recording is not always a good idea and that a lecturer’s permission is necessary.

I am a TA in the art building and I was excited to learn that at the beginning of this semester we acquired a 3d printer. This seemed so futuristic and I was excited to learn how to use it and create things. The first program that we installed allowed us to access a database of already created objects that people were sharing. People knew that others would copy these objects. I was surprised however to see a lot of media material such as a Yoda miniature or a Pokemon. There are also such things as 3d scanners. Someone could hypothetically copy any action figure and start to reproduce the design as their own.

Last night I attented a talk in Kirby 104 given by Stanley Ronell (link includes just the basic facts about him), a Holocaust survivor. Although I wasn’t expecting to be able to relate this experience to copyright or other such Vast issues, it actually is quite relatable. In fact, one of the first things that Mr. Ronell mentioned was just how important it is to pass down stories from people to people. He talked about how Holocaust survivors are a dying breed and once they are gone, only we are left to tell and pass on their stories to future generations. That got me thinking about copyright. Who owns these stories? But then I thought, does it really matter who specifically “owns” the story, as long as the message is passed along? I think it is ironic how big time speakers such as Blair and Goodall will most likely not let you video tape their speech, while many Holocaust survivors, who I have come in contact with, in fact encourage just that.

Thus, I think the allowed copyright definitely depends on the message being portrayed by each speaker. Since the Holocaust speakers are usually speaking about their part in history, their specific horror stories, it makes sense to want to reccord such so we can all remember them(because they are not documented). On the other hand, Tony Blair and Jane Goodall are talked about so much online, in books, in journals, on TV..etc. For example, type in Blair or Goodalls name into google and you’ll get endless hits- with information galore about them. On the other hand, type in Stanley Ronell and although there are some hits there are significantly less. So, because there is already so much information out there on such big time speakers, it is not necessary to videotape or audio-record their words. However, because there is little known about this generation of Holocaust survivors, videtaping and audio-recording are really the only ways that their history will be preserved for good.