The Grammy In Mathematics... Or Copyright Infringement?

from the you-decided dept

Tue, Feb 12th 2008 6:49pm — Mike Masnick

Slashdot points us to the absolutely fascinating story of how Woody Guthrie's daughter was able to restore the only recording of her father's live performance, that had been bootlegged using an old obsolete recording device. It took quite a bit of effort to restore the recording on an old wire-based device, and the effort got the mathematician who handled the restoration nominated for a Grammy, which he won. However, what struck me most about the story is that these days, people would be focused on how that simple act of recording would have been copyright infringement back when it occurred. Shouldn't we be happy that exactly that kind of infringement is now what allows us to hear Guthrie perform live? I'm sure Guthrie himself would agree. After all, he famously had a rather similar view of copyrights to many of us around here: "This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright # 154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don't give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that's all we wanted to do." Unfortunately, those who manage Guthrie's estate haven't always been so kind -- so it's nice to see they recognized this recording as a potential gem, rather than an unauthorized recording.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: bootlegs, copyright, grammy, restoration, woody guthrie

14 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

stander, 12 Feb 2008 @ 7:23pm

innocent
from the summary:
"restore the only recording of her father's live performance, that had been bootlegged"

That's a tazing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mathew Ingram, 12 Feb 2008 @ 9:09pm

I came across that one too -- fascinating work. The ironic thing is that I listened to both of the tracks, before and after the work that the restorers did, and I actually liked the original better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2008 @ 9:56pm
  
  Re:
  I'm that way sometimes about old recordings as well. Sometimes it seems the quality of the recording, though subpar by today's standards, actually ADDS to the value of the song. Hell, sometimes I drop the bass on my equalizer for some songs so that it sounds like I'm playing it on an old stereo.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark, 12 Feb 2008 @ 10:44pm

Recording a live performance is not copyright infr
Sorry, but a work is only granted copyright when it is "fixed". In fact, the person who originally made the recording is the person who owned the copyright on it, not Woody Guthrie.

Most live performances today come with a 'no recording devices' rule, but the power to prevent recording is contract law. I.e. It is a condition of entry to the venue. Nothing to do with copyright.

So if you come across a live performance in a public park, for example, you're perfectly free to record it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Feb 2008 @ 5:43am
  
  Re: Recording a live performance is not copyright
  Is that based on what your pothead Phishhead friends told you?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ehrichweiss, 13 Feb 2008 @ 7:44am
    
    Re: Re: Recording a live performance is not copyri
    No, that's just the law here in the U.S. and apparently more indepth than you're going to grasp so I'll just let you be the troll you are.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ChurchHatesTucker, 13 Feb 2008 @ 5:40am

Wire recordings are killing music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeffry Houser (profile), 13 Feb 2008 @ 5:57am

There are two elements to copyright in this case..
There are two aspects to copyright in this case. Copyright of the songs and copyright of the recording. They are different.

It seems likely that Woody Guthrie owns the copyright to the songs; but the bootlegger owns the copyright to the recording. The worst "crime" the bootlegger could be responsible for was breach of contract; which was made with the artists + venue when he bought the ticket.

Mark, mentioned copyright was not granted until it was fixed. Although possible, it seems unlikely to me that this bootleg was the first time any of these songs put into a fixed format. And even if that were the case, I highly doubt that the bootlegger could lay any claim to the songs. For example, when a band goes into the studio to record songs the recording engineer does not walk out of there with copyright credit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ehrichweiss, 13 Feb 2008 @ 7:51am
  
  Re: There are two elements to copyright in this ca
  The bootlegger doesn't own the songs, just the recording thereof. If the artist found out about the bootlegs and seized them, they actually could not then sell or distribute them without the bootlegger's permission. Ironic but I've seen it in action when bands break up, bitterly.
  
  Your assertion about the engineer is true however engineers are under contract to make the recording for the artists and the contract then implies copyright will be handed over to the artist.
  
  IANAL but I have enough experience that I could claim I slept at Holiday Inn or something..;)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stephen Foskett, 13 Feb 2008 @ 7:00am

The seminal 1969 live album by the Velvet Underground was recorded in similarly murky circumstances and yielded similarly fantastic results. Neither of these important musical recordings should and would exist if not for the love of the fans of the music. That alone makes me stand up and cheer!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Killer_Tofu (profile), 13 Feb 2008 @ 8:21am

Shocked
I am shocked that the RIAA didn't assinate the mathemitician before he finished and burn the recording.

Not far off from their current level of ethics ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Emily, 13 Feb 2008 @ 12:41pm

It just goes to show...
It's only copyright infringement if the accuser can't make money off of it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Feb 2008 @ 4:39pm

Copyright in "unfixed" works
In the US, Federal copyright has "occupied the field" for fixed works but state/common law still governs copyright in unfixed works. It's not technically correct to say that there is no copyright in an unfixed work. Rather, it varies from state to state whether there can be copyright in an unfixed work.

So, contrary to Mark's advice, you are not necessarily permitted to record musicians in the park.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ace Rimmer, 13 Feb 2008 @ 10:05pm

But
none of the comments here actually give the credit to the Guthrie estate for not stopping the recording from being released... I applaude them for this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]