Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel On City's Illegal Recordings Of Conversations With Journalists: 'Much Ado About Nothing'

from the we're-here-to-write-the-laws,-not-follow-them dept

Chicago city hall officials are in a bit of trouble for recording phone conversations with Chicago Tribune reporters without their consent. A city attorney is downplaying the incidents, insisting that there's no "widespread practice of such tapings" and promising that "steps are being taken" to prevent this from happening again.

Why is this a big deal? Because recording a conversation without the consent of all parties is a felony in Illinois. But what happens when city hall officials, who should be familiar with these laws, violate them? Not much. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel's response is that committing a felony is nothing to get excited about.

Asked about the recordings at an unrelated news conference Monday, Mayor Rahm Emanuel said the issue was “much ado about nothing.”

“My view is, like all, we have a press conference here, I expect my staff to have a record of it,” he said. “And if I have a phone conversation, an interview, I expect to have a record of it as well.”

But the commission of a felony is a very big deal if committed by regular citizens. Radley Balko says it's all about who's doing the recording... and who they're recording. 

So remember when Chicago police were arresting people for recording them, and charging them with crimes punishable by 10 or more years in prison? Remember the woman who was arrested and charged because she attempted to record Chicago PD internal affairs police browbeating her when she tried to report a sexual assault by a Chicago cop? Remember all that stuff we heard from Chicago PD and Cook County DA Anita Alvarez’s office about protecting privacy?

That's not an isolated event. Earlier this year, two men filed a lawsuit against the city of Chicago, alleging they were battered, strip-searched and falsely charged after filming a traffic accident caused by a police car. Late last year, a man was arrested for recording the police and charged with illegal eavesdropping and is now facing a sentence of up to 75 years in prison. Another man was arrested and told he was facing 15 years in prison for daring to record a traffic stop.

The good news is that the courts have rejected some of these cases, stating that the law these citizens were arrested for breaking may be unconstitutional. For now, the law still stands. And the recordings done by members of city hall are illegal. The claims that the recordings were simply inadvertent errors rather than part of something more nefarious don't wash when you take a look at what was being discussed when the recordings occurred.

The issue reached a public forum last week when a court filing in a wrongful death lawsuit against the city raised questions about whether a city spokeswoman had recorded Tribune reporters without their consent as they conducted a phone interview with Chicago police Superintendent Garry McCarthy in October 2011.

And in separate incidents this past September, city spokespeople twice recorded a Tribune reporter as he conducted phone interviews with a top city official involved in Emanuel's controversial speed camera program. The spokespeople acknowledged that they independently recorded the interviews without asking the reporter for consent.

Odd that the illegal recordings would have occurred during discussions about possible law enforcement malfeasance. Emanuel's press aides openly admit that recordings take place during media interviews about "controversial topics," but most of these interviews are done in person, making the recording obvious. No effort was made to inform these reporters that their conversations were being recorded.

Last month, the city turned over to the plaintiff's lawyers an audio recording and transcript of the conference call showing no evidence that McCarthy or Hamilton sought consent to record the Tribune reporters.

"Absent from the audio and the transcript was evidence of the parties' consent," according to a court filing last week by the plaintiff's attorney, Craig Sandberg.

Not only is the required consent absent, but the recordings seem to be missing as well:

Gerould Kern, senior vice president and editor of the Tribune, declined to comment Friday about the recordings. Instead, he cited the letter sent by Tribune Co. attorney Karen Flax to Patton, demanding that city officials cease recording Tribune reporters without consent. The letter also asked that the city preserve copies of all recorded conversations and turn them over to the Tribune.

In its response Saturday, the city said it was unclear whether there would be any tapes to turn over.

As Balko points out, the double standard on display here is egregious. Ordinary people get cuffed, threatened, charged with felonies and in some cases, beaten and strip-searched. City officials don't even get a slap on the wrist. Instead, they get the mayor's assurance that their illegal recordings are a whole lot of nothing for anyone to be concerned about. Even the "mysterious" disappearance of the requested recordings fails to raise an eyebrow. Just one of those things that happens to evidence that incriminates politicians and members of law enforcement.

The growing gap between the governing and the governed continues. Those on the enforcement side treat many laws as optional. Those governed and policed are still forced to comply with the laws, no matter how (to paraphrase Frank Zappa) badly written and randomly enforced.

Filed Under: chicago, double standard, rahm emanuel, recordings, wiretapping

Lomax Jukebox Going Digital Is Great News... But Let's Not Forget That He Claimed Copyright On Cultural Works That Weren't His

from the copyfraud dept

The NY Times recently reported on the excellent news that "technology has caught up to the imagination of Alan Lomax." In case you don't know, Lomax was something of a global folk music archivist and "ethnomusicologist." He traveled the world, recording local folk music in huge collections. He did this for decades, and apparently wanted to create a giant jukebox so people could hear everything he recorded. And, now, ten years after he died, the collection -- including more than 5,000 hours of recordings -- is going online. It's kicking off with 17,000 tracks, and much more is still being digitized.

The article talks about how he had a "utopian" vision in making this music available:

“Alan was doubly utopian, in that he was imagining something like the Internet based on the fact he had all this data and a set of parameters he thought of as predictive,” John Szwed, a Columbia University music professor and the author of “Alan Lomax: The Man Who Recorded the World,” a biography published in 2010, told The Times. “But he was also saying that the whole world can have all this data too, and it can be done in such a way that you can take it home.”

Now, to be clear, all of this is great, but I do wonder about some of the copyright questions here. Last year, we wrote about the bizarre and convoluted story of how Lomax is credited as a songwriter on a Jay-Z song. Apparently, when he recorded these random folk songs around the globe, he claimed copyrights on the works. This is, of course, questionable. At best, he might have a claim on a copyright to the sound recording only, though even that might be questioned, as his creative input into the recording likely would not be enough to qualify for copyright. The copyright, if any exists, would likely belong to the singers (and possibly whoever wrote the songs, though it's likely that many were simply passed down over time).

And yet, Lomax put a copyright claim on the works, including a recording he did of the traditional work song, "Rosie," recorded by Lomax at Parchman Farm, sung by convicts there. That song became the basis of a song by the Animals -- who didn't use the actual recording. Grand Funk Railroad then covered the song (again, not using the actual recording, but starting from scratch). However, Lomax was still credited as a songwriter, despite having nothing to do with it. KRS-One then sampled a guitar riff (having absolutely nothing to do with the original "Rosie") in a song... which Jay-Z then sampled in his song, "Takeover." Lomax's singular contribution was recording "Rosie," a traditional song which almost certainly was public domain. Even if Lomax could claim a copyright on his recording (still questionable), he had no songwriting credit... yet that's what it morphed into... and then stuck on songs going forward.

Perhaps the copyfraud achieved here created songwriting royalties that are now allowing the financing of this great digital jukebox... but it still makes me wonder just what the copyright setup will be of this jukebox. The folks behind it suggest that they'll be quite permissive, especially for non-profit usage, but it still makes you wonder about whether or not even that level of control is warranted.

Filed Under: alan lomax, copyright, culture, digital jukebox, folklorist, permission, recordings

Brian Eno Explains How The Recording Industry Is Like Whale Blubber

from the then-gas-came-along dept

Just before I sat down to write this post, I was having a very interesting (and fun) conversation with someone about the recording industry (someone very deep in the industry, who's been there for many years), who was arguing that selling recorded music needs to be a part of the business model. I was trying to suggest it was a bygone era, and that technology had made the idea that you need to sell music obsolete (though, if you can sell recorded music directly, more power to you -- I just don't think it becomes increasingly difficult). I made the point that technology always makes certain aspects of larger industries obsolete, pointing to the usual example of how automobiles made horse buggies obsolete, but certainly didn't harm the transportation industry. We started thinking up other examples, of industries massively changed by technology, that wiped out segments of that industry, and while I came up with a few, I was definitely searching for better examples.

Then I go back to my computer, and see an anonymous submission of a wonderfully brilliant interview with music legend Brian Eno... and right there at the end, he has a beautiful description of what's happening to the recording industry -- comparing it to whale blubber:

"I think records were just a little bubble through time and those who made a living from them for a while were lucky. There is no reason why anyone should have made so much money from selling records except that everything was right for this period of time. I always knew it would run out sooner or later. It couldn't last, and now it's running out. I don't particularly care that it is and like the way things are going. The record age was just a blip. It was a bit like if you had a source of whale blubber in the 1840s and it could be used as fuel. Before gas came along, if you traded in whale blubber, you were the richest man on Earth. Then gas came along and you'd be stuck with your whale blubber. Sorry mate -- history's moving along. Recorded music equals whale blubber. Eventually, something else will replace it."

I think we've got ourselves a new analogy worth remembering.

The rest of the interview is definitely worth reading. I won't spoil it, but I will say his thoughts on Bono are quite amusing. Separately, he had an interesting story about when he was producing both U2's last album and Coldplay's last album at the same time... and got scared that the same song would end up on both albums:

"It was fine. A few jokes. I felt like a ­philanderer who was with another woman and might make a slip and call her by the wrong name in bed. I had one computer that had all of the Coldplay stuff and all the U2 stuff. I had to very carefully label each folder because I was paranoid that I might end up with the same basic track for each group and I wouldn't notice until it was too late. There was a chance the same track might have appeared on both albums."

Given the somewhat ridiculous accusations last year about Coldplay copying music from The Cranky Boards, no, Joe Satriani no, Cat Stevens, this seemed like a fascinating admission -- but one that shows how different musicians might totally innocently end up with similar songs on their albums, not because of any vast copyright conspiracy, but through random other factors.

Filed Under: brian eno, music, recordings, whale blubber

The End of Studio Recordings?

from the probably-not dept

Tyler Cowen points us to an interesting post on the future of the classical music market. Bill Stensrud predicts that the major record labels will soon exit the classical music business, leaving behind Naxos, a label that saves money by paying musicians very little. Stensrud urges classical musicians to give up on the idea of making money by selling recorded music, and instead think of recorded music as a promotional tool. He paints a pretty stark picture of the future of the music business, predicting that "live recordings will completely replace studio recordings."

It certainly seems like a reasonable prediction that we'll see growth in live performance relative to studio performance. But Stensrud's overall prediction seems unduly grim. There's plenty of evidence that the Internet has benefitted classical music by introducing more people to the genre. And it seems pretty implausible that studio performances will disappear completely. If there's a demand for studio recordings, someone is going to figure out how to meet that demand profitably, whether that's through an ad-supported streaming service or as a way to promote the sale of products like musical instruments. Also, we should remember that most major orchestras depend on charitable contributions, so if it's really the case that it will be impossible to make studio recordings profitably (which seems unlikely) the same wealthy patrons who subsidize orchestras now are likely to step up to help pay for the costs of some studio recordings. Perhaps we'll see fewer studio recordings than we did in the 20th century, but studio recordings aren't going to disappear.

Still, Stensrud's fundamental point seems sound: in the 20th century, many classical musicians supported themselves by selling copies of recorded music. In the future, that's probably the wrong approach. Instead, musicians should free their music in order to increase sales of other products and services, such as music lessons, live performances, and (for the most successful) product endorsements.

Filed Under: classical music, recordings
Companies: naxos