Archive

Postby jck_strw » Mon Dec 05, 2005 9:57 am

Yup, I've seen Ratdog's updated policy, but how come they're not telling archive.org to take down the Ratdog SBDs? I'm not being an asshole, but really, why not? Doesn't the same logic apply?

In fact, now that I think about it, this whole cover song bullshit doesn't make sense. Why just take down the SBDs? Why not the AUDs as well? In fact, wouldn't the Grateful Dead be even more liable because they instituted a special taper's section, for people to tape songs for which they in fact don't own the copyright? So, in effect, one could argue that the Grateful Dead gave exclusive license/permission to others to steal other people's copyright? Why one (SBD) and not the other (AUD)? If Bob is really worried about other people's copyright, wouldn't he want all the violations to be pulled?

"Yeah, there's a lot of bad 'isms' floatin' around this world, but one of the worst is commercialism. Make a buck, make a buck. Even in Brooklyn it's the same--don't care what Christmas stands for, just make a buck, make a buck."
http://db.etree.org/jck_strw - Tapelist
-----
"Now get back to the stands before I shave off half your mustache and shove it up your left nostril. "
Bad News Bears
User avatar
jck_strw
Senior Member
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 5:23 pm
Location: The mountains of Colorado

Postby strumminsix » Mon Dec 05, 2005 10:44 am

Why SBDs?

Because they came from the board via a patch and are then, by default, the responsibility of the GD.
User avatar
strumminsix
Senior Member
 
Posts: 6645
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Chicago

Postby Dire_Wolf » Mon Dec 05, 2005 11:14 am

As I was reading all of the posts regarding this subject I caught myself doodling a Steal Your Face" logo.... I guess I owe the boys a quarter... Oops... I just said "Steal your Face".... Make that 4 bits...
Dire_Wolf
 

Postby ebick » Mon Dec 05, 2005 11:55 am

Dire_Wolf wrote:As I was reading all of the posts regarding this subject I caught myself doodling a Steal Your Face" logo.... I guess I owe the boys a quarter... Oops... I just said "Steal your Face".... Make that 4 bits...


Sorry Dire, that's out of bounds.
User avatar
ebick
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 7:34 am
Location: Orlando, FL

Postby Dire_ Wolf » Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:35 pm

No need to aploogize.... My humor is lost with some... Which also includes myself on most occations.....

I am all for the boys getting their well deserved due for the 40+ years of service to us... The listening public.

The following is not sarcasm; Let's say I am in a cover band, doing a version of "All Along the Watchtower" that is obviously a cover of the GD doing a cover. It is recorded and lost forever in a pile of CD's in someones '87 Buick Century. I become WILDLY famous and someone finds these (Priceless)recordings I did way back in 2005 and "Posts" them to Archive.org. Will I have to send a check to Brother Dylan?
My what a tangled web we weave.......
Dire_ Wolf
 

Postby ebick » Mon Dec 05, 2005 1:42 pm

Dire_ Wolf wrote:Let's say I am in a cover band, doing a version of "All Along the Watchtower" that is obviously a cover of the GD doing a cover. It is recorded and lost forever in a pile of CD's in someones '87 Buick Century. I become WILDLY famous and someone finds these (Priceless)recordings I did way back in 2005 and "Posts" them to Archive.org. Will I have to send a check to Brother Dylan?


I guess the point is that if someone found them and then tried to sell the recordings, then yeah, you'd have to not only send a check to Mr. Zimmerman, but also first get the permission from his publishing company. If the finder of the gem were to just want to post it, well, what was the source? Did your band record this in a studio setting? Or did someone sitting at the bar break out a rogue microphone? If someone in your band was responsible for the recording, then, yes I think the person would need to get permission to post it.

The point here is perceived control. And that is probably where the boys have mis-behaved the most by letting the SBDs out in the first place. Whatever one comes away with for their motivation for the move at this time is irrelavent. Just because you let something go one for "this long" does not make you obligated to let it continue to go on.....in fact, I think quite the opposite.

The other thing, which is probably most responsible for delays in official statement and comments is the stage of infancy in which this whole thing resides. How long has archive.com been around? Whatever it is may seem like a long time, but in the grand scheme of things, it is a moment in the cosmos.

Lawyers will fight this stuff out for years. I don't hold Bob Weir responsible for having it all figured out.
Last edited by ebick on Mon Dec 05, 2005 3:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ebick
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 7:34 am
Location: Orlando, FL

Postby Phil_The_Other_One » Mon Dec 05, 2005 2:54 pm

Formally Dire Wolf !!!!!

BICK,
I enjoy the friendly conversation. I agree completely, All will "Lawyer-up" and have it out. My personal interest is purely that, personal. Not only do I want to hear "Eyes of the World" for the bazillionth time, but to hear that one little hook Mr. G put in just before they kicked into "Iko Iko".......

I also understand that I am speaking from both sides of my head. (Quite a cool trick) THEY SHOULD BE PAID(for the SBD's)! And, I am sure, in time, many of the SBD's will be out on a subscription service from GPD, or some other of vehicle of technology. They will be there for the asking... and a $5.95 a month fee.

I am in a very lucky position... While "Following the infestation" in the early '80s, I managed to get a "Formal" education in between shows so I have a little green to spend. It would not hurt my feelings a bit to pay the $5.95/month. It is a shame however that the communal attitude that brought about the band, no longer works, i.e. Jerry's guitars did belong to "The Grateful Dead" as a whole, but.... the guitars were Jerry's and it took a judge to (Sort of) figure that out.

I ramble, therefore I am......
Phil_The_Other_One
welcome
welcome
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 2:20 pm

Postby ebick » Mon Dec 05, 2005 3:20 pm

Wasn't that (or something similar to that) the vision......I remember they called it Terrapin Station at one point. I thought that the idea (among other things) was that you could purchase any show you wanted.

To me, that seems like a win/win. I could get that hard to find show in excellent quality and the band (and other artists who the band covered) could be compensated.

I suppose though, that if you were attempting to get "The Complete Grateful Dead"......if ya know what I mean.....this would be an expensive proposition.
User avatar
ebick
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 7:34 am
Location: Orlando, FL

Postby phpbb » Mon Dec 05, 2005 3:37 pm

That's actually why my link to archive.org is called "Terrapin Station".

Here's some links and quotes about Terrapin Station:

From Mickey:

"There will be an on-site research facility and library, housing the combined contents of several of the world's most valuable musical archives, and a series of listening stations that will allow visitors to listen to samplings of the Grateful Dead tape vault's greatest treasures."

From Phil: "A place to research, copy and purchase any recorded concert, song or sequence from the Grateful Dead archives."

http://dead.net/cavenweb/terrapin_site/questions.html

Personally, I think the biggest mistake they made was not having the alternative (Terrapin Station) ready to go the day they shut down archive.org. The complexity of it is that we all have a favorite version of a song from some concert. To think that itunes is going to store all of those shows so that one person can buy that wicked "Victim or the Crime" (joke) for $0.99 seems a little ridiculous for itunes, but that is what will need to be done.
User avatar
phpbb
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 9:37 pm

Postby Phil_The_Other_One » Tue Dec 06, 2005 12:42 pm

If we leave the ugly green monster out (Greed), and accept that music is art, and thereby artist, have a right to be paid for their work, then a limited number of downloads (hours of music?) could be purchased. I.e., 5 hours for five bucks...., 10 hours for ten bucks....

That puts the choice right where it belongs... in the maketplace at an afordable price.... Man... I should be on QVC!

This way... GDP could still produce "The Complete Grateful Dead" series from whichever SDB they want. And.... Offer it up on the "Internet" as an hourly based D/L.

As phpbb mentioned, I may not want the tuning /funicelli, funicelli (sp) but I could really dig on hearing The Grateful Dead version of "Crew Sluts" they did on the same night (I really don't think they ever covered that one....

But yet I still ramble.....

I'll start working on peace in the middle east.... It may be a little less complicated
Phil_The_Other_One
welcome
welcome
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 2:20 pm

Postby spilly » Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:16 pm

theres alot going on here than people seem to realize.
First off the Bobby bashing is uncalled for and inexcusable. What you have to realize is that most musicians don't own their own music. Corporate powerhouses have no care for an artist or the integrity of their work. They simply want to cash in on others talents. Doe's anybody remember when John Fogarty was sued for allegadly plagerizing himself. Look at Artimus Pyles situation. A band calling itself Lynyrd Skynyrd is touring and realising albums featuring songs he helped to write and he's not getting a dime.
The dead have reached a dangerous stage in their existance. They have no choise but to watch their backs as closly as they can. If some corporate raider asshole desides he wants compensation for every version of every cover song they played, he could very well win that law suit. Then as always others will follow untill DGP has been sued into bankruptsy.
I remember life before the internet very well. You kids seem to have taken the freedom to download for granted. We were lucky enough to have the free shows for as long as we did. Stop being greedy, or you'll wind up with no grateful dead at all.
The ability to trade shows is a privlage not a right. give it some time and I'm sure our boys will come up with an adaquate solution to the problem, untill then you'll have to buy your shows, and if your problem is that you can't afford a concert cd, I recomend you get a job and stop giving hippies a bad name.
Of course I don't mean to offend anybody, but sometimes a man needs to vent.
Stop talking shit about the people who were nice enough to share their talents with us for 40plus years, they can't help it if they've been backed into a corner. All they can do is try to fight their way out.
Peace and Love,
Spilly McGee
spilly
Bear
Bear
 
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 12:06 am
Location: Buffalo, NY

Postby guestor » Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:59 pm

It's the inconsistencies false truths and misinformation from the band members that is most
disheartening.

Am I to believe a site where all the work was done
by fans who are spreading live recordings at no
cost will cause a lawsuit for some songs being
cover songs but...........

Taking those same recordings and selling them for
profit under GDP will cause no lawsuit.

and if it is true...........

What about the other bands on Archive?

If Bob is so concerned........


What about Ratdog and it's covers on the same site.


and what does this have to do with Soundboards.

These soundboards were released by the band and/or
recorded by fans from the board which was pretty much
open policy many times including spring 1993.


What does sound quality have to do with it?

Aren't audience recordings just as liable.

Phil's story of "I didn't know" yet he profits is
a lie.

Mickey's statement borders on saying nothing to
completely lying.

Bob rants and then says he will release a statement
later that never happens.

Don't tell me sound quality is a factor because
that has no legal precedent.

Suing a band for doing a cover song not on a commercial release or paid for download has never
been done either.

A band or musician has creative license to do
THIER interpretation of a musical number in a live
setting and not be sued.

In fact, it's common practice which someone like
kenny can confirm.
guestor
 

Postby Phil_The_Other_One » Tue Dec 06, 2005 3:43 pm

This poor old dead horse..........
We keep kicking him.

If I, the greatest interpreter of Garcia / Hunter music (toungue firmly planted in cheek) decided that I would start recording all of the works of Jerrry and Bob H., and SOLD it to the millions that would pay me for it.......

Shouldn't Bob H. and Jer's estate (Whomever that might be) be 1) asked permission by me to use their material? and 2) if they agree, should they get a cut?

I do think it that simple... However, most of my thoughts are simple....
Enough.
Phil_The_Other_One
welcome
welcome
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 2:20 pm

Postby ebick » Tue Dec 06, 2005 7:40 pm

guestor wrote:Am I to believe a site where all the work was done
by fans who are spreading live recordings at no
cost will cause a lawsuit for some songs being
cover songs but...........

Taking those same recordings and selling them for
profit under GDP will cause no lawsuit.


You have chosen not to follow the whole discussion. There would be no lawsuit because the profits you mention would be the net AFTER paying royalties to the artists that wrote the songs being covered.

guestor wrote:and what does this have to do with Soundboards.

These soundboards were released by the band and/or
recorded by fans from the board which was pretty much
open policy many times including spring 1993.


What does sound quality have to do with it?

Aren't audience recordings just as liable.


Again, quality is not the issue, source is. SBDs are born from the equipment owned by the band and therefore are their property and therefore are under restrictions regarding sale and/or distribution. Audience recordings are not.
User avatar
ebick
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 7:34 am
Location: Orlando, FL

Postby jjbankhead » Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:04 pm

i don't have a lot to say on this, i wasn't alive for the majority of the Dead's success and it wasn't until a few years ago that i really got into their music.

But from what i have read in Scully's book, this doesn't surprise me, yeah the guys own those soundboard recordings, but they didn't care for so long that we all were DLing it, why all of a sudden shut it down and with no consistency as to the reason why. hmmm....Itunes.

It stings because i had been using GDlive to get hundreds of shows, now they no longer exist on that board, i do a lot of trading on Furthur, but haven't been on for a while didn't seem to affect their trading policies.

oh well. I am of the beleif that if Jerry were still alive this wouldn't be an issue. It sucks that those of you who have provided these deadhead sites have to stay so busy covering your asses. thanks for all your hard work. and thanks to RUkind for helping make me a better guitar player.
Image
jjbankhead
Mickey
Mickey
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 11:25 pm
Location: Portland, me

PreviousNext

Return to Grateful Dead General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests