Equipoise's Christmas Gift

Cafe Society
1

I understand why **Skip **closed the thread; it is indeed more than likely that the files offered by **Equipoise **are copyright protected. Unfortunately, the holders of some copyrights don’t understand that the entire point of having a copyright is so that they can make money by selling copies of the work: the copyright eliminates competition that might damage their earnings. But if they’re *not *selling copies, then there are no earnings to be damaged, and an unused *right of copy *has the ultimate effect of simply keeping some works in the dark. *I *say (personal, not legal, opinion here) that if the copyright holder is asleep on the job, and not making a work available to those who want it, then it should be perfectly legal for others to share free copies of the work, as long as they’re not profiting from it.

At any rate, that’s a debate for another thread. The reason I opened *this *thread is to tell you that I was in the Glenn Gould Theater in Toronto, Canada on December 3, 1993. I was in the invitation-only audience (no tickets were sold to the public) for the recording of the CBC special, “A Choral Christmas.” **Equipoise **and I, along with her husband, had been in the studio earlier that afternoon to watch rehearsals, and then the three of us went out to get something to eat with Victoria Williams while they prepared the studio for the evening performance. (Unfortunately, I pretty much missed the meal, because I had locked the keys in the rental car. :rolleyes: )

The extended edits of the radio broadcast provided by Eq’s broken links have never been made available for sale in any form, so unfortunately it’s not likely that you’ll every get a chance to hear them. Tapes were sent to me by the producer of the recording, so **Eq **and I have personal copies (if it’s possible to wear out an iPod track, I’m well on my way this Christmas season).

The release CD, Count Your Blessings, is available, though only in Canada. It’s missing some of my favorite moments from the concert, but it’s worth the price for Mary Margaret O’Hara’s dirty-blues version of “White Christmas” and Victoria Williams’s heartrending “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas” alone. The rest of the album–includes a jazzy belted “Deck the Halls” by Holly Cole–is just a bonus.

Let me add my voice to Equipoise’s Christmas wish, and express the hope that the copyright hoarders of this wonderful music will someday make it possible for you to hear all of it. For now, just get yourself the Canadian DVD. It will become one of your favorite Holiday albums.

2

I understand why the thread was closed too, and I have no problems with Skip’s doing his duty. I was listening to the radio broadcast last night and feeling sloppily nostalgic, but not just because I was in the audience. It’s such wonderful music, and these performances are so obscure and forgotten, it’s a real shame. It’s music for people who say there is no or very little good Christmas music. Regarding the thread, I apologise for flaunting the rules, but I know at least one person was happy with the gift (thanks freckafree) so I can’t help but be pleased by that.

The one song in that directory that I DO have permission to freely share is the Happy Rhodes version of “Oh Holy Night” (permission note) so though Christmas has come and gone, perhaps some will still enjoy it.

3

DVD? Sorry; been working long hours. I meant CD of course.

4

Come to think of it, I have a question for Skip: don’t people link to copyrighted material on **youtube **all the time? Those threads are always left open.

How is Equipoise’s link to a third-party site that hosts copyrighted material any different? Doesn’t that site carry the burden of copyright infringement? She didn’t post the lyrics or anything–she posted absolutely zero actual copyrighted material: she posted a link to a link, exactly like someone posting a link to a youtube video that may or may not be later taken down for copyright infringement, but certainly not locked at the Dope.

Seriously, please explain the distinction. Thanks.

5

Not only am I curious about the lissener-pointed-out YouTube double standard, Isn’t it also in a way a double standard that a possibly copyrighted performance of public domain songs was removed, but a self-produced version of a copyrighted song wasn’t?

6

My mistake- the Canadian choral performance features at least two copyrighted songs. I was only half-looking at the track listing.

7

  1. The rules have consistently been interpreted to mean you don’t promote illegal activities. Offering a link to a site where copyrighted material is posted and suggesting illegal download is therefore a violation of the rule.

  2. In this case, the link was to a site where material was provided by the OP herself (if I understand correctly). So, the link was for the purpose of the OP violating the law. That is even more clearly against the rules, as interpreted.

  3. In any case where copyrighted material is offered for download on any site (You Tube or otherwise) and a link is made to that site, if alerted, the Board authorities will close the thread and inactivate the link. That, too, has been pretty consistent so far as I know.

I never understand why it is people on the internet get upset when responsible actions are taken to prevent illegal actions of copyright infringement. It’s like the net should have some sort of “free pass.” :confused:

8

I don’t understand the personal investment you have in raining on this particular parade, DS, but please be reminded that I wasn’t asking you.

9

I understand what you’re saying DSYoungEsq. I have no problem with anyone calling me out. It was my bad and I apologise again. I stepped over the line by offering other people’s music. I’m sorry. I don’t want this to turn into a Pit thread because I was tipsy and nostalgic last night.

I just don’t want anyone calling me out if in the future I post links to mp3s and lyrics to Happy Rhodes songs (and you know it’s gonna happen, I can’t not do it). I have her specific permission to do that.

10

In any case, that’s not the question: the recordings themselves are copyrighted.

11

There is also, by the way, a general policy against junior modding, so please don’t feel the need the explain board rules to me.

I’ll respectfully await a more authoritative response.

12

This has been discussed a few times in ATMB. Here is the best example where TubaDiva gives the official rationale for Youtube links being allowed.

13

Really? Please go back and re-read your question; it sounds to me like you were asking a question to the general populace.

If your question is only for moderators, and if we’re going to get all rules-intensive here, go put this in ATMB. And how’s about coming down off the high horse while you’re at it?

Yeah, because that’s the last thing anyone should expect when they ask for an explanation of board rules.

14

right:

Again: why was Equipoised thread locked?

15

Equpoise’s

16

:rolleyes:

17

Please quit with the arguing ok? I don’t want my name (or A Choral Christmas/Count Your Blessings by association) to be any muddier (or, ha, more misspelled) than it is. The whole YouTube/Google Video quandary) is interesting, but consider starting a thread in Great Debates or About This Message Board.

18

If you really want an answer (as opposed to multiple posts intended to do nothing but make a public point), you could always email the mod in question. :rolleyes:

19

Equipoise, thanks for the song (the one that you have permission to disseminate.)

– IG

20

Viewing video through YouTube (and other, similar video services) is not, as far as I’m aware, against any United States law; simply linking to a YouTube video is also, as far as I’m aware, not a violation of any law (though, my layman’s understanding of copyright law is undeniably imperfect). Furthermore, YouTube’s purpose is not to provide a safe harbor for illegally-uploaded copyrighted videos and has, in the past, removed said videos upon discovery and/or at the insistence of the copyright holders, indicating to me that they are not promoting illegal activities even if some of their users act poorly.

On the other hand, Equipoise’s site clearly was violating copyright law, and the site was and is maintained by Equipoise herself. Even if her intentions were good, she was breaking the law and promoting such illegal activities on the SDMB by both starting the thread and encouraging others to download the files. Hers was a violation of the rules here.

Now, why was the thread closed? Well, once the link was disabled, the purpose of the thread was rendered moot. If Equipoise wants to start a new thread discussing the music (without offering copies of it), she’s more than welcome to do so.

Any further questions on my particular ruling should be directed to a new thread in the BBQ Pit. Questions about the board’s rules and philosophy on YouTube videos should be directed to a new thread in ATMB. Let’s not hijack this thread any further.