The rights that cable networks have should surely be different from the rights that indiviaduals have no? What exactly do HBO have rights over- the Woody Guthrie song? Mr Seegers, Springsteen etcs performance of same? The crowd? The performance of the crowd in joining in? The Lincoln Memorial? Mr Seegars gestures inviting the crowd to join in? AHHH the telerecording... what if i do a video recording at the concert then, am I a pirate infringing HBOs rights? What if I do a video of the person next to me joining in with Mr Seegers' voice in the backround, do HBO own that? The idea of a 'public event' and how the performnce of Mr Seeger et al is not one 'really' is interesting, and the contrast between the sentiments of Mr Guthries song, the manner of it's performance, and copyright violation seems to me to be very odd. At the least, I hope HBO are paying handsomly to the estate of Woody Guthrie for the rights and also to those who took part. I fear that mmany people in the USA will never understand the UKs commitment to Public Service Broadcasting and a National Health Service, and that UKers (like me) are bewildered that something so hopeful and rich as the concert should be covered by a cable company, for profit. Profit that depends on excluding people by wether they can pay or not. Its the differnece between 'the right to access' and 'the right to profit'. Can a cable company have 'welfare'? Are the rights of a cable company- recording a crowd and performers- the same as an individual creating a work of art- even a film?