 sj |
||
|
||
Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II
|
|
|
Subject: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: Margo Date: 11 Nov 99 - 02:58 PM Hope you don't mind Part 2 of round 2. The other was getting lenghty and took forever to load. |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: Bert Date: 11 Nov 99 - 03:45 PM Jeri, you say..... My next wildest dream has Max saying something along the lines of "We wish to cooperate, and would have from the beginning, if you had indicated that cooperation rather than opposition was what you expected and desired. What do you really want?" Max already tried that approach with them, right from the start. What they want us to do is to remove all the offending material, without them telling us what that material is. OR THEY'LL SUE US. Bert. |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: Bert Date: 11 Nov 99 - 04:00 PM Publisher, unfortunately they 'did' ask for a list of the offending titles before they would 'consider' giving us a license. As an alternative they wanted us to remove those titles. And as I said above, they wouldn't tell us which titles were causing the problem. And to confuse the matter more, they have copyrighted versions of public domain material on their site. Bert. |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: dick greenhaus Date: 11 Nov 99 - 04:14 PM I'm confused. If, as the Publisher states, NMPA is looking for a list of what we have in the DT, it's easily obtainable from the alphabetical listing, at the top of this page. 26 keystrokes (plus, I guess, another 51 clicks on Back). |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: Bert Date: 11 Nov 99 - 04:41 PM It makes you think. Either they are not smart enough to do that OR they are 'only' interested in closing us down. |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: A Publisher Date: 11 Nov 99 - 04:55 PM As for the copyright PD works on HFA/NMPA's site - those are a classic example of misunderstanding about PD. A new arrangement of a PD song creates a new copyright. Yes, publishers do it all the time to keep important works from falling into the public domain (and that may or may not be morally right. I'm not here to argue that with you), but often heirs to a work also often hire someone to do this as well (in other words, it's not always the publisher doing this). To reply to the request for links - here's a few: POPULAR MYTHS ABOUT COPYRIGHT www.copylaw.com/articles/copy-myths.html (written by a copyright attorney) www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html GENERAL INFORMATION Library of Congress Circular on Copyright - palimpsest.stanford.edu/bytopic/intprop/circ1.htm Copyright Resource Page www.aimnet.com/~carroll/copyright/faq-home.html COPYRIGHT LEGISLATION The Digital Millenium Copyright Act - lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pdf (NOTE: you need an Adobe Acrobat reader plug in on your browser to read this). Finally, my group which meets with the HFA/NMPA regularly has designed an all-purpose letter regarding internet licensing. It's at www.nmpa.org/nmpa/expression.html As I said, this is not the educational site I envision, but it's a start. Now - I must go do my work. |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Nov 99 - 05:10 PM There are a couple of posting that came on to the Round 32 part 1 thread that didn't make it to the Round 2 Part 2 thread (is this making your head spin too?). Anyway one was from A Publisher, and s/he expressed surprise at the idea of a rude letter from HFA. So here's a copy of it in case s/he can't find it.
: October 4, 1999
Via Certified Mail Max Spiegel The Digital Tradition 28 Powell Street Greenwich, CT 06831 Re: "The Mudcat Café"/www.mudcat.org
Dear Mr. Spiegel:
As you may be aware, the National Music Publishers Association, Inc. (NMPA) is a national association of over 700 American music publishers. It has come to our attention that you have participated in, caused or authorized, via the above referenced website, the reproduction, distribution and transmission of lyrics of copyrighted musical compositions owned or controlled by our publisher members. As far as we are aware, no authority for such activities has been obtained from our members who own the copyrights in the musical compositions involved. Accordingly, on behalf of our members, we demand that you immediately cease and desist from all such infringing activity. We further demand that within ten days of the date of this letter, you confirm that you have complied with the foregoing demand and provide us with your proposal for amicably resolving our members' claims against you. If we have not received a timely response to the foregoing demands, we will advise our members, and legal action for willful copyright infringement may be brought against you. This letter is written without prejudice to all of our members' rights and remedies at law or in equity, which are hereby reserved on their behalf. Sincerely Charles J. Sanders
|
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: katlaughing Date: 11 Nov 99 - 06:27 PM It's simple, really, if we split the work up, we each take a few songs, change a word or note, here or there and they are no longer the copyrighted material in contention that we don't even know the name of right? Then Dick and Max or whomever can copyright THOSE versions and do whatever they want with them. When we registered my brother's work wiht the copyright office, thatw as what we were told. Anybody could change them ever so slightly and our copyright would not cover it. Has this changed?
|
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: MTM Date: 11 Nov 99 - 07:11 PM Kat Might be a bit of a stretch, but what you are referring to could be considered a form of parody. In copyright squabbles, parody is often considered to fall under the fair use clause of copyright law. Judgement of whether a fair use is indeed a fair use or an infringement considers the following factors: 1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. This is probably redundant info to you, but there it be anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: Margo Date: 11 Nov 99 - 07:12 PM But Kat, I wonder if such a thing would hold up in court? After all, courts do consider intent......Margarita |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: Paul G. Date: 11 Nov 99 - 07:49 PM Max --Wasn't your next conversation with the sheisters, er, lawyers today? What happened? |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: A Publisher Date: 11 Nov 99 - 08:14 PM Kat- You cannot create a new arrangement (altering lyrics, etc.) of an already copyrighted work without the copyright owner's permission. That is infringement and would not be viewed nicely now that you have been made absolutely aware of same.
|
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: A Publisher Date: 11 Nov 99 - 08:15 PM Fair use is a very difficult thing to prove. Parody is harder still. Having made public your idea to do so would immediately cancel all claims of fair use.
|
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: Barry Finn Date: 11 Nov 99 - 09:00 PM I'm so tickled that Dear Publisher has the artist's well being at heart & above all their best interests. I don't understand how the artist signs or gives away control of their work to their publisher unless their pressured right from the start (with their best interests at heart, Little Richard should be in on this thread). Why on earth would , as Dear Publisher put it earlier, the publishing companies want control over one's copyrighted material unless it's a very good business move (which tends to make me tink 100 times on their intent). It was mentioned above about Mudcat becoming a publishing company & maybe giving Harry Fox a go for his business. A better way would be to use the internet (see if Harry employs more networkers than the amount of folkies that visit this site daily, either Dick mentioned a million a day or a week - hopefully I got that close). If all the singer/musicians/songwriters boycotted any publisher that had business dealings with these leeches than they may take a 2nd look, if a movement like this took hold of the internet the news would surley pick it up & lend to it's momentum maybe the embarrassment, the bad publicity, the financial blow & the unjust dealings would cease & these blood suckers would have the tables & the laws turned in favor of the artist. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: katlaughing Date: 11 Nov 99 - 09:31 PM Oh, well, it was a thought and a myth I've heard over the years, but I think I will do some more checking just to be sure. Publisher, one of the main reasons the Mudcat is one of the best places on the web is because of the honesty and openness of most people who come here and wind up staying. While you've been helpful, I still question your motivation in keeping your identity and you rcomplaint secret. Are you a regular who has sucked us all in with camraderie and would we then die of shock after having our trust violated by finding out who you really are? This is a site maintained on a totally volunteer basis by folks who have been willing to comply from the start. HFA or yourself or anyone else who has a problem and wants their material removed should quit the machinations and just let Max and Dick know which ones and be done with it. Otherwise, in the end, with the highhandness which HFA has already demonstrated, the only ones who will come out with anything are the lawyers and that would be senseless stupidity for all concerned. There really is no need for the continued threats and machinations. HFA has paid staff who can do their homework, compile a list and notify Max. katlaughingNOT! |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: harpgirl Date: 11 Nov 99 - 09:45 PM ...you go girl! |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: Lonesome EJ Date: 11 Nov 99 - 10:03 PM she shoots she scores! Right on,Kat-ripping! LEJ |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: Malcolm Douglas Date: 11 Nov 99 - 10:46 PM As I understand it, while it is quite possible to copyright a new arrangement of a PD song, the original version on which it was based remains in public domain. Perhaps "a Publisher" would comment? Malcolm |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: dick greenhaus Date: 12 Nov 99 - 12:01 AM The Publisher-- "A new arrangement of a PD song creates a new copyright."
Clearly, this explains why Clementine, at the NMPA site |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: Jeri Date: 12 Nov 99 - 12:13 AM Honestly folks, I don't agree with everything A Publisher has said but he/she appears to have an open mind, and doesn't deserve to be treated like the spawn of Satan. Sucking us in? Violating our trust? How? I don't have any problem with anonymity unless someone hides behind it so they can be nasty without taking responsibility. There's no reason I can think of why I need to know who s/he is. If we treat people as enemies, they may become enemies. If we treat them as friends, they may become friends. Too bad those lawyers didn't think of that. Kat, as to your third paragraph...YES!!!! Malcolm, I'm sure only the copyright of an arrangement of a public domain song would stand up in court. There are gobs of copyrighted PD songs out there now, but not many would be foolish enough to sue for royalties on the PD music and words. They'd be remarkably foolish to tackle some of the people here, with all of their vast resources and knowledge. A Publisher, per Max's phone conversation with them (click here) they wanted a list with the PD material removed. That was a bit strange. These guys are treating him like a bad guy, but one who they trust to judge whether a song is PD or copyrighted. |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: Metchosin Date: 12 Nov 99 - 12:28 AM Why do I keep having visions of Farenheit 451 creep into my mind! I once heard some arschloch state that the meek might inherit the earth but they'll never take title to it. It wasn't funny then and it still isn't. Mitigation of loss seems to be the fundamental issue of concern to any copyright owner. It therefore behooves us to ponder whether or not any loss in financial terms will be suffered by the aforesaid copyright holder. It may be argued that the unlimited access to this material poses the risk that unscrupulous individuals may subsequently use matierial found on Mudcat for performance and personal profit. However, all of this material, copywritten or not is available from numerous other sources , therefore frightened, anonymous publishers and their posturing attorneys will have a difficult time demonstrating loss attributable to the non-profit activities of Mudcat. As I understand it, no one is required to give up material or "evidence" to another party seeking to litigate without instruction by the Court for an Examination for Discovery. I know there are a lot of lawyers who are also musicians who might be able to wade through this sabre rattling and veiled threat campaign.If you are out there please shed a little light and expertise on the subject. Perhaps we should all remember that a great deal of this material is also in public libraries. Should they too be locked up and censured? |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: katlaughing Date: 12 Nov 99 - 12:39 AM Jeri, I thought it was pretty obvious that I meant her/his Mudcat identity, if s/he had one prior to being A Publisher. I don't really care who they really are; I just want to know if it is someone we have all trusted and come to know here as another Mudcatter before they were A Publisher. Yes, s/he seems to be trying to be reasonable, but when asked for specifics, s/he obfuscates and plays coy, while their appointed representative goes on the offensive and is unreasonable. Logically, the HFA, with its paid staff, IF they really care, should be the ones who have to diligently comb through various sites for any of their clients' copyrighted material; that is, presumably what they get paid for, i.e. protection of their client's property. To come on like gangbusters and then expect a bunch of volunteerswhom they are accusing to do all of the work for them is ridiculous. I hope A Publisher calls them to task for this; with over half a million titles, I would expect A Publisher's voice would be paid heed to at HFA/NMPA. I still say it is a simple matter. Why would HFA/NMPA continue to be the bullies, when Max has already indicated his desire to comply? The only reason I can see is a seeming megamaniacal desire to control it all. If this weren't true, they know they could resolve the matter very quickly and easily, from all that I have read on these threads. |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: Margo Date: 12 Nov 99 - 01:10 AM Publisher hasn't addressed the question of why the Digital Tradition database isn't simply downloaded by those who want to see what is in it. The information is there for the taking. Why the nasty letter and demand for a list? Margo |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: Wolfgang Date: 12 Nov 99 - 04:34 AM Publisher did state in the first post s/he was not a regular. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: Ferrara Date: 12 Nov 99 - 08:53 AM Just caught up on the end of the first thread, and on this one. There's a lot of thoughts roiling around in my head, but the only one I can figure out how to express, is that I'm really grateful to A Publisher for their interest in the site and their attempt to communicate and make a bridge between the two sides. I don't always like the things s/he says, but they're reasonable and they're stated fairly. Publisher, about the list that HFA requested. The Mudcat/DT is a non-profit, wholly volunteer organization, maintained primarily by three people who all have real jobs in addition. Even if they wanted to, I suspect they couldn't scour that database for copyrighted material in less than a six months. Figuring out which of the non-licensed music is actually copyrighted somewhere would be a monstrous huge job. So for practical reasons as well as principal, the protesting publishers and agencies have to do the job themselves if they want it done. Thanks for taking on your part of it. Folks, I don't think most of the darts that have been thrown at Publisher are justified. I've had a lot more hope for a sane resolution of this issue since s/he came on the scene. Thanks for listening. - Rita Ferrara
|
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: Bert Date: 12 Nov 99 - 09:33 AM Publisher, Re: copyright material on HFA website. I didn't say that I didn't understand it. I said that it confuses the issue. For example, if HFA have 6 versions of a song and we have six on our site, we will have to check each version against every other, 36 checks, to make sure that we do not have one of 'their' versions posted. Why can't they just sell (or give, as BMA have done) us a license? I suspect that their sole intent is to close this site down. And these are the guys that you have chosen to represent your business. It is because you are associated with them that you are receiving a certain amount of flack from some of us. If you lie down with a dog you'll wake up with fleas, as the saying goes. Don't worry about the anonimity issue, many of us use nicknames and 'A Publisher' is as good as any. Bert. |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: Date: 12 Nov 99 - 11:14 AM Actualy Bert as you well know the Identity of 'A Publisher' is very easy for anyone at your location to get. It's called a Admin protocol. Do a mask query and get the Arins addy then call the Amin there for a street addy ...that simple ...I have done it many a time.
|
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: Gary T Date: 12 Nov 99 - 11:23 AM I have no idea what "A Pulisher's" motives are. In reading his posts, I see nothing accusatory, inflamatory, or defensive. I do see what apparently are statements of fact and interpretation of relevant concepts. It strikes me as being rather neutral. It certainly couldn't hurt to see things from a publisher's viewpoint, and perhaps that is what we are being provided. |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: Bert Date: 12 Nov 99 - 11:43 AM The Publisher, like the anonymous poster above, wishes to remain anonymous. Although I am, of course, curious about his identity, I would sooner respect that wish and have him post anonymously rather than not at all. It is clear that he doesn't always agree with NMPA and he could be a valuable intermediary in getting this issue resolved. Bert. |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: MMario Date: 12 Nov 99 - 11:47 AM The only objections I have to A Publishers posts are the statements claiming that the MudCat has copyrighted material posted without permission with NO documentation for the statement. Withdrawing the copyrighted material would solve the problem. How can this be done if he/she/they do not identify the material? "I don't have the time to look for it, but I know you have it there" doesn't quite seem up to snuff to me. |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: Max Date: 12 Nov 99 - 11:50 AM I called yesterday, just as they asked me to, and got some voicemail. Left a message, no call back as yet. What I really want is to not talk to a lawyer. HFA is a business, and what I want to talk about is business, not law. I want to negotiate with a businessman at HFA. I am sure we can come up with a solution. Seems the lawyers make unreasonable requests, no... impossible requests that they know we can't do, thereby immediately making us defiant. That's what I am going to try to do. |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: Metchosin Date: 12 Nov 99 - 11:51 AM The issue, despite what has been posted by A Publisher, still boils down to: Does Mudcat and the Digitrad make money from the services provided. If the answer is No! No! No! how can any royalties accrue to anyone be it the publisher or heirs.! |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: MMario Date: 12 Nov 99 - 11:59 AM Metchosin - whether or not a profit is made does not appear to make any difference under current copyright law. As I am given to understand, you cannot reproduce a copyrighted object legaly in any way unless a mechanical reproduction fee is paid to the copyright holder. In the case of an object "published" on the internet, that would mean paying a fee for every download. |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: lloyd61 Date: 12 Nov 99 - 12:04 PM The Publisher.. You said: "my group which meets with the HFA/NMPA regularly has designed an all-purpose letter regarding internet licensing. It's at www.nmpa.org/nmpa/expression.html As I said, this is not the educational site I envision, but it's a start. " Ok, Come forward, Work with us.
|
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: Metchosin Date: 12 Nov 99 - 12:12 PM Thanks MMario. You have clarified that issue for me and saved me from having to wade back through part 1. Do you know if it is a flat fee or based upon a percentage? |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: MMario Date: 12 Nov 99 - 12:16 PM THAT part I don't think anyone has figured out yet. Copyright law is still trying to catch up with technology. |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: Bill D Date: 12 Nov 99 - 12:45 PM Oscar Brand sure knows about changing a few words or lines and then re-copyrighting the material..and I always HATED that...I object to THAT road on principle. As to anons claim that "the Identity of 'A Publisher' is very easy for anyone at your location to get."...not necessarily...I know how to post thru anon servers and chained proxies until it is 99.99& impossible to trace...(I don't DO this..I just have read how..) as to the issue at hand and Publishers involvement...If Publisher has been reading Mudcat for even a short while, surely he/she realizes we are DIFFERENT from pop music sites who are TRYING to subvert the law..we are quite willing to either GET permission or remove those few songs which their owners/protectors are so upset about. There is NO reason to conduct HFA's usual slash & burn campaign to keep anyone from publishing anything without checking with HFA first!!!!...Without ever meeting anyone from HFA and discussing 'high moral principles' with them, my impression is of a Spanish Inquisition.."here...sign this confession and promise never to do it again...never mind what is on the first few pages...you don't need to see the charges." If Publisher has ANY contacts with HFA, I hope that he will try to help work out the solution that Max has said HE is willing to do in a business-like way! |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: katlaughing Date: 12 Nov 99 - 12:55 PM Yea, Bill, except in this case, they want the accused to provide those first few pages of charges! |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: Jeri Date: 12 Nov 99 - 01:06 PM Max, did you try calling the number on their web page for questions about licensing? Did you try the e-mail for the Internet Licensing Information Department? Links are in this message. (I am so tempted to call these guys...) A Publisher wants to protect the rights of his/her organization and the people they represent. S/he has engaged HFA/NMPA to do the enforcement. HFA/NMPA indicates protection of copyright holders rights is their goal. Everything's fine right up to the point where the goals stop and the action starts. Their methods remind me of other types of "protection" agencies. They threaten to sue instead of burn down your business. Same result. The main difference is that the other type of protection agency gives you a chance to pay up before they torch your place. Not fair to blame A Publisher for the all the nastiness of HFA/NMPA lawyers, although s/he has to take a certain amount of responsibility for supporting them in doing what they are doing. If S/he tells them "I want you to license our works, not bash heads. These are prospective customers you're alienating," it seems s/he is doing the right thing. It took a lot of guts to post here. I'm thinking s/he (c'mon, you can at least give us a pronoun) expected abuse as opposed to discussion. It takes a lot of guts to continue to post. Does anyone wonder if A Publisher is posting anonymously because HFA/NMPA might be unhappy with him/her talking to us? ("Jeez - we're trying to scare the doodie out of them, and you're in there being all polite and reasonable? Knock it off and let us do our jobs!") |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: Metchosin Date: 12 Nov 99 - 01:10 PM Has there been instruction by the Court for an Examination of Discovery? |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: MTM Date: 12 Nov 99 - 01:16 PM Publisher- Again I am thrilled that you've been kind enopugh to continue a dialogue here and representing your views and I hope that you continue to do so. And again I mean no disrespect, but sometimes your proclamations of what the law is seem misleading. Indeed the idea of parodying all non PD works in the DT would be nore tedious than expunging the material, but the publicizing the intention to parody does not preclude its use as a defense. It is the intent and object of the parody that is considered as a factor. But most of these concerns are settled out of court when rights clearinghouses decide realize that they can somehow strike a deal and make a buck. "Forbidden Broadway" comes to mind. This approach to the problem is perhaps an exercise in futility, but it has something to do with the consideration of just what folk music is and how it is and will be transmitted, and whether it can be categorically squashed because it falls into a grey area of copyright law. Also, the copyright of an arrangement of a PD work does not extend the duration of the copyright of the original work, it merely creates a copyright for that arrangement. |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: Jeri Date: 12 Nov 99 - 01:43 PM Metchosin, according to what Max has posted so far, there has been no legal action taken yet. |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: Jack (Who is called Jack) Date: 12 Nov 99 - 04:11 PM Metchosin, If you make and distribute copies of copyrighted materiel you have to pay royalties for it whether you make money on the endeavor or not. Under the law, the issue isn't whether you made money, its whether you made copies. Just like if you rob somebody at gunpoint, it doesn't matter if you don't get anything from them. Similarly, if you don't collect money, and don't pay the required royalties, it doesn't matter, you still owe the money.
|
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: Bert Date: 12 Nov 99 - 04:37 PM We offered to buy a license. Why are we still having a problem? |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: Chet W. Date: 12 Nov 99 - 04:44 PM A few of the above statements, especially from the gracious "publisher", are simply not true. As someone has pointed out, of course you can copyright an arrangement of a PD or expired song. This has absolutely no effect on the copyright, or lack of it, of the original material. I have done this myself a few times, I have been advised so by my attorney and my publisher, and I have read the law myself. Not true. Further, in the United States you do not need the author's permission to do a new arrangement of his/her song, and you can register your own copyright for the arrangement, but not for the original work. And, it does matter whether you are making money or not, at least for recordings. If a performer makes a recording, has copies made, and gives them away, as is often done for demos sent to radio stations in advance of the actual album, there is no copyright liability. Again, I know this from experience, having been paid and not paid as the situation called for. I don't think BMI would have failed to go after royalties for my songs that have been demoed. The "publisher" is either not very knowledgeable about his profession, trying to mislead us, trying to scare us, or, most likely all three. I admire some of the attempts to be nice to him, but I'm afraid he is not providing us with the truth, which no doubt helps to explain his anonymity. If anyone can prove me wrong under American law, I need to know. Chet |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: Metchosin Date: 12 Nov 99 - 05:13 PM Hi Jeri, As far as I am able to ascertain, here in Canada, you are under no legal obligation to provide anything to someone who threatens to sue etc. until receiving an instruction from the court for a call for Discoveries. I don't know American law but I am assuming that it is similar, both being based upon British Common Law. Again, I am not a lawyer, just had some family experience for setting presidence under Canadian law. During discovery as far as I know the plaintiff has to present the offending documents etc.. I stand to be corrected. |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: Chet W. Date: 12 Nov 99 - 05:14 PM And furthermore, Mr Publisher, I'll be nice too, but I for one would appreciate it if you didn't reappear here with questionable (see how nice I am?) advice without identifying yourself. We are not stupid, nor do we appreciate rudeness and gutlessness. The above was my own opinion, and not that of the Mudcat or its members. Chet (my own name) |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: katlaughing Date: 12 Nov 99 - 05:26 PM Thank you, Chet. That is what my brother has always been told about his music, too. kat(my name, too) |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: MTM Date: 12 Nov 99 - 05:47 PM Chet, you speak truth. Without a devil's advocate like "A Publisher", (don't mean to demonize), your personal experience with copyright law might not have landed in this thread, but now that the dialog is open on the subject, and we know how a publishing company might stand where they stand on their interpretion of copyright law, we can only continue the dialog by not representing opinions as legal truisms and avoiding misrepresentation of the law for an agenda. |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: Chet W. Date: 12 Nov 99 - 06:43 PM You're right, I should have verified for those who don't know me here that I am not an attorney, I am not giving legal advice, free or otherwise. I am simply telling of my own experiences in these matters. My last message is, as a musician, writer and performer, however, a professional one. Thanks, Chet |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: T in Oklahoma (Okiemockbird) Date: 12 Nov 99 - 07:21 PM "A Publisher" seems to think we at the Mudcat are unaware of the distinction between a work in the public domain and a copyrighted derivative work. However, this distinction has come up more than once in this forum over the years. More relevant to the current situation is the publishing industry's attempt to manipulate this distinction to create marginal or spurious copyrights which seem designed to make the public afraid to excercise its rights even to pure PD. This article by Paul Heald, and the article of which this is the abstract, discuss how trivial can be the modifications to which the publishing industry sometimes tries to assert copyright. Similar problems are mentioned by Krasilovsky and Shemel:
In another place, Krasilovsky and Shemel remark,
It is not we, then, but the publishing and entertainment industries that need to be educated about copyright. These robber-barons need to be reminded that all works of the human mind are inherently public property, like an improvement in a public park. Copyright is an artificial regime, created by the public for the public's own purposes. During a certain term, the public generously refrains from excersising its full rights in its property, instead giving the author a monopoly over certain uses of the work. This generous gift of the public to the author is intended to encourage authors to contribute to the public domain. To achieve this end the public has generously created not only reprint rights, but performance rights, mechanical rights, and synchronization rights. (In the 19th century there were only reprint rights, and performance rights to plays.) It has also increased the term of copyright from 28 years (1790), to 42 years (1831), to 56 years (1909), to 75 years (1976). But the copyright barons have abused the public's generosity. They have recently engineered an extension of the copyright term to an absurd 95 years, they resisted the explicit incorporation of fair use provisions into the 1976 law, and they are attempting to engineer a revision of the Uniform Commercial Code which will make it possible for them to compel the public, through the mechanism of "shrink-wrap" licenses, to sign away its rights even to the public domain. And all this is quite apart from some of the silliness that is practiced under the guise of trademark law. "A Publisher" disingenuously fails to note that it is partly due to this repeated expansion of the term of copyright, vigorously sought by his own industry, that users have difficulties in determining the copyright status of lyrics. If the term of copyright had remained at 56 years, clear documentation of public domain status of many lyrics would be easier to find. Or, in the case of copyrighted lyrics, the rightsholder would be easier to find. Much of the required documentation would be in every public library, rather than only in a few university rare book rooms. Even the Library of Congress found it impossible to locate many rightsholders for its microfilm preservation project:
Section 108 applies only to libraries. The publishing industry, through its lobbyists, has obtained laws that make it extremely difficult for an organization like the Digital Tradition to determine the copyright status of a work, and to find a rightsholder if one needs to be found. Then the same industry steps forward and "offers" (for a fee) to "solve" these problems for us. We deserve better than this. Copyright, as I mentioned above, is in theory a gift by the public to the authors (and, indirectly, to the publishers.) We should be treated with gratitude and respect for making it possible for the publishing industry to exist at all. But I don't feel that we are being so treated. I think we are entitled to be skeptical, and angry. T. |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: Chet W. Date: 12 Nov 99 - 07:31 PM Right on, T. Chet |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: MTM Date: 12 Nov 99 - 07:37 PM sweet, t. and they would've gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for you meddling kids
|
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: Chet W. Date: 12 Nov 99 - 09:06 PM T, This US Code sec. 107 (1988), footnote 8 in the Heald article, would seem to put Mudcat in the clear. Can we find out if this section was ever superseded by statute or court opinion, without spending any money? Great work, Chet |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: A Publisher Date: 12 Nov 99 - 09:43 PM Chet - I think you misunderstood what I was saying. You cannot substantially change a copyrighted work (i.e., a new arrangement or adding lyrics to an instrumental) without the copyright holder's permission. That is what I was referring to initially. Arrangements of a PD work, can, obviously, be copyrighted by the new arranger, without any permission as there's no one to ask permission from! With all due respect to you as a musician, the vast majority of musicians and writers I work with have little or no understanding of copyright law. They frequently can, and do, misunderstand the law in regard to copyright. As to the necessity for money to be paid - copyright law is very, very clear. Whether or not for profit, YOU CANNOT COPY AND DISTRIBUTE COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL without permission from the copyright owner. PERIOD. I am also not an attorney, but I do have experience that equates to a paralegal certificate in the music publishing field. I have extensive history working with contracts, and international copyright law, and have worked in this field for 15 years. I will be the first to tell you when I don't know the answer to something. As for the more calm postings here referring to Max's dealings with the HFA/NMPA attorneys, I'm afraid (sigh) that attorneys in our business come across as extremely heavy-handed when it may not necessarily be called for. That is something I have taken our company's in-house attorney to task for in the past. I don't think that a nasty "cease and desist" letter is a good first line. A polite "perhaps you aren't aware" letter would probably be best. But I can only make suggestions - at the end of the day, I cannot tell them how to do their job.
|
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: MTM Date: 12 Nov 99 - 09:56 PM Chet-- I've been combing for that info myself. Looking here for recent appelate court decisions and here for an accurate version of US code title 17. Anyone have any other good copyright sites not underwritten by publishers, please inform. |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: MTM Date: 12 Nov 99 - 10:12 PM I'm sure everyone's familiar with the 2 live crew case (Campbell V. Acuff-Rose Music) where the Supreme Court decided that 2 live's "parodic" version of "Oh Pretty Woman" did not infringe upon the copyright of the original work. The finding rather refutes the claim that one cannot substantially change a copyrighted work without the copyright holder's permission. In fact, according to the decision, "The more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use. " Not saying that this has too much to do with our current argument of whether the DT could be clear under the fair use clause, just trying to set the record straight. |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: A Publisher Date: 12 Nov 99 - 10:34 PM Bert: I just realized on my drive home that you and I were talking about two different areas of copyright, I believe. If you are referring to RECORDINGS of copyrights, that creates another right (called a master) and, yes, anyone can record any song without permission (provided it has already been recorded once with the owner's permission), BUT that use is what is called a compulsory mechanical license. Meaning you are NOT copyrighting the work as your own and you are paying royalties to the copyright owner. Just thought I'd clarify that. I was, and always will be in this forum, referring to printed uses. Copyright law in all its many uses is way too complex to get into other areas of use. The copyright to a song has a myriad of different licenses attached to it. The ones this site got from BMI and ASCAP (and I thank you very much for that!) are for a totally different use than printed lyrics - they only license for performances. There's a lot to be learned about this, so I'd prefer to stick to printed lyrics in this discussion, because that's what HFA/NMPA has approached you about.
|
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: A Publisher Date: 12 Nov 99 - 10:40 PM Sorry - I of course, meant Chet in that last post. A sidebar regarding 2Live Crew. That was an extremely controversial decision, even among the courts. In 99% of the courts in this country, fair use is notoriously difficult to prove. Also, to those musicians here who have been burned by record companies: I carefully opted to work in publishing and NOT in a record label because of the business practices I saw going on in labels. Publishers and labels do not always get along well. Think about this: HFA is the publishers' appointed "bad guy" to go after the labels for not paying us our royalties (and thus the writer and artist theirs) as well!
|
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: Barry Finn Date: 12 Nov 99 - 10:41 PM Very long, sorry. The following are snips from A.P with me replying .
but no-one at NMPA has the time necessary to do the searching which I have just done at this site. In fact, it is extremely rare that I have this much time.
Your tough luck, you expect us to burn up our resources so you'll have clear sailing. Barry
The publishing community is overwhelmed right now - and make no mistake about it MOST OF THE PRESSURE IS COMING FROM THE WRITERS THEMSELVES.
Same as above & do you expect us to believe your not self motivated & that the writers are the ones that are at fault. Barry
We ARE NOT HERE TO SPOIL ANYONE'S fun. We are here to PROTECT THE SONGWRITER who makes his/her living from royalties paid on uses of their songs.
I would say you need to protect your business & your way of earning a buck off the back of others. Barry
We are all music lovers here. What we need to keep in sight is that, without the ability to earn a living writing songs, we would be so much the poorer culturally. We need to protect the individual's right to claim ownership of their works. Please, I would like to request sanely that you simply provide NMPA with the list of titles on your site. I will be in touch them personally to discuss this site and make clear that I do not see it as being equivalent to an ILS.
Keep in touch, why? Poorer culturally? You're lending alot in that direction. You say you'll go though the list if need be, do it & be done with your pleading like a little lost kid. You protect yourself, blame the writer & personally, discuss this site all you'd like, your opinion makes no difference to me or to Hairy Fox. Barry
No, mine was not a form letter. And I nor my company can give you the right to use printed versions of our copyrighted material. That is because we have an agreement with Hal Leonard, whom we have given the EXCLUSIVE right to use printed versions of our lyrics.
Below you state that permission comes, if a deal is made, from the publisher. So then your interest isn't caused by the writer but by Hal & you can & then you can't grant permission & then it's the same with the writer? Barry
As a member of several internet communities in my own spare time (none of which violate any copyright laws), I sympathize very much with your feelings in this situation. Unfortunately, that does not change the fact that, on a VERY quick check of your database, I have already encountered one of my company's best selling titles. You ARE violating copyright law, whether that is wrong or right, it IS LAW.
Send us your evidence like you'd have us send ours. State which law we're breaking you must have that on the tip of your ***** or is that not another thing that you're at liberty to give out. Barry
We have 1/4 of a million titles in our catalog - many of which date from the 1930's. I do not have the time to peruse your database looking for all our titles, but I will nonetheless print out your database and take the time, because I see that many here do not wish to be breaking the law. Please do not make the assumption that an older song is PD. You'd be surprised at the songs that are NOT.
You think us under informed how belittling on your part. Download away it's free to all, AT NO COST Barry
I will provide NMPA with a list of titles you have which are copyrighted by my company. I am unable to negotiate or deal with you on an individual basis, nor is my company able to do so, as NMPA has been made our agent in this matter. Time and sheer volume of illegal internet posts do not allow any other manner of negotiation.
Download away ALREADY. Then stop with the threats & sh****t or get off the pot. Barry
A message for Max. I DO sympathize - I know you won't believe that, but it is true. My advice for you is to try to allow your members here who are willing to help you in clearing off all copyrighted material. It will make your life easier in the long run. Legal battles are very costly and emotionally exhausting. You can avoid that by sticking to TRULY Public Domain titles.
Again with the gentle nudging & again with us offering evidence against ourselves, do your job please & stop talking about how you & yours are going to do it. Barry
I'm not posting here as an official representing my company. My posts here are to help to educate all of you about copyright. That comment is not meant as a snub to any of you - almost everyone I know that doesn't work in music publishing doesn't understand it. Not as a remark to anyone here - but that includes musicians and writers, who are often unaware of their rights. (As an aside, a songwriter who has a deal with a music publisher does not have the right to grant permission for a use - that must come from the publisher).
This is truly an education, do I have to pay for that too? Now who's granting what to whom? Pretty soon you'll have the artist paying you for the privilege to create so's that you can sell it. Barry
Kat - you are correct about stepping in where I do not belong, I cannot state titles or my name or my company in this forum BECAUSE, as Aine noted, this is not the proper place for business to be conducted. And Aine, my appointed representative, the NMPA, HAS been in contact with Max in a private manner. I repeat, we CANNOT negotiate directly with any site, as we have existing agreements which cover that.
You have so many different agreements & they all seem to weigh in your favor. Kat is correct in more ways than you'd like. Barry
I reiterate - the only reason I've opened up this dialog here is that this appears to be a group of sane, reasonable lovers of music - deep lovers of music. We are not that far apart - the only reason myself and the people I work with are in this business is our love of music. The internet has created a SCREAMING need for public education about intellectual property and copyright. Prior to this there was simply no reason any of you needed to understand it
Please tell us how much you are like us, how we're all just a bunch of good ol' buddies & how you're in love with the same things that would make you kin to us, then sweet talk me into an alley & put a knife in my back. It's not the public that's doing the screaming for education (that'll surely cost them in the long run) but it's justice that John Q is in need of & John has always known & understood this. Barry
You DO have a very daunting list of titles here. It IS too much work for any one person. Please remember that, if I've correctly understood what Max has said about his correspondence with HFA/NMPA, they did not ask for a culled list of only copyrighted titles - they are willing to take on the responsibility of culling titles from the complete list.
Your point here is? Again? Barry
Once further comment: I wholeheartedly support the individual creator's right to do as he/she sees fit with their works. That includes giving the work away for free if that is what that individual chooses to do. That freedom does not equate to a freedom to take someone else's work when they have chosen to seek protection of their work and to earn money from it. It is always the choice of the composer.
It's also not up to the writer but the publisher, the way you claim above. Who's freedom to do what with what & for who & for how much? Barry
As for the copyright PD works on HFA/NMPA's site - those are a classic example of misunderstanding about PD. A new arrangement of a PD song creates a new copyright. Yes, publishers do it all the time to keep important works from falling into the public domain (and that may or may not be morally right. I'm not here to argue that with you), but often heirs to a work also often hire someone to do this as well (in other words, it's not always the publisher doing this).
I think there's more double talk here than there is on the inside of a chicken coop, though I'd rather deal with the chickens at least they don't hide how they peck. Barry
Someone reposted this letter. Thanks.
October 4, 1999
Our 10 days till doom are up, long up, go fishing elsewhere if you still have bait. I say that that's all you have & you're looking for more control over your commodity. Harry, the publishers & ilk see in this site a gold mine to good to just walk away from without giving it a good go for the money. Why? They are in the business of information control, those who have the lion's share have the wealth & the power. It's not the rights of an individual that's at stake but the survival of these mega info giants. The www is the info golden egg & if they lose control then the decease & die, if the win they go home with all the toys & screw you. I am so sorry for this long dribble but I am so sick of them that would suck the blood from life itself to advance their cheap view of their own self worth. I guess it's plain to see how I feel about A.P. & it's how I've felt from the start. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: Gary T Date: 13 Nov 99 - 12:03 AM OPEN QUESTION FOR A PUBLISHER I have been reviewing some posts on this thread, and one question is nagging me severely. It has been asked and alluded to several times, but I haven't seen anything like an answer to it. A Publisher, I would appreciate it very much if you would be so kind as to answer, or at least acknowledge, this issue. If HFA's immediate concern is to have a list of all titles on this site, why do they not download the list and have it right away? Why specifically request that the list be sent to them? In asking this, I assume that the downloading is a relatively quick thing to do (a few mouse-clicks, insert a disc?)--correct me if I'm wrong--and it's a given that HFA has computers and internet access. I just can't figure why so much energy seems to be devoted to asking for something to be provided when it's there for the taking. What am I missing? Thank you. |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: Chet W. Date: 13 Nov 99 - 12:10 AM Publisher, Cite Statutes, Cite court decisions. A court decision was controversial? That's why we have courts, to make the difficult decisions instead of bowing to popular sentiment. Do you have a US Supreme Court ruling or a subsequent statute that overrides the Campbell case? If not, I'd say it stands. I'm not an attorney. I'm a teacher. We are required to know a lot about copyright, and, having a special interest as a musician (informed), I have studied it more than I had to. Let's see those citations. Why won't you identify yourself? Would your employer disapprove? If you really want to help in a case where a severe injustice is already in motion, then do the right thing and say something we can use. Nameless witnesses, expert or otherwise, are not of much use. On second thought, there's no need to tell us. Tell Max. Chet |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: Date: 13 Nov 99 - 01:17 PM A Publihser is correct on one point only, anything copyright properly established IS PROTECTED from unauthorised copying of any kind! Means that when you 'print' cr stuff off the internet you are breaking the law. There are some exceptions here which are conveniently ignored by Music Corp et al. 1 Exceptions Some previously cr songs are now pd so they too are exempt. Conclusion. |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: T in Oklahoma (Okiemockbird) Date: 13 Nov 99 - 02:04 PM All the HFA needs to do, as so many of us have repeatedly stated, is present Max and Dick with a list of works on the DT for which they believe copyright has not been cleared. Max and Dick will then (1) remove the item; or (2) produce particulars of why they believe they HAVE permission to post the item; or (3) produce particulars of why they believe the claimed copyright is spurious. All of which would happen, much more expensively, in court. So it is no harder for HFA/NMPA to deal with the Mudcat out of court than in court. In my opinion, if this controversy ends up in court, it will be because HFA/NMPA were unwilling to deal reasonably. It would not be entirely easy to compare HFA's catalog to the DT and produce a preliminary list of matches. But in modern times, most such work would be done by a computer. The fundamental algorithm, in its least complex form, is so simple a twelve-year-old could write the program. Simply (a) pull the first line of a lyric out of the DT and (b) search for a match in HFA's catalog. This might take the computer days or weeks, but it's to do precisely this sort of repetitive work that we have computers. The program might have to be modified to deal with more complex situations, as when the first three verses of a lyric are PD and only the fourth verse is copyrighted. There would be still more complex situations, where the PD and copyrighted elements are mixed in the same verse. But these are solvable problems. So I repeat: if this matter ends up in court, I will suspect that the HFA/NMPA never intended to deal reasonably with the Mudcat. T. |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: T in Oklahoma (Okiemockbird) Date: 13 Nov 99 - 03:21 PM Chet W, Title 17 Section 107 (fair use) is still in the law, but its precise boundaries are not easy to determine. My own entirely private opinion (this is not legal advice, does not establish a lawyer-client relationship, etc.) is that 17 U.S.C. #107 would not apply to the Digital Tradition, though it might apply to some of what is posted to the Mudcat Discussion Forum. A good place for getting basic copyright questions answered is a listserv known as the cni-copyright forum at http://www.cni.org/Hforums/cni-copyright/. Obviously an internet discussion board can't take the place of a lawyer's advice, but some might find it a good place to hone their questions before taking them to a lawyer. Other places of interest might be: Lawyer Benedict O'Mahoney's web site. Law Professor Dennis S. Karjala's web site. T. |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Nov 99 - 08:22 PM okie's first post (2.04) sums it up well. And that is why I (not beinmg any kind of lawyer) think that, unless courts in America are quite remarkably weird (which is I suppose not unlikely of courts anywhere),there isn't much chance that an attempt to drag things into court at this stage would get anywhere. In other words the original, letter was a bullying bluff.
But I'm a bit irritated by "A publisher" S/he admits that the original bullying letter was "nasty" and inappropriate. But then s/he goes on to say "I can only make suggestions - at the end of the day, I cannot tell them how to do their job."
If you are paying someone to do a job and they do it in an incompetent way that involves insulting and offending people, (especially people whom you respect, and whom you value - and "A publisher" would have us believe that that is how he or she sees tends to see Mudcat), you don't just shrug and say "I cannot tell them how to do their job". Not if it's a bloke you get in to fix your plumbing, someone you are paying to take your dog for a work or some shyster lawyer. |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Nov 99 - 08:23 PM That dog was supposd to be goin for a walk... |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: katlaughing Date: 13 Nov 99 - 08:58 PM I just copied this from what looks like an interesting midi site of trad and other tunes. I think Max shoudl seriously consider soemthing like very prominently displayed. when I have more time, I will post a link to the Harvard thing he mentions. I am not including a link to hsi site because I don't feel like being a rat on anybody trying to do what we are here. Legal stuff, intellectual property, and all that ... I'd like to paraphrase the words of one of my favorite folk musicologists, U. Utah Phillips: No portion of the MIDI files listed here, nor the page text and graphics, may be reproduced in any form for the sake of profit or capital gain. Individuals and organizations who are seeking to return this music to the people who give it life and substance should feel free to use the material contained here. Further, I wish to place all of my work under the [cc] copy-counter rights restriction proposed by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School. What this means is that anyone is free to copy or redistribute this content, or freely distribute derivative works based on this content ... provided that the copies or derivative works also are copy-countered (with the [cc] symbol), and that the copies or derivative works also maintain the above link to the Berkman Center's Open Content project. There is material on this site which is authored by other folks, and used by permission. The above does not apply to their works ... they retain all rights, so please contact them via the links provided if you are interested in using their work in any way.
|
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: katlaughing Date: 14 Nov 99 - 09:42 AM I went to the Harvard site and decided it was important enough for a new thread. Please go to this thread if you are interested in more info on that link and subject. |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: T in Oklahoma (Okiemockbird) Date: 15 Nov 99 - 04:03 PM These news clips might be of interest. The "Free Republic" case, described here, may have aspects relevant to any Mudcat Forum policy review Max decides to undertake. Compulsory licenses for certain web activites (webcasting, I think), and attempts in Congress to make sure such licenses don't come into existence, are discussed here. T. |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: T in Oklahoma (Okiemockbird) Date: 16 Nov 99 - 10:22 AM An article at http://infoeagle.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/st_org/iptf/articles/content/1999060401.html describes recent internet-related legislation and court cases. Slightly less on point, but possibly interesting to some: An article at http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/97/05/17/timartart01001.html?999 reviews a book which discusses the notorious European "harmonization" which provided the flimsy excuse for the recent U.S. extension. T. |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: T in Oklahoma (Okiemockbird) Date: 17 Nov 99 - 09:55 AM In one of my earlier posts (11/12) I supplied a defective link to the Abstract of Paul Heald's Duke Law Journal Article, "Reviving the Rhetoric of the Public Interest: Choir Directors, Copy Machines, and New Arrangements of Public Domain Music", Duke Law Journal, 46(2),241-290, November, 1996. The correct link to the abstract is here. T. |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: T in Oklahoma (Okiemockbird) Date: 17 Nov 99 - 10:00 AM My last post got garbled, somehow. The link was wrong and a second blue clicky thingy vanished. The correct blue clicky thingy for the Heald abstract is here T. |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: Okiemockbird Date: 17 Nov 99 - 10:06 AM OK, now for the vanishing link: An excerpt (two footnotes) of Heald's article has been posted to the Eldred v. Reno web site, and can be found at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/eldredvreno/choir.html. T. |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: Okeimockbird Date: 02 Dec 99 - 11:18 AM Might as well refresh this one, too, since some of the discussion was continued here. T. |
|
Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II From: GUEST,Okiemockbird Date: 17 Apr 00 - 11:30 AM kat, can you provide a URL for the Utah Phillips site you mentioned in your post of November 13, 1999 ? T. |