Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: Charlie Baum
Date: 09 Nov 99 - 02:41 PM

I had this strange dream last night: Max sent HFA the ENTIRE Mudcat database as a 20 gigaterabyte e-mail attachment. (Actually it's probably bigger than that!)

--Charlie Baum

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: katlaughing
Date: 09 Nov 99 - 02:09 PM

The one thing nobody has pointed out, if we were to take the DT out of commission, is how Dick and Susan, who've spent their lives compiling and maintaining it, would feel. I understand the points made, I just think it sounds kind of crass or casual about their commitment and, after all, their property. They should NOT be forced off. Neither should HFA be able to assimilate their efforts' result into their site, as has been done with ILS.

I guess what I am trying to say is let's be a little sensitive and try not to sound so casual about dumping someone's life work.

kat

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: Ferrara
Date: 09 Nov 99 - 01:35 PM

McGrath of Harlow said, "Given that you have agreed to remove from the data base any songs which Harry the Fox and Co can plausibly identify as being copyrighted to anybody whom he represents, and that a complete copy of the data base has been made available to them, I find it hard to believe that any court would give time of day to a bid to use it to harass the MC or the DT at this point."

Max, there's much value to this point of view BUT MAKE SURE YOU CAN PROVE that you've done the above. Send a registered letter *and* a certified one with proof of receipt if necessary.

A lot of the posts here have made similar points: Bolster your case in any way possible, document everything, keep it in writing, avoid being overtly adversarial, don't converse with them over the phone or face to face without a lawyer present etc. Sounds like good advice to me.

And for us recipients of the Mudcat bounty, "try to find ways to support the financial drain on Max" is also good advice. - Rita F

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: MMario
Date: 09 Nov 99 - 12:56 PM

What worries me, is that HFA/NMPA are the ones that threatened and sued the ILS (Internatinal Lyric Server) and NOW the NMPA claims the ILS as "a subsidiary of HFA, Int." My, my, my, isn't THAT a coincidence.

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: Bert
Date: 09 Nov 99 - 12:45 PM

Anon, the last time I sat on my front porch playing the guitar and singing the police came by and stopped me.

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: Jack (Who is called Jack)
Date: 09 Nov 99 - 12:39 PM

Lyle hit the nail on the head. Its usually better to duck, and in spite of the old saying, sometimes the best defense isn't a good offense. A partial retreat to a good defensive position can be the turning point of a war (see Gettysburg, also Napoleon v. Russia and Hitler v. Soviet Union, among others). There's a difference between surrender and retreat; between cowardice and just keeping your head down. Sure the time may come when you have to charge up the hill, but you'd better be right about the time, and be sure that you have the men, resources and strategy to take it and hold it.

I believe Lyle is also right about the worst case scenario, i.e.that most of the Mudcat won't be effected, and we can work around the rest through the excercise of our free speech rights.

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From:
Date: 08 Nov 99 - 11:50 PM

Actauly there are more non musical threads than other so it would not make any difference if the database was not there, the bs threads and Mudcat Tavern would still be there.

Re the Songs and copyright, seems to me nobody cares a hoot any more as radio/audio is a serious declining media, and video is taking over. If Harry Fox and friends do manage to gag all the lyric sites, people will make their own entertainment just like they used to do way back in the 1800's. Harry can have all the old c/r stuff since most of it is crap and irrelevant to todays society.

In fact releveancy to today is almost certainly not copyright for obvious reasons. It used to be possible to push a release on radio, not anymore!

A folksinger today is some ole guy with 2 strings on a beat up guitar sitting on a porch playing the wildwoodflower.

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: kendall
Date: 08 Nov 99 - 10:56 PM

seems to me that this sort of crap happened before back in the 50's. Then it all blew over. I remember it produced some pretty awful songs because no one dared to sing copy righted material. I'm not about to offer legal advice, but, I do know that the 5th amendment forbids them from forcing you to give evidence against your self.

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: Lyle
Date: 08 Nov 99 - 09:33 PM

I hate to look at worst case scenarios until it is absolutely necessary, so this is (I hope) premature. But possibly the worst case is not as bad as it seems. The only thing that they could make mudcat do is remove the lyric archive from the current format of mudcat. That could be inconvenient, but not fatal. Most of us who use the mudcat have large enough machines to download all of the archived lyrics, and still have lots of room to spare. Then if someone wants the lyrics to a particular song, all that person has to do is start a thread asking if anyone knows the lyrics, and those of us who have downloaded the file could email it to the person requesting it. There is NOTHING wrong with sending lyrics to a friend! We could even simplify that by having one person be responsible for the AÕs, one for the BÕs, etc. Is it ideal? No, but it is certainly better than no mudcat at all.

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: katlaughing
Date: 08 Nov 99 - 09:02 PM

Roger and Malcolm brought up good points! Paraphrase them, in your letter, reiterating what you heard them say to you. Send it certified, return receipt requested. Then you can produce that as proof.

Rita, excellent post. Nice to see you here.

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 08 Nov 99 - 08:42 PM

Max

It really isn't safe to talk to them on the 'phone. Make sure that everythingis in writing. These are clearly not honourable people.

Malcolm

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 99 - 08:08 PM

Given that you have agreed to remove from the data base any songs which Harry the Fox and Co can plausibly identify as being copyrighted to anybody whom he represents, and that a complete copy of the data base has been made available to them, I find it hard to believe that any court would give time of day to a bid to use it to harass the MC or the DT at this point.

Of course courts are funny places, and the law is an ass, and America is another country. But I would have thought that this would be the kind of thing that is meant by legal terms such as "abuse of process".

So at this point it sounds like bluff. Where it could get trickier is if they move to a stage of trying to claim that various traditional songs are covered by copyright, or that the people who may have granted permission for them to be included do not own the copyright (for example, where the person who wrote the song doesn't own the copyright.

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: Roger in Baltimore
Date: 08 Nov 99 - 06:30 PM

Max and Dick,

If there is any way to help, I will.

It does seem perverse that HFA will not tell you what their specific complaint is until they file a suit. One way to document your conversation with them is to send them a letter outlining what you understand their requests to be and the response that you have offered and the stonewalling with which they have replied.

Telephone conversations, even taped ones, are less effective evidence in a court than are written conversations.

Of course, any advice I might offer has no legal validity other than I think it to be a good idea. I am not a lawyer and I am not giving you legal advice.

I just think they will be more wary of a paper trail and may temper their requests. Clearly, if they thought you were in violation, they could quickly check the thousands of songs on the DT and verify it. So your letter should give them the means of accessing the DT as a reply to what is on your web-site.

GG of course, is trying to make a point that echoes his own desires. I hope that GG is aware that if things have to go, the only thing that clearly stands up to legal review are the BS threads that contain no music content at all and the PD songs. But I'm sure GG has not thought that one through.

I suspect HFA is asking about both the Forum and the DT. They have one concern. They want to protect their publishers ownership rights (copy rights). The problem they have is this: If they allow violations of their copyrights, they, in effect, lose credibility that they can guarantee any protections. They cannot selectively press their rights. So they are going after internet sites, knowing they are shooting fish in a barrel, one at a time (saves on legal staff). That is why they won't go to the DT or the forum search and look up lyrics. With 20,000 publishers with 100's of songs each (maybe), they have more to protect than they know. They may have a list, but it probably is not easily searchable.

For the publicity hounds, I should note that OLGA had a little publicity, I think it made the AP. Its public cause sank like a stone. Everyone says that they are closed. On the face of it they are, but I search there regularly and go to their shadow sites and get whatever I would have gotten before. Some kind of closing. But the notice that they have closed goes on and on.

Keep it in writing. Keep it friendly (on the face of it) just as they are.

Good luck, Max.

Roger in Baltimore

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: Ferrara
Date: 08 Nov 99 - 06:20 PM

Frank, publicity could be a two-edged sword. BTW, a headline such as "Who Controls the Internet" probably would draw yawns these days, because the copyright issue is already discussed a lot. Maybe "Does Folk Music Still belong to Folks?" would be better.

Jack WICJ has a *very* good point that the best defense may actually be compliance with the law. *This is probably NOT the same as compliance with HFA/NMPA!!!*

The DT database already has permission from several publishers and organizations (Dick has the details) to publish their material without royalties. THIS IS A GOOD THING.

Max, I agree too that we need a banner now, addressed to music publishers. It should link to a page where you invite them to comment on the copyright controversy (not likely!), state if the DT contains any of their songs, and indicate whether they will give you a royalty-free right to carry the songs or would rather have you take it off the DB.

I think having this mechanism for a publisher to protect their copyrighted material would help your legal position immensely. *I also think it's the right thing to do.* We aren't out to pirate copyrighted material, just to share songs.

You might replace any songs that are removed with a statement naming the publisher and stating that they have asked that the song be removed from the database for copyright reasons.

Maybe publicity should focus on this: On the one hand a substantial number of music publishers are willingly working with the DT, and on the other hand we have HFA/NMPA who ain't even willing to share the most basic information regarding what they're complaining about.

Best of luck with all this. - Rita F

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: katlaughing
Date: 08 Nov 99 - 05:16 PM

Good points, JackwicJ, but I already posted numbers for lawyers who do pro bono and I wasn't talking about just the liberal press. Maybe it would have to start with folk press, but with Gates being declared the owner of a monopoly and the myriad of interestes there are in how the net operates these days, I feel it is already noteworthy, esp. if one does their research and makes a good share of the article about who HFA has already shut down and that they are not stopping in their reign of intimidation etc.

I agree with your points and options. I am just saying I've got a mouth and I am ready to use it to help if requested.

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: Jack (Who is called Jack)
Date: 08 Nov 99 - 04:35 PM

Kat, not to discourage you from trying, but what are we going to tell the liberal press? Nothing's happened here yet but some threatening noises from some lawyers. Lawyers making threatening noises is not news. They do that in their sleep. Until charges are filed or a case is pending or some action is taken, what are we going to say, that they hurt our feelings?

And while the Boy Scout case is instructive, I wouldn't put much stock in its applicability to our situation. Scouting has been and is a significant part of the childhood of millions, and it is something into which people still put great stock. They have, built in, a large, passionate, highly sympathetic support group. All they had to do was couch the issue in the right terms to inflame that support group, stand back and watch the fur fly. "ASCAP TRYING TO STOP THE BOY SCOUTS FROM SINGING CAMPFIRE SONGS!" ASCAP may have had a case, but it also never had a chance. Without that kind of backing, we won't get the same kind of response.

In the end, we're probably stuck with the following.

1. Make sure we are in compliance with the law, and have full documentary proof of that fact. That's our best defense. Putting that proof together is going to take a tremendous amount of work on our part. But in the end, were not only going to have to be on the right side of the law to survive, were going to have to be able to prove it.

2. We have to find a way to get lawyers working for our side. And believe me that's going to take more money than we are likely to raise. We may even get enough to get started and to get an initial plan together, but unless we get some pro bono assistance or link up with other groups in some kind of defense coalition its not going to be enough.

3. We will have to take a long view. We might have to suffer through early retreats, or change the way we operate, but if were going to win in the long haul, we're going to have to have two objectives, a) Protect Max & Dick, and b) Keep the group/community intact.

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: katlaughing
Date: 08 Nov 99 - 02:10 PM

Good idea, Frank; I had mentioned such publicity, too and offered to help out. I am sure the Liberal Opinion Week www.liberalopinion.com and the Casper Star Tribune would carry one of my columns on this, as I am a regular of theirs. I also have fax numbers for a bunch of other national media. kat

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: Frank Hamilton
Date: 08 Nov 99 - 10:52 AM

I can see that there is a different agenda at work here. I support the idea that a legal precedent needs to be set and getting good legal representation is the best approach. Apparently, the reps for HFA have appeared inflexible which leads me to believe that these are not the decision makers but the lower echelon enforcers paid to "do their job".

One of the ways to solve this dilemma is to involve the public. Newspaper articles and reports on NPR would illuminate the difficulties. This seems like a newsworthy issue because it entails the issue of "free speech" and who controls it. Rather than taking a vindictive stance, information should be shared on a factual basis in press releases, public forums and broadcasts.

The issue of "free use" came out some time ago when ASCAP decided to charge the Boy Scout camps for singing songs in front of the campfire. The publicity created by this enabled ASCAP to save face by clarifying their position so that they amended their ruling. Sing Out! would be a starting point for a good article but also getting a columnist to work on this for newspapers would be helpful. A suggested title would be "Who controls the Internet?"

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: Jack (Who is called Jack)
Date: 08 Nov 99 - 09:28 AM

With regard to Harry Fox Agency and its purpose.

By removing most of the physical barriers to communication, the internet has thrown the regulation and monitoring of the use of copyrighted material into dissarray. Were experiencing a minor skirmish in a larger ideological war over how information, particularly electronic information should be treated and handled. On one side you have the 'maximum openness' camp, on the other side you have the 'apply the old regulations the same way as before'. The battle rages on several fronts. In the arena of software and operating systems you have the Open Computing advocates represented best by the LINUX operating system, and on the other side you have the closed, proprietary model personified by Microsoft and Bill Gates. The interesting thing is that Gates' views are not an outgrowth of his wealth. Way back before Microsoft was founded, back when Apple was 3 guys in a garage, Gates publised an open letter to the computing community basically stating that the practice of getting software without paying for it by making a copy electronically was Piracy--open and willful theft of another persons work. In fact, Microsoft has assisted in the prosecution of software pirates just to set the example for others.

In the publishing arena, the fact that lyrics, songs, music, books, newspapers, journals etc can now be treated the same way, has the people who make their living off publishing thinking the same way.

My guess is that the publishers represented by HFA have given the agency marching orders. "Try and get a handle on this internet situation. Do something to make sure that if paper publishing becomes obsolete, we still have an inventory! The internet laws will have to get sorted out in the legislature and the courts, but in the meantime, see if you can get these people to stop putting our stuff on the web till we know what our rights are. Twist some arms, set some examples, whatever it takes."

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: BK
Date: 07 Nov 99 - 11:56 PM

Frank: As others have said, it appears that the character of their communication indicated not a legitimate interest that they are valiently trying to protect, but rather a bullying onslaught, presumably to reduce competition on the internet of sources for distribution of materials similar to (but not necessarily the same specific songs as) what is in the DT, which prompts the "demonization." I suggest it's possible that there are few or no actual songs in the DT of interest re their stated purpose. Eliminating potential competition is almost inevitably the real purpose, and one of the oldest ploys in human behavior. If someone spends 30 minutes here, they probably won't simultaneously be also at their site & they potentially loose advertising. (Actually they COULD be at both sites, I have a browser I almost never use that'll do it..)

There is every indication that a reasonable dialog, such as you suggest, is completely counter to their true purpose, & that they carefully wish to avoid any such dialog. Would a field commander tell the enemy troops of his goals? Of course, you are dead right any way, in that it is very important to ATTEMPT to understand their goals. However, IMHO, a realistic understanding will not likely come from them in plain words, if they can help it. I'd be surprised if anything other than bullying & lies came out of "dialog" them. Understanding will have to come in other ways.

I do agree & understand, I think, that you are warning against high levels of moral indignation perhaps jollying folks into thinking that our morally valid cause will surely win in any contest, because we are obviously in the right. (Like the Spanish Civil War? - the bad guys won then... but the good guys had the best songs..) As one of my more cynical lawyer friends used to constantly remind me, "It's not a court of JUSTICE (no matter how it's labelled), it's a court of LAW." Sadly, there's a monsterous difference. There ain't necessarily no such thing as justice in this. You can get justice, but you may have to struggle for it. It's why such demonic folk get away w/their scummy evil.

Yeecchhh, they stink... BK

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: Jeri
Date: 07 Nov 99 - 06:39 PM

I also believe they're trying to gain control of this site, or at the least set themselves up as THE lyrics site.

If they were protecting their clients' rights, they would simply have given Max the information he requested - what material they found objectionable. They say they will do this when they file charges. Why do they want it to go that far when he's perfectly willing to work to resolve the issue? Possible reasons:

They don't know what songs are in the database because they've never been there. They quite possibly have not had any specific complaint, and are going on an assumption that if it's a lyrics site, some of their clients' songs must be included. This would be a reason to ask Max for a list of songs.

Their main goal is NOT to get the offending material removed, thereby protecting their clients' rights to have their songs made available to the public for free only via the HF website.

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 Nov 99 - 05:37 PM

Frank, Max tried to figure that out, but they were unwilling to dialogue, fromt he sounds of it. I think it is an issue of control. The more they gobble up the smaller sites, the more they will control of all lyric sites on the net.

The only way to deal with these sorts is through a lawyer who can obfuscate and dissemble the same as thier lawyer. If you look at the first thread, where Max printed the original letter, you will see they are NOT being straightforward at all in their stated puprose. How can we divine that without a clue from them?

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: Frank Hamilton
Date: 07 Nov 99 - 05:14 PM

I've been trying to figure this out. What does the HFA have to gain by shutting down DT? What are they afraid of? Does anyone know?

It seems to me that these questions have to be answered. It's too easy to say that it's all about corporate greed or naked power. What is the HFA issue? As far as I can tell, they feel that they are protecting the rights of copyright and songwriters and composers as well as the right of publishers to collect royalties on the use of the material that they represent.

In short, it's too easy to demonize them and it's time beter served to get to know what they are worried about and address that issue. What is the real agenda behind their position?

I have thought for a long time now that copyrights have not served the public as well as they might. They do serve songwriters, publishers and composers by protecting their financial interests.

I get the feeling that in this battle there are two opposing sides who don't speak a common language. This may be the key to the solution. IMHO the more you demonize the HFA and attempt to run at it Don Quixote style, the sooner the noble goals of DT might be defeated.

What is the stated issue on behalf of the HFA about this?

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: Sapper_RE
Date: 07 Nov 99 - 03:29 PM

Does this Harry Fox shower of Sierra Tango have offices on this side of the pond? If so, where and what is the phone number?? Sounds like they need shafting up the arse with a barbed wire pole!!!! Bob

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: Mudjack
Date: 07 Nov 99 - 03:09 PM

I have some special words for the Harry Fox Agency, eat catsh#8 and die"
Jack, I have to agree with what you're saying, but that would mean "go and get a life". You mean there is life after the Mudcat?
Mudjack

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 Nov 99 - 03:08 PM

Max & Dick, if it would be helpful, those of us who have time, could start going through specific blocks of the DT and note which are copyrighted, by whom etc. If we split the work up, it wouldn't have to be just you guys trying to do so, although you'd have to take the info we gather and delete or write for permission. Either way, please let me know if this would help, in a proactive way. If HFA hasn't even narrowed it down, perhaps we can before and if they even get a chance to point out the *offenders*.

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: Áine
Date: 07 Nov 99 - 01:32 PM

Dear WyoWoman,

I was the one the used the term 'cheerleading', not Jack. Perhaps my attempt to use a sports metaphor was not exactly the right way to say what I meant.

I believe Jack is right to point out to us that 'we' aren't the ones feeling the pressure from the HFA 'thumb' -- Max and Dick are. To paraphrase Jack's metaphor, Max and Dick are the only ones who "have to navigate their boat between a whale and an explosive harpoon on a pursing ship."

At the same time, we all can't fit into the 'boat' at the same time. However, we CAN help Max and Dick get the fastest boat they can -- by contributing to the Mudcat with funds (as well as supportive words).

If I've got this all wrong, Jack, please post again and clarify your point. Until then, let's don't start backbiting each other about this -- that's exactly what HFA and their ilk would want.

-- Áine

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: WyoWoman
Date: 07 Nov 99 - 01:01 PM

Jack, I pretty much agree with what you've said. However, I don't believe the advice to hang in there and not allow himself to be bullied by someone is mere cheerleading or impotent Sixties rhetoric. One of the ways attorneys work (and some of my best friends are attorneys, honestly, so this isn't a smear of the legal eagles) is to bluff and pressure the opposition into dancing to your tune as early as possible.

We/he may need to comply at some point and in some form or other, but I say the demand that he send them the entire database so they can pick out the pieces of it they want to object to is outrageous and shouldn't be negotiated. I may be wrong on this, but I think THEY should be the ones to come up with specific "charges" rather than sweeping in and telling him that he has to present them with a menu.

Just my thoughts at the moment.

ww

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: Áine
Date: 07 Nov 99 - 12:33 PM

Dear Jack,

I'll let others comment on your other comments, but, I do agree that there is more needed here than just moral support -- however heartfelt that support may be.

I encourage everyone who wants this site to continue to contribute not only their moral support but their monetary support. Here's the address you can send a contribution to:

Max D. Spiegel The Mudcat Cafe 5 West Gay St., Suite A West Chester PA 19380 USA

I know that Max appreciates all the cheerleading we're doing for him, but the 'Cat team needs the 'alumni' to kick into the kitty!

-- Áine

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: Jack (Who is called Jack)
Date: 07 Nov 99 - 11:50 AM

I've been giving this a lot of thought over the weekend, and I'm going to say some things that might not

As terrific as this site is, it is not the sole source of folk music information and fellowship in the world. If it were to vanish completely tommorow, I would still be able to pursue and enjoy my interest in the genre, and find friends who share my passion. I would grieve the loss of this particular outlet, one of the best I have ever found if truth be told. However, neither folk and traditional music, nor my/our interest in it lives and dies with this site.

That said, whatever the outcome of this conflict, I very much doubt that it will involve the complete and permanent shutdown of the Mudcat. They can make a lot of threataning noises, but in the end, most of what we do here isn't covered by copyright law and would have to be allowed to continue--provided Max could afford to keep it going. That means the Forum, the personal pages, the Radio, essentially everything but the lyric database aren't under the domain of laws being invoked by our attackers. In short, we would still get to talk to each other, still get to plan gatherings, still get to hear the radio, and still get to share lyrics that we know.

Third, a great deal of the DT is public domain, or at least listed with the songwriter's written permission. So even if HFA forces the issue, all they can really make Max and Dick to do is to find the "offending" lyrics (if any) and either a) remove them, or b) obtain permission to include them. That could mean a temporary shutdown while the 'clean-up' ensued. It would be a pain, but it would fall far short of a death knell. Even OLGA, who's database was far more dominated by modern popular materiel (i.e. copyrightable stuff), is working its way back. We might have to follow the same road.

Fourth, (and here I'm just spitballing but I think I'm right), if individual's share copyrighted materiel in a public forum it is not a copyright violation. For example, I can take "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkahban" out of the Library and read it to my Cub Scout Den without being in infringement of copyright. I can tell my neighbor the lyrics to "Subterranean Homesick Blues" as an excercise of my free speech rights. In short, in a public forum we can talk to each other and write to each other about published material of any kind in as much detail as we wish, down to the specific words themselves. In short, as individuals, we can communicate amongst ourselves about lyrics in the public arena, verbally or in writing, in excruciating detail, till we're blue in the face and we're protected by the First Amendment. So if (for example) Katlaughing wants to tell me in a public forum about a song I ask her about, she can. Given that we all have our own collections of lyrics, we can continue to share these lyrics with each other and with any other interested individuals, even if the central DT database is shut down or modified. Max would be no more accountable for this type of exchange than the phone company is for what people say to each other over their equipment. Please not that I am not an attorney, and am just expressing what I think is true. This is not formal legal advice.

Finally, I've read a lot of posts that can be paraphrased as "Max, get in there and fight". There's lots of 60's-style rhetoric about fighting the evil corporate greedheads. Well, its one thing to join Greenpeace yourselve, and navigate your boat between a whale and an explosive harpoon on a pursing ship. Its another to tell someone else to do it.

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: Banjer
Date: 07 Nov 99 - 08:59 AM

This whole thing, although I don't understand all its implications, seems to me like the ever ongoing battle. Whenever a group of folks seems to be enjoying something some other group either wants to ban it or profit from it. There comes a time when it becomes necessary to take a stand against the greed or power hungry attitudes of such organizations and this is one of those times!

FIGHT 'EM TO THE BITTER END!!

Subject: VOLUNTEER LAWYERS FOR THE ARTS
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 Nov 99 - 12:17 AM

Okay, I was in a seach the net mood, so, I hope I get all of these links right:

MAX, MOST IMPORTANT: The Art Law Line is in NYC at 212-319-2910, you can ask a question or two for free. This is the place I was talking about earlier, that I had called. It may take a few days for them to get an answer, BUT they are very helpful.

As an offshoot from that, in PA, there is a branch of the above, called the Philadelphia Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts, at 215-545-3385.

Pres. and CEO of HFA is Edward P. Murphy; used to be with Schirmer Pub. in NYC.

According to a non-HFA site I found, which was fairly current, HFA reps only 17,000, not 20,000 pubs. as they claim and it went on to say for "records, tapes, cd's and imported phonorecords" as well "worldwide for publishers for use in films, commercials, television, programs, and all other audio/visual media." Didn't say anything about print or net pub, whether that means anything or not, I don't know.

These guys have a notice at their midi site which they've closed temporarily due to harassment from HFA. They say they are going through their files with a fine toothed comb to remove all copyrighted material. Maybe they have some helpful hints. They can be emailed at [e-mail] .

Hereis a message forum on music law, where questions have and can be posted. Or this is the main page where that forum can be accessed. I forget! There was a music lawyer who had a message on there who can be reached at www.salawzar.com.

I think that is it, for now. Hoep some of this helps, Max, esp. the Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts.

luvyaKat

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: katlaughing
Date: 06 Nov 99 - 11:27 PM

The original letter was sent certified to Max and Dick, as shown in the beginning of the first thread on this, NO BS Mudcat Under Attack.

From what I understand, money is always needed, esp. when one has to engage a lawyer. I posted info earlier with addys etc. for how people can donate.

I am sure Max would feel better about getting a lawyer, if he knew it was coming or already had a lot of monetary support. He makes this spot for us to create, so we all have a vested interest. Where else can we have this much fun and learn so much at the same time?! Please do what you can afford and if you don't have cash, like Bert said before...go through your attics, donate a piece of handicraft or what have you to the auction; anything is helpful, I am sure.

Sorry if it sounds like I am ranting. I just feel it so important to us all. And, Max, I agree with BK, Moonchild, and WW.

luvyaKat

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: MandolinPaul
Date: 06 Nov 99 - 11:20 PM

To be honest, I don't understand a lot of the copyright issues, and the stuff that Harry Fox is about, but here (CLICK) is an essay I found on the web. It's pretty informative.

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: MMario
Date: 06 Nov 99 - 07:20 PM

gg - though it's the MudCat that is getting the heat, the REASON is probably the DT.

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: bbelle
Date: 06 Nov 99 - 01:17 PM

Max ... You need to find a lawyer posthaste and if money is an issue you need to let us know, because this issue affects many of us. In addition, do not let your idealism, which I adore, be blinders. Truth and right do not always will out and the big boys will use whatever ammunition is available to them ... moonchild

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: WyoWoman
Date: 06 Nov 99 - 01:02 PM

BK-- having been a journalist for 20 years and receiving mucho mail from inmates, I tend to agree with you. Has those overtones, doesn't it?

Max--my investigative reporter friend was sick today, but I'll follow up on Monday and see if we can find out anything about these guys. Meantime, don't give 'em jack.

ww

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: _gargoyle
Date: 05 Nov 99 - 11:49 PM

You are "speaking" MC....

Not "DT" right?

They are two completely separate beings - Correct?

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: BK
Date: 05 Nov 99 - 11:30 PM

I work in a prison & have worked in several; IMHO this is - pure & simple - exactly the kind of scummy sleaze I see coming from inmates all the time. And of those in prison who file suits, I can tell you it's almost always the guys who've committed the most heinous crimes whose lawsuits generally make the most sweeping assertions, w/the most dramatic high-minded statements of moral outrage (all the while you know for a FACT that they are total pathological lies!), like the litigious chap who was imprisoned for sexually molesting children, and he knew while doing it that he had HIV! One oh the major goals of these legal actions is to bully & intimidate.

IMHO, the character of what I'm seeing is very much in line w/the typical legal threats from inmates. I come home from dealing with some of these people & feel as though I've been morally slimed. I hate to see it here too, it's bad enough at work, but, dammit, Max, don't cooperate w/these vermin. It was probably time for the Mudcat to establish a working relationship w/a legal professional any-way, given the litigious nature of our screwy society, what's happenned to OLGA, etc. So get a relationship w/a lawyer & invite these bullies to go play in the freeway. my 2 cents worth.

BK

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: MandolinPaul
Date: 05 Nov 99 - 10:51 PM

Max, a couple of points I haven't seen touched upon:

First: I wouldn't have been dedicated enough to make and maintain the Mudcat in the first place; you should be commended for that.

Second: I have to agree with Jeri on one of her points; it's your ass. I certainly wouldn't think any less of you if you decided that the possible risks to your livelihood, and extra time commitments, are not worth the bother. If it were my site, I'd probably give in and shut it down. .....BUT.....that being said, I hope that you fight and win, because I love this place.

Paul

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Nov 99 - 06:32 PM

If wyowoman is right in her speculation that "they want you to produce your song list so they can go to the publishers of the music with it and try to get them as paying clients", that in itself is a valid reason why it would be wrong (and I suspect illegal) for you to copmply with this request.

If any songs on the Digital Tradition should happen to be songs for which I hold the copyright I would object most strongly to any information identifying these songs being supplied to this organisation, which might lead to them trying to get in touch with me or seeking to represent me in any way. I think that this is a view which many songwriters would share, and which ought to provide you with a valid reason to decline to send them the list they request.

As I see it, there are in principle four sets of songs involved.

The first, and I imagine the largest set consists of songs which are in the public domain, which exist in variants in many parts of the world;

The second set of songs would be songs ones which are copyright - but where the people who own the copyright have explicitly or implicitly indicated that they are in full agreement with them being included on the site.

The third set of songs would be any which are copyright, and where the copyright holders are represented by Harry the Fox and friends.

And the fourth set of songs would be songs which are copyright, and where no specific consent has at this time been given for them to be included on the site, but whose copyright holders are in no way represented by Harry the Fox and friends, and who might indeed be disgusted at the idea of being so represented.

The only songs with which Harry and co have anything to do with are the third set - and here you have already explicitly agreed that if you are supplied with a list of them you will ensure that they are removed from the site.

And of course you have already supplied a list of all the songs in the Digital Tradition, by the mere fact of putting them on the site in a downloadable fashion.

What I take it they are doing is trying to scare you, and to push you into making some kind of concession that they have a case, which they can then use to push you into making some further concession.

It's like the technique of interrogation/torture - once somebody starts answering questions under pressure, their resistance is weakened, and it becomes increasingly hard to resist the next round of questions.

Incidentally, any time I think there are a few songs that need re-homing on the net, I'll be happy to supply one, and I'm sure there are lots of other people who will as well. And that won't require permission from anyone.

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: wyowoman
Date: 05 Nov 99 - 03:45 PM

Hi-- I'm at work and just logged on for a minute. `

A couple of thoughts, ere I log off again: You might want to tape record any subsequent conversations with these guys, and make sure you let them know you're taping the conversation. (In some states, it's against the law to tape a conversation without informing the person you're taping.) This will serve to let them know that they can't say just any old thing, and that you're keeping a record of the conversations, so they will be held to account for what they say.

Second, I agree that you probably need an attorney at this point, if only to up the ante on their bluff, which it's apparent they're trying to pull. They want you to produce your song list so they can go to the publishers of the music with it and try to get them as paying clients. Maybe if they realize that you aren't going to be bullied into doing their work for them, they'll back off.

Also, I"ll ask our investigative reporter when he gets back from lunch if he can do a couple of searches (not on company time, in case my publisher is looking in) on these guys. He's a wonder at finding obscure information about people and organizations, so maybe he can get some background that would be useful in fighting fire with fire.

Hold your ground, m'dear. We have yet begun to fight...

WW

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: Alice
Date: 05 Nov 99 - 03:27 PM

ha ha ha! Bert, that's funny!! Lyrics clear as mud.

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: Bert
Date: 05 Nov 99 - 03:24 PM

Or we could send them on the two way trip through the translator;-)

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: MTM
Date: 05 Nov 99 - 03:05 PM

painfully stupid idea to follow:

take all non p.d. works in the dt and transform them into parodies, using the definition provided by the fair use clause of U.S. copyright law. then they can't touch. nya nya.

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: Metchosin
Date: 05 Nov 99 - 02:45 PM

All this s**t thats coming down in Round 2 has Buffalo Springfielded me back to the 60's. Anyway here's my rant, but I didn't know exactly which thread to put it under. I was so excited about finding this site after months in the ethernet wasteland, that I've been high for a couple of weeks. God, finally a place where where the people were erudite, had a sense of humor, were discussing subjects that I could relate to and were doing something for posterity that I could really support. I'd finally found my way back home and I'm really pissed off and upset that corporate greed and legal beagle ambulance chasers could take it away. Dick is right re the "public domain thread", just look at what Paul Simon did to Bert Jansch and the lyrics to Scarborough Fair. Since it all boils down to money and greed, why not offer them their percentage on royalties from the "profits" of the DT and the Mudcat, seeing thats what they're really after, and if there are no profits? Well blow me! You could run that by your lawyer, and do get one, preferably one who's also a musician. Oh yeah, I have sent in a small donation to the "fund" and put my money where my mouth is.

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: Charlie Baum
Date: 05 Nov 99 - 02:38 PM

Nothing about this case is criminal, certainly not yet! Claims of copyright infringement are a legal dispute between two or more parties, none of them the government, which makes this a CIVIL case, not a criminal one. If, and only if, the civil case results in a judgment against the DT or Mudcat,and the DT or Mudcat THEN does not comply with the cease and desist order, does anything approaching criminality come into it. First, they have to prove that there is a copyright infringement; then they have to prove you're doing nothing about it.

Of course, you should consult a lawyer about this.

Or move the database to a place beyond the reaches of the law, like Abkhazia or North (Turkish) Cyprus.

--Charlie Baum

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: Bert
Date: 05 Nov 99 - 01:52 PM

Well if it's fun you want; we could all copyright a load of traditional songs and then we can sue THEM ;-) Make them appear in every small claims court in the country for publishing Barbara Allen and Cindy and all the others. Tee Hee.

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: Max
Date: 05 Nov 99 - 01:24 PM

I think its fine that we talk here. I don't care what they read. This is a public place, run by its public. I am just one of you that happens to host this place. We will deal with this together. You all should feel free to say what you will, it only might matter if I were to divulge our strategy or whatnot, but your suggestions and your disdain are fine here. Don't worry, this'll be fun...

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2
From: Vixen
Date: 05 Nov 99 - 12:31 PM

AWK!

I put my foot in my mouth AGAIN!!! When I said "personally," I didn't mean to create an "in" group and an "out" group! MTM--please don't go away!!! I meant folks that Max "knows" because he has in some way verified they are not associated with HFA/NMFA. Max does, after all, have access to all the subscription info we gave him when we joined...

V (apologizing for muddying the muddy waters further!!!)