 sj |
||
|
||
NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs'
|
|
|
Subject: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: Max Date: 13 Jan 00 - 08:07 PM OK Folks, here's round three: (On NMPA Letterhead) December 17, 1999 Via Certified Mail Re: Unauthorized Uses of Musical Compositions on mudcat.org Dear Mr. Spiegel: In response to your October 15, 1999 letter, the attached schedule provides a non-exhaustive list of musical compositions (the "Compositions") and the respective publisher members of the NMPA who own or control the exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute copies of the Compositions. As stated in our prior letters, the lyrics to each of the Compositions, as well as numerous other musical compositions owned or controlled by NMPA members, are currently being distributed by mudcat.org, and we are not aware of any license authority having been granted for such uses. Please provide us with copies of any licenses or agreements authorizing such uses. I note in your October 15 letter that you expressed a desire to amicably resolve these claims. In the event you do not have license authority to reproduce and distribute copies of the Compositions, I reiterate our demand that you immediately cease and desist from such infringing activity and that you come forward with a proposal to resolve the publishers' claims of copyright infringement. In this connection, if you wish to obtain license authority as part of any ultimate resolution, we will so advise the publishers, or you can contact the publishers directly. In the meantime, however, I must advise that any continued unauthorized uses of the Compositions, or any other musical compositions owned or controlled by the NMPA members, are undertaken at your considerable peril, and would be subject to all of the publishers' rights and remedies under the Copyright Act, including an award of statutory damages of up to $100,000.00 for each infringing act. [Page] While I certainly hope that we will be able to quickly resolve this matter, please note that if we do not receive a written response from you within thirty days of the date of this letter, I will be constrained to advise the Publishers of such lack of response and that more formal measures appear necessary to enforce their rights and remedies under the Copyright Act. Under the circumstances, all of the Publishers' rights and remedies, at law or in equity, continue to be expressly reserved. Sincerely, Charles J. Sanders [Page] Schedule to Mudcat Café (17 December 1999)
|
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: paddymac Date: 13 Jan 00 - 09:07 PM Do I understand correctly that out of 8,000+ songs in the DT, HFA has discovered 15 to which they object? This HFA "issue" is for you to resolve Max, but my inclination would be to challenge them to provide proof of a valid copyright and their authority to represent the copyright holder for each song they object to, then take those song titles and post them in a separate list noting that the lyrics were formerly available at Mudcat but have been removed on demand of the copyright holder and/or his/her agent. I see a future wherein music freely available on the web will gain in popularity because it will be performed by 'catters and their kindred souls, while that guarded by the copyright police will progressively lose its currency (in terms of both popularity and economic value) because it will not be played or performed. It is they, not we, who seem stuck on the horns of a dilemna. |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: BK Date: 13 Jan 00 - 09:14 PM Is there a song called "50,00 Names" or is this some more big-brother-gonna-git-you (if you don't roll over & play dead when ordered) BS? & So -IF badass has the rights to those & can prove it, remove 'em. This is SICK. Cheers, BK |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: MMario Date: 13 Jan 00 - 09:23 PM non-exhaustive list means "including but not limited to" MMario |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: katlaughing Date: 13 Jan 00 - 09:28 PM This phrase bothers me: As stated in our prior letters, the lyrics to each of the Compositions, as well as numerous other musical compositions owned or controlled by NMPA members, are currently being distributed by mudcat.org, and... Still not forthcoming are they?!! They are still playing the bully and need to be dealt with in strictly a legal fashion as you've already done. Let us know if we can do anything to help. Oh, and the songs they are claiming? We don't need 'em! Keep yer chin up, Max, but well-guarded! luvyaKat |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: T in Oklahoma (Okiemockbird) Date: 13 Jan 00 - 10:53 PM Some of the lyrics on that list are almost certainly under copyright, and if they are, and Max hasn't previously gotten written permission to post them, then I think (though of course this is not legal advice, just private opinion) he should remove them. Max shouldn't waste his strength on a fight he can't win, but save it in case the NMPA tries to claim copyright in something that it has no right to. Max, we all appreciate what your efforts on behalf of the Mudcat and the DT. T. |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: SeanM Date: 13 Jan 00 - 11:06 PM Well, Max has said in the past that he's recieved permission to post some copywright material. If these aren't on the list, then it would appear that in these cases they have a valid complaint. In that case, the neighborly thing to do would be to remove them. As far as "non-exhaustive", I would imagine that legal weasel-wording for "We've looked through, and found these, but want a way to yell at you again if you post up something else we don't like". All things considered, this could have been a LOT worse. I think that they may have originally hoped that the 'cat would roll over and fold. Presented with some form of resistance, they've provided what they claimed that they were after. M |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: Barbara Date: 13 Jan 00 - 11:16 PM Well, this may not be a popular opinion, but I think, unless Max has permission to use any of those, he should just pull 'em. None of 'em look very "trad" to me. Of course there may be legal implications to complying, like if you do it you admit culpability,(and have to keep doing it -- like not taking the 5th) and I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know about that. Is HFA also what happened to a bunch of Sydney Carter songs? I noticed some had been pulled from the DT. Blessings, BArbara |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: Max Date: 13 Jan 00 - 11:37 PM These songs that they listed WILL be pulled, probably tomorrow, no question about it. As will any and every song they care to mention. They will be replaced with links to the same song at their site. All we care about is that YOU find the lyrics you are looking for, simple as that. All we really want is for THEM to tell US what EXACTLY they object to. Then we have the ability to comply the best we can. Obviously I need to reply very soon, and I will try to get all your 2cents before I do. We will do anything short of shutting down, to stay alive. |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: InOBU Date: 13 Jan 00 - 11:39 PM Now it occurs to me, that in conversation, here in the functional equivelant of the town squair, one should be able to quote from copywritten material. So, if one breaks the song into several posts which comment on the content, then it is comentary and discussion. Now, I dont offer this as legal advise, but rather as a topic for disscussion. What do others think about this. Are you there brother Richard? Cheers! Larry |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: Bill D Date: 13 Jan 00 - 11:46 PM duhhh...I dunno, Max...we're purty s*l*o*w 'round here..... (sure, pull the durned songs....we'll survive just fine!) |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: sophocleese Date: 14 Jan 00 - 12:38 AM Since, I think, you did suggest that you would remove offending material from the site, it would be wise to do so with these ones. I agree with Okiemockiebird, save any fighting for Sumer is Icumen In, (do you have that in the DT I never checked). (Okay so that's not quite what Okie said.) Make it clear as a bell for any casual lurker as well as older members of the forum what you are doing and why. Stay afloat how you can, don't go under. |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: _gargoyle Date: 14 Jan 00 - 01:07 AM Interesting collection -
Give them what they want. Chuck the offending lyrics - but keep the discussions.
Then American Pie discussion remains. Its a good one.
|
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: _gargoyle Date: 14 Jan 00 - 01:18 AM Under the "Intellectual Property Thread" I pointed to the "go-bot" search engine that scours the web for "undocumented sources" and was developed at Stanford University about three years ago.
The creators have been recieving increased press coverage lately. They have marketed the "tool" to universities to search out plagerism in student papers at a fee of 20.00/course. However, there has been the addendum to the articles that their primary revenue has been searching for purloined tunes and lyrics for copywrite infringment. It is a VERY powerful little "go-bot."
Information regarding the "service" and its development is found at http://www.plagiarism.org/ |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: Seamus Kennedy Date: 14 Jan 00 - 01:32 AM Granted, you may have to pull these titles for now. But what is the possibility of getting the songwriters' permission (OK, maybe not the dead guys), or the publishers' imprimatur to run them? I've often seen "used by permission" on album credits. Any harm in asking? |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: Joe Offer Date: 14 Jan 00 - 03:26 AM sure would be nice if we could get permission for songs from Woody Guthrie and Ralph McTell. It would also be a shame to lose the "American Pie" discussion, which quotes parts of the song. I suppose we should give HFA credit for at least some intelligence - they didn't list any of the many traditional songs for which people have claimed copyright protection. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: Owlkat Date: 14 Jan 00 - 03:35 AM Hi hi, I'm not trying to pour gas on the fire or nothin, but who has been posting the songs mentioned in the nmpa letter, and why? It's not like they can't be found on half a dozen other sites online. I don't get it. Cheers, Owl/Mart |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: Max Date: 14 Jan 00 - 03:56 AM Owlkat, its not the postings that they care about, its the database that they want stopped.
Getting permission from the artist means squat. The artist can give you his/her blessing all he/she wants, but that don't mean a thing if they hire a publishing company to take care of their song. I wish it were (and it should be) that easy, cause we have a couple of hundred artist permissions. No worries folks, the goal is to keep them sending us songs that they want dealt with, and we'll remove them from the database. |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: Dani Date: 14 Jan 00 - 07:57 AM Max, I think pulling them, with a link to their current location, is great. I'm with paddymac: make 'em prove their authority for each piece they come up with, then identify those songs that are not in the DT for this reason. What do Dick and Susan think? |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: GeorgeH Date: 14 Jan 00 - 08:29 AM Thanks, Max, for all your efforts, and taking onboard this extra work/hassle which I'm certain you could do without. And I think you're right; pulling the songs as quickly as possible (with links or, failing which, a message saying why the song's not here any more) is essential to demonstrate we're (sorry, you're) not out to breach anyone's copyright, but just to provide a public service. Good luck G. |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: MandolinPaul Date: 14 Jan 00 - 08:54 AM You're doing the right thing, Max. Paul. |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: Art Thieme Date: 14 Jan 00 - 09:05 AM Max, I'm glad that you are in the frame of mind to protect yourself by divesting certain things rather than go down in flames. We do care about your wellbeing. Art |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: MMario Date: 14 Jan 00 - 09:30 AM Hang in there Max, and Art...Thanks for saying what I was thinking but couldn't "word" well enough to post... MMario |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: Roger in Baltimore Date: 14 Jan 00 - 09:42 AM Max, I agree with several folks. You said you would pull them if they were identified. The only logical response is to do so unless you suspect the songs are not copyrighted. My guess is that they all are. And sure, HFA reserves the right to review further, lawyers always try to cover all of the bases. I think the fact that they have indicated only 16 out of the 8,000+ is proof enough that you did not intend to infringe on copyrights and in that way you have some legal protection. I am sorry to see any song go, but the law is the law. Roger in Baltimore |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: Shimbo Darktree Date: 14 Jan 00 - 10:00 AM Max, I am with the majority. If there is a beef with any song, then ditch it. I also think paddymac has a valid comment. It is somewhat shortsighted of certain organisations (who shall remain nameless) not to realise that distribution of lyrics may well lead to increased sales of CDs, sheet music, concert tickets, etc. It is called advertising, and you are giving it to them for free!!! Thank you (and all Mudcat and supporters) for the best site on the web. Shimbo |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: jeffp Date: 14 Jan 00 - 10:08 AM Max, I also agree that you are doing the right thing. I find it interesting that for all their bluster, HFA was only able to identify 16 songs out of 8000 that they could insist you remove. This is only 2 tenths of one percent! I hardly think the hairy fox would look good in court quibbling about the DT, especially given your cooperative attitude. As RiB said, the lawyers are reserving the right to hassle you further, should they find any more songs they claim copyright to in the future. I don't think you need to lose much sleep over this, as it appears to me that once you refused to roll over immediately, they backpedaled considerably. I think we should all be careful about sending copyrighted lyrics to the DT, so as not to inadvertantly get Max in trouble. He has done (and continues to do) us a great favor by building and maintaining this wonderful site for us to get together and swap music, stories, and general conviviality! I'll get off my soapbox now. Thank you for listening. jeffp |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: JedMarum Date: 14 Jan 00 - 10:25 AM Max - I think you're right on track with this issue. If you pull the offending songs, show that the stated policy is to keep 'protected' songs from the DT, and that you remain diligent to that effort - there's not a lot these bast*rds can do. They won;t really come after you hard. Unless I miss my guess you ain;t a rich man, and I presume Mudcat is corporation? So no personal loss to you .... if there ain;t big money in it for them, they won't be doing much more 'en writing nasyt lettets and beating you up with low powered legal BS. The intent of this website is obvious, and you have many, many knowledgeable supporters. |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: AndyG Date: 14 Jan 00 - 10:30 AM Just to point out a different, and not so hopeful, interpretation of the HFA request, they wrote: "...as well as numerous other musical compositions owned or controlled by NMPA members, are currently being distributed by mudcat.org..."
Scenario:
MAX: I'll remove the songs from my site.
HFA: Thank you. Now, here's a list of 160 copyright lyrics. In the light of your previous action what do you intend to do about them?
AndyG
|
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: Barry Finn Date: 14 Jan 00 - 10:35 AM Hi Liam, I don't think they care a hoot for Max or his money or the songs & their authors for that matter. What I see is they are a gaint that needs to be fed & they thrive off of controlling the market place. With all the free info out there they have to go for the lion's share of it otherwise they die. The Mudcat as a site would be a feather in their hat as well as control of all the other sites that they've attacked, what they could & would be possible of doing is unthinkable. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: Okiemockbird Date: 14 Jan 00 - 10:36 AM AndyG, except that this business creates extra work for Max, I wouldn't worry too much too soon. Even if HFA found sixteen hundred sets of copyrighted lyrics on the DT, the remaining DT would still be one of the larger collections of lyrics on the planet. T. |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: Barry Finn Date: 14 Jan 00 - 10:37 AM As far as concern for the authors, Woody would be pissed that one of his songs made the hit list. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: MMario Date: 14 Jan 00 - 11:16 AM Please note that it is not only the DT that the hairy fox is after, but also the forum database. copying the songs from the DT to the forum JUST CREATES MORE WORK FOR MAX! |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: DougR Date: 14 Jan 00 - 11:35 AM Max: I think you are going to do the right thing. They probably will be back but there doesn't seem to be much anyone can do about that. Hit the delete button. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: Jeri Date: 14 Jan 00 - 11:42 AM MMario, I don't know about that. Can Max could be held responsible for what others post in an unmoderated forum? If discussion of songs is an exception to copyright law? Even if they had the right to object to lyrics posted in the forum, if HFA went through the entire forum and identified each post with lyrics they contol, what's to stop someone posting them again when there's a request? Then they have to go through the entire search and destroy mission again. |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: Margo Date: 14 Jan 00 - 11:43 AM Let's face it folks, with our society we have laws to protect. And it's always a double edged sword. I am indeed in favor of copyright, and I also see how in this case it hurts to comply (the other edge of the sword). Max, you're doing the right thing. I think it's wonderful that you've engaged them enough to finally get them to send you a list! They have been so unreasonable about this from the start. Keep lines of communication open, and keep up the good work. Bless you. Margo |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: Willie-O Date: 14 Jan 00 - 01:07 PM I'm tempted to say "I see a bad moon risin" but geez, guess I'd better not... I absolutely agree you're doing the right thing Max, but I don't understand what the NMPA and other initials hope to gain by this. It's not like you're giving out MP3's. And if you can comply with their request, by providing a link to _their_ site, where the lyrics are available...there's no apparent difference in service to the casual lyric-searcher. Only way I can see this benefitting them is if they're aiming at sending up some kind of e-commerce pay-per-view system...aside from the technical legal matter of "vigorously and visibly defending their copyrights" so their precious intellectual property doesn't (horror of horrors) enter into the common usage and get away on them--like Kleenex, ski-doos and so on. Willie-O |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: MMario Date: 14 Jan 00 - 01:41 PM based on what has happened before, because the forum can be searched and the lyrics downloaded, yes, "they" can demand removal, and they can demand it as frequently as they can show the lyrics are there. Max might/maybe would not be held responsible for someone posting the lyrics, but he could easily be held responsible for not removing them. being visible on the web counts as "publishing" and each download a mechanical reproduction....(at least that appears to be what the big copyright holders are maintaining). and from the rumours I've heard, a pay-per-view is exactly what the hairy folkes are aiming for.... |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: Sapper_RE Date: 14 Jan 00 - 01:55 PM I think the policy of deleting any song they claim (and can prove) copyright to is the correct one. This will show to any court that you are acting in good faith by complying with their more reasonable requests. The only problem is for them in that they have to trawl through the tradition files which can be VERY time consuming. If this bunch of pimmelkopfen are really after Mudcat coughing up quickly, then they may just give up. Bob |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Jan 00 - 02:51 PM I just checked with Woody Guthrie, and he's got no problems with me having 1913 Massacre on my website, so if you take it out of the website Max, you can stick in this link if you like.1913 Massacre |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: MudGuard Date: 14 Jan 00 - 02:58 PM Max, I suggest (and this is no legal suggestion in any way) to temporarily replace the songs in question by a page saying "these lyrics are right now under legal discussion" and then ask the guys how they come to claim these songs are theirs (thus complying to their demand and by replacing the lyrics you concur with their request to remove the lyrics, but you still challenge themn to prove their claim). (Sorry if my English is not the best, but I hope you understand what I think) All my best wishes to you, Max, MudGuard
|
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Jan 00 - 03:01 PM Nope, that came out wrong. Here it is right (I hope): 1913 Massacre But I'm a bit worried about this alleged song called "50,000 songs" which doesn't seem to turn up on the DT.
|
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Jan 00 - 12:56 PM |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: emily rain Date: 15 Jan 00 - 01:26 PM it's 50,000 Names, and it's there. |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: Richard Bridge Date: 15 Jan 00 - 06:57 PM MMario: Correct. InOBU, the problem is that the internet is international. I can suggest a number of manoeuvres to render certain uses lawful under English law. FOr US law purposes I rather like the idea of a link to an unrestricted website with a reference to the "Sony" case (about Betamax videocassettes, if my memory serves me, mirrored in the UK by the Amstrad decision). US law, unlike English, has a "private use" exemption, so putting challenged lyrics in a separate section where the user could not download without certifying "for private use only" might be amusing. Sitting here in the UK I am not at all sure that my collection of US copyright statutes is complete. Lawyers out there should start ploughing through Nimmer or Selz. The US "fair use exemption (s. 107) might also be an inspiration. I would certainly cite that back. I wonder if it is possible to get the mudcat designated as a "library" for the purposes of S. 108 so that single downloaads were non-infringing. Just a thought. However I am fairly sure that there was a recent US statute - something to do with "Digital transmission" which made a whole lot of things illegal. Over to you on this point InoBU. I am sure (which means that I'm not) that the provisions of your S118 must ahve changed since 1991. In a sensible world provisions to protect non-commercial broadcasting should be equally applicable to the Mudcat. In a legal world.......... Finally there is surely some room to apply common sense. Sheet music sales are worth zip. Music rights owners need to get songs recorded and performed and broadcast to make money. FOr example, put a song on here, I like it and perform it in a PRS licensed club in the UK - it maybe turns up in returns to the PRS, and eventually money flows. Rick likes a song, he records it, lots of money flows. Etc. Removing songs from a website like this surely reduces revenue to the rightsowners. Are there no US lawyers out there with relevant experience? |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: Okiemockbird Date: 15 Jan 00 - 09:12 PM Richard Bridge, you're right in what you implicitly stated in your post above--it's a tangle! My own hunch is that the Mudcat can't rely on 17 USC 108. Section 107 will (in my own strictly private this-is-not-legal-advice-and-does-not-establish-a-lawyer/client-relationship opinion) cover some of what happens in the forum, but not necessarily everything. If someone posts an entire copyrighted lyric without any accompanying commentary or discussion, that might be over the line. ISP liability for subscriber infringement is a hot topic. It's the subject of some recent legislation and some recent court cases. Max should probably consult a lawyer about on-line fair use. Not just any lawyer, but one with experience in on-line copyright issues. Then, if necessary, he can set up some guidelines for posting copyrighted material to the forum and ask the Mudcat to help keep the forum within the guidelines--which I think all of us will be glad to do. T. |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: KathWestra Date: 15 Jan 00 - 09:14 PM Max -- You're doing the right thing. Nothing more to say that others haven't said better. Just wanted you to know you have my support and my thanks (AND more of my money to help with expenses, if you need it! Let us know, will you?) Kathy |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: _gargoyle Date: 15 Jan 00 - 09:43 PM Mirrors are one way around .... however, the tedium of vanishing/reappearing links is best left to the 18-19yr-old-MP3ers in univerities.
Sapper - Two years ago....I also would have said, "have to trawl through the tradition files which can be VERY time consuming" and believed they would not do it. Today, the go-bots are amazing!!! Google.com searches at least eight pages back into web sites for "matches." The plagerism.org folk are making their money from the copyright police.
MP3ers used to be able to get around it by using "bogus" first search titles....however, now the engines match up to the acutually binary codes seeking "genetic" matches. |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: Tiger Date: 16 Jan 00 - 10:03 AM Max.. Like most, I support the decision to remove the 'offending' songs. But please, don't gratify them by linking the remnant of the DT entry to THEIR site! Just leave a message saying something like "Can probably be found at other sites using standard search engines." Still and also - how do we know that the DT files are the same as the "Compositions" they refer to. Can't I take a song (from the public domain - even a published version), change a word or two, rearrange it for kazoo, copyright and publish it? It's only the specific arrangement that's copyrighted, right? Anything else is just a new 'author's' interpretation. |
|
Subject: RE: NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' From: Okiemockbird Date: 16 Jan 00 - 03:08 PM Tiger, In this case I think we're dealing with lyrics, not music (Max--is that right ?) so the question of the extent of copyright in derivative music based on PD originals--the "derivative work deconvolution problem" as I like to call it--doesn't arise. T. |
| Share Thread: |