 sj |
||
|
||
BS: copywright question - not mudcat related
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: copywright question - not mudcat related From: GUEST,Okiemockbird Date: 20 Feb 00 - 03:19 PM I wrote earlier that I recall hearing that records made in the U.S. before 1972 were not protected by federal copyright. But I also pointed out that (assuming that what I heard was correct) for records made prior to 1972, state anti-copying laws might apply. Also, even if the record isn't itself protected by copyright, the music on the record might still be. What the law should be, in my opinion, is that what annap proposes would come under the heading of "fair use." But I fear that that is NOT what the law will become if the question ever comes to court. The copyright interests have been fairly successful in using the courts to narrow the definition of fair use. The law states that "multiple copies for classroom use" is a fair use. But the publishers have gotten the courts to rule that it is NOT a fair use for a copy shop to make the "multiple copies" in exchange for money at a teacher's request. Similarly, for scientists to copy journal articles from library copies of scientific journals for their private use has always been considered a fair use. But the copyright barons have gotten the courts to rule that, if those scientists work for Texaco, a profit-making corporation, this use is NOT fair--or at least, less likely to be fair than otherwise. Again, the law creates a "homestyle exemption" from music licensing for business owners who want to bring home-style audio equipment into their shops. The barons have gotten some courts to interpret this exemption fairly narrowly, and I have a hunch they may also be preparing to attempt to destroy the homestyle exemption altogether through the back-door of the WTO. Because of these complications, if I were in annap's place I would consult a lawyer before going ahead with the project.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: copywright question - not mudcat related From: Ferrara Date: 20 Feb 00 - 11:28 AM Anna, on one of the old Mudcat copyright threads I believe there was a post from the owner of a printing shop, saying he had been fined thousands of dollars because somebody copied and distributed copyrighted equipment on his equipment. As I remember, it was done without (he claims) his knowing it was a copyright violation. This seems a service that is fraught with problems. If the information above is correct, records made prior to 1973 in the US, or 1923 (ha) overseas, can be copied in all situations. If that turns out to be true, you might consider a slightly more expensive service where you take the records and have your people copy them, making sure there's no infringement. I know that doesn't seem fair to people who just want to copy their records for private use, but life isn't fair and huge fines should be avoided where possible.... Good luck with the shop. - Rita F |
|
Subject: RE: BS: copywright question - not mudcat related From: Gene Date: 20 Feb 00 - 11:04 AM EASY CREATE CD comes with a program called SPIN DOCTOR - a program that automatically separates and saves the songs on a CASSETTE into individual WAV files. [looks good on paper] I spent the better part of 2 hours last night transferring a CASSETTE just to the Hard Drive. Side 1 worked perfectly - the songs were stored on HD as individual UNNAMED tracks... [You have to re/name with titles if desired] Side 2 was a different story...probably due to the the SHORT BREAKS between tracks... a KEY feature in allowing the tracks to be separated...all 7 tracks were stored INTACT as a SINGLE 180Mb file... I had to use my Sound144/DAT program to visually INSPECT and EDIT the 180Mb track into individual tracks... Re/Trying the AUTO Track separate function failed. I realized TOO LATE that it would have been quicker to RE/RECORD the songs and manually allow for MORE SEPARATION between the songs but again, THAT TAKES TIME ALSO...You have to stay right there with finger on the trigger at END and START of each song.... I have recorded thousands of individual songs to Hard Drive and transferred to CD as both MP3 format and as CD quality files... but this was my first attempt at recording a complete Album/Cassette to CD... CONCLUSION: IT AIN'T NO PICNIC!
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: copywright question - not mudcat related From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Feb 00 - 08:48 PM I imagine what happened is that home cassette recorder became cheap enough to be universally available. And the same is likely to happen with CD recording machines - by a few months time they'll be standard in entry -level PCs. Or it'll be some other equivalent with MP3 or whatever.
But I love the way terms like PIRACY and BOOTLEGGER have come into vogue. "Yo Ho Ho and a CDROM"
For some reason I am reminded of the parrot who was sacked from a production of Treasure Island in England this winter. Instead of saying "Pieces of Eight" the bird insisted on squawking "Piss Off Mate". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: copywright question - not mudcat related From: dick greenhaus Date: 13 Feb 00 - 01:30 PM AnnaP- THis idea came up about 20 years ago; someone was trying it with cassette recorders in record store kiosks. I don't know what happened to it, but it seemed to die out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: copywright question - not mudcat related From: Sorcha Date: 13 Feb 00 - 03:05 AM This equipment is NOT cheap; I would also be concerned about equip. breakage----who pays?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: copywright question - not mudcat related From: Crowhugger Date: 13 Feb 00 - 02:40 AM I figure that if it was an real moneymaker, some division of Gates-Corp would have turned a service mark into a household word. Or at least the bigger Folklore Centres would have the equipment. If there's something new under the sun, I 'xpect it is not an easy way make gobs of dough with little effort, at least not legally. IMcautiousHO. It would sure be interesting to have a paid legal opinion. Copyright gets messy even without e-duplication. Can you afford a lawfirm that pays insurance on advice about technology that changes giga-quickly? Out-of-court settlements still cost legals. Plus the settlement if there was a financial loss by the plaintiff. Takes the fun out of providing a great service to those who would not abuse it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: copywright question - not mudcat related From: fox4zero Date: 13 Feb 00 - 01:36 AM Annap-Originally I thought you said that the clients would lease the equipment from you and take it home with them. But since you would be in control of the equipment at your shop I don't think it would become "shambles" On the other hand, if there was a question of piracy you would have greater complicity if the copying was done in your place of business. I don't know where you live, but frankly I don't think the copyright-holders would bother you in your operation...they are after bigger fish (figuratively) Love, PARISH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: copywright question - not mudcat related From: SeanM Date: 12 Feb 00 - 06:46 PM Lawyer's a dern good idea, annap. All the ramblings here will only cloud an issue that he/she can settle for you. Best of luck in the venture, and here's hoping you can start some new people down the road to better music ;^) M |
|
Subject: RE: BS: copywright question - not mudcat related From: annamill Date: 12 Feb 00 - 05:28 PM Parish, I'm asking if this would be considered PIRACY or not. Legally I mean. If it is not considered PIRACY, I would have no qualms about putting in the machine. The machine would never leave the premises so I would be able to look after it, so I'm not concerned about the shape of the machine. I would, however, like to know why you feel this would NOT be a money making proposition. This is a genuine desire to know, because if there is something I'm overlooking, I'd like to know what it would be. I know if someone around here had such a deal, there are many albums I'd like to copy to play in my car, or just play on my CD player without worring about getting up to turn the record over and being able to jump to a track without scratching my record. I think others would feel the same. ..and GG, I'm sorry, I cannot respond to your post because I didn't understand it. Can you reword it please? Thanks. Does it mean you think it's a bad idea and you're being sarcastic, or are you being sincere and really think I should do it? ;-) I'm asking my lawyer about this problem next week. Love, annap |
|
Subject: RE: BS: copywright question - not mudcat related From: GUEST,Okiemockbird Date: 11 Feb 00 - 11:09 PM Garg, take care the trademark folks don't come after you for using "just do it." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: copywright question - not mudcat related From: GUEST,_gargoyle Date: 11 Feb 00 - 10:37 PM
Don't hesitate, don't blink, don't stumble and fall
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: copywright question - not mudcat related From: GUEST,loiq Date: 11 Feb 00 - 09:26 PM I'll send you a letter and a CD by mail
I'll send it in care of the [fill in name] jail.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: copywright question - not mudcat related From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Feb 00 - 09:09 PM So: a) if you sell someone A machine which kletsbthem copy vinyl onto CDs,(so that if they wish they can make hundreds and sell them as bootlegs), that's legal, but b)if you rent the same equipment to them, it's illegal, and c)if you let them use the equipment in your shop, and make sure they only make one copy, that's illegal? Isn't the law wonderful?
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: copywright question - not mudcat related From: fox4zero Date: 11 Feb 00 - 08:00 PM Dear Annap et al: First of all I think that you would get involved in an unprofitable enterprise....having nothing to do with copyrights. Your equipment would be in shambles in no time. Secondly, you mentioned that this might be a "real money maker". In other words, you are willing to get involved in PIRACY in order to make a buck. The scale may be vastly different, but you and EMI, SONY etc have the same goal. Obviously, there is no problem with copying mechanicals for one's personal use. Nor do I think that there is a problem with swapping tapes with a fellow affectionado. Also I don't believe there is any problem copying, otherwise unavailable public domain material, like Old Homestead does for a fee. DISCLAIMER-I have a financial interest in copyrighted musical compositions...popular music, not folk. Love you all, anyway. PARISH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: copywright question - not mudcat related From: Benjamin Date: 11 Feb 00 - 07:05 PM The copyright law as I understand it goes like this- Lets say you found a comic that you thought was funny and wanted to copy it and give it to someone. So you copy it, that's leagle. Then you give the copy to your friend, that's the illeagle part (though in this case, NO ONE would care!). Now if you were producing multiple coppies of this comic and selling them all over the city, some one might try to do something. In this case, I'm not sure. If they own the record, they have the right to copy it. But then it could be seen that you're selling these copies. I guess I'm no copyright expert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: copywright question - not mudcat related From: dick greenhaus Date: 11 Feb 00 - 06:16 PM Considering the cash value of virtually all folk and folkish music, maybe they should set up a small-claims court for intellectual property. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: copywright question - not mudcat related From: GUEST Date: 11 Feb 00 - 04:40 PM 17 U.S.C. #1008 reads: "No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings." As I read between the lines, the following questions come to mind: (a) It says that no action may be brought alleging infringement of copyright. Does the wording leave open the chance of bringing actions alleging "circumvention", failure to incorporate a Serial Copy Management system, failure to pay the prescribed royalties on digital audio media, or some other thing ? (b) It says that no action may be brought based on the noncommercial use by the consumer...of a device. Does this leave open the option of bringing actions based on someone's commercial activities ? (c) It says that no action may be brought based on distribution of devices or media. Does providing the use of a device in some way that doesn't constitute "distribution" fall through the legal cracks ? (d) It says "no action shall be brought", not that copyright has not been infringed. Did the drafters of this section want to leave open the question of whether private copying is an infringement, in order to allow the powerful interests maximum leeway for restricting private uses on other fronts ? If I were in annap's place I'd take these questions to a copyright lawyer. Not just any copyright lawyer; I'd try to find one with experience in digital copyright issues. T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: copywright question - not mudcat related From: Bert Date: 11 Feb 00 - 03:22 PM I think that the fine for each copyright violation can be as much as $100,000. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: copywright question - not mudcat related From: annamill Date: 11 Feb 00 - 03:12 PM I would not be letting users take home the equipment. They would use it in the store. I could limit them to one copy. I would sell the blank disks also ;-) I guess I'll have to ask a copyright lawyer to be really sure. Maybe I should just go ahead and do it and see what happens. Thank you for your help. Love, Annap |
|
Subject: RE: BS: copywright question - not mudcat related From: GUEST,Okiemockbird Date: 11 Feb 00 - 02:04 PM I think the vested interests would LIKE for private copying (for the car, say) to be made illegal, but they know it'll be a long time, if ever, before they can make that idea stick. Once someone starts making money from private copying, though, they want their cut. It's too late for them to collect royalties on every use of a Xerox machine, but I think they would if they could. I believe they collect a royalty on all sales of blank digital audio tape. So someone who backs up vinyl to CD in his own home with his own equipment is, at least for now, beyond their reach. But if you make the equipment available, or even rent it to people who take it home and do their copying there, I suspect they'll try to make an example of you. They don't want people to make CDs from their old vinyl albums, they want people to go back to the record store and buy their CD versions of the old albums. Maybe for us it's no different from making a Xerox machine available: the user is responsible for the use he makes of it. For the copyright barons it is very different because, unlike the war against photocopying of print, it's a war they probably would think they would have a good chance of winning. Because they have the money, merely by thinking they can win they increase their chances of winning. T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: copywright question - not mudcat related From: Charlie Baum Date: 11 Feb 00 - 01:54 PM My hunch is this: The courts have held that, according to the doctrine of fair use, I may take a recording I own and make a copy in a different format for my own use. But I'm not permitted to mass produce it. Once the tunes are digitized and copied, how do keep a customer from making many multiple copies (presumably for resale) on your equipment? And if the tunes are stored for the use of anyone else other than the original owner, you've clearly got a legal problem. Can you devise safeguards to prevent people from doing that on your equipment?
--Charlie Baum |
|
Subject: RE: BS: copywright question - not mudcat related From: SeanM Date: 11 Feb 00 - 01:51 PM The problem would be that you would be responsible for ensuring that nothing illegal happened with the copies made. If you do it yourself, for yourself, that's a fair use. If you make the copy and then sell it, then you're in trouble. Sadly, apparently the same goes for recording venues. Even if you do nothing except let them have access to equipment, it makes you an accessory if they run off and do something stupid with their copies. Not that I have any legal basis for any of the above... it's just a discussion I had with a friend who ran a music store as well. M |
|
Subject: RE: BS: copywright question - not mudcat related From: annamill Date: 11 Feb 00 - 01:44 PM Wait a minute now. If I record an album to a tape to listen to in my car, is that illegal? They would be recording the albums for private use. Not to be distributed. That's why I would have to let them do the recording themselves. L.,A.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: copywright question - not mudcat related From: GUEST,T in Oklahoma (Okiemockbird) Date: 11 Feb 00 - 01:41 PM That's DEFINITELY one for the lawyers to work on. The copyright status of records is complex. My (entirely private opinion, this is not legal advice) understanding is: records made in 1972 (or 1973, I forget the precise date) and later are protected by federal copyright. Records made in the U.S. prior to 1972 are not protected by federal copyright, but may be protected by state anti-copying laws. Many foreign records (originating in Berne countries) made between 1923 and 1972 are, however, now (since 1996) protected by federal copyright. This applies only to the recording itself. The music and/or words on any record may have its own copyright in addition to any copyright in the record itself. Pretty simple, isn't it ? My strictly-private-opinion-not-legal-advice hunch is that what you propose would not be legal unless you made licensing arrangements with all the interested rightsholders or their agents. Even if the legal point can be argued either way in the abstract on fair-use grounds, in practice the people who have an interest in making your proposed practice into an illegal practice have the money to take their argument to court and make it stick. T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: copywright question - not mudcat related From: MMario Date: 11 Feb 00 - 01:10 PM I suspect it is NOT legal. But you might still be able to do it if you put a disclaimer in your contract stating you are not responsible for the illegal use of equiptment, pionting out that that particular use IS illegal. |
|
Subject: copywright question - not mudcat related From: annamill Date: 11 Feb 00 - 12:31 PM Honey and I are opening a video and music store and someone made a wonderful suggestion. We should have good cd recorder, an interface that cleans up the sound (Dolby something or other), a good turntable and we could rent time on the machines to anyone who want to put their records on CD. This is a great idea! but is it legal? Someone suggested that is I let the persons record their own CDs it would be. Does anyone know for sure? It sound like a real money maker. Love, annap
|