On Tue, 5 Mar 1996, Lazlo Nibble wrote:
quoted 10 lines Of course, it is perfectly legal to make mix tapes for people, in the US> >> Of course, it is perfectly legal to make mix tapes for people, in the US
> >> anyways, for non-commercial purposes.
> >
> > sidestepping the personal arguements here, and interupting (ahem) how
> > would anyone care to define non-commercial purposes.
>
> If you're selling it, you're engaging in commerce, which makes it for
> commercial purposes. Whether or not you're actually turning a profit has
> nothing to do with it, except that your turning a profit makes it easier for
> the copyright holder to demand damages from you when they sue you.
ok. thanks for the clarification
quoted 15 lines I remember some recent supreme court decision saying ( i think concerning>
> > I remember some recent supreme court decision saying ( i think concerning
> > a software company legal dispute) something to the effect that if the
> > merchandise has its own unique method of delivery/story telling/context,
> > even if it shares identical content in some way with anothers product, it
> > is still not an infringment, and can be considered unique... hows that for
> > a vague synopsis!
>
> I suspect you're missing some essential detail of this, because I'm pretty
> familiar with copyright law and I'm not aware of any such decision (or
> even one that might be interpreted this way, at least where software is
> concerned). If you hold the copyright one a work, you also have the right to
> control any works that are derived from your original work. This is a very
> well-established aspect of copyright law.
>
ok. but is it fair/correct...? I understand an artist's interest in
preventing outright *duplication* of his work without his permission, with
no changes made to it... but derivated works!?! (its possible i missed
some details on the legal dispute, but none that would change my overall
point. if my shady memory halfway serves, another example was microsoft
being sued for utilizing (not copying!) the mac "look"...the case was
denied.
quoted 7 lines are royalties legally binding for djs playing new music on mix tapes or at> > are royalties legally binding for djs playing new music on mix tapes or at
> > clubs/raves/etc...?
>
> Yes. If a work is performed in public, the artist has the right to demand
> royalties. That includes live DJ gigs. (As I mentioned before, this is
> usually taken care of in the US when venue pays their annual license fees
> to ASCAP and/or BMI.)
ok. again thanks for clarifying. but if a work is mixed up with other
works, say four layers on top of one another, who is being creative at
that point...? to me its the djs work at that point- he's (she's) making
connections between works that were not made evident/manifest before his
handiwork...true, he could not have done exactly what he did w/o the
originals, but it is *no longer the originals*!
quoted 6 lines on another side note, if someone remixes, in my mind it would no longer be>
> > on another side note, if someone remixes, in my mind it would no longer be
> > the same piece of "art", but a new unique expression...
>
> A remix is a derivative work, and as such, requires permission from the
> person who holds the copyright on the work the remix is derived from.
everything is derivative of everything else. (even "original" creations-
they did not just come out of nowhere!) the trick is to be innovative
with derivation (evolution)- what creation is all about!
anyhow- thats my current 16 bit philosophy
BTW, there is an interesting web page devoted to mix tapes, with articles
discussing the various sides o the arguement.
point your netscapes to:
urk. lost the address.
well anyhow- its out there! just plug the phrase "mix tapes" in to
netscapes latest net search search engine...
if for some reason your desperate, ask me via privat email, and ill
rumage through the trash...
have a wvnderfvl evening-
-daht