From lazlo@carina.unm.edu Tue Mar 22 12:36:15 1994:
quoted 21 lines Now THIS is the potentially dangerous part, and I could understand if>
> > Now THIS is the potentially dangerous part, and I could understand if
> > this bothered some label-exec-types. The sound archives at the
> > techno/SFRaves site are technically illegal, specifically the samples of
> > entire songs.
>
> Not under current US copyright law, they aren't.
>
> 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.
>
> 17 U.S.C. 1008.
>
> In other words, if no money changes hands, you can copy to your heart's
> content. I see no reason why this law should apply any differently to the
> music archives than it does to home taping.
Actually I interpret that paragraph quite differently, to be *only* about
the legality of making and selling digital recording devices and tapes.
Let me rewrite this in english as I interpret it (don't you just love what
the lawyers do in this country? :)
"No lawsuits may be brought because anyone made, imported or distributed a
recording device or blank media (analog or digital) used for noncommerical
use by a consumer."
In other words, this law tells the music industry to stop wasting the
court's time on lawsuits regarding the legality of digital recording
devices or media, such as DAT machines or DAT blanks, sold in the consumer
market.
Now distributing someone else's recording digitally I would still take to
be illegal without explicit permission from the owner of the music. This
is standard copyright stuff, as in the beginning of a book which tells you
that no duplication is permitted without permission of the author or
publisher. There's no mention of commercial or noncommercial duplication:
you simply can't do it.
The issue of recordings on WWW will no doubt become much larger when the
commercial industry gets involved, selling music to consumers via the net
by downloading 44.1K or better quality recordings. For now the techno site
is acting somewhat as a library, in that no money does change hands The
difference is that a library assumes that you're observing copyright laws
and not duplicating the music that you borrow, and of course that you're
going to return the recording to them.
On the net you're very explicitly making a copy of the music everytime you
listen to it, since programs like Mosaic or Cello download the music to
your machine before playing it. If those programs acted more like a radio
and downloaded on the fly just what it needed to play the recording then I
doubt that it would be considered duplication, and might be more
acceptable.
ALSO:
At 11:24 PM 3/22/94 -0600, djkc wrote:
quoted 8 lines OK, then, what about my distributing tapes which have lots of IDM which I>OK, then, what about my distributing tapes which have lots of IDM which I
>copied from my CD collection? Is it wrong to ask for compensation for
>postage, the medium, and/or my service (i.e., taking time to copy)???
>
>Oh, btw, just plain ole copied IDM CDs, not DJ mixed or anything...
>
>Chris, I want to send you a 90 minute CrO2 tape with the latest BIOSPHERE
>LP recorded on it. Would it be wrong to ask you to give me money at all?
A mix tape and the artistic pursuits of dj's on a mix tape is a different
issue, though it probably has the same implications in copyright adherence.
However, I'd imagine that most musicians and labels expect their product
to be used in this manner and wouldn't shoot themselves in the foot by
pressing a lawsuit over such a tape, especially because they'd probably
only have only a single tune on an entire mix tape.
On the other hand, if you charge Chris money for recording the latest
Biosphere cd on a tape, outside of the cost of the actual media and the
shipping cost, then not only would you be breaking copyright law, but I'd
think you were a real asshole. There's no legitimate service in your
receiving money to sell music that you didn't create; that money belongs to
the musicians and the label that went to the trouble to create and produce
it.
Phil Z