IDM Mailing Archive

At 10:08 04/03/96 -0600, you wrote:

quoted 13 lines I was on a mail list last year and one of the guys was doing a project

>I was on a mail list last year and one of the guys was doing a project >for a marketing class. His thesis was that bootlegs of concerts, >unreleased, or unavailable tracks should not be illegal because they pose >no threat of lowering the demand on the label's/artist's current >"legitimately" released work. > >After I answered his survey on my music buying habits, I asked him to >send a copy of his paper to me. He hasn't. Anyone familiar with this >person? > >His point is that most people that buy bootlegs don't do it to save >money, they do it cause they want (need?) everything! I think most >people would agree with this.

The point is that whatever the quality, be it DAT/CD/tape/or 0s and 1s scratched out on someones arse and no matter whether you are selling it at a loss or profit - YOU ARE TAKING SOMETHING WHICH DOES NOT BELONG TO YOU. Think yourselves lucky; the majors are currently trying to think of ways to outlaw the sale of second hand CDs and they have commercially penalised shops selling second hand CDs in the past. g. :::::Warp Net!(TM)::::: http://www.warp-net.com

g303 wrote:

quoted 5 lines The point is that whatever the quality, be it DAT/CD/tape/or 0s and 1s

> > The point is that whatever the quality, be it DAT/CD/tape/or 0s and 1s > scratched out on someones arse and no matter whether you are selling it > at a loss or profit - YOU ARE TAKING SOMETHING WHICH DOES NOT BELONG TO > YOU.

Of course, it is perfectly legal to make mix tapes for people, in the US anyways, for non-commercial purposes. However you feel about ownership, those are the rules. I believe it also applies to mix CDs as well, were you to be in posession of a CDR. As long as it is not a commercial enterprise, I am within my legal rights to do this. That is the law. In terms of taking something which is not yours, what are you referring to? Surely you are not referring to royalties, because there is no way for the record company or the artist to receive any further financial renumeration for the transfer of ownership of a medium containing that artist's music once all media containing that artist's music are sold and the record company decides not to produce any more. Once it's out of print, no more money can be made unless the label decides to put it back in print. And the facts are, especially when referring to the crowd on this list, that pretty much everyone here, given the choice, would rather have the "real thing" over a copy, which is to say that even if someone decided to make a CD of the Joyrex tracks and give it away, and then later Rephlex were to print up legitimate ones and sell them, I can't imagine that we would not all purchase the legitimate one. Are you referring to the ownership of the "art?" Which is to say, the artist feels that his/her "art" consists of 500 slabs of vinyl with music s/he made engraved into it, to be sold by a licensee of his/her choice at standard commercial prices, rather than just the music itself? And once someone decides to press up 5 more for their friends, this constitutes a violation of the artist by changing his/her art without permission? This is an interesting philosophical question, but you would have to agree that, legally, there's no basis for this. Or are you referring to the concept that "only 500 people should hear this," which is easily violated simply by playing the music on the radio? In this picture, given that it is legal for me to record the music in any non-commercial manner I choose, on any medium I choose, what *exactly* am I taking that doesn't belong to me? -- Adam J Weitzman ----- Individual, Inc. ----- weitzman@individual.com "I love the music of the 20th century!" - Bruce Willis, "12 Monkeys"

On Mon, 4 Mar 1996, Adam J Weitzman wrote:

quoted 6 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. However you feel about ownership, > those are the rules. I believe it also applies to mix CDs as well, were > you to be in posession of a CDR. As long as it is not a commercial > enterprise, I am within my legal rights to do this. That is the law.

sidestepping the personal arguements here, and interupting (ahem) how would anyone care to define non-commercial purposes. I see mix tapes for sale at hipster music stores for the average of $10. how can this be not a profit? can one justify this price by listing semi-bogus costs such as packaging, shipping, promotion, etc... Im interested cause i want to start selling my mix tapes in stores, for a profit if i can! Im all for this as mix tapes to me are a whole different art form than originals. 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! basically if you retell another persons original story in your own unique way, it is then your story legally...anyhow, it struck me as very reasonable, but a bit different than the laws that are used for music these days (unfortunately) perhaps im a bit off base here- any one care to correct/flame me...

quoted 14 lines In terms of taking something which is not yours, what are you referring

> In terms of taking something which is not yours, what are you referring > to? Surely you are not referring to royalties, because there is no way > for the record company or the artist to receive any further financial > renumeration for the transfer of ownership of a medium containing that > artist's music once all media containing that artist's music are sold and > the record company decides not to produce any more. Once it's out of > print, no more money can be made unless the label decides to put it back > in print. And the facts are, especially when referring to the crowd on > this list, that pretty much everyone here, given the choice, would rather > have the "real thing" over a copy, which is to say that even if someone > decided to make a CD of the Joyrex tracks and give it away, and then later > Rephlex were to print up legitimate ones and sell them, I can't imagine > that we would not all purchase the legitimate one. >

are royalties legally binding for djs playing new music on mix tapes or at clubs/raves/etc...?

quoted 8 lines Are you referring to the ownership of the "art?" Which is to say, the

> Are you referring to the ownership of the "art?" Which is to say, the > artist feels that his/her "art" consists of 500 slabs of vinyl with music > s/he made engraved into it, to be sold by a licensee of his/her choice at > standard commercial prices, rather than just the music itself? And once > someone decides to press up 5 more for their friends, this constitutes a > violation of the artist by changing his/her art without permission? This > is an interesting philosophical question, but you would have to agree > that, legally, there's no basis for this.

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... what are the laws concerning remixing anothers work? can one do it, sell it comercially, all without the original artists permission...? I doubt this, but why not? to me it would open the market wide up, and put more focus on quality rather than quatity...(if there are 10 million versions of a song, people are going to start being more choosy...just look at the internet!) bracing myself for the barrage of royalty recievers angry rebuttles- -Thad

Adam J Weitzman wrote:

quoted 6 lines In terms of taking something which is not yours, what are you referring

> In terms of taking something which is not yours, what are you referring > to?[...] > Are you referring to the ownership of the "art?" Which is to say, the > artist feels that his/her "art" consists of 500 slabs of vinyl with music > s/he made engraved into it, to be sold by a licensee of his/her choice at > standard commercial prices, rather than just the music itself?

The royalties issue is separate from the ownership issue - if you copyright your recordings or compositions, they belong to you; as it says on almost all recordings, 'unauthorized duplication/copying of recording is prohibited'. As for royalties, you have to register a recording with ASCAP, BMI, or other organizations, and then they will keep track of the airplay and such and pass on the royalty fees to you (minus a hefty 50% for their services). If anyone's interested, the most recent issue of Electronic Musician has a bit on this in relation to putting out a release on your own. On the subject of mixtapes - since the artists tolerate this use of their recordings, and since they're good promotion, I don't think they fall into the same category as bootlegged releases. I get mixtapes so that I have an idea of what different artists' work sounds like, so that if I hear something that interests me, I'll be much more likely to pick it up at the record shop. As for this whole radio station promo bit, I agree with those who are looking at it from the label's point of view. I don't see how anyone can expect small labels to put out copies to every college radio station that feels they have a right to the stuff. With the resources that small labels have and the small number of releases they sell, it's just too much to expect CDs to be shipped off to radio stations everywhere. Now when RealAudio starts to sound like a CD, maybe artists could do edited (3 min. or so) versions of a song specifically for promotional purposes, and then everyone and their brother would have access to it. GD

On Mon, 4 Mar 1996 22:43:52 -0800 (PST), you wrote:

quoted 7 lines Could someone direct me to (or post) an ART discography with some

> >Could someone direct me to (or post) an ART discography with some >comments about availability of the various releases. > >Thanks. > >T.

OK, Here are the releases we distributed; ART ===================== ART2CD - The Philosophy of Sound and Machine - CD - DELETED ART4CD - Applied Rhythmic Technology - CD - DELETED ART5CD - Unexplained Phenomyna - CD - DELETED ART5.1 - Phenomyna Explained V1 - EP - STILL AVAILABLE ART5.2 - Phenomyna Explained V2 - EP - STILL AVAILABLE ART6 - Elegy - Ensemple - EP - STILL AVAILABLE ART / B12 joint projects ====================== ART7.1 / B1214.1 - Redcell / Esoterik / Blue Binary - Still Available ART7.2 / B1214.2 - Redcell / Elegy / Esoteric - Still Available We never distributed ART3, but believe it was "Chicken Noodle Soup" Cheers, Danny _______________________ .' `. | ---\ | Kudos Records Limited | -----\ ---\ | Unit 1, Canada House | \--\ ----\ | Blackburn Road | ----------\ | London NW6 1RZ | --\ ---\ | | --\ ---\ | PH: 071 372 0391 | --\ ----\ | FX: 071 372 0392 | | E-mail danny@kudos.demon.co.uk `._______________________.'