179,854Messages
9,130Senders
30Years
342mboxes

← archive index

(idm) Taping music is legal. Get over it.

3 messages · 3 participants · spans 1 day · search this subject
◇ merged from 2 subjects: (idm) re: idm v1 #411 · (idm) taping music is legal. get over it.
1996-03-05 09:52rephlex (idm) Re: idm V1 #411
└─ 1996-03-05 15:23Kent Williams Re: (idm) Re: idm V1 #411
1996-03-05 15:02Adam J Weitzman (idm) Taping music is legal. Get over it.
expand allcollapse allclick any summary to toggle that message
1996-03-05 09:52rephlex>On Mon, 4 Mar 1996, Adam J Weitzman wrote: >> >> Of course, it is perfectly legal to make
From:
rephlex
To:
Date:
Tue, 5 Mar 1996 09:52:13 GMT
Subject:
(idm) Re: idm V1 #411
permalink · <199603050952.AA12071@felix.dircon.co.uk>
quoted 7 lines On Mon, 4 Mar 1996, Adam J Weitzman wrote:>On Mon, 4 Mar 1996, Adam J Weitzman wrote: >> >> 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.
erm, I'd like to see you make a mixtape of someone like Prince and freely distribute it on a wide scale and then say that to Warners. Have you ever read the small print around the edge of most records - IT MEANS WHAT IT SAYS. IT'S ALL A QUESTION OF PERMISSION.
1996-03-05 15:23Kent WilliamsOn Tue, 5 Mar 1996, rephlex wrote: > > IT'S ALL A QUESTION OF PERMISSION. > You know, I am
From:
Kent Williams
To:
rephlex
Cc:
Date:
Tue, 5 Mar 1996 09:23:20 -0600 (CST)
Subject:
Re: (idm) Re: idm V1 #411
Reply to:
(idm) Re: idm V1 #411
permalink · <Pine.LNX.3.91.960305091551.29555B-100000@soli.inav.net>
On Tue, 5 Mar 1996, rephlex wrote:
quoted 3 lines IT'S ALL A QUESTION OF PERMISSION.> > IT'S ALL A QUESTION OF PERMISSION. >
You know, I am getting really sick of reading this shit. When Grant takes the time to read IDM and respond, I'd a whole lot rather hear about what's coming up from rephlex, what he thinks about various records etc, rather than respond to a pretty pathetic dilation on what started out as an innocent suggestion by someone who wasn't up on the idea of copyright protection. Is there actually a controversy here? Doesn't everyone, if they stop and think a second, really have a problem understanding what's legal and what's illegal? Mix tapes are in a legal grey area. It's obvious that they're a violation of copyright by any strict interpretation of the law. But they're illegal-but-tolerated. Any commercial mix (i.e. mixmag Hawtin disk) are produced under license. We're on a continuum here: Legal Legal-but-pushing-it Illegal-but-tolerated Illegal-but-discouraged Illegal-with-zero-Tolerance Illegal-and-Interpol-is-after-you. --------------------------------------------------------------------- In an expanding universe, time is on the side of the outcast. Those who once inhabited the suburbs of human contempt find that without changing their address they eventually live in the metropolis. -- Quentin Crisp Kent Williams kent@inav.net (319) 338 6053 (home) (319) 626 6700 x 219 (work) (319) 626 3489 (fax)
1996-03-05 15:02Adam J Weitzmanrephlex wrote: > erm, I'd like to see you make a mixtape of someone like Prince and freely
From:
Adam J Weitzman
To:
Date:
Tue, 05 Mar 1996 10:02:54 -0500
Subject:
(idm) Taping music is legal. Get over it.
permalink · <313C579E.3F31@individual.com>
rephlex wrote:
quoted 5 lines erm, I'd like to see you make a mixtape of someone like Prince and freely> erm, I'd like to see you make a mixtape of someone like Prince and freely > distribute it on a wide scale and then say that to Warners. Have you ever > read the small print around the edge of most records - IT MEANS WHAT IT SAYS. > > IT'S ALL A QUESTION OF PERMISSION.
"'Nick....'" <ndavey@essex.ac.uk> wrote:
quoted 2 lines Legally any copies made of a record whether For profit or> Legally any copies made of a record whether For profit or > not it's illegal.
vidarh@dataconsult.no (Vidar Hanssen) wrote:
quoted 6 lines *All* kind of un-licenced copying of music is illegal. When I release a> *All* kind of un-licenced copying of music is illegal. When I release a > record, I have exclusive right to duplicate the music, which means I am the > only one who can copy it to any format. It doesn't matter if you sell the > tape/CD-R it or use it yourself, even home-taping is illegal. > That's the legal side of it, and those rules apply all over the world, in the > US too. Just read the standard text on any CD.
These are all nice theories. The fact is, none of them are true. In the US, I can make a recording of any music I want, on any media I want, and give it to anyone I choose, and no record company can sue me. The record companies waived the right to sue anyone over this in favor of a DAT tax. In October 1992, Congress passed the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA). One section of the Act states the following (I found this at http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypertext/faq/usenet/Copyright-FAQ/part3/faq.html and will use a short piece of the commentary thereafter): ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. As the legislative history to this statute noted, "In short, the reported legislation would clearly establish that consumers cannot be sued for making analog or digital audio copies for private noncommercial use." H.R. Rep. 102-780(I). Does this mean you can make copies for your family and friends, as long as it's not "commercial?" A strict reading of the words in the statute would seem to say that you may. This is not as outrageous as it sounds. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The web page then goes on to talk about the DAT tax, that the law is relatively new and hasn't yet been tested in court, and that it does not apply to spoken-word recordings. I just picked up my Orb "Pomme Fritz" CD. I'm reading the fine print. It states: "Warning: Unauthorized reproduction of this recording is prohibited by federal law and subject to criminal prosecution." This states that "unauthorized reproduction" is illegal. Making a tape of this CD and giving it to people, according to the law, is not "unauthorized reproduction;" it is, in fact, explicitly authorized by the AHRA. I'm sorry, folks. You can kick and scream about it all you want, but the fact is that in the United States, it is perfectly legal to tape music for yourself and for your friends, provided that you do it in a non-commercial manner. Now, of course, I don't do this all the time. But I do sometimes make compilation tapes for people, to expose them to new music. And this action is legally protected by the Audio Home Recording Act. -- Adam J Weitzman ----- Individual, Inc. ----- weitzman@individual.com "I love the music of the 20th century!" - Bruce Willis, "12 Monkeys"