I think it is prudent to state at this point that one of the purposes of
the AHRA was to make it possible for musicians, publishers, and the
like, to recover money based on the assumption that consumers would use
these new technologies to make recordings in a noncommercial way, and
that "interested copyright holders" would therefore have a financial
benefit in these technologies being available. In return, the consumer
was freed from liability for the infringement. Otherwise, there would
have been no need for this Act at all.
Frank Deutschmann wrote:
quoted 12 lines As far as duplicating copyright-protected works, a "plain english"
> As far as duplicating copyright-protected works, a "plain english"
> interpretation of the law (which Adam Weitzman already provided) is that you
> are basicly free to duplicate protected works for your own non-comercial use --
> backups, use in your car, singing in the shower, tunes for your kids' birthday
> parties, etc. However, once you get into distribution and/or public
> performance, you are in commercial territory, regardless whether you charge a
> fee for your service, regardless if you turn a profit, and also regardless of
> whether you are an organized business or not.
>
> So, giving away 10,000 copies of _Thriller_ or giving one copy to a friend both
> constitute copyright violation (the only difference is scale); keeping a spare
> copy of _Thriller_ in your safe deposit box, OTOH, would not.
Every interpretation of this Act that I have read (about 10 so far)
contradicts your assessment here. Prior to this act, one was already
allowed to make copies of recordings for one's own use; there would have
been no need to reiterate it here, and there would have been no need to
use the term "noncommercial" over the term "personal" (which is not used
anywhere in the text of the Act). All of the interpretations of this
Act that I have read have stated that you can make copies of recordings
and give them to friends, and that this constitutes "noncommercial use
by a consumer."
quoted 4 lines The reason for
> The reason for
> this is that in both cases there is an asset transfer involved -- you are
> transferring real property (intellectual counts as real) from one person/entity
> to another.
I'm missing what relevance this has in this context. This is not a
matter of intellectual property; the taper is not claiming that the work
is their own, presumably.
Chris Fahey <chris@wanderlust.com> wrote:
quoted 3 lines I see. But if I made a recording and you recorded it and used it on mix
> I see. But if I made a recording and you recorded it and used it on mix
> tapes, could I sue you for copyright infringement? If not, where do I
> get my royalties?
You mean if I copy it onto a tape and give it to a friend of mine? No,
you can't sue me for copyright infringement based on that. You get your
royalties from the pool of money that is collected through the sale of
digital recording devices and media.
quoted 1 line [nitpicking about the phrase "based on the use of media" deleted]
> [nitpicking about the phrase "based on the use of media" deleted]
That's not what the Act is for; if that's the case, it would have been
totally redundant, unnecessary legislation.
quoted 3 lines What if I only wanted a certain number of select people to even hear my
> What if I only wanted a certain number of select people to even hear my
> copyrighted material? If you copy it, you are subverting my wishes for
> my property.
As far as I know, you are never protected from this by existing law.
Once you distribute the work, the distributee has rights with regards to
that work as well (I can play it at home while my wife is in the room,
for instance). The only way you could enforce this is by yourself. You
can either (a) make one copy of the work, invite x number of people to
listen to it, and then destroy the work, or (b) require that I sign a
contract waiving my right to play it while someone else is in earshot,
and frankly, I don't know how enforceable such a contract is.
This post will constitute my last public contribution on this topic in
1997. See you next year!! :-)
--
Adam J Weitzman "What is is,
Individual, Inc. What is not is possible."
weitzman@individual.com - Einstuerzende
http://www.individual.com Neubauten