IDM Mailing Archive

So Lazlo's a copyright lawyer? I really don't think you could make 10,000 copies of Thriller and give them away in front of Tower Records and hope to get away with it. "Fair use" means FAIR use. You can copy something onto a mix tape for your commute to work. You can back something up if you don't want to damage the original copy. You can make copies and give them away to demonstrate what something sounds like. You can quote people in articles and use pictures of famous people in newspapers without their permission. But not much more than that. Besides, I don't think the RIAA has the power to decide what is copyrightable and what is not. It seems a little too blatantly unfair that the RIAA can make a deal to take away copyright protection from every musical release in the US. Industry and government often collude to fuck artists and citizens, but this seems a little too libertarian for the feds. If I make my own pressing of CD's, are you saying they are not subject to copyright protection just because of some deal the RIAA made with the US government? I doubt it. Copyright law is very misunderstood. It is VERY VERY strict, and, *fortunately*, very under-enforced. Technically, I can't sing Happy Birthday without paying some old lady in St. Louis for the rights. Technically, I can't play a CD in a bar unless I pay ASCAP royalties. Technically, you have to pay original artists for ALL the samples you use, even if it's only a half-second sample. Technically, I can't show the Nike logo on my shoes in a motion picture without asking Nike. And technically, you can't make a copy someone else's copyrighted stuff. That's why Kinko's won't photocopy books for you - it's a copyright violation to put a book on a photocopier and press "copy". The only exception I know of is Fair Use, which covers journalists mostly, but also to some degree satirists, essayists and commentators. I dont think "commercial vs.non-profit" purposes has anything to do with it. Of course, I'm not a copyright lawyer either. It's just that I've had copyright lawyers tell me "no way" so many times that I'm sick of it. And misinterpreting the law to reflect my anti-copyright political agenda won't help me win a lawsuit. Wishful thinking won't help you against a media giant legal attack. Again, if you are going to violate copyright, recognize the fact that you are doing it before you do so. Then, go for it! -CF

quoted 16 lines -----Original Message-----

> -----Original Message----- > From: Miles Egan > > >It's not that simple. We've been over this on the list already > > >(Laslo?). You CAN copy a disk as much as you want & even give > copies > > >away as long as you don't sell them, right? > > > > no not right and people are getting sick of it. > > > > g. > > Apparently you should re-acquaint yourself with the laws that govern > your business, at least in the U.S. Check Laslo's message. If you do > ever give this disk a legitimate pressing, I'll be first in line. > > Miles

And the great "copyright debate" circle comes 'round again. I put my two cents in about this in March of last year. :-) Please read the full text of the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (it is available at http://www.hrrc.org/ahra.html). It is an amendment to the Copyright Act of 1976 and, in part, reads as follows: ----------------------------------------------------------- Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions 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. ----------------------------------------------------------- What this means is left as an exercise for the reader. (Hint: Lazlo is correct.) With regards to giving away 10,000 CD-R's of _Thriller_, I imagine Sony would argue that by pressing up 10,000 CD-R's of something, you are either (a) no longer engaged in a "noncommercial" enterprise, or (b) no longer qualifying as a "consumer," and so you could be sued for infringement of copyright in this case. Of course, I'm not a lawyer either. But the text of this part of the Act is exceptionally clear (compared to most legal jargon I've tried to read). The rest of the Act speaks to "how do artists get paid then?" and the answer is, essentially, a tax on all digital recording media and devices. -- Adam J Weitzman "What is is, Individual, Inc. What is not is possible." weitzman@individual.com - Einstuerzende http://www.individual.com Neubauten

On Wed, 07 May 1997 12:38:10 -0400, you wrote:

quoted 33 lines And the great "copyright debate" circle comes 'round again. I put my

>And the great "copyright debate" circle comes 'round again. I put my >two cents in about this in March of last year. :-) > >Please read the full text of the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (it is >available at http://www.hrrc.org/ahra.html). It is an amendment to the >Copyright Act of 1976 and, in part, reads as follows: > >----------------------------------------------------------- >Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions > >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. >----------------------------------------------------------- > >What this means is left as an exercise for the reader. (Hint: Lazlo is >correct.) > >With regards to giving away 10,000 CD-R's of _Thriller_, I imagine Sony >would argue that by pressing up 10,000 CD-R's of something, you are >either (a) no longer engaged in a "noncommercial" enterprise, or (b) no >longer qualifying as a "consumer," and so you could be sued for >infringement of copyright in this case. > >Of course, I'm not a lawyer either. But the text of this part of the >Act is exceptionally clear (compared to most legal jargon I've tried to >read). The rest of the Act speaks to "how do artists get paid then?" >and the answer is, essentially, a tax on all digital recording media and >devices.

erm, what about mechanical publishing royalties? who pays those. so apart from the record label you would have the publisher shitting you up with suits as well. g.

I agree with your interpretation of the "no longer a consumer" excuse to crack down on mass-producing Thriller. But don't you see how this same logic could be applied to making *two* copies? - you are now a manufacturer, not a consumer. When they say consumer, they mean a person who is going to use it for personal use AS A CONSUMER. This means that I must use my dupe of Thriller for the same purpose I would use the original of thriller - as a consumer, for my own personal use. (I know this is a specious argument, but the record labels could argue that they own their copyright protection under ancient elven law and still beat you in court. They knew this when they made this phony "concession". Don't fool yourself - they can still fuck you.) Besides, this passage only says you can't be sued for using the machines or the medium. But as any copyright lawyer will tell you, its the *contents* which are copyrighted, not the medium. Thus, you could probably still be sued for HAVING and for USING the copy, maybe not for USING the machine to make the copy. It also says "under this act" which could mean that you could sue under other acts. And of course, this is only america - we have international copyright trade agreements which we must stick to. we are not China, you know. The rest of the Act speaks to "how do artists get paid then?" and the answer is, essentially, a tax on all digital recording media and devices. I think you mean "a tax BREAK on all digital recording media and devices", which enables labels to pay their artists more. This seems to work only to the advantage of artists who work for labels who benefit from the tax breaks. Could this act possibly mean that I have no copyright protection for the music I make myself, put on CD, and release on my own? I doubt it. But this interpretation implies this. -CF

quoted 24 lines -----Original Message-----

> -----Original Message----- > From: Adam J Weitzman > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions > > 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. > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > With regards to giving away 10,000 CD-R's of _Thriller_, I imagine > Sony > would argue that by pressing up 10,000 CD-R's of something, you are > either (a) no longer engaged in a "noncommercial" enterprise, or (b) > no > longer qualifying as a "consumer," and so you could be sued for > infringement of copyright in this case. > >

[note: this msg is not to Chris Fahey just because i'm quoting him, it's to everyone :)] On Wednesday, 07-May-97, Chris Fahey wrote [about RE: Copyright infringement (was Re: (idm) radio mix)]:

quoted 3 lines I agree with your interpretation of the "no longer a consumer" excuse to

>I agree with your interpretation of the "no longer a consumer" excuse to >crack down on mass-producing Thriller. But don't you see how this same >logic could be applied to making *two* copies? - you are now a

I think the fact is that it's stupid to go on IDM, where even Richard James is a member and then say you are going to burn a limited amount of copies of a promo record to sell/give away.. Whether or not it's illegal it's really stupid. Of course Greg is angry about this, you just said to his face that you are gonna make copies of the ae radiomix, which was released by Warp, the label that he works for.. shit I'd be pissed too! sheesh.. I believe Lazlo is right about the laws, but that still doesn't mean you should go up in the label's face and say you're making copies. If you want to make a bootleg just keep it to yourself, don't go broadcasting it to the public, which is what IDM is. and from what I've heard about RadioMix, I agree with Greg, it's not really something that would do too good on the massmarket. I think it's possible to compare with the words&music promo? of course that's AFX, but do you really think the masses would buy a CD that has only 3 tracks on it, and the majority of it is just interviews (even if it is with AFX) ? __ __\ \ / /_\ \ \_____/ , m7=

how could a tax on recording devices possibly pay artists? would the gov't take that tax, put it aside, and then split it up among everyone who put out an album based on sales? i just don't see it doable. how about artists get paid according to my opinion of their merit?

g. wrote:

quoted 3 lines erm, what about mechanical publishing royalties? who pays those. so

> erm, what about mechanical publishing royalties? who pays those. so > apart from the record label you would have the publisher shitting you > up with suits as well.

The same tax pays publishers. Section 1006.2 defines how much of the royalties they get. Chris Fahey wrote:

quoted 2 lines I agree with your interpretation of the "no longer a consumer" excuse to

> I agree with your interpretation of the "no longer a consumer" excuse to > crack down on mass-producing Thriller.

But I'm not a legal professional. I'm just an average person who makes mix tapes for people now and then. My point was, 10,000 copies of _Thriller_ is probably not defensible under this act, and while I was speculating on how a lawyer might attack it, I don't actually know. And it just might be that making 10,000 copies of _Thriller_ is perfectly legal, doubtful as that sounds.

quoted 5 lines Besides, this passage only says you can't be sued for using the machines

> Besides, this passage only says you can't be sued for using the machines > or the medium. But as any copyright lawyer will tell you, its the > *contents* which are copyrighted, not the medium. Thus, you could > probably still be sued for HAVING and for USING the copy, maybe not for > USING the machine to make the copy.

Erm, no. The passage says that no one can sue you for violating their copyright if you make a copy of their recording using any of the devices and media listed (which, unless I'm missing something, covers every device and medium known to man today) in a noncommercial way. It is not simply protecting the use of recording devices. You're trying to pick nits that aren't there.

quoted 2 lines It also says "under this act" which

> It also says "under this act" which > could mean that you could sue under other acts.

Such as? Are there other Acts that protect the copyright of musical recordings in the US other than the Copyright Act of 1976?

quoted 2 lines And of course, this is only america - we have international copyright

> And of course, this is only america - we have international copyright > trade agreements which we must stick to. we are not China, you know.

If you make the recording in the US, you are covered under this Act. If some international body wants the US to overturn that portion of the Act, I'm sure they'll find a way to convince us to do so (the way the EU got the US to not enforce Helms-Burton, for instance). Otherwise, it's a standing piece of legislation.

quoted 4 lines I think you mean "a tax BREAK on all digital recording media and

> I think you mean "a tax BREAK on all digital recording media and > devices", which enables labels to pay their artists more. This seems to > work only to the advantage of artists who work for labels who benefit > from the tax breaks.

??? All of Subchapter C is concerned with the payment by makers of digital recording devices and media into a fund (the aforementioned tax), and how the royalty payments to interested copyright parties are made. Nowhere are major labels mentioned.

quoted 3 lines Could this act possibly mean that I have no copyright protection for the

> Could this act possibly mean that I have no copyright protection for the > music I make myself, put on CD, and release on my own? I doubt it. But > this interpretation implies this.

Of course you have protection. The Act clearly spells out who you are and how you would get paid. Please read it. -- Adam J Weitzman "What is is, Individual, Inc. What is not is possible." weitzman@individual.com - Einstuerzende http://www.individual.com Neubauten