IDM Mailing Archive

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

From the cyberdesk of: Phil Z

quoted 8 lines On the other hand, if you charge Chris money for recording the latest

> 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

OK, phil, what about the service he would be providing me, say, if I wanted a copy of the Biosphere CD on a deck of punch cards. I don't think the musicians nor the label will *ever* create and produce a version of their work in that media. So, *then* would he be able to charge for his "conversion" services? Is Biosphere available in cassete format? If yes, then why doesn't Chris just get it in that format? Since he hasn't, I'd guess that the conversion services are important to Chris, and if he's willing to pay for them, and the label can't or *won't* provide media in that format, then why wouldn't he be able to charge Chris for those services? How does this affect the IDM "library"? Well, lets see, the label gives the WWW site permissions to have .au files. Well, I like .wav files. Am I in copyright violation if I convert the .au file to a .wav? Also, is there a parallel to a photographer taking a picture of a painting? Does that violate the painter's copyright to his/her work? Perhaps any such agreement should include something like "the WWW site shall have a license to distribute media in any digital form as long as there is no equal distribution media form currently offered by the label or any of its other non-exclusive licensing arrangements, including those that may not exist at the time of this agreement. In addition the WWW site shall be prohibited from offering for sale any license to the work contained on any media it distributes that differs from the terms of this license." That pretty much lets WWW off the hook for anything on it, downloaded from it or whatever as long as anybody who downloads can't get the real deal from the label. So, if in the future, the label decides to "sell" .wav files, then they would have to be taken off the WWW site. The other problem it doesn't solve is somebody downloading a .au file and converting it to a wav when the label offers for sale a .wav version of the work. This is a direct parallel to Chris's case if the label does offer a cassette version of the Biosphere CD. ObIDM: Thanks y'all for the tip on which of the two "Universe" compilation versions to pick up. I got the black cover UK version which is non-mixed, and am very happy with that decision. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael King mike%delta1@rex.cs.tulane.edu Delta Systems New Orleans, LA 70002 Voice: 504.837.9835 Fax: 504.837.9838 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Never under estimate the bandwidth of a station wagon loaded with mag tapes. -Karl Kleinpaste, postmaster Ohio State University ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

DJKC's vision of a twisted copyright law of the future: "Action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the biological recording - by means of analog aural reception (i.e., the ear) and neurological media (i.e., the brain) - of digital or analog musical recordings without permission from the holder of the copyright. In the event that a violator is apprehended, all recording devices used in the alleged infringement of copyright will be confiscated." In other words, you can't listen to anyone's music without their permission! And if you're caught, your ears will be cut off! :) -djkc