quoted 5 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.
>
> sidestepping the personal arguements here, and interupting (ahem) how
> would anyone care to define non-commercial purposes.
If you're selling it, you're engaging in commerce, which makes it for
commercial purposes. Whether or not you're actually turning a profit has
nothing to do with it, except that your turning a profit makes it easier for
the copyright holder to demand damages from you when they sue you.
quoted 6 lines I remember some recent supreme court decision saying ( i think concerning
> 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!
I suspect you're missing some essential detail of this, because I'm pretty
familiar with copyright law and I'm not aware of any such decision (or
even one that might be interpreted this way, at least where software is
concerned). If you hold the copyright one a work, you also have the right to
control any works that are derived from your original work. This is a very
well-established aspect of copyright law.
quoted 2 lines are royalties legally binding for djs playing new music on mix tapes or at
> are royalties legally binding for djs playing new music on mix tapes or at
> clubs/raves/etc...?
Yes. If a work is performed in public, the artist has the right to demand
royalties. That includes live DJ gigs. (As I mentioned before, this is
usually taken care of in the US when venue pays their annual license fees
to ASCAP and/or BMI.)
quoted 7 lines [...] the artist feels that his/her "art" consists of 500 slabs of
>> [...] 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.
Urrr, there is certainly plenty of legal basis for preventing this!
quoted 2 lines on another side note, if someone remixes, in my mind it would no longer be
> 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...
A remix is a derivative work, and as such, requires permission from the
person who holds the copyright on the work the remix is derived from.
--
::: Lazlo (lazlo@swcp.com;
http://www.swcp.com/lazlo)