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