On Mon, 4 Mar 1996, Adam J Weitzman wrote:
quoted 6 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. However you feel about ownership,
> those are the rules. I believe it also applies to mix CDs as well, were
> you to be in posession of a CDR. As long as it is not a commercial
> enterprise, I am within my legal rights to do this. That is the law.
sidestepping the personal arguements here, and interupting (ahem) how
would anyone care to define non-commercial purposes. I see mix tapes for
sale at hipster music stores for the average of $10. how can this be not a
profit? can one justify this price by listing semi-bogus costs such as
packaging, shipping, promotion, etc...
Im interested cause i want to start selling my mix tapes in stores, for a
profit if i can! Im all for this as mix tapes to me are a whole different
art form than originals.
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! basically if you retell another persons original story
in your own unique way, it is then your story legally...anyhow, it struck
me as very reasonable, but a bit different than the laws that are used for
music these days (unfortunately)
perhaps im a bit off base here- any one care to correct/flame me...
quoted 14 lines In terms of taking something which is not yours, what are you referring> In terms of taking something which is not yours, what are you referring
> to? Surely you are not referring to royalties, because there is no way
> for the record company or the artist to receive any further financial
> renumeration for the transfer of ownership of a medium containing that
> artist's music once all media containing that artist's music are sold and
> the record company decides not to produce any more. Once it's out of
> print, no more money can be made unless the label decides to put it back
> in print. And the facts are, especially when referring to the crowd on
> this list, that pretty much everyone here, given the choice, would rather
> have the "real thing" over a copy, which is to say that even if someone
> decided to make a CD of the Joyrex tracks and give it away, and then later
> Rephlex were to print up legitimate ones and sell them, I can't imagine
> that we would not all purchase the legitimate one.
>
are royalties legally binding for djs playing new music on mix tapes or at
clubs/raves/etc...?
quoted 8 lines Are you referring to the ownership of the "art?" Which is to say, the> Are you referring to the ownership of the "art?" Which is to say, 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.
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...
what are the laws concerning remixing anothers work? can one do it, sell
it comercially, all without the original artists permission...? I doubt
this, but why not? to me it would open the market wide up, and put more
focus on quality rather than quatity...(if there are 10 million versions
of a song, people are going to start being more choosy...just look at the
internet!)
bracing myself for the barrage of royalty recievers angry rebuttles-
-Thad