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.