IDM Mailing Archive

1996-03-05 20:05Lazlo Nibble>> Of course, it is perfectly legal to make mix tapes for people, in the US >> anyways, fo

From:: Lazlo Nibble <lazlo@swcp.com>
To:: Intelligent Dance Music <idm@hyperreal.com>
Date:: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 13:05:07 -0700 (MST)
Subject:: Re: (idm) The whole AFX bootleg issue...

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)

1996-03-08 03:46PIRNIE JUSTIN THOMASOn Tue, 5 Mar 1996, Lazlo Nibble wrote: > >> Of course, it is perfectly legal to make mix

From:: PIRNIE JUSTIN THOMAS <pirnie@falcon.cc.ukans.edu>
To:: Lazlo Nibble <lazlo@swcp.com>
Cc:: Intelligent Dance Music <idm@hyperreal.com>
Date:: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 21:46:31 -0600 (CST)
Subject:: (idm) mix tapes (was the infamous The whole AFX bootleg issue...)
Reply to:: Re: (idm) The whole AFX bootleg issue...

On Tue, 5 Mar 1996, Lazlo Nibble wrote:

quoted 10 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.

ok. thanks for the clarification

quoted 15 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. >

ok. but is it fair/correct...? I understand an artist's interest in preventing outright *duplication* of his work without his permission, with no changes made to it... but derivated works!?! (its possible i missed some details on the legal dispute, but none that would change my overall point. if my shady memory halfway serves, another example was microsoft being sued for utilizing (not copying!) the mac "look"...the case was denied.

quoted 7 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.)

ok. again thanks for clarifying. but if a work is mixed up with other works, say four layers on top of one another, who is being creative at that point...? to me its the djs work at that point- he's (she's) making connections between works that were not made evident/manifest before his handiwork...true, he could not have done exactly what he did w/o the originals, but it is *no longer the originals*!

quoted 6 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.

everything is derivative of everything else. (even "original" creations- they did not just come out of nowhere!) the trick is to be innovative with derivation (evolution)- what creation is all about! anyhow- thats my current 16 bit philosophy BTW, there is an interesting web page devoted to mix tapes, with articles discussing the various sides o the arguement. point your netscapes to: urk. lost the address. well anyhow- its out there! just plug the phrase "mix tapes" in to netscapes latest net search search engine... if for some reason your desperate, ask me via privat email, and ill rumage through the trash... have a wvnderfvl evening- -daht

1996-03-08 16:45Lazlo Nibble>> If you hold the copyright one a work, you also have the right to >> control any works t

From:: Lazlo Nibble <lazlo@swcp.com>
To:: Intelligent Dance Music <idm@hyperreal.com>
Date:: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 09:45:42 -0700 (MST)
Subject:: (idm) mix tapes (was the infamous The whole AFX bootleg issue...)

quoted 7 lines If you hold the copyright one a work, you also have the right to

>> 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. > > ok. but is it fair/correct...? I understand an artist's interest in > preventing outright *duplication* of his work without his permission, > with no changes made to it... but derivated works!?!

Yes, derived works. I don't have a major moral problem with that; why should someone be able to sample a killer hook from some #1 pop song without permission and then make all kinds of money on the cheesy bubblegum-techno wankfest they hang off it? Seems to me that the people responsible for the success of something like that -- i.e., the guys who wrote that hook in the first place -- ought to have a say in the matter...

quoted 4 lines (its possible i missed some details on the legal dispute, but none that

> (its possible i missed some details on the legal dispute, but none that > would change my overall point. if my shady memory halfway serves, > another example was microsoft being sued for utilizing (not copying!) > the mac "look"...the case was denied.

The legal thinking behind these decisions is that you can't copyright the layout of controls for a piece of software any more than you can copyright the layout of buttons on the front panel of a VCR; the creative component necessary for copyright isn't there.

quoted 6 lines Yes. If a work is performed in public, the artist has the right to demand

>> Yes. If a work is performed in public, the artist has the right to demand >> royalties. That includes live DJ gigs. > > ok. again thanks for clarifying. but if a work is mixed up with other > works, say four layers on top of one another, who is being creative at > that point...?

Adding your own creative contribution to a work doesn't remove your obligation to the people who made the tools you used. If you use someone else's creative work as part of your creative work, then that someone else should get their fair credit for it. -- ::: Lazlo (lazlo@swcp.com; http://www.swcp.com/lazlo)

(idm) mix tapes (was the infamous The whole AFX bootleg issue...)