Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    With all due respect to Dave B., who's done a great job on the
    last 3 tapes, perhaps he should avoid this issue by relinquishing
    that part of the process he's concerned with to someone else...
    
    Edd

    "This Business of Music" (1984) seems to say to me that the only
    free performances allowed are in classroom for education purposes
    and in religuous services.  I may be mistaken, but I would remind
    software copyright lawyers that they probably don't understand
    music copyright law, as least by what I've read in one s/w
    lawyer's note on copyright.  
    So I try to avoid the whole problem and not do covers of protected
    music, but I have done a couple, but only shown them to a couple
    people for laughs.  I'm mostly a composer with ca. 130 pieces,
    and covers are a waste of time for me because I can't use them
    in live performances or on cable tv.
    Incidentally, New Music America will be at the Brooklyn Academy
    of Music in 1989; application are due 9-15-88, so ask for application
    forms now.  Write to BAM in Brooklyn.
    Tom

    
    > The implication is that unless you're good at all of these things,
    > don't bother trying to show that you're good at any one of them. 
    
    Len, you are the LAST noter I'd have ever thought would put words
    in other peoples mouths.  Shame on you.  ;-(
    
    The only "implication" you should draw from that is that I'm worried
    that being the distributor may cause me to incur some liability.
    
    I have never attempted to influence the content of the Commusic tapes.
    I have never refused ANY submission.  And I'd like you to know that
    part of that is to establish that I am merely a "compiler" not an
    "editor" to further limit any notion that I am responsible for content.
    
    Now, it may seem like I'm being overly cautious, but might I ask that
    if you think that risk is minimal, why then are you unwilling to
    misrepresent your having obtained the rights?
    
    That seems to be the only way of effectively removing any responsibility 
    on my part.
    
    From my perspective, it seems like you are asking me to assume a risk
    that you yourself are unwilling to assume.
    
    Maybe I am the wrong person to be doing the Commusic tapes.  By my
    own admission I don't seem to have consistent views on copyrights,
    but I really feel like *I* shouldn't have to take even the slightest
    risk.  Yes, this could be fairly described as "anal retentiveness"
    on my part, but it's how I feel.
    
    I dunno, let me think about it some more.
    
    	db

    > "...allowed...in religuous [sic] services."
    
    So we worship DCOs and all is cool???
    
    Edd

       It would seem to me that since the tape copies are sold at cost,
    and distributed to parties with special interests, it wouldn't be
    too hard to make the case that this an educational use of the material.
    It is a non-traditional classroom, but in these days of networked
    video training and self-paced training programs, it may be time
    for legal redifinitions anyway. ...............Jon.....................

    re: .5
    
    The blunt truth is that I find nothing very pragmatic in this
    suggestion.
    
    In any case, I don't want to be in the position of having to champion 
    new legal definitions.  Especially since its the "old" definitions that
    would apply anyway.
    
    My problem is with the risk, not the unsure legality.
    
    How about this as a compromise: The liner notes that you write must
    include a disclaimer that you acknowledge that the material is
    copyrighted and that you take full responsibility for any consequences
    of its use on the Commusic tape.
    
    Seems to me that anyone unwilling to accept this MUST believe that
    there IS a risk and is expecting me to assume a risk that they 
    themselves would not accept.
    
    Another proposal is to let some less fearful person take over the
    Commusic tape process.
    
    	db
    
    p.s.  I should also point out that in my original set of rules there
          was nothing that said that I automatically reject copyrighted
    	  material.

    The requirement was that the submitter state he/she had secured
    the necessary permission.  Risk of detection has nothing to do with
    my ethics.  Regardless of the probability of being found out, I
    will not falsely claim that I had secured such permission. Since
    I see no point in a fruitless attempt to secure such permission,
    and will not falsely claim it, I cannot submit performances of material
    copyrighted by others.
    
    Now, a "compromise" position that states that the submission must
    state the submitter's actual situation with respect to such rights
    is a different story.  I have no problem stating "used without
    permission" on the appropriate submissions, if that's in fact what
    the compiler/duplicator would accept.
    
    Finally, I admit that my remarks about assumed skills was in pursuit
    of a different agenda, and is only tangentially relevant to this
    subject.
    
    len.
    

Or one could restrict oneself to public-domain tunes.  At home I have a
"fake book" of Irish fiddle tunes.  1850 of them. (!)  Of course, it is
possible to get real tired of Irish fiddle music...  And being a fake book,
you still have to have some compositional skill to arrange them.  (Some
don't even have chord markings.)

Actually, I find the arranging step to be the most interesting, myself.
(I'm not good at inventing new melodies from scratch.)  One magazine article
I read on composing said a good source of "new" songs is to take an old
song and change something in it.  Like the entire rhythm.  (I am working
on a 5/4 version of "Popeye the Sailor".)

Which brings up an interesting point:  how much do you have to change before
you have a legally new song and it ceases to be "derivative"?

    This compiler/duplicator will accept anything that acknowledges that
    the submittor is using it without permission and assumes total
    responsibility for the consequences of that.
    
    So, can I consider this resolved?
    
    	db

    Sure; will you suitably revise your "How To Submit" note?
    
    Now, where do I get a good copyright infringement lawyer...
    
    len.
    

    > ... Irish fiddle tunes.  1850 of them....
    
    Ok.  So let's all split the book up and each do covers of a few hundred
    fiddle tunes for the next tape. 
    
    Steph

RE < Note 1604.11 by PANGLS::BAILEY >

	You know, there might be something to that...

	Just as a thought, what if we were to arbitrarily pick a short series of
notes, or some other pre-established tune and give it to each would-be 
contributor of a commusic tape.  Each contributor would be responsible to do
something creative with it, using their studio, and send it back to the COMMUSIC
tape compiler for compiling and distribution.  I think it'd be REAL interesting 
to hear how differently each studio develops the tune.

	Whadya all think about the idea?

	Dan

    What a great idea!
    
    We'll give Len some religious music written for the PTL club.
    
    I got some Frank Zappa tunes for Dan.
    
    Yerazunis will get a Schoenberg piece.
    
    Janzen will get a Twisted Sister tune.
    
    ;-)
    
    Getting back (momentarily) to the serious part, I can't say that I'd
    have much enthusiasm for participating in this.  It takes me long
    enough (forever typically) to do my own stuff.  No time leftover for
    this kind of exercise.

    You anticipate me, Dave.
    
    I've spent the last few hours step-time entering some Mozart so I can
    play with the voicings (a la Carlos / Tomita) .  If it comes out well,
    I'll submit it.  (cripes, I hate it when there are 7.75 beats per
    measure......)
    
        
    
    I can see it now: 
    
    	Ladeez an Gennamun, in this corner, we have Wolfgang A., the 
    	current title holder, weighing in at 138.  In this corner, 
    	Len F., the contender...
    
    	<<<CLANGGGGGG>>>
    

You wouldn't want to do this with "Twisted Sister" or any other recent music.
The point is to do it with tunes safely in the public domain.  There is
an *awful lot* of this stuff around.  Not any rock, but that doesn't bother
me :-).

The fun thing about these fiddle tunes is that there is just a melody line. You
get to invent your own tempo, accompaniment, harmonization, etc. Or you can
take them as just a starting point and modify the melody, rhythm, etc.  In
fact, they way these things are really used, the performer is *expected* to add
his own licks and modifications. 

Each is pretty short, about 16 or 32 measures.  Most are in simple AABB form.
In the book I have, they are categorized by the kind of dance you use them
with, such as "jigs", "reels", "airs", and so on.

Another fun thing about this kind of music is that it is still being written
today.  The more recent stuff is copyrighted, of course.  I was at a course on
writing this kind of music where the speaker, who has written and published
hundreds of them, said "These are my tunes, but now you can do whatever you
want to them.  But don't go claiming that they are yours."  He was answering a
question from a performer who was asking if there was any 'preferred' way of
playing the tunes. 

RE < Note 1604.13 by DREGS::BLICKSTEIN "Yo!" >

	You missed my point.  We would all (that is, all those interested in 
being a part of the project) be given the SAME short, simple 8 or 16 bar piece. 
The only requirement, say, would be that the original melody must be audible at 
least once SOMEWHERE in the submission.  Is there any interest in this kind of 
thing out there?

	Dan

    re.12
    
    I think this might be fun also, and pretty educational for beginers
    like moi.  Of course, I could see how the accomplished composers
    in our midst might find this beneath them.  
    
    Clusters,
    Bill

Just to see how this might work, I'll go home and scan one of these little
tunes on my Mac and get it here in sixel format.  It'll take a couple days
as I have to xerox the page out of the book before feeding it to my scanner
(which only takes flat sheets).  I'll pick something short, but also something
for which recordings exist, for those who want hints.

We'll need some ground rules.  Probably just about anything goes. I don't
think that the plain tune has to be in the song - for example if the whole
point of your arrangement is to change the timing in some radical way such
that the meter is all different (put it into 7/4 for example), you don't
need to have a 4/4 section just so the original can be heard.

Jazz improvizations on the theme, in the style of George Winston should
be allowed too.

Come to think of it, the BOOK is probably copyrighted.  So instead I will
transcribe the melody into my music editor and generate the sixels from
that.  Probably faster, too.

    I like the idea too. 
    
    So I guess we should start a new note, right ?
    

	I've watched the opinions flying back and forth about what can
	and cannot be used on a Commusic tape.  Now here's mine, and I
	hope people will take this in the spirit intended:  an attempt to
	provide a friendly, "devils advocate" point of view.  I'm not
	trying to scare anybody, but it won't hurt for those involved
	to be aware of what I believe are some possible risks.

	I think anyone who accepts the task of compiling and issuing
	Commusic tapes should borrow or buy "This Business of Music"
	by Sidney Shemel and M. William Krasilovsky (Billboard, 1985
	edition, $22.95 for the hardcover where I bought mine) and read
	the sections on copyrights and copyright infringement.  Tom
	Janzen mentioned this book recently and I subsequently bought
	a copy since it looked interesting.  It is.

	Now I'm not a lawyer, and the law can be very tricky.  In fact,
	this book is a bit like one of those tax law manuals written by
	a tax lawyer.  Informative, but you're sometimes left with more
	questions than you had when you started.  So what follows is *my*
	understanding of their explanations and examples.  If you read
	this book, another book, or the laws themselves, and come to a
	different conclusion, fine.  I can accept a differing opinion
	and I'm willing to discuss it.  By no means should anyone take
	my opinions as authoritative.

	Anyhow, my reading of "This Business Of Music" leads me to believe
	the compiler of a Commusic tape is as liable as the person who
	submits an offending item.  Thus, the person doing the compiling
	must verify permission.  They can't just say, "Jane Doe told me
	she had permission to use this Joe Foobar song."  I'm basing
	this opinion on an example where a record store chain was held
	jointly liable with the initial perpetrator of an infringement.
	This appears to be one of those "ignorance is no defense under
	the law" situations.  Even being misled is no defense.

	Also, it probably won't work to claim educational usage.  First,
	my guess (a guess, since I didn't run across this in the book) is
	that you need *official* educational organization status.  Second
	(and this *is* discussed), even educational organizations aren't
	exempt from most of the provisions of the copyright laws.  I'm not
	going to attempt to list what they can and cannot do, but it's
	limited.  I doubt that Commusic usage falls within these limits.

	Not making a profit is no help either.  Non-profit organizations
	are not exempt from the copyright laws.  And the plaintiff can
	sue for either actual or statutory damages.  I assume the
	plaintiff will choose statutory damages when there is little
	or no profit.

	Finally, in addition to civil penalties, there are criminal
	penalties for willful infringement.


				Conclusion

	While I may agree with those who feel that Commusic entries are
	unlikely to attract the attention of the law, I prefer to err on
	the side of caution.  Since the potential costs and dangers seem
	to outweigh any possible benefits (sorry, Len), I know what my
	criteria would be if I were in charge of a Commusic compilation:

		1) original works (with signed releases)
		2) public domain works
		3) when in doubt, leave it out


							John

How about some discussion of the other side of copyrights on COMMUSIC: 
how to protect the rights of contributors.  You could put a copyright notice
in the "liner notes", but I think something has to be attached to the tape
itself.  Perhaps just a statement like "contents protected by various
copyrights.  See liner notes."  Or we could make real paper inserts listing
the sequence on each side with title, with a place for a copyright for
each one.  (We'd have to write *real small*.  Maybe an LPS40 can be made
to do this.)

    Looks like Dave got hold of a copy of this book a few minutes 
    before he resigned! 
    
    Being realistic, I wouldn't have thought the COMMUSIC distribution
    of self-produced music among friends (!) would ever be taken to
    law. Maybe in California. Probably not. Nobody's making or losing
    money out of it, for starters. More likely than not, it's sold a
    few originals (Dave Dreher's contribution has). 
    
    BTW, I wonder if MAXELL or whoever are worried about supplying Dave
    B. with tapes?
    
    Richard.

    You can always count on the lawyers to take the fun out of everything.
    
    OK, no covers of thirty year old songs.  Since I don't do originals
    half as well as I do covers, no more COMMUSIC submissions for me,
    I guess, and I've given up reviewing for the obvious reasons.
    
    This sure is fun.  I can't believe a private distribution compilation
    warrants this sort of legalistic bs.  But we do what we must.
    
    len.
    

    This isn't fun anymore.
    
    Edd

	"Since I don't do originals half as well as I do covers,
	no more COMMUSIC submissions for me"

What about "covers" of stuff now out of copyright?  You gotta go back more
than 30 years, of course.  Hmm, doesn't seem to be any rock that old.  Too
bad.

If a high school marching band plays the "Liberty Bell", are they just doing
Sousa covers?  Is this somehow something less important because they didn't
write their own stuff?  (So who expects original stuff from marching bands??)
(See recent episodes of Funky Winkerbean for more on marching band 'covers'.)

Boston Symphony.  Bah, they aren't any good.  They just do covers of stuff
by dead people. :-)

    I'm already contemplating a cover of the Beethoven-Liszt symphony
    4 using flanged strings and horns backup (I'm kidding about the
    last two).
    there have been rock versions of beethoven's fifth, a fifth of
    beethoven.  There have been jazzy rites of springs.
    Tom

    If you're worried about the copyright for originals, just print
    a full-size sheet of paper with the copyrights and recursively feed
    it to a Xerox (tm) machine set on maximum reduce.  After four or
    five passes you'll have a 1" x 3/4" rectangle of almost-legible-with-
    a-jeweler's-loupe copyright notices, which you can then tape to
    the cassette.
    
    Problem solved... :-(
    
    	-Bill
    

    Some time back I checked into copyright law.  The way the courts
    are defining things, you don't really need even the copyright notice
    anymore.  What is critical is that you can prove that your work
    was the earliest rendition if it an original piece.  Also, record
    companies tend not to be real sticklers or thieves.  With all that
    music out there, it just doesn't pay to steal a piece.  They know
    that if somebody sends them a demo tape and they steal ideas from
    it they can end up in court and lose (it's happened).  For that
    reason, I don't even worry about putting my original stuff on a
    Commusic tape.  If anything, it would help my case in court because
    it would show evidence that I had it at an early date.  In fact,
    in order to put an original piece in the public domain, you have
    to file papers, but to copyright you don't.  So, it's actually easier
    to have your material under copyright protection than it is to put
    it in the public domain.
    
    Steve
    
    Steve  

    
    I probably shouldn't say this since I really don't know the law, but...
        
    My understanding of covering other peoples tunes was that you just had
    to pay royalties to the publishers if you made any money off of
    performances or sale of recordings. Do you really have to get written
    permission? Have all the people who have ever covered a Chuck Berry
    tune gotten permission from the publisher? Do all the Holiday Inn bands
    in the world have briefcases full of permits for all the tunes they
    play? 
    
    I really find it hard to believe that -
    
    1. People can be sued for producing home recordings of popular songs
       and sending copies to their friends.
    2. That anyone in their right mind would do so even if they could,
       considering the distribution a COMMUSIC tape gets.
    
    If the tapes ever grew to a slightly larger level, I could see where
    we might have to register with ASCAP and BMI. But, is this really
    an issue for what we're doing here?
    
    Rob
    

    RE: holiday in bands with suitcases full of releases 
    
    ASCAP & BMI are smarter than to go after the bands. They get the
    club to pay. 
    
    I once heard a club owner describe it as nothing more than "paying
    for 'protection'"... 
    
    Edd

    Rob,
    
    Perhaps you're right.
    
    Does this mean that the copyright issues do not worry you and that
    you would be willing to assume the role of Commusic producer?
    
    I have to confess that I'm having a bit of a reaction to all these
    comments about how silly or whatever this all is.  Makes me feel
    a bit guilty BUT:
    
    In my opinion, if your response does not fall into one of the two
    following catagories then your comments are empty:
    
    	1) "Geez, no wonder Dave gave it up.  I don't blame him."
    
    			or
    
    	2) "I think all this worry about copyright stuff is unwarranted
    	    and *I* will volunteer to be 'Commusic producer'."
    
    	db
    
    p.s.  I should make it clear that the copyright issues were just 
          one of several unrelated reasons why I decided not to continue.

    > Does this mean that the copyright issues do not worry you and that
    > you would be willing to assume the role of Commusic producer?

    I *knew* someone would ask that 8^).
    
    Sorry Dave. My comments were not at all meant to reflect on your
    decision, just trying to raise points for discussion. Nothing but
    praise and gratitude for your production of three COMMUSIC tapes.
    
    As the first line of my previous reply states, I'm not at all sure
    exactly what the law is. I was hoping to get some good answers.
    Guess maybe I should try to do some reseach.
    
    I would be willing to do (or at least help with) the production
    and distribution for the tapes, except that the tape decks I own
    are not even close to adequate for such a project. (Yeah, I know,
    a convenient excuse, but true. 8^))

    Rob

    Rob,
    
    Please don't misunderstand what I'm about to say.  It's not really
    directed at you or anybody.
    
    My overall point is that there have been a few notes that postulate
    on the legal implications, some that propose a possible "defense",
    etc.
    
    These just aren't very helpful or pragmatic.
    
    The basic fact is that anyone who assumes this role is taking a risk.
    
    Try and imagine if you volunteered to transport some explosive material
    on behalf of other people and people were waxing like "I don't think
    it'll explode".   Would that help you in any way?  Would it make you
    feel less nervous about doing it?  Might it not even bother you
    a little that they would say these things without having any real knowledge 
    about the material itself?
    
    I applaud John Middleton for entering what is possibly the only
    *informed response*.   That's what we really need.
    
    I would truly like to believe that I *am* being ridiculous about this
    whole thing.  If it weren't for that, I could not in good conscience
    turn it over to someone else.   I just don't feel comfortable doing
    it myself and I accomodate my conscience by giving informed 
    err-on-the-side-ofcaution-type statements of the potential risk.
    
    And, really, if you think about it, it's an issue not restricted to
    "covers".
    
    Sorry.
    
    I think the real problem is that the procedure became to "formal".
    My fault.  If it was really "just a couple guys exchanging
    tapes" it wouldn't be so complicated.   Perhaps there's some way we
    can get back to that.
    
    	db

 
    	Re: 34
    
    	Dave,
    
    	I write my own material to send out to publishers - as a writer,
    	I  *NEVER* send out anything *UNTIL* I have my copyright regis-
    	tration number from the Library of Congress.  That tells me
    	that, as the originator, I can now prove I "claimed ownership
    	of this song" "as of" a certain date.  I do this for my own
    	protection - I don't want to happen to send something to an
    	unknown (to me anyway) publisher who *COULD* legally claim
    	(tho' it would be unethical) my material if I didn't already
    	have my claim established.
    
    	Putting something on a tape and *ALLOWING* it to be "for public
    	distribution" (I believe that's the way the copyright booklet
    	stated it) * could * (not the same as WILL) jeopardize my claim
    	to ownership - IF I don't already have a copyright registration
    	that establishes the "as of" date that I claimed ownership by.
        
    	All of my demo tapes go out with the notice *NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION*
    	on them (along with my copyright notice on it).  ( I don't know
    	how that would work on commusic tapes - they are for distribution :^)
    
    	"Cover" material is another story - in reality, fees should be
    	paid for any copyrighted material.
    
        I'm not a lawyer, but from a "technical" viewpoint, I believe
    	you are right to be concerned, unless all the appropriate steps
    	are taken to ensure renumeration or secure the proper releases
    	(for the material used) from the writers.
    
    
    							Rich

    Thanks Rich,
    
    It's gets more and more bizarre.
    
    For one thing, the problem is not just with non-original material.
    I could for example be legitimately concerned with unknowingly sending
    the tape to an unscrupulous producer who then uses the material on it.
    
    I mean, it's not just that Michael Jackson could sue (me, Len or
    whomever) for Len's cover of a Beatles tune.  I mean, Bob Yerazunis
    could sue me if BteH was taken by a producer and turned into 
    "the next Thriller" right?
    
    And the concerns are NOT just for the compiler of the tapes.
    
    Submitting a tape to a compilation to Commusic implies that you
    are willing to have people make copies of it fairly freely.  That
    could affect the value of your copyright (I do NOT know for sure.)
    
    Anyway thanks for your reply.
    
    	db

    dB:
    	
    	That's "BILL Yerazunis"
    
    -Thanks
    	-Bill
     
    	(if BILL is mnemonically unacceptable, how about 'Crash'?)
    

	I know this isn't the same as having everything together in
	a compilation, but it might eliminate a lot of the problems
	we've been discussing.  How about doing away with the
	compilations altogether?  Instead, set up a note (like the
	FOR SALE and WANTED notes) where people with tapes of their
	material can offer them to interested parties.   No compiler,
	no compiler liability problems.  Each supplier would be
	responsible for affixing their own copyright notices, getting
	clearances for their use of copyrighted material, and keeping
	track of who got what.  They could also indicate such things
	as whether they are interested in critical comments and the
	means:  notes, mail, whatever.

	Just a thought.


							John

    re -1.. just blow it all off and go back to
    individuals.. what a concept.  (NO smiley faces)
    
    karl

    I think we could put a suitable disclaimer to the effect that this
    material is ok for distribution only on the CM tapes and that is
    is not ok to otherwise use or copy it in any form as copyright resides
    with the composer/performers. I certainly can't believe that by
    submitting to a semi-private distribution I've lost copyright.
    
    dbII

    
    
    I can't help but believe this whole thing is getting a little out
    of hand and we are all taking ourselves just a little to seriously.
    
    We are talking about some fairly low rate music on a fairly low
    rate medium and a group of "friends?" exchanging some examples of
    the stuff they produce in their *HOME* studios. Do we really think
    that any body is going to waste money on sueing us for whatever
    pittance we could afford to pay. If our, sorry your, legal system
    is half what it is supposed to be then the complainent would be
    laughed out of court. Listen the can't even agree or decide on a
    method for licensing Compact Cassettes where there really are megabucks
    or "loadsadosh" involved.
    
    Also all U.K. law and I think U.S.A. law is based on precedent.
    The average budget for a U.K. precedence setting case is 3.75 million pounds
    and most are lost these days unless there is new statute involved.
                                                    
    Lets put this in context guys.
    
    If it was half way feasible. I would happily accept the risk of
    this assignment. "risk analysis is my job". If you guys are prepared
    to mail your entries to the U.K. you have a volunteer. 
    
    And I promise never to ask for my ball back !
    
    
    						Paul.
    

    
    	Re: 36
    
    	Dave,
    		Wish I could provide more info to allow you to make
    	an "informed" decision, but that's out of my league.
    
    							Rich

The relative low-fi-ness of the COMMUSIC tapes would not prevent someone
from stealing an original song from them.  They don't want the *performance*,
they want the *song*.

If all else fails, I would be willing to contribute some things to tapes that
are specifically FOR DISTRIBUTION (ie. No copyrights, original music which
you don't care about duplication).

I think this would encourage more "experimental" type submissions and I would
probably like that better anyway. I don't need to buy a COMMUSIC tape to
hear "pop" songs which sound like they could be stolen for reproduction as
"radio hits". I really prefer to hear "Experimental COMMUSIC" submissions that
you CAN'T hear anywhere else.

/Mitch

    re -.1
    right on
    Tom

    Just curious, but has anybody ever heard of a song that became a
    'hit' that a major artist stole, made big bucks on, and kept the
    original creator from making a cent, within the last century?
    
    Steve

    re: .46
    
    Well, I knocked up this toon called 'Born to BUM' all about the
    Berks Bum once, and sent it to my erstwhile friend Bruce Springsteen
    fo an honest opinion. 
    
    I won'y get caught like that again.
    
    Richard.

    Was it little richard?
    The big cases were people who SOLD their rights for peanuts to
    big recorsd companies ca. 1960 and when rock went through the
    roof and made millions came back later and asked for more
    compensation for their contribution to the wealth.
    I don't know the outcome.
    Tom

    ..it was sort of average size, I guess Tom.
    
    Richard.

    I meant 
    Little Richard.
    I never read people's names in notesfiles.
    Sorry richard.
    Tom

    Thass o.k. -- but FYI my REAL stagename is Enormous Richard.
    
    Richard.

    re < Note 1604.40 by RANGLY::BOTTOM_DAVID "LA East Lives!" >
    
    I know little about copyright law, but from what I've learned about
    "protecting DEC's trade secrets", which included patentable or
    copyrightable material, the very *essence* of the law is that in
    order to assert in court that your song was stolen, you will have
    to prove that you didn't give it away.  That is, if you challenge
    someone who has "stolen" your song, their legal position will be
    that you didn't protect it.   You will have to prove that you did.
    
    						-Jeff

    re: .44 Did I hear a suggestion that we not submit 'pop' oriented
    material to these tapes?  re:.45 Yes Tom I know how you feel.
    
    dbII

>    re: .44 Did I hear a suggestion that we not submit 'pop' oriented
>    material to these tapes? 

I'm not sure what you heard, but that's not what I said.  /Mitch  :-)