Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    First of all, if the law enters into this at all, the fundamentalists
    are certainly wrong.
    
    It is ABSOLUTELY legal to copy for "personal use".  There are a class
    of copying operations that fall under the "Fair Use" section of
    copyright law.
    
    > The second group respects copyright but they feel it is ok to copy: For
    > your own use or if you are not attempting to profit from the
    > reproduction of another' work.
    
    Copying for personal use certainly falls under that.  I have had a
    legal export tell me that it is absolutely legal, for example, to make
    a copy of a CD for you to play in your car.
    
    So that covers "for your own use", but there are certainly illegal
    modes of copying that don't involve making a profit.
    
    A very relevant example is that it is NOT legal to make a copy of CD's
    for your friends.

	Ok Dave, if it is wrong to copy a CD for friends (as I take it),
	is it wrong to copy COMMUSIC tapes with protected material
	without licenses?

Tom (who called ASCAP and an agent in New York trying to find out of
the Rite of Spring is in the public domain in the original piano duet (1913)
and couldn't get a straight answer)

>	Ok Dave, if it is wrong to copy a CD for friends (as I take it),
>	is it wrong to copy COMMUSIC tapes with protected material
>	without licenses?
    
    CD's are offered for sale for different reasons than COMMUSIC
    submissions are offered for distribution.
    
    My feeling is that it's not (morally) wrong if you don't violate the
    spirit, and thus the "understanding" in which COMMUSIC submission were
    made.
    
    	db

       
       
       
       
       
       I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm really enjoying
       watching Dave skate on the other side of that thin ice.
       
       Add smiley faces here.


       
       
       

    I've been rigorous about copyrighting my material, as I certainly
    intend for it to eventually land on a for-sale album.  AND I don't have
    a problem in the world with continuing to share my stuff with
    first-tier COMMUSIKers and second-tier (non-participating) interested
    parties that might receive a copy of a copy of the master [copy].
    
    It gets back to intent; there is NO profit motive in the commusic tape
    distribution scheme at all.  However, if I ever found out that someone
    in or out of COMMUSIC used one of my compositions for profit without
    the requisite mechanical rights license from me, I would do my best to 
    persecute them to the furthest extent of the law.  Once my material 
    is out there, that's a chance I take, not just on commusic
    compilations, but when my own tapes are sold.
    
    But I have no fear about the COMMUSIC compilations.  In fact, much like 
    the SGU manufacturers would be, if they knew about the other current 
    commusic demo tape project, I WELCOME the opportunity to disseminate 
    my, music (almost typed 'product') for people to hear.  
    
    karl

	If I understand what it means to be dilligent with regard to Patents
and copyrights it means you must go after any and every infraction you
are aware of. If you don't I believe you can lose the protection. Therefore
allowing not profit use could compromise your overall right.

	Where in the copyright law does it saw anything about "the intent to
	make a profit" from a copy?
	i thought it was the copy-right (right-to-copy, a noun) law,
	not the intent-to-profit law.
Tom

                      <<< Note 2520.6 by SAINT::STCLAIR >>>
>               -< To retain protection you need to be diligent >-
>If you don't I believe you can lose the protection. Therefore
>allowing not profit use could compromise your overall right.

    Well, Saint, I disagree.  I'm certain you're trying to be helpful;
    however, to me, your helpfulness starts to look like a major wet
    blanket.  If we'd adopted your mindset, there wouldn't have been a
    COMMUSIC I back in 1986, let alone vol VIII in 1990, and I wouldn't
    have a clue what other people in the conference were doing musically.
    And in five years, I perceive no damage to my music or alleged music
    career of any kind.  It's my prerogative to take a minor chance in 
    favor of sharing my material with fellow noters.
    
    So here's a suggestion; don't contribute YOUR stuff to COMMUSIC VIII.  
    You'll sleep lots better.
    
<<< Note 2520.7 by VICE::JANZEN "Tom MLO21-4/E10 223-5140" >>>
>                               -< profit motif >-
>	i thought it was the copy-right (right-to-copy, a noun) law,
>	not the intent-to-profit law.
    
    So how is it that you've freely contributed your material to compilations 
    in the past ?  You've also contributed public-domain Beethoven material 
    as well, so you're covered on that side.  And now you're suddenly being
    'helpful' too.  But, Tom, you're right, and I'm wrong.  Don't break the
    law; don't accept a copy of COMMUSIC VIII, no matter how hard we beg.
    
    karl

I think  the  mechanism  to  permit  the  protections  I  believe  are

necessary and ensure submissions to the tape are simple.  The very act

of submitting a work to the tape reflects  the  creator's  desire  for

inclusion.   However,  taking a demo tape for example and adding it to

the COMMUSIC tape is different.  It is NOT clear the creator wanted it

included.



There is no reason the creator can't give a non exclusive liscense  to

publish  to  anyone  and  sell the rights (with what ever restrictions

make sence) to for profit publishers.

KEYS::MOELLER "teeth like billowing fire"

I think I'd at least brush those teeth and maybe even see a dentist.  %^)

>>                     <<< Note 2520.11 by SAINT::STCLAIR >>>
>>KEYS::MOELLER "teeth like billowing fire"

>I think I'd at least brush those teeth and maybe even see a dentist.  %^)
    
    The line is from my favorite Woody Allen short story, called
    
              "If the Impressionists Were Dentists"
    
    .. not a reference to my personal appearance ..

                     <<< Note 2520.10 by SAINT::STCLAIR >>>
>...taking a demo tape for example and adding it to

>the COMMUSIC tape is different.  It is NOT clear the creator wanted it

>included.
    
    Well, the synth manufacturer's demo compilation tape is a DIFFERENT
    tape than the COMMUSIC musician's tape volume VIII.  Tell me that
    companies hate free advertising and we'll "get in trouble".
    
>There is no reason the creator can't give a non exclusive liscense  to

>publish  to  anyone  and  sell the rights (with what ever restrictions

>make sence) to for profit publishers.

    
    No one said that they can't.  The mechanism you're referring to is
    called a Mechanical Rights License and must be granted by the copyright
    holder, and has nothing to do with the COMMUSIC VIII tape.  It MIGHT
    be pertinent to the COMMUSIC Synth Mfr's SGU Demo Tape Vol I that is
    under discussion, though we're CERTAINLY not 'for-profit publishers', 
    but see my "tell me that companies hate free advertising" statement
    above.
    
    I am going thru the Mechanical Rights thing right now in order to 
    include my remake of a John McLaughlin piece on my next album.
    
    karl

    I'd like to answer Tom Janzen's question again, this time a bit more
    to the point:
    
>	Ok Dave, if it is wrong to copy a CD for friends (as I take it),
>	is it wrong to copy COMMUSIC tapes with protected material
>	without licenses?
    
    Because in direct contrast to a CD, submitting a recording to a
    COMMUSIC tape is done FOR THE PURPOSE OF distributing copies to
    friends.

    I always thought Profit is not an issue.  Distributing copies is.
    
    If I started making and *giving away* thousands of copies of the latest
    Michael Jackson album, don't you suppose he would be miffed?  Every one
    I give away is one less he will sell.
    
    At least that is what I thought.  But then how come public radio
    stations don't have to pay ASCAP fees?

I don't know how close this comes to a person refusing free advertising but
a friend of mine had an ad done by a local radio station. They created the
ad from scratch and included a harmonica piece by a local artist. He got a
call (probably because his phone number was in the ad) from the musician.
The guy was really mad a told them in terms that included a lot of old
saxon english that he did not want his music played. He pointed the musician
to the radio station the ad was never aired again and a new one created
quickly.

In telling me the story he said he was surprised the guy didn't want the
exposure and he was surprised that the guy wasn't impressed at how much
he liked the piece.

                     <<< Note 2520.16 by SAINT::STCLAIR >>>
>I don't know how close this comes to a person refusing free advertising
    
    Not very.  If someone took money for using MY music behind 
    a commercial I didn't get paid for, I'd sue his ass off !  Not much 
    of a parallel to using SGU mfr's demos on a not for profit tape
    for potential customers, COMMUSIC participants.  Another point of 
    divergence is that it he WASN'T "refusing free advertising";
    according to the story, the harmonica artist was not identified 
    during the ad, thereby deprived of both bux AND public credit.  
    
    Whereas we will be labelling each SGU demo clearly, in case someone 
    loves the sounds and WANTS TO PURCHASE THE UNIT being demo'ed.
    
>In telling me the story he said he was surprised the guy didn't want the
>exposure and he was surprised that the guy wasn't impressed at how much
>he liked the piece.
    
    In my view, he doesn't know much about the business of music.  Or
    pretending not to.
    
    karl  -  p.s. I retire from this topic.  

Karl,

I don't have a problem with the COMMUSIC tape I have never seen or heard one. 
I took this discussion to another note because I wanted to have a discussion
about the issues of copyright. I admit that the COMMUSIC Tape was mentioned
when I started because comments in that note referred to the subject. I am
sorry if I have been a wet blanket. It was not my purpose to comment on that
tape or your work I am afraid that in some fashion I have made you feel this
way this was not my purpose. Sorry!

Could we if anyone is still interested continue with comments on copyright
without reference to the COMMUSIC tape?

/doug
Z

>                <<< Note 2520.14 by DREGS::BLICKSTEIN "Dave" >>>
>               -< Because that was the purpose in submitting it >-
>
>    I'd like to answer Tom Janzen's question again, this time a bit more
>    to the point:
>    
>>	Ok Dave, if it is wrong to copy a CD for friends (as I take it),
>>	is it wrong to copy COMMUSIC tapes with protected material
>>	without licenses?
>    
>    Because in direct contrast to a CD, submitting a recording to a
>    COMMUSIC tape is done FOR THE PURPOSE OF distributing copies to
>    friends.

No it isn't.  I said this in the context of the synth demo commusic tape.
Yamaha didn't submit its demos to a commusic tape.  This negates your
assertion.
Tom

	Just as a matter of interest as we're discussing copyright matters 
perhaps someone could answera question.

	Can a copyright holder (usually the author) actually prevent you 
performing or reproducing their work? In other words if I decide to cover 
someone elses song is it sufficient for me to pay the royalties or do I have to 
obtain permission in some way.

	I can think of some objections to this simple case if I were the 
author. For example I might not like a Nazi punk version of my sensitive ballad
or simply in competitive terms I might not appreciate a cover version of my
song while I am trying to have a hit with it. 

	My supplementary question would be what about parodies of songs, do I 
simply pay the royalty for using the music and then write my own words or again 
does the original copyright holder have more of a say in it?

Nigel

    re: .19
    
    Tom, why don't we stop this nonsense and answer the only important
    question:
    
    	Do you think Yamaha would object to us distributing a product
    	demonstration of theirs for the clear and specific purpose of
    	getting it to the ears of people who are interested in purchasing
    	it.
    
    If you say "Yes", then I won't do it as I respect your opinion.

    Set mode = Devil's advocate...
    
    Whether they object or not may be moot, but the possibility of them 
    succumbing to the "deep pockets" syndrome when they see DEC resources
    used to coordinate the distribution of their copyrighted material
    can't be denied...
    
    Edd

re            <<< Note 2520.22 by DCSVAX::COTE "Can't touch this..." >>>

>    Set mode = Devil's advocate...
    
>    Whether they object or not may be moot, but the possibility of them 
>    succumbing to the "deep pockets" syndrome when they see DEC resources
>    used to coordinate the distribution of their copyrighted material
>    can't be denied...

	Gee, Y'd think a responsible moderator would regard their job 
as being,   errr,   ummm,  kinda,,,,   



			"on the line"   so to speak ???

>    Whether they object or not may be moot, but the possibility of them 
>    succumbing to the "deep pockets" syndrome when they see DEC resources
>    used to coordinate the distribution of their copyrighted material
>    can't be denied...
    
    I don't deny this "possibility". 
    
    However I think it is considerably less than the possibility of
    action from local stores who have had their reputation impuned here,
    or from a certain manufacturer whose name we stigmatized to the point
    that it was never mentioned.
    
    I'll leave it up to the moderators (I think it really has to be their
    decision), but IMO this is about as low risk as it gets (much lower
    than lots of other stuff we do without thinking twice about).
    
    	db
    
    p.s. Remember that I lead the debate AGAINST allowing notes that
         impune the reputation of dealerships

Call the vendors and ask for permission.  Numbers are in another note.
Don't ask 
Tom

Entering this discussion a bit late...

RE: .6
>        If I understand what it means to be diligent with regard to Patents
>and copyrights it means you must go after any and every infraction you
>are aware of. If you don't I believe you can lose the protection. Therefore
>allowing not profit use could compromise your overall right.

I think you are confusing trademarks with patents and copyrights.  I don't 
have my notes handy (from the short course given by DEC lawyers), but my
understanding is that 

(1) copyrights are effectively present as soon as a draft is made with the
appropriate copyright notice (intention to copyright).  You do _not_ have
to register it at all.  However, in the performing arts arena, you are
strongly encouraged to pay the bucks and have the registration done (and
there is some language in the brochures that seems to indicate instances
where there could be a fine for not filing).  I have registered all of my
works and my impression is that I have _no_ obligation to take action
against anyone who might violate the copyrights.   The copyright will
still stand.  I don't know what the statute of limitations might be. 

(2) patents have strong requirements for how soon you must register after
the idea is known or whether you can even make the idea public at all
before registering.  Worldwide, these requirements vary.

(3) trademarks, such as Coke TM have to be jealously defended so that they 
do not become considered part of the language (like Kleenex or Thermos). 
My brother (a journalist) says that every time they use the term COKE TM in
an article without the trademark or registration symbol, they get a letter 
advising them of the infraction. 

RE: .*

I think you'd be safest to get permission.  However, I think it might be
difficult to walk that bureaucracy.  On the other hand, the DEC deep
pockets problem seems real to me...  There is clearly a gamble involved,
as far as I can see it, if you don't get explicit permission.  But, then,
I have had just enough legal training to be dangerous!

Alex

> Call the vendors and ask for permission.  Numbers are in another note.
    
    Thanks for volunteering Tom.  Let me know when you have the releases.
    
    What a guy, I mean think of the time this will take, not to mention
    the phone bill he'll ring up.
    
    THREE CHEERS FOR TOM!