----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Frakes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: MDList <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 1999 6:07 PM
Subject: Re: MD: Re: It's that time again (the AHRA and copying)
> It clearly says that unless the owner of the copyright gives you explicit
> permission, you cannot provide a copy of the work "by rental, lease or
> lending, or by any other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease,
> or lending." It would be difficult to convince people that giving someone
> a copy of an album you have is OK under the above.
>
> The interesting thing I've found in this discussion is that all of the
> regulations have been aimed at the person who owns the CD/tape/etc. I
> haven't seen anything that says "you can't record a copyrighted work
> owned by someone else"...
Curious isn't it. It is breach of copyright for you to give me a copy of the
album, or to lend it to me, but not illegal for me to record it if you lend
it to me - you are breaking the law and not me..... not exactly true.
Technically I would be guilty of receiving stolen property - that property
being the intellectual property of the artist to whom copyright belongs, If
you thought copyright laws were flaky, try arguing that one! You actually
have to first prove that a theft took place.
Would it be legal for me to stock up on every CD ever made and then proceed
to set up a free service to copy all the discs to anyone who wants them
providing that you cover my costs (i.e. pay for the electricity used and
supply the media needed). As I would not apparently be making a profit from
this and I would be doing it from home, the AHRA would surely protect my
actions wouldn't they? Strange then that public lending libraries have to
have a special license to do this, and they prohibit copying too saying it
is "breach of copyright".
A little experiment for the brave: Make a copy of a Nirvana album and put it
on a web site. Contact Courtney Love (widow of Kurt Cobain - Nirvana's lead
singer, now deceased) and tell her what you have done. She is very vigilant
about copyright and has lawyers shutting down sites all over the net. -
Source: The Cook Report (British Television inside documentary program).
Others also doing this include agents for bands such as Killing Joke,
R.E.M., artists Joe Satriani, Eric Clapton and Marilyn Manson, Sherman
Robertson and even Stevie Ray Vaughan. Steve Vai was so concerned with the
issue he put a clause in the contract of the people designing his official
website preventing them from using any musical clips, allegedly to prevent
any fans falling prey to the "greedy record company wanting to enact
copyright law". - Source "The Recording Industry - Music Management - Open
University".
The most interesting comment I have found so far relating directly to the
AHRA is this:
"Contrary to popular belief, the AHRA does not entitle you to breach
copyright. The AHRA is in itself a very debatable article" [ha! no kidding!]
"which allows users of home audio equipment to duplicate material. It does
not state the material may then be exchanged with another person. The main
distinction we are making here is that recording is not illegal, but the act
of giving a duplicate of a copyrighted work, or lending the copyrighted work
is. The ARHA makes it legal for you to record material you are in possession
of, but it does not attempt to challenge or justify the way that material
came into your possession." -Source "The Music Industry At Work - Chapter
10 - Copyrights and the AHRA" Author "Dan Shaler" Publisher Maxwell
MacMillan. I tried to find this book on Amazon for you to refer to but it
seems it went out of print 3 years ago - you may get lucky and find it in a
library. I found mine at a book store, but never expected to be using that
section as it is relating primarily to American law - pointless if you live
in the UK.
I have a feeling this thread will probably go on for days without ever
getting resolved, so my final statement on the issue will be this:
Regardless of whether the act of copying a copyrighted work is illegal or
not, you are undoubtedly getting something for free which you would
otherwise have had to pay for. Because you did not pay for it, that has
reduced the amount of money the artist will get for their work. I personally
cannot see how this can be right, it is my belief that if an artist has
taken the time to create the music either in composing or performing it,
they should be able to reap the rewards of this so that they can go on
producing more for us to enjoy. You may argue whatever points you like, but
one thing I feel puts it into perspective. If somebody fixed your car or put
your computer together for you, you would not dream of refusing to pay them
for their hard work. An artist puts a lot of effort into producing the music
you hear regardless of what format it is on or what you use to listen to it.
I cannot see how refusing to pay them for their hard work can be justified.
Whether we conclude it is wrong legally or ethically, or both, one thing we
seem to be agreed on is that it is wrong, so perhaps we should leave it at
that.
Magic
--
"Creativity is more a birthright than an acquisition, and the power of sound
is wisdom and understanding applied to the power of vibration."
Location : Portsmouth, England, UK
Homepage : http://www.mattnet.freeserve.co.uk
EMail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
