HomeRoast Digest


Topic: OT: RE: copyright issues was Newb Dives In! (23 msgs / 1566 lines)
1) From: Kevin
I thought when you purchased an album you paid for the rights then in
there.  There was no contract stating I must play my tape on a tape deck, my
vinyl on a turntable or my CDs in a CD player.  Why can't one purchase music
legally and change the medium?  You're not changing the 'art' just the
playback method.  Wouldn't this be analogous to say buying coffee from SM
and roasting it in an iRoast, then the iRoast becomes obsolete and you move
onto a HotTop?  Granted in this scenario I'm not cloning beans and giving
them to my friends but I do share my coffee with my wife and neighbor...
Wouldn't the legality issue come into play when the art is being *duplicated
and distributed *for others to use?  I would think both conditions would
need to be met for a copyright violation.
Then again, I'm an engineer and not a lawyer...
On 11/2/06, Maryann & Dave Schellenberg  wrote:
<Snip>
-- 
Kevin

2) From: David B. Westebbe
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

3) From: Brett Mason
Best coffee to consume while dealing with illegal issues?
  I vote for Colombia Excelso 13556, mostly a tribute to Medellin, but also
cause I like COlombians...
Your thoughts?
Brett
On 11/2/06, John Blumel  wrote:
<Snip>
-- 
Cheers,
Bretthttp://homeroast.freeservers.com

4) From: Leo Zick
hmm, this brings up a good point..  are roasted beans copyrighted?
my wife takes them over the boarder to canada to use during the week.   
crap, im breaking all sorts of laws!
well, maybe they arent, i didnt stamp a little c on each one.
Quoting Kevin :
<Snip>
my
<Snip>
ic
<Snip>
e
<Snip>
ed
<Snip>

5) From: Lynne
--Apple-Mail-62--481474231
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charsetNDOWS-1252;
	format=flowed
Sandy - you have a CD?
Lynne
  (inquiring minds want to know)
On Nov 3, 2006, at 1:41 AM, True, Dennis W. FC1 (CVN69) wrote:
<Snip>
<Snip>
if I 
<Snip>
<Snip>
<Snip>
<Snip>
<Snip>
<Snip>
<Snip>
<Snip>
one 
<Snip>
the 
<Snip>
<Snip>
scenario 
<Snip>
<Snip>
the
<Snip>
<Snip>
<Snip>
could
<Snip>
media.
<Snip>
--Apple-Mail-62--481474231
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/enriched;
	charsetNDOWS-1252
Sandy - you have a CD?
Lynne 
 (inquiring minds want to know)
On Nov 3, 2006, at 1:41 AM, True, Dennis W. FC1 (CVN69) wrote:
=
Arial0000,0000,8080Ok
here is my take on this let bring this to a personal level at least
for me….. Sandy I bought one of your CD’s…. Do YOU feel slighted =
if I
say that I have a copy of it on my MP3 Player and the original is at
my house over 7,000 miles away? After all, my wife at home could be
listening to it as well, If so Please let me know and I would of
course pay you.
=
Arial0000,0000,8080When
having a lively debate such as this it is always good to be in an
intellectual community such as this.
=
Arial0000,0000,8080 
=
Arial0000,0000,8080Dennis
=
Arial0000,0000,8080Z&D
and HG/DB Roasting in the IO
=
Arial0000,0000,8080“On
Station and On Point
=
5Arial<=
/param>0000,0000,8080
Fleet AOR….182 and counting!!!!”
Times New =
Roman0000,0000,8080 
Monotype =
Corsiva0000,0000,8080
Times New =
Roman0000,0000,8080Ships
CV-SHARP Adminstrator
=
Arial0000,0000,8080CSALTDSPO
=
Arial0000,0000,8080CS
Dept CC
=
Arial0000,0000,8080CS
Dept TRANO
=
Arial0000,0000,8080Duty
Sec 1 CS E6 S/L
=
Arial0000,0000,8080CS
Dept Mentorship Coordinator
=
Arial0000,0000,8080DCTT
Repair locker 1F
=
Helvetica0000,8080,=
8080"Life
Liberty and the pursuit of all who threaten =
it..."
=
Verdana3333,3333,9999For
Official Use only -- Privacy Act Protected Information contained
(including attachments) in this correspondence may be subject to the
Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a) and covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521.  Personal
information contained in this correspondence may be used only by
authorized persons in the conduct of official business.  Any
unauthorized disclosure or misuse of personal information may result
in criminal and/or civil penalties.  If you are not the intended
recipient of this correspondence please destroy all copies of this
correspondence after notifying the sender of your receipt of =
it.
Times New =
Roman0000,0000,8080 =
=
Arial0000,0000,8080 
Tahoma-----Original
Message-----
=
TahomaFrom:<=
/fontfamily>Tahoma
homeroast-admin
[mailto:homeroast-admin]
On Behalf Of
Kevin
=
TahomaSent:<=
/fontfamily>Tahoma
Thursday, November 02, 2006 2:46 PM
=
TahomaTo:Tahoma
homeroast
=
TahomaSubject:Tahoma
Re: +Re: OT: RE: copyright issues was Newb Dives =
In!
Times New =
Roman 
Times New RomanI thought
when you purchased an album you paid for the rights then in there. 
There was no contract stating I must play my tape on a tape deck, my
vinyl on a turntable or my CDs in a CD player.  Why can't one purchase
music legally and change the medium?  You're not changing the 'art'
just the playback method.  Wouldn't this be analogous to say buying
coffee from SM and roasting it in an iRoast, then the iRoast becomes
obsolete and you move onto a HotTop?  Granted in this scenario I'm not
cloning beans and giving them to my friends but I do share my coffee
with my wife and neighbor...
Times New =
Roman 
Times New RomanWouldn't the
legality issue come into play when the art is being duplicated
and distributed for others to use?  I would think both
conditions would need to be met for a copyright =
violation.
Times New =
Roman 
Times New RomanThen again,
I'm an engineer and not a lawyer...
Times New Roman =
 
Times New RomanOn 11/2/06,
Maryann & Dave Schellenberg
<<0000,0000,FFFFdaschell> wrote: =
Times New RomanJohn Blumel
wrote:
Times New Roman > On Nov 2,
2006, at 1:25 pm, David B. Westebbe =
wrote:
Times New Roman =
<Snip>
Times New Roman >> One
man's blatent theft is another man's fair use.  You beg the =
Times New Roman >> =
argument.
Times New Roman =
<Snip>
Times New Roman >>
Personally, I have no moral qualms about ripping my =
out-of-print
Times New Roman >> vinyl
into
Times New Roman >> MP3s,
burning them onto CDs, and sharing them with my kids, despite =
the
Times New Roman >>
objections of the Fortune 100 companies who own the underlying =
works.
Times New Roman =
<Snip>
Times New Roman > This is
not even remotely fair use. You're clearly in violation of =
the
Times New Roman > law, and
you ought at least write a check to the artists, or their =
Times New Roman > estates,
for the money you're stealing from them, on moral grounds =
at
Times New Roman > least, if
you choose to ignore the law.
Times New Roman I wouldn't
know about your law, or technical terms created in =
your
Times New Roman courts
(fair use) since I don't live in the USA, but perhaps you could =
Times New Roman explain
your moral high ground for those of us who don't get =
it.
Times New Roman If the work
on vinyl is out of print, how is the artist or =
estate
Times New Roman suffering a
loss?
Times New Roman Even if it
wasn't out of print, copying to a different media for use =
Times New Roman when you no
longer find the turntable convenient also doesn't seem =
like
Times New Roman a moral
issue - the original is no longer in use, but the royalty =
has
Times New Roman been paid,
and the performance is the same one, just on another media. =
Times New Roman Dave =
S.
Times New Roman
=
Times New Roman homeroast
mailing list
Times New =
Roman0000,0000,FFFhttp://li=sts.sweetmarias.com/mailman/listinfo/homeroast 
Times New Roman To change
your personal list settings (digest options, vacations, unsvbscribes)
go to
=
0000,0000,FFFhttp://sweetmarias.com/maillistinfo.ht=ml#personalsettings
Times New Roman -- =
Times New Roman =
Kevin
=
--Apple-Mail-62--481474231--

6) From: Aaron
Wow, maybe artists are starving, not because of being ripped off, but 
simply because the stuff they are trying to sell is crap and nobody 
wants it.
I thought one was allowed to make an 'archive' copy of a music CD, DVD, 
etc etc, so if you wreck the original, you have a backup.  As long as 
you paid for it legally then that's ok.  Where you get into trouble is 
if you start making copies and giving or selling them to others... yes 
even your children.  It's not making the copy that is the problem IF it 
is for personal use, it's the letting others use it, ie 'sharing' that 
causes the corporate greed to kick in, and the starvin marvins. err I 
mean artists to scream and cry.
But with this, what if I bought a copy of something and let someone else 
listen to it?  Is that copywright infringement too?  In some cases, some 
folks say so, but as long as I own the work, and have not duplicated it 
or let them dupe it in any way, is that infringement?
I guess the old adage, possession is 9/10 of the law, if you convert it 
to mp3 or whatever, that's fine, as long as just YOU posess it, but the 
moment posession of the work becomes the property of someone else, no 
matter which format you may have converted it to, then it is copywright 
infringement.
Dennis, to answer your question, technically yes, what you did was 
illegally copy that cd.  It is illegal because the possibility now DOES 
exist for it to be listened to at two different sources at the same 
time.  If you had the CD locked up where it could not be listened to 
then ok, it's cool. but since wife is listening and you possibly can at 
the same time, and it's from two different sources, one paid for, one 
not, and there is no standing license saying the work can be distributed 
in that manner... then well, sorry bro, that is a no no according to the 
law.
Also according to the law, while Sandy might decide to be a 'buddy' and 
say, well you meant well, don't worry about it.... technically, if she 
copywrited that CD, I believe some of the same rules apply that would as 
a patent and she HAS to fight for her rights or risk losing them... 
someone please correct me if I am wrong on this little part.
Yanno, speaking of law.
Where's our lawyer friend John... havent heard from him in ages.   Not 
sure if this is up his alley or not but he might be able to throw some 
sense into this.
Aaron

7) From: jim gundlach
--Apple-Mail-7--476927964
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset-ASCII;
	format=flowed
On Nov 2, 2006, at 3:34 PM, Brett Mason wrote:
<Snip>
In the US, a home roasted Cuban coffee.
    Pecan Jim
--Apple-Mail-7--476927964
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charsetO-8859-1
On Nov 2, 2006, at =
3:34 PM, Brett Mason wrote:
Best coffee to = consume while dealing with illegal = issues? In the US, a home roasted = Cuban coffee.
 =  Pecan Jim = --Apple-Mail-7--476927964--

8) From: Sandy Andina
--Apple-Mail-332--475094518
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset-ASCII;
	delsp=yes;
	format=flowed
Well, I AM a lawyer (and singer/songwriter) and not an engineer. When  
you buy an album, you are buying the right to listen to the music on  
it in perpetuity, as well as to reproduce it in a different medium-- 
tape, CD-R, .mp3--for your OWN personal use, e.g., listening to it.   
That is the "fair use" doctrine.  If you distribute any reproduction  
of that album you are infringing on the copyright.
It gets even weirder. Suppose you buy a CD lawfully, at full price.  
Suppose, too, that you own a retail or dining establishment and  
decide to play that CD during business hours so that it is audible to  
(and presumably, enjoyed by) your customers. Believe it or not,  
unless you buy a license from ASCAP or BMI, you have NOT bought the  
right to play that CD in a commercial establishment unless only you  
can hear it.  I fully expect that their next target will be doctors'  
and dentists' offices that play CDs for the benefit of their patients  
and staff.
It sucks, but that's the way it is.
On Nov 2, 2006, at 1:46 PM, Kevin wrote:
<Snip>
Sandy
www.sandyandina.com
--Apple-Mail-332--475094518
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charsetO-8859-1
Well, I AM a lawyer (and =
singer/songwriter) and not an engineer. When you buy an album, you are =
buying the right to listen to the music on it in perpetuity, as well as =
to reproduce it in a different medium--tape, CD-R, .mp3--for your OWN =
personal use, e.g., listening to it.  That is the "fair use" =
doctrine.  If you distribute any reproduction of that album you are =
infringing on the copyright.
It gets even weirder. = Suppose you buy a CD lawfully, at full price. Suppose, too, that you own = a retail or dining establishment and decide to play that CD during = business hours so that it is audible to (and presumably, enjoyed by) = your customers. Believe it or not, unless you buy a license from ASCAP = or BMI, you have NOT bought the right to play that CD in a commercial = establishment unless only you can hear it.  I fully expect that their = next target will be doctors' and dentists' offices that play CDs for the = benefit of their patients and staff.
It sucks, but that's the = way it is. On Nov 2, 2006, at 1:46 PM, Kevin = wrote:
I thought when you = purchased an album you paid for the rights then in = there. = = --Apple-Mail-332--475094518--

9) From: Aaron
Ok sandy, but what about if I have a jukebox in my establishment?  Does 
that 25 cents a song include a license somehow to play those disks with 
kickbacks going both to the mafia AND the music industry (both one in 
the same really).
Does this include a restaraunt with a television or a tv store with TV's 
all showing broadcasts?  what if oh lets say House MD comes on or South 
Park and people in the store watch it.  Is that infringement too then?
Aaron

10) From: Sandy Andina
--Apple-Mail-333--473638613
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charsetNDOWS-1252;
	delsp=yes;
	format=flowed
Of course I don't feel slighted. The irony is that for the vast  
number of independent artists/writers, the biggest economic danger to  =
them is not having their copyrights infringed, but never having their  =
music heard.
But I have given you permission. (I also happen, on that CD, to be  
one and the same as Essay Records and Smash & Grab Music, so they  
have given you permission as well). That permission is the copyright  
holder's to grant or deny, however; the right to be paid under the  
copyright statutes is the copyright holder's to waive or enforce as  
well.  Plenty of us in the indie music community have decided that it  =
is more to our ultimate advantage to make sure at least some of our  
music gets out to the greatest number of people than to charge for  
every bit and form of that music.  But that's our decisoon.
It gets sticky when the artist does not  hold the copyright to the  
recording itself (there are two copyrights--one for the recording and  =
one for the underlying song)--that almost always belongs 100% to the  
label. Artists who have recording contracts are usually either paid  
in advance or have contractual limits as to how many of those  
"mechanical" (sales/repro) royalties the label will pay them, and  
once a contract term ends and/or a recording is taken off the market,  =
the artist is screwed--the label has the sole right (unless the  
artist has been smart and lucky enough for their contract to have  
stated otherwise) to decide to make a recording unavailable even if  
someone offers to pay for it.
As for the underlying songs, the copyright holders are usually--at  
the beginning--the writer and publisher (who for most indies are one  
and the same, or the "publishing" entity exists in name only).  
However, one of the conditions for getting a major artist to record a  =
song (or for a commercial publishing company to put it in its  
catalog) is to assign a portion of the copyright (usually just part  
or all of the publisher's share) to the label, publishing company,  
big-shot producer, or the star who records it.  (For a multi-platinum  =
hit, retaining a tiny portion of his copyright can net the writer far  =
more money than keeping 100% and never having anyone record it so it  
never becomes a hit).  Many singer-songwriters or band members who  
write and then sign a recording contract must turn over all or part  
of their mechanical royalties to the label or producer as well,  
otherwise the deal is off.  (Now, airplay, or "performance" royalties  =
are almost never given away unless the writer is desperate--but most  
labels will insist that the album include mostly songs on which the  
label, the producer, the producer's girlfriend, etc., own the  
copyright--especially as the planned "singles," so that revenue to  
the label is maximized).
Now you know why more and more artists and writers are remaining  
unsigned these days--by their own choice.
On Nov 3, 2006, at 12:41 AM, True, Dennis W. FC1 (CVN69) wrote:
<Snip>
<Snip>
<Snip>
Sandy
www.sandyandina.com
--Apple-Mail-333--473638613
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charsetNDOWS-1252
Of course I don't feel slighted. =
The irony is that for the vast number of independent artists/writers, =
the biggest economic danger to them is not having their copyrights =
infringed, but never having their music heard. 
But I have given you = permission. (I also happen, on that CD, to be one and the same as Essay = Records and Smash & Grab Music, so they have given you permission as = well). That permission is the copyright holder's to grant or deny, = however; the right to be paid under the copyright statutes is the = copyright holder's to waive or enforce as well.  Plenty of us in the = indie music community have decided that it is more to our ultimate = advantage to make sure at least some of our music gets out to the = greatest number of people than to charge for every bit and form of that = music.  But that's our decisoon. 
It gets sticky when the = artist does not  hold the copyright to the recording itself (there are = two copyrights--one for the recording and one for the underlying = song)--that almost always belongs 100% to the label. Artists who have = recording contracts are usually either paid in advance or have = contractual limits as to how many of those "mechanical" (sales/repro) = royalties the label will pay them, and once a contract term ends and/or = a recording is taken off the market, the artist is screwed--the label = has the sole right (unless the artist has been smart and lucky enough = for their contract to have stated otherwise) to decide to make a = recording unavailable even if someone offers to pay for = it.
As for = the underlying songs, the copyright holders are usually--at the = beginning--the writer and publisher (who for most indies are one and the = same, or the "publishing" entity exists in name only). However, one of = the conditions for getting a major artist to record a song (or for a = commercial publishing company to put it in its catalog) is to assign a = portion of the copyright (usually just part or all of the publisher's = share) to the label, publishing company, big-shot producer, or the star = who records it.  (For a multi-platinum hit, retaining a tiny portion = of his copyright can net the writer far more money than keeping 100% and = never having anyone record it so it never becomes a hit).  Many = singer-songwriters or band members who write and then sign a recording = contract must turn over all or part of their mechanical royalties to the = label or producer as well, otherwise the deal is off.  (Now, airplay, = or "performance" royalties are almost never given away unless the writer = is desperate--but most labels will insist that the album include mostly = songs on which the label, the producer, the producer's girlfriend, etc., = own the copyright--especially as the planned "singles," so that revenue = to the label is maximized).
Now you know why more and = more artists and writers are remaining unsigned these days--by their own = choice. On Nov 3, 2006, at 12:41 AM, True, Dennis W. FC1 = (CVN69) wrote:
Sandy I bought one of your CD’s…. Do YOU feel slighted if I = say that I have a copy of it on my MP3 Player and the original is at my = house over 7,000 miles away? = = = --Apple-Mail-333--473638613--

11) From: Sandy Andina
--Apple-Mail-334--473330722
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset-ASCII;
	delsp=yes;
	format=flowed
Three of 'em: my solo CD, "Ghosts and Angels," the Andina & Rich CD  
"Because We Can," and the newly released SASS! (Susan Urban & me)  
"Album One, " the CD release party for which (for all you Chicago- 
area listmembers reading this) will be Sunday night, Nov. 12, from  
7-10 pm at Bill's Blues, 1029 Davis St., in Evanston, IL.   All three  
are available at www.cdbaby.com; the first two are already available  
through iTunes (and other download services), and the SASS! CD is in  
the process of being encoded for digital distribution--it should also  
be on iTunes any minute now.
SASS! "Album One" includes "Caffeine," by the way!
On Nov 2, 2006, at 5:15 PM, Lynne wrote:
<Snip>
Sandy
www.sandyandina.com
--Apple-Mail-334--473330722
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charsetO-8859-1
Three of 'em: my solo CD, =
"Ghosts and Angels," the Andina & Rich CD "Because We Can," and the =
newly released SASS! (Susan Urban & me) "Album One, " the CD release =
party for which (for all you Chicago-area listmembers reading this) will =
be Sunday night, Nov. 12, from 7-10 pm at Bill's Blues, 1029 Davis St., =
in Evanston, IL.   All three are available at www.cdbaby.com; the first two are =
already available through iTunes (and other download services), and the =
SASS! CD is in the process of being encoded for digital distribution--it =
should also be on iTunes any minute now.
SASS! "Album One" includes = "Caffeine," by the way! On Nov 2, 2006, at 5:15 PM, Lynne = wrote:
Sandy - you have a = CD? Lynne  (inquiri= ng minds want to know) = = --Apple-Mail-334--473330722--

12) From: Sandy Andina
--Apple-Mail-335--473186774
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset-ASCII;
	delsp=yes;
	format=flowed
On Nov 2, 2006, at 5:45 PM, Aaron wrote:
<Snip>
According to ASCAP and BMI it is, if your letting them listen to it  
is to your economic advantage--e.g., if you play it in your business  
establishment as "atmosphere" in order to increase or attract  
customers and sales.
Sandy
www.sandyandina.com
--Apple-Mail-335--473186774
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charsetO-8859-1
On Nov 2, 2006, at =
5:45 PM, Aaron wrote:

But with this, what if I = bought a copy of something and let someone else listen to it?  Is that copyright = infringement too?

According to = ASCAP and BMI it is, if your letting them listen to it is to your = economic advantage--e.g., if you play it in your business establishment = as "atmosphere" in order to increase or attract customers and = sales. = --Apple-Mail-335--473186774--

13) From: Sandy Andina
--Apple-Mail-336--472503163
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset-ASCII;
	delsp=yes;
	format=flowed
On Nov 2, 2006, at 5:45 PM, Aaron wrote:
<Snip>
Yes and no. I technically have the right to keep others from  
reproducing the recording without paying me (either directly or via  
the Harry Fox Agency for multiple-copy reproduction for  
distribution), but in practicality nobody--at least nobody but the  
famous songwriters/major labels--chooses to enforce that.  But that  
right exists even if it was waived for certain individual purchasers  
of the original CD (or of the paid download from iTunes). Although  
once a song gets reproduced copies can multiply like bunnies, the  
copyright holder is still entitled to enforce their right to be paid  
for the copies if (s)he chooses---of course, few so choose.  But if  
someone else "opens Pandora's box" the writer does not lose the  
rights...just will find it much harder to prove how many instances of  
infringement there are, who has committed them, and how to compute  
what they're owed.
Sheesh.  Buy the CD (or download the songs from iTunes), put it on  
your iPod or computer if you like, let anyone listen to the CD itself  
no matter where you keep it, and enjoy.  Just don't illegally  
fileshare (e.g., Grokster, Kazaa, etc) unless it's a track I've  
expressly made available as a free download. I trust you folks.
Sandy
www.sandyandina.com
--Apple-Mail-336--472503163
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charsetO-8859-1
On Nov 2, 2006, at =
5:45 PM, Aaron wrote:

Also according to the law, = while Sandy might decide to be a 'buddy' and say, well you meant well, = don't worry about it.... technically, if she copyrighted that CD, I = believe some of the same rules apply that would as a patent and she HAS = to fight for her rights or risk losing them... someone please correct me = if I am wrong on this little part.

Yes and = no. I technically have the right to keep others from reproducing the = recording without paying me (either directly or via the Harry Fox Agency = for multiple-copy reproduction for distribution), but in practicality = nobody--at least nobody but the famous songwriters/major labels--chooses = to enforce that.  But that right exists even if it was waived for = certain individual purchasers of the original CD (or of the paid = download from iTunes). Although once a song gets reproduced copies can = multiply like bunnies, the copyright holder is still entitled to enforce = their right to be paid for the copies if (s)he chooses---of course, few = so choose.  But if someone else "opens Pandora's box" the writer does = not lose the rights...just will find it much harder to prove how many = instances of infringement there are, who has committed them, and how to = compute what they're owed.
Sheesh.  Buy the CD (or = download the songs from iTunes), put it on your iPod or computer if you = like, let anyone listen to the CD itself no matter where you keep it, = and enjoy.  Just don't illegally fileshare (e.g., Grokster, Kazaa, = etc) unless it's a track I've expressly made available as a free = download. I trust you folks. = = --Apple-Mail-336--472503163--

14) From: Sandy Andina
--Apple-Mail-337--472290682
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset-ASCII;
	delsp=yes;
	format=flowed
Most jukeboxes come with ASCAP/BMI licenses as part of the lease  
fee.  I can't speak for the Mafia or music inustry.
I believe there may be a statutory exemption for TV broadcasts. I  
don't know about that part of the Copyright Act or aspect of  
intellectual property law.
On Nov 2, 2006, at 7:05 PM, Aaron wrote:
<Snip>
Sandy
www.sandyandina.com
--Apple-Mail-337--472290682
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charsetO-8859-1
Most jukeboxes come with =
ASCAP/BMI licenses as part of the lease fee.  I can't speak for the =
Mafia or music inustry<g>.
I believe there may be a = statutory exemption for TV broadcasts. I don't know about that part of = the Copyright Act or aspect of intellectual property = law. On Nov 2, 2006, at 7:05 PM, Aaron wrote:

Ok sandy, but what about if = I have a jukebox in my establishment?  Does that 25 cents a song = include a license somehow to play those disks with kickbacks going both = to the mafia AND the music industry (both one in the same = really).

Does this include a restaraunt with a television or a = tv store with TV's all showing broadcasts?  what if oh lets say House MD = comes on or South Park and people in the store watch it.  Is that infringement too = then?

= = --Apple-Mail-337--472290682--

15) From: Matt Henkel
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 07:01:39PM -0600, Sandy Andina wrote:
<Snip>
It's only fair to note that the due to beauties like the DMCA you don't
necessarily have access to this right.  While you are still technically
allowed to make fair use copies it's illegal to circumvent copy
protection methods, making the act of copying your material illegal if
it's copy protected (this largely applies to DVDs).
~/Matt

16) From: Matt Henkel
Unless I'm gravely mistaken over-air broadcasts are free for all (radio
and television) however cable and satellite providers require you to
state whether you are a business or home user & charge accordingly.
~/Matt
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 07:48:22PM -0600, Sandy Andina wrote:
<Snip>

17) From: Sandy Andina
--Apple-Mail-340--470642764
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset-ASCII;
	delsp=yes;
	format=flowed
On Nov 2, 2006, at 8:00 PM, Matt Henkel wrote:
<Snip>
Radio is different. ASCAP has actually gone after cafes and boutiques  
to force them to buy licenses to play commercial broadcast radio over  
the store's sound systems.  The Limited chain once went so far as to  
create its own "radio station" strictly for in-store use,  
"storecasting" songs only by artists and writers not signed with  
ASCAP or BMI. Muzak also offers music services that sound like radio  
stations (they pay the license fees to the labels and writers and  
then their customers pay to subscribe).   There is currently a fight  
over whether a cafe may play XM Satellite broadcasts--for which it  
pays the same monthly subscription fee as any ordinary listener--over  
its sound system without paying ASCAP or BMI. Stay tuned, so to speak.
Personally, I feel that as long as you don't hand out copies you  
should be able to play a CD you've bought (or a satellite broadcast  
for which you pay a subscription fee) to anyone you want;  as to  
radio, the stations should (and do) pay for that.  ASCAP (to which I  
belong) and BMI are going too far and there will eventually be an  
activist judiciary backlash (they're too powerful to allow a repeal  
or revision of the DMCA to happen).
Sandy
www.sandyandina.com
--Apple-Mail-340--470642764
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charsetO-8859-1
On Nov 2, 2006, at =
8:00 PM, Matt Henkel wrote:

Unless I'm gravely mistaken = over-air broadcasts are free for all (radio

and television)

= Radio is different. ASCAP has actually gone after = cafes and boutiques to force them to buy licenses to play commercial = broadcast radio over the store's sound systems.  The Limited chain = once went so far as to create its own "radio station" strictly for = in-store use, "storecasting" songs only by artists and writers not = signed with ASCAP or BMI. Muzak also offers music services that sound = like radio stations (they pay the license fees to the labels and writers = and then their customers pay to subscribe).   There is currently a = fight over whether a cafe may play XM Satellite broadcasts--for which it = pays the same monthly subscription fee as any ordinary listener--over = its sound system without paying ASCAP or BMI. Stay tuned, so to = speak.
Personally, = I feel that as long as you don't hand out copies you should be able to = play a CD you've bought (or a satellite broadcast for which you pay a = subscription fee) to anyone you want;  as to radio, the stations = should (and do) pay for that.  ASCAP (to which I belong) and BMI are = going too far and there will eventually be an activist judiciary = backlash (they're too powerful to allow a repeal or revision of the DMCA = to happen). = = --Apple-Mail-340--470642764--

18) From: Leo Zick
LOL!!
I was going to ask, imagine being the dentist who finds out that your
patient, presently under your array of cleaning tools, is the one who ratted
you out?  Sometimes things are just left unsaid :)

19) From: Brent - SC/TO Roasting
It's a tough call.  I'm all for musicians getting the money that's due
them.  But being able to play a legally purchased cd in my cafe or business
also provides some free marketing for the musician.  I've bought music after
hearing it at a business or hearing a clip on line.  ASCAP and BMI do
provide a needed service, so they're not totally the bad guys.
I would like to see a heavy tax (that goes to the artists) on each sale of
boom boxes or those house thumping, 5-speaker dealies put into cars.  If we
have to be exposed to it like that, they oughta be paying big bucks to the
artists.  There's nothing like hearing Maria Muldaur's "Midnight At The
Oasis" at full throttle, clavicle-thumping bass blaring out of the back of
an El Dorado to make one wonder at it all.  :)
-
Brent
My coffee is better than it tastes
On 11/2/06, Sandy Andina  wrote:
<Snip>
-

20) From: True, Dennis W. FC1 (CVN69)
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Ok here is my take on this let bring this to a personal level at least
for me..... Sandy I bought one of your CD's.... Do YOU feel slighted if
I say that I have a copy of it on my MP3 Player and the original is at
my house over 7,000 miles away? After all, my wife at home could be
listening to it as well, If so Please let me know and I would of course
pay you. 
When having a lively debate such as this it is always good to be in an
intellectual community such as this. 
 
Dennis
Z&D and HG/DB Roasting in the IO
"On Station and On Point 5th Fleet AOR....182 and counting!!!!"
 
FC1(SW) Dennis W. True
Ships CV-SHARP Adminstrator
CSALTDSPO
CS Dept CC
CS Dept TRANO
Duty Sec 1 CS E6 S/L
CS Dept Mentorship Coordinator
DCTT Repair locker 1F
"Life Liberty and the pursuit of all who threaten it..."
For Official Use only -- Privacy Act Protected Information contained
(including attachments) in this correspondence may be subject to the
Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a) and covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521.  Personal information
contained in this correspondence may be used only by authorized persons
in the conduct of official business.  Any unauthorized disclosure or
misuse of personal information may result in criminal and/or civil
penalties.  If you are not the intended recipient of this correspondence
please destroy all copies of this correspondence after notifying the
sender of your receipt of it.

21) From: True, Dennis W. FC1 (CVN69)
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
So that is why *$'s sell the music too...to keep from paying when they
play... now they are just advertising the music they sell.....
Crafty!!!!
 
 
 
 
Dennis
Z&D and HG/DB Roasting in the IO
"On Station and On Point 5th Fleet AOR....182 and counting!!!!"
 
FC1(SW) Dennis W. True
CS/CS-5
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower
FPO AE 09532-2830
Ships CV-SHARP Administrator
CSALTDSPO
CS Dept CC
CS Dept TRANO
Duty Sec 1 CS E6 S/L
CS Dept Mentorship Coordinator
DCTT Repair locker 1F
"Life Liberty and the pursuit of all who threaten it..."
For Official Use only -- Privacy Act Protected Information contained
(including attachments) in this correspondence may be subject to the
Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a) and covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521.  Personal information
contained in this correspondence may be used only by authorized persons
in the conduct of official business.  Any unauthorized disclosure or
misuse of personal information may result in criminal and/or civil
penalties.  If you are not the intended recipient of this correspondence
please destroy all copies of this correspondence after notifying the
sender of your receipt of it.
 
 
 
According to ASCAP and BMI it is, if your letting them listen to it is
to your economic advantage--e.g., if you play it in your business
establishment as "atmosphere" in order to increase or attract customers
and sales.
 
Sandy
www.sandyandina.com
 

22) From: True, Dennis W. FC1 (CVN69)
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Such as My favorite song of yours "Fog"  because it is free on the
website right?... BTW I LOVE that song Sandy!
I spent 2 years the windy city (well Great Lakes) and every time I
listen I can see myself back there thank you for that!
 
 
Dennis
Z&D and HG/DB Roasting in the IO
"On Station and On Point 5th Fleet AOR....182 and counting!!!!"
 
FC1(SW) Dennis W. True
CS/CS-5
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower
FPO AE 09532-2830
Ships CV-SHARP Administrator
CSALTDSPO
CS Dept CC
CS Dept TRANO
Duty Sec 1 CS E6 S/L
CS Dept Mentorship Coordinator
DCTT Repair locker 1F
"Life Liberty and the pursuit of all who threaten it..."
For Official Use only -- Privacy Act Protected Information contained
(including attachments) in this correspondence may be subject to the
Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a) and covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521.  Personal information
contained in this correspondence may be used only by authorized persons
in the conduct of official business.  Any unauthorized disclosure or
misuse of personal information may result in criminal and/or civil
penalties.  If you are not the intended recipient of this correspondence
please destroy all copies of this correspondence after notifying the
sender of your receipt of it.
 
 
 
 
 
 
unless it's a track I've expressly made available as a free download.
Sandy
www.sandyandina.com
 

23) From: David B. Westebbe
<Snip>
Exactly right.  
What we are currently seeing with DRM is that the content providers are
using technology to accomplish what they were not allowed to do via
copyright law.  Their efforts are extremely likely to fail in the =
fullness
of time, for technical reasons.  But their success in passing the DMCA =
shows
their current power.  
Personally, I feel that portions of the DMCA violate First Amendent =
rights,
and that we are just in an interim period, waiting for significant court
interpretation of all of the implications.  Once the Courts speak, we =
will
know better what we are dealing with.


HomeRoast Digest