Music Copyright

[Leslie]

I have a potential client that wants me to do an album, and wants music that they have picked out. In the past, I have purchased royalty free music and used it. How do I make this happen and be legal? How do others do it in the industry?

Any input would be greatly appreciated.

[Joyce B.]

You would need to purchase a blanket license and they are not cheap. Read about it at how stuff works.
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/music-licensing.htm
Peace

[Leslie]

Thanks Joyce,

I was getting very frustrated trying to find information on the web on the topic. I knew the answer to my question, but felt I should prove it to myself before I tell a client I can't do their request.

I am trying to think of how I could give them the album without music and they could add it themselves.

[Deanna Wampler]

I have a question. If your client has a CD with the music they want on their own album, does this infringe on copyright laws? Since they already purchased the music and you are not selling it to them and they are not selling it, I wouldn't think this would be a problem. Am I wrong? Opinions please.

Dee

[Joyce B.]

I have a question. If your client has a CD with the music they want on their own album, does this infringe on copyright laws? Since they already purchased the music and you are not selling it to them and they are not selling it, I wouldn't think this would be a problem. Am I wrong? Opinions please.

I read about this someplace, but I can't remember where. Thought I had it bookmarked, but can't find it. Probabley in one of those links I followed up on an article about the RIAA's massive lawsuit actions against file swappers. From what I read and understood, bottom line, no you can't. It's still a form of redistribution.

Peace

[Joyce B.]

I wrote:

RIAA's massive lawsuit actions against file swappers

"Music Wars" on TechTV airs Friday 9/12 at 8 p.m., Saturday 9/13 at 6 p.m., and Monday 9/15 at 1 p.m. Eastern. Read more about it here:
http://www.techtv.com/specials/musicwars/

I plan to miss the local high school football game to watch this program. The outcome of lawsuits brought by the RIAA and lawsuits brought against the RIAA have my interest. Consumer' and the general public' privacy rights are hanging in the balance. Can corporations get away with questionable tactics to prosecute violators. It's the pot calling the kettle black. I'm not siding with file swappers, what they do is illegal, but should the RIAA be able to violate privacy laws to gain knowledge of who file swappers are? They have forgotten about due process.

http://news.com.com/2100-1028-1013037.html?tag=nl
http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-1013154.html


Peace

[tdew]

It seems wrong to claim that using someone's own purchased music in a different way FOR THEM, shouldn't be allowed. As long as you are not keeping a copy of the music for yourself, it should be okay.

Meanwhile, I attended a meeting last night for the HS Graduation Ball that the parents in our town create for their children on Graduation night. It's a traditon started back in 1959 - in an effort to keep kids safe on such a big party night.
One of the suggested favors was a CD of music to be distributed to each of the kids. Eventually, someone brought up the Copyright thing... but someone else said "he knew of someone who checked it out and this is a legal thing - as long as there's no charge made" Now, we KNOW that's not the case! I'll be watching how this progresses and let you know.

Terry

[Leslie]

I think the biggest issue would be that I would be selling them a product that included the music and therefore profiting from it in some way.

But, from everything that I have read, even if they copied the music they owned on a CD, it would be illegal. Yes, people do it every day.

My concern is that I am running a business. And if someone wanted to sue me (there was an article in my paper today about lawsuits being filed), I am a sole proprietorship. That means that I would not only lose my business, but they could come after my personal belongings. The chances of being caught are slim, but I don't think a $150 job is worth risking your house.

I will talk to my potential clients tomorrow, hopefully she will understand.

Thanks for all the input everyone. I agree Joyce, It will be interesting to see how this topic develops in the news.

[PattiK]

I think the biggest issue would be that I would be selling them a product that included the music and therefore profiting from it in some way.

But, from everything that I have read, even if they copied the music they owned on a CD, it would be illegal. Yes, people do it every day.

This article (if correct states that it is legal for people to copy their purchased CD for their own enjoyment.

The following interesting observation appeared on slashdot.com on April 30, 2003:
What about the Audio Home Recording Act?

Contrary to what the RIAA wants you to believe, it appears that making a copy of an audio recording may be perfectly legal in the US, even if you don't own the original recording, as long as it is for noncommercial purposes. The reason for this is the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA).

Since 1992, the U.S. Government has collected a tax on all digital audio recorders and blank digital audio media manufactured in or imported into the US, and gives the money directly to the RIAA companies, which is distributed as royalties to recording artists, copyright owners, music publishers, and music writers:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch10.html [cornell.edu]
In exchange for those royalties, a special exemption to the copyright law was made for the specific case of audio recordings, and as a result *all* noncommercial copying of musical recordings by consumers is now legal in the US, regardless of media:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1008.html [cornell.edu]
"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."
The intent of Congress was clear when this law was passed (http://www.cni.org/Hforums/cni-copyright/1993-01/ 0018.html [cni.org]):
From House Report No. 102-873(I), September 17, 1992:

"In the case of home taping, the [Section 1008] exemption protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings."
From House Report No. 102-780(I), August 4, 1992:
"In short, the reported legislation [Section 1008] would clearly establish that consumers cannot be sued for making analog or digital audio copies for private noncommercial use."
Therefore, when you copy an MP3 the royalties have already been paid for with tax dollars in accordance with the law. If you are a musician whose recordings are publicly distributed, then you are entitled to your share of these royalties by filing a claim under Section 1006 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1006.html [cornell.edu]).
Napster tried to use this law to defend their case, and the court ruled this law did not apply to them because they are a commercial company. But as a consumer it seems to me you are perfectly within your rights when you make a copy for noncommercial private use.

[Leslie]

Sounds like we are all in agreement that I can't sell a CD with a copied version of a popular song, whether I copy it or they copy it, right?

Thanks for the information everyone. It is an interesting topic.

[Deanna Wampler]

Based on what Patti wrote above, it sounds like it is fine for someone to make a copy of music they have already purchased as long as it is for non-commercial use. The question then becomes can a third party take this purchased music and copy it for them. I don't think this would be an infringement on anyone's rights. This may have to be challenged in the courts but let's get real here. I think the RIAA is going too far and indeed they are infringing on our rights as consumers. And that is my humble opinion.

Dee

[station-rat]

I have bought some music from this company http://www.royaltyfree.com.au This may or may not be the type of music that you are looking for? Just a thought.
Station-rat

[lucian]

Personally I think this copyright system is going overboard, but ...

If the client owns the CD and wants to make a backup copy for his personal use that is OK.

He cannot legally supply the CD or a track from that CD to the album maker for inclusion in the album. This now becomes commercial use and as such is subject to royalties.

If the album maker and/or the client does/do not pay royalties then one or both could become the subject of the music maker's attention. Translation: The album maker and/or the client could be sued.

The above does not fall into the category of fair use.

In short our yet to be born grandchildren will probably pass on due to old age before the music companies run out of copyright protection time.

Question: Do I think it's fair? Answer: I think not.

I think Signalman's idea of treating intellectual property more like patents would be a much fairer system. But I don't think the music or movie companies would be willing to go along with something like that.

I frequently hear the question, "Who's going to know or find out?"
Well chances are you're not going to get caught. But IF caught what are the consequences? Because of the discussions that have taken place on this forum, and others, one would not be able to claim ignorance.

I would imagine the local DJ who plays vinyl, tape, or CD at a wedding is walking a fine line.

I readily admit, I'm chicken.

[Signalman65]

Patti wrote,"But as a consumer it seems to me you are perfectly within your rights when you make a copy for noncommercial private use."

If your customer was to copy the music to the album for their own use, it would fit the law as Patti states.

If you used a copy in the album you made for them, but did not charge them for the album. There would probable be no problem since you were not making a profit, and there for not using it for commercial purposes.

But when you are using it in an album, that you are selling for a profit, then it becomes a commercial use. Even though you are not selling the music its self to them, your still profiting from the thing it is used in. I am not saying this is right, just that they could claim this in a suite.

Some one has a voice that people like to hear, they record them selfs singing a song that is popular, and sell the recording. They have to pay the holder of the copyrights for using the song, even though the people were basically buying their voice recording, and would do so no matter what they were sing.

They are promoting the song by singing it in the first place. which would increase the sells of the music in other ways. In some cases if the singer had not sang the song in the first place in would never have been popular. I think people should raise all kinds of H-ll over this, and sign petitions, what ever it takes to put a stop to this greed nonsense.

It is a crying shame that the persons who are really the owners of these arts, are not the ones to profit in the long run from them. I think if they sell their rights then the copyrights held by the buyer should be good only during the life time of the originator and spouse, and only pass on to their second generation if they leave it to them, and good no further. Especially if they have no children to leave it too. The music industry should not hold the copyrights if they are not paying the heirs.

[Smooth]

REMOVED

Regards, Smooth