Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [bbshop] Re: learning CD copyright question

Expand Messages
  • Ben McDaniel
    Martin, et al., Your analogy still appears incongruous, but since I m not an expert in this specific area, I m just hypothesizing, and that s not going to
    Message 1 of 28 , Oct 2, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Martin, et al.,

      Your analogy still appears incongruous, but since I'm not an expert in
      this specific area, I'm just hypothesizing, and that's not going to
      convince you on the issue.

      Kenny is right that it doesn't matter who pays if someone pays at the
      proper time. But what about the situation where nobody pays? If you
      are the chorus and the learning CD maker doesn't pay, you'd better
      pay. And if you're the learning CD maker and the chorus doesn't pay,
      you'd better pay. As I said before, if the copyright holder sues in a
      case where nobody pays, it doesn't matter whether you'd win in the end
      -- just having the fight makes you lose, due to the cost of litigation
      or even mediation.

      There are four reasons I seem to be determined to place the burden on
      the learning CD creator:

      First and foremost, that's what I think the law is. No one has yet
      given me a sound legal argument for why I'm wrong, and it still looks
      to me like I'm going along with what the law says.

      Second, I've been looking at this from the perspective of the learning
      CD maker. As I stated above, if I were the user of a learning CD and
      the creator of the recording didn't pay, I would need to pay to avoid
      any liability -- I don't think the user could be held liable, but he'd
      probably be sued along with the creator.

      Third, I don't want these guys to get in trouble. It would be a
      tragedy if one of these guys, like Tim Waurick, got sued and lost all
      the money he had made from his business (and perhaps even more).

      Fourth, I'm preparing to launch my own learning CD business, and this
      is one aspect that really concerns me. I'm trying to pattern myself
      after other successful learning CD makers, and they don't pay these
      fees. Also, I'm thinking of using this issue to set my business apart
      -- no matter what the law says, I'm sure there are quartets and
      choruses that would appreciate having the learning CD singer pay those
      fees, so it is a service I could provide that the other guys aren't
      providing.

      One member of the list pointed me toward a copyright attorney who may
      be able to give me a free bit of advice by e-mail. If he does give me
      his opinion, I'll report back.

      Thanks again to everyone for helping me to understand this. I may
      disagree with a lot of what has been argued, but the discussion itself
      has helped me to better understand the issues involved.

      Ben McDaniel
      Kansas Men in Harmony Director
      Air Capital Chorus Lead
      Wu Lead
    • Martin Grandahl
      ... It s an interesting idea, but it sounds kind of risky. It seems that by approaching it in this way, you would in essence be claiming responsibility for
      Message 2 of 28 , Oct 8, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        > There are four reasons I seem to be determined to
        > place the burden on the learning CD creator:

        > I'm preparing to launch my own learning CD business, and this
        > is one aspect that really concerns me. I'm trying to pattern myself
        > after other successful learning CD makers, and they don't pay these
        > fees. Also, I'm thinking of using this issue to set my business
        > apart -- no matter what the law says, I'm sure there are quartets
        > and choruses that would appreciate having the learning CD singer
        > pay those fees, so it is a service I could provide that the other
        > guys aren't providing.

        It's an interesting idea, but it sounds kind of risky. It seems that
        by approaching it in this way, you would in essence be claiming
        responsibility for legal issues in regards to the tracks in the
        chorus's possession. Rather than leaving it open to speculation, you
        would deliberately be saying that you are assuming that legal
        responsibility.

        Another thing....it kind of seems like a convenient fiction. You
        might be taking care of the paperwork and paying the legal fees, but
        you'll still be using your customer's money to do it - one way or the
        other, the funds will be coming from them.

        In that case, it seems like it might be less risky all around if you
        do what you can to let the responsibility rest on your customers
        rather than taking it upon yourself - they are the ones making and
        using the copies after all, not you. You are simply producing a single
        master....you could pay for fees on that if you feel that is your
        responsibility.

        And if you want to add a unique service, it seems like it might be
        best to actually call it that....a service. You could take care of the
        paperwork for your customers, billing them only for the number of
        copies they require. By labeling what you do as a service, you are not
        assuming additional responsibility. It just seems dangerous to
        deliberately claim more legal responsibility when it's not necessary.

        Anyway....as you said, this is all just opinion. I kind of sound like
        I'm telling you what to do, but I don't mean it in that way. Just kind
        of speculating. Doing what's right is important....but assuming
        responsibility for the potential actions of others just seems like a
        dangerous idea....




        --
        Martin Grandahl
        theafterglowlounge.org/forum
      • Alan Gordon
        ... It may be a relevant parallel to look at what our arrangers do. With the exception of Public Domain songs, almost all arrangers will sell you 4 copies that
        Message 3 of 28 , Oct 9, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In bbshop@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Grandahl" <martingrandahl@...>
          wrote:
          >> Another thing....it kind of seems like a convenient fiction. You
          > might be taking care of the paperwork and paying the legal fees, but
          > you'll still be using your customer's money to do it - one way or the
          > other, the funds will be coming from them.
          >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

          It may be a relevant parallel to look at what our arrangers do.

          With the exception of Public Domain songs, almost all arrangers will
          sell you 4 copies that include the per copy fee and then it is up to
          the chorus to pay for the remaining copies. So they are still using
          the group's money, but paying the per copy fee per the agreement
          established in most permissions to arrange.

          If nothing else, I would think that showing the good faith effort to
          enforce the per copy fees as much as you reasonably can would alleviate
          your liability rather than strengthen it. In one case, you can at
          least claim "They wanted 4 and I made sure you were paid for the 4. I
          can't control what they do beyond that." In a case where you did
          nothing, it is less convincing to say, "Hey! I didn't know they were
          using my copy or making any more!"

          I would find the relationship between arranger/chorus and
          arrager/publisher to be very similar to that of track-maker/chorus and
          track-maker/publisher.

          Alan
          gotchabari@...
        • Martin Grandahl
          ... That sounded like a very good idea. Good parallel, and smart approach.
          Message 4 of 28 , Oct 11, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            > It may be a relevant parallel to look at what our arrangers do.

            That sounded like a very good idea. Good parallel, and smart approach.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.