FLY135 wrote:

>
> "Paul Lutus" <nospam@nosite.zzz> wrote in message
> news:10lj9eudf9u5cde@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> I know you think your question is a rhetorical one, but as to a specific
>> piece of music (my favorite example), the "birthday song", because it is
>> copyrighted, it is a technical violation to perform it in public. And
>> what is more public than a birthday party? This, by the way, is why one
>> rarely sees this piece of music performed in movies.
>
> I don't believe that the issue is whether it is performed in public, but
> whether it is performed by a business as part of entertaining it's guests.

No, any public performance may violate a copyright. It doesn't have to be in
connection with a commercial activity. The basis is that someone may hear
the song performed and not buy a commercially available version instead,
leading to a claim of lost revenue.

What this means is giving away copyrighted material for free doesn't grant
immunity from legal action. I know this -- I wrote a free tidal prediction
program (JTides at http://www.arachnoid.com/JTides) that used to have
British Isles data, but the British copyright holders for that tidal data
objected and threatened legal action, and my saying it was a free program
made no difference. As a result, I had to take the British Isles data out
of my program.

> Something that restaurants used to commonly do when one of the patrons had
> a birthday.

Yes, at least some still do this, and unless they have a "performance
license", this is a clear violation in the U.S.:

http://www.songtrellis.com/sounds/viewer$32711

Quote:

"Many restaurants in the U.S. (and kid's summer camps) cook up an
alternative birthday ditty to sing to clients for their birthday
celebrations so that they can avoid having to pay ASCAP for a performance
license."

--
Paul Lutus
http://www.arachnoid.com

Måns Rullgård wrote:

>> I know you think your question is a rhetorical one, but as to a specific
>> piece of music (my favorite example), the "birthday song", because it is
>> copyrighted, it is a technical violation to perform it in public. And
>> what is more public than a birthday party?
>
> At least in Sweden, there are two categories of parties and similar
> arrangements: (1) those open to anyone, i.e. gate crashers are
> welcome, and (2) those for only a closed group of people, such as by
> invitation. This categorization is mostly for regulations of the
> serving of alcoholic drinks, but I suppose something similar could be
> used with copyright issues. I've never heard of any cases where
> anyone was sued for performing music at a party, though.

I don't know anything about Swedish copyright laws, but I don't think the
public/private issue is likely to be involved in the general case. A
private party that showed a copyrighted movie to 100 people would certainly
be a violation in the U.S..

>> As to cellphone ring tones, elevator music, et. al., all are part of a
>> low-level royalty scheme, for those tunes that are copyrighted.
>
> As long as they don't start charging for each time it rings it's fine
> by me.

Technically, that is exactly what they do. It is subsumed into your cell
phone bill. Capitalists don't miss a bet.

--
Paul Lutus
http://www.arachnoid.com

Paul Lutus <nospam@nosite.zzz> writes:

> FLY135 wrote:
>
>>
>> "Paul Lutus" <nospam@nosite.zzz> wrote in message
>> news:10lj9eudf9u5cde@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>> I know you think your question is a rhetorical one, but as to a specific
>>> piece of music (my favorite example), the "birthday song", because it is
>>> copyrighted, it is a technical violation to perform it in public. And
>>> what is more public than a birthday party? This, by the way, is why one
>>> rarely sees this piece of music performed in movies.
>>
>> I don't believe that the issue is whether it is performed in public, but
>> whether it is performed by a business as part of entertaining it's guests.
>
> No, any public performance may violate a copyright. It doesn't have
> to be in connection with a commercial activity. The basis is that
> someone may hear the song performed and not buy a commercially
> available version instead, leading to a claim of lost revenue.

There was a case in Sweden where a shop owner was fined for having a
radio playing a regular radio station, without paying royalties in
addition to those already paid by the radio station.

--
Måns Rullgård
mru@mru.ath.cx

"Paul Lutus" <nospam@nosite.zzz> wrote in message
news:10ljgveoaavclbc@corp.supernews.com...
> Måns Rullgård wrote:
>
> >> I know you think your question is a rhetorical one, but as to a
specific
> >> piece of music (my favorite example), the "birthday song", because it
is
> >> copyrighted, it is a technical violation to perform it in public. And
> >> what is more public than a birthday party?
> >
> > At least in Sweden, there are two categories of parties and similar
> > arrangements: (1) those open to anyone, i.e. gate crashers are
> > welcome, and (2) those for only a closed group of people, such as by
> > invitation. This categorization is mostly for regulations of the
> > serving of alcoholic drinks, but I suppose something similar could be
> > used with copyright issues. I've never heard of any cases where
> > anyone was sued for performing music at a party, though.
>
> I don't know anything about Swedish copyright laws, but I don't think the
> public/private issue is likely to be involved in the general case. A
> private party that showed a copyrighted movie to 100 people would
certainly
> be a violation in the U.S..

Why 100? Why not 1? As in inviting a friend over to watch a movie you
purchased. The reality is that there is no criminal penalty for the
copyright violation of showing a movie in a private party or singing Happy
Birthday in public. And the odds of anyone seeking civil penalties for such
an act are infinitesimally small. The same cannot be said about copyright
violations that involve businesses (as in the Happy Birthday issue) or
someone who engages in widespead public distribution of copyrighted material
(as in the case of your free program).

The point being if you are going to make an issue out of something being a
copyright violation, it makes sense to convey this information with the
perspective that in some cases though it may be technically a violation, it
isn't one that is likely to ever be pursued or decided in civil court.

Paul Lutus <nospam@nosite.zzz> writes:

> Måns Rullgård wrote:
>
>>> I know you think your question is a rhetorical one, but as to a specific
>>> piece of music (my favorite example), the "birthday song", because it is
>>> copyrighted, it is a technical violation to perform it in public. And
>>> what is more public than a birthday party?
>>
>> At least in Sweden, there are two categories of parties and similar
>> arrangements: (1) those open to anyone, i.e. gate crashers are
>> welcome, and (2) those for only a closed group of people, such as by
>> invitation. This categorization is mostly for regulations of the
>> serving of alcoholic drinks, but I suppose something similar could be
>> used with copyright issues. I've never heard of any cases where
>> anyone was sued for performing music at a party, though.
>
> I don't know anything about Swedish copyright laws, but I don't
> think the public/private issue is likely to be involved in the
> general case. A private party that showed a copyrighted movie to 100
> people would certainly be a violation in the U.S..

Well, renting a movie and watching it together with a few friends is
certainly allowed. The question is how many must be present before it
becomes a public performance.

>>> As to cellphone ring tones, elevator music, et. al., all are part of a
>>> low-level royalty scheme, for those tunes that are copyrighted.
>>
>> As long as they don't start charging for each time it rings it's fine
>> by me.
>
> Technically, that is exactly what they do. It is subsumed into your cell
> phone bill. Capitalists don't miss a bet.

They charge for loading the tones onto phone, fairly enough. Are you
saying the somehow also track how many times the phone rings with each
tone, and add some to the bill? I don't use those tones myself, so I
really don't care, unless they start somehow adding it my bill if
whoever I'm calling uses a pay-tone.

--
Måns Rullgård
mru@mru.ath.cx

Måns Rullgård wrote:

/ ...

>> Technically, that is exactly what they do. It is subsumed into your cell
>> phone bill. Capitalists don't miss a bet.
>
> They charge for loading the tones onto phone, fairly enough. Are you
> saying the somehow also track how many times the phone rings with each
> tone, and add some to the bill?

I am reasonably certain that they make a prediction about how often the work
is performed and pay accordingly to the copyright holders. These charges
are most likely amortized across the bills of all cell phone owners.

--
Paul Lutus
http://www.arachnoid.com

FLY135 wrote:

/ ...

>> I don't know anything about Swedish copyright laws, but I don't think the
>> public/private issue is likely to be involved in the general case. A
>> private party that showed a copyrighted movie to 100 people would
> certainly
>> be a violation in the U.S..
>
> Why 100? Why not 1?

That (more like 1 or 2) actually is the assumed audience for the original
rental or purchase, which is why a DVD costs, say, US$30 instead of its
actual cost, about US$1. A private showing to family members, no problem.
Invite your friends over, including some who might otherwise rent or
purchase the film, and this begins to get into the gray zone. Not that
prosecution is even remotely likely.

> As in inviting a friend over to watch a movie you
> purchased.

Yes, this is probably not going to cause any controversy.

> The reality is that there is no criminal penalty for the
> copyright violation of showing a movie in a private party or singing Happy
> Birthday in public.

Maybe to the first depending on the number of viewers, but as to the second:

http://www.songtrellis.com/sounds/viewer$3271

A quote:

"Many restaurants in the U.S. (and kid's summer camps) cook up an
alternative birthday ditty to sing to clients for their birthday
celebrations so that they can avoid having to pay ASCAP for a performance
license."

So yes, singing "happy birthday" in public must be handled very carefully.

> And the odds of anyone seeking civil penalties for
> such
> an act are infinitesimally small.

See above.

> The same cannot be said about copyright
> violations that involve businesses (as in the Happy Birthday issue) or
> someone who engages in widespead public distribution of copyrighted
> material (as in the case of your free program).
>
> The point being if you are going to make an issue out of something being a
> copyright violation, it makes sense to convey this information with the
> perspective that in some cases though it may be technically a violation,
> it isn't one that is likely to ever be pursued or decided in civil court.

Yes, I agree. That slim possibility revolves around such issues as the
perception of a corporation in the eyes of the public (sometimes it just
doesn't pay to make people pay), and whether there appears to be a
significant revenue loss, sufficient to justify a criminal (wholesale
copying of DVDs) or civil (public performance) action.

--
Paul Lutus
http://www.arachnoid.com

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 09:41:47 -0700, Paul Lutus wrote:
> Kosmo Threadbane wrote:
[snippage]
>> Obviously, this precludes any copyright or anything else,
>> since it's just recording the sound itself.
>
> Actually, no, this doesn't preclude copyright protections. Use this rule of
> thumb: If copying the original file is a copyright violation, then copying
> the sound coming from the file is a violation also.

Yes, ISTR the copyright that was shown on DVDs. Interestingly, here in
Canada this copyright is provided in both official languages (English and
French) and they are NOT the same! The French version includes a phrase to
the effect of "...except for personal use...". I never went much further
into researching the formal legalities, but I believe that the copyright
laws do permit someone to make (additional) copies of material for their
own use, but not for resale, exchange, distribution, or anything else.

I interpret the copyright laws to mean that if I have bought a CD (used
to be vinyl album) that I am therefore permitted to make copies of those
same songs onto cassette tapes (for example) so that I can listen to them
on a portable walkman, or in my car, or whatever. My view is that once I
have purchased the IP on some medium, I am permitted to make copies on
other media for my own convenience and pleasure. However, that does not
mean that I can rip off a copy and then sell the original, since (in my
view) I would thereby lose my right to the copyrighted material. I think
that is a reasonable (and valid) interpretation. Anyone know different?

Hence I have no qualms about buying CDs, which I then rip and compress
into .ogg files on my server, and play them back through my own PC. The
original CD goes in a crate, stored in a closet (but I maintain that I
have bought the rights to enjoy the program material! on any medium!). I
strongly object to the entertainment industry suggestion that they should
get a cut for every possible medium we want to use, and sell us the same
IP over and over, as they give us better/worse copies on different media.

It seems that the industry has really not figured out what to do with my
use? I am NOT going to buy and run Windoze, just so that I can play some
non-standard CD with copy-protection/damaged-format for their convenience.
They cannot or will not deliver .ogg files to me on my server. What now?!?

OK, I guess I've ranted/vented enough.

p.s. If one could realistically collect a fee per use that might work? Say
$0.01 for every time you listen to a song? Then we would really weed out
the losers, right?!? I'm sure "the industry" is thinking more in terms of
jukebox fees? Hell, why not $1 a time? Good for them? No? GRRR!!!

p.p.s. The (il)logical conclusion is that people will simply improvise
their own music, but the industry will try to sue everyone for
infringement, and the result could be a total ban on any music?!?

--
Juhan Leemet
Logicognosis, Inc.

Paul Lutus <nospam@nosite.zzz> writes:

> Måns Rullgård wrote:
>
> / ...
>
>>> Technically, that is exactly what they do. It is subsumed into your cell
>>> phone bill. Capitalists don't miss a bet.
>>
>> They charge for loading the tones onto phone, fairly enough. Are you
>> saying the somehow also track how many times the phone rings with each
>> tone, and add some to the bill?
>
> I am reasonably certain that they make a prediction about how often
> the work is performed and pay accordingly to the copyright
> holders. These charges are most likely amortized across the bills of
> all cell phone owners.

Are you talking about tones that come with the phone? I'm talking
about the ones you have to pay a euro or so to download/get sent to
the phone.

--
Måns Rullgård
mru@mru.ath.cx

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 22:04:10 -0700, Paul Lutus wrote:
[snippage]
> "Many restaurants in the U.S. (and kid's summer camps) cook up an
> alternative birthday ditty to sing to clients for their birthday
> celebrations so that they can avoid having to pay ASCAP for a performance
> license."
>
> So yes, singing "happy birthday" in public must be handled very carefully.

Hmm, just had a thought... what if you sing it in French? ISTR that the
actual melody isn't copyrighted, in fact it was lifted from another song?
I cannot remember if the words in Quebec are a direct translation, or not?

--
Juhan Leemet
Logicognosis, Inc.