] [Thread Prev
Re: Composers should also get paid (was: Fripp & Eno 1973 / BBC / Peel /RIAA)
On Jul 9, 2007, at 1:32 PM, Per Boysen wrote:
> On 9 jul 2007, at 22.09, Rev Fever wrote:
>> And, I will wager big bucks that not one person on LD has ever
>> paid a royalty to some composer for dubbing from someone else's
>> copy of a recording by some composer.
>> So, what's the real difference with that, as opposed to some tunes
>> being played in a restaurant? None that I can really tell. ;-)
> Well, doesn't American law have it legal to make a copy "for
> private use"?
When some CD or other recorded media gets lent to an indefinite
number of others to dub for themselves, which does happen and a LOT,
or when multiple dubs result from one single dubbed source,which also
happens a LOT, I then think the line "for private use" has been
stepped way over. :-)
> But the restaurants etc are mainly billed for using the music, not
> only the actual copy of the recording of the music. Those are two
> different rights, normally owned by composer/publisher and record
You again make a very good point, Thanx for that.
But, I still do not see how a place's profits are verifiably
"increased" for them featuring recordings, or cover tunes being
played live, and why they should be "billed" for doing so?
> I like that these matters come up on the list, lots of interesting
> posts so far :-)
You are helping with that. :-)
All the best from Portland, Oregon, USA
> Greetings from Sweden
> Per Boysen
> www.boysen.se (Swedish)
> www.looproom.com (international)