[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

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  
> label.

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
-Rev. Fever

> Greetings from Sweden
> Per Boysen
> www.boysen.se (Swedish)
> www.looproom.com (international)