Compu$erve Lawsuit about MIDI Files
Mike Rivers
Street Journal about a lawsuit filed agains Jim Maki (CIS MIDI Chief
Sysop) and Comuserve, claiming that distributing MIDI files was an
infringement of copyright. This topic was discussed to death here
back in the Spring. I didn't see the article, and, of course,
yesterday's news is yesterday's news. Anybody know the scoop?
------------
I'm really Mike Rivers (mri...@d-and-d.com)
Andrew D Milligan
I read about this in last week's New Scientist (weekly UK science magazine
- it's good to see they sell some copies in NY ;-) ) and apparently it is such
an important test case because they are not trying to sue the person
who posted the MIDI file (a version of "You've Lost That Loving Feeling")
but instead the carrier who provided the means for distribution. This is
the test case and they are claiming $100000 in lost royalties and if this
is successful they will move onto the other (from memory) 600 available MIDI
files =$60 000 000. This has massive repurcussions for all these telecoms
companies who are installing these fibre optic "data super highways" - they
may be held responsible for everything that is transferred across their
networks. This could lead to very strict policing of data and plenty of work
for copyright lawyers.
Any institution carrying alt.MIDI.binaries (or whatever it's called) should
take note.
Any comments on the repurcussions?
Andy D.M.
Randy Taylor
If the sequence is "You've Lost That Loving Feeling"...jeez, I downloaded
that for a test-drive awhile back - trust me, the sequencing job wasn't
very good at all. I gave it one listen and deleted it. It certainly
wasn't worth $100,000 - except to a lawyer.
|>
|> Any institution carrying alt.MIDI.binaries (or whatever it's called) should
|> take note.
|>
|>
|> Any comments on the repurcussions?
|>
|> Andy D.M.
I don't even want to think about the repercussions.
Breed more lawyers. We need to litigate everything that looks even remotely
litiginous as soon as possible. Once all possible legal issues have been
resolved we can begin euthanizing lawyers -- we'll be humane - no really !
I promise we will. Kervorkian ! Bring me that power drill, will you ?
Muahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaa !
----------------------------------------------------------
Speak for anyone but myself ? No way DOOdZ !
--Randy Taylor-- --rt...@ait.nrl.navy.mil--
----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Rivers
> I read about this in last week's New Scientist (weekly UK science magazine
> - it's good to see they sell some copies in NY ;-) ) and apparently it is such
> an important test case because they are not trying to sue the person
> who posted the MIDI file (a version of "You've Lost That Loving Feeling")
> but instead the carrier who provided the means for distribution.
The law gurus that were discussing the issue back last spring seemed
to feel that the CIS's defense in this case would cite another case
against them where it was ruled that a common carrier (and they are a
common carrier) is only responsible for the maintenance of the system,
not what's on it.
It is an important test case, and one that's been festering away for a
long time, just waiting for a legal staff to come up with a plausable
case. Did the article say who filed the lawsuit? That's important to
know.
> Any comments on the repurcussions?
Well, it could put a lot of active MIDI BBS's out of business.
Although there are many, many other files on my BBS besides sequences,
the bulk of the subscription fees I collect which defray the cost of
operating the BBS are from users who do nothing but download sequences
to play on their home systems.
We had tossed around a concept of paying royalties to the publisher's
representative agencies based on the number of times a file was
downloaded, and doing it on an annual basis. I figured that at a fair
rate, this would amount to about $200/year on my BBS (can't remember
what the basis for my figures was right now) - hardly worth the
paperwork - so I think they're after something other than collecting
cash - I think they want to stop the distribution channel.
Harry Salvini
this last enclosure.
The general thought is that CompuServe is being sued for "having" in
it's domain copywritten materials in a MIDI format.
In article <znr756434665k@trad>
mri...@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) writes:
> We had tossed around a concept of paying royalties to the publisher's
> representative agencies based on the number of times a file was
> downloaded, and doing it on an annual basis. I figured that at a fair
> rate, this would amount to about $200/year on my BBS (can't remember
> what the basis for my figures was right now) - hardly worth the
> paperwork - so I think they're after something other than collecting
> cash - I think they want to stop the distribution channel.
My thought was that I was actually watching Al Gore on CNN this morning
(I know, but at least whoever wrote his speach really did a pretty
good job this! :-)), and the topic was the discussion of how
communication
has really become the buzz word of the '90s, and that we need to
discover
how to turn the 2-lane highway we're on into a 4-lane freeway, and
find new ways to archive, present, and access all of the data in the
world.
This, to me, implies that distribution channels are here to stay and
get
more and more complicated. Perhaps more regulated, but nontheless,
there
is a major service being provided, it's just that not enough people
know
how or where to take advantage of what's out there.
The music availability on networks is going to be an issue until the
copyright issues are resolved.
+====================================================================+
| sal...@wdl.loral.com (KB6VMQ) | Happily married to Kathy -+-|
| Loral doesn't have a single | Jonathan - August 8, 1989 | |
| thing to do with my opinions. | Jeremy - August 8, 1993 | |
| They're mine! All mine! |ONE HAPPY DADDY! :-) Not A Typo |
+---------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| signature virus 2.1c - Copy me into your .sig if you love Jesus! |
+====================================================================+
Mike Rivers
> If the sequence is "You've Lost That Loving Feeling"...jeez, I downloaded
> that for a test-drive awhile back - trust me, the sequencing job wasn't
> very good at all. I gave it one listen and deleted it. It certainly
> wasn't worth $100,000 - except to a lawyer.
That's pretty much true for many sequences that end up on CIS and
BBS's. There are some pretty good ones, though. The issue isn't how
good it is, or what the arrangement is, but rather that it's theft of
"intellectual property" - the song itself. Pretty obtuse stuff.
Someone drew the parallel to "Adult GIF's" - binary files which, when
exploded, yield fair-to-middlin' reproductions of published
photographs. It's pretty clear that's not substantially different
from making a Xerox of the photograph and distributing it, which is
frowned upon by the copyright holder. A sequence file is sort of like
if you looked at the picture, took out your crayons or your finest
brushes (depending on your skill) and made your own reproduction of
it.
Anyway, as a follow-up, here's a message from Perry Leopold (Mr. PAN)
that came off a couple of nights ago (its re-posting probably a
copyright violation in itself) <g>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
47253 19-DEC 03:42 General Interest
Song files & Copyright
From: PAN To: ALL
The following message was posted in the Business Network tonight,
as a follow-up to a long thread a few months back concerning the
legality of having MIDI files of copyrighted songs available for
download in a database without a license to do so. I thought I'd
cross-post it here also, owing to the other issues raised for
discussion.
----------------------------------
Some of you might remember a while back, during the discussion thread
concerning copyrights and the (in our opinion) illegal inclusion of
copyrighted songs in MIDI files available for download from the public
nets, that I mentioned some impending news on the subject from Harry
Fox.
Well, its taken longer than I expected, owing to some attempts to reach
an amicable settlement, but the news is official now --- the National
Music Publishers Association has filed a class-action lawsuit against
CompuServe for copyright infringement on behalf of 140 Music Publishers.
The main focus of the suit is Compuserve's MIDI Forum. The suit defines
every download as a single infringment, and by seeking $100K in damages
for each infringment, the damages would amount to over a BILLION dollars
should the suit be successful.
Compuserve has disavowed any responsibility, laying the blame squarely
on the shoulders of the manager of their MIDI forum. For his part,
he claims to not be able to tell what is copyrighted and what isn't,
and says he doesn't have the "resources" to check out every upload,
so that the responibility rests on the individuals doing the uploading.
(This is what was reported in last Thursday's (12/16) edition of the
Wall St. Journal, page B1).
As the bard once said, the shit has hit the fan.
I suspect this is just the first of many actions to come, depending on
how CI$ and other services react. Personally, I feel vindicated that
PAN's policy of refusing uploads of MIDI files by anyone other than the
copyright owner (unless it was public domain) was the correct one all
these years. The revenue we've lost by not allowing those files in
our database is small change compared to what the other nets are
at risk for by sticking their heads in the sand, even when the legality
of the activity was raised many times in their own discussion forums.
They can't say they weren't informed (eh Simon?).
An interesting side issue has emerged also ... are the companies
who are "officially" doing business in CI$'s MIDI forum and the other
nets also at risk of being enjoined in the suit(s) as co-defendants?
By being the manufacturers of the software and equipment that make
copyright abuse so easy, and by turning a deaf ear (no pun intended)
to the rampant copyright infringements in the databases they are a part
of and doing business in (customer support, sales, marketing, etc.),
are they not accomplices? Unless I've missed something, I've never seen
any "warning" or "caution", fine-print or otherwise, in the manuals
to any program or keyboard that tries to educate the public and make
them aware of copyright issues. Guilt by association, at the least.
Ethically if not legally. I'd be interested to hear what your opinions
on this are.
A word to the wise, those of you who work so hard to create these
marvelous tools --- start including a disclaimer in your docs. Like the
Sturgeon General's warning on a pack a cigarettes. You'll be glad you
did. This industry does not have anywhere near the lobbying power of
NARAS or RIAA where things like Home Taping was being considered by
Congress. The copyright law is due for an drastic overhaul, and this
issue is what is going to set it in motion. The MMA? They don't really
exist anymore, at least in the form it used to, and it seems to be
suffering an identity crisis from an acute lack of leadership. NAMM?
Doubt it. The old guard of band instrument dealers would probably love
to see MIDI kicked in the butt and spanked. Is MCC (MidiCopyCode) in
our future? Can you hear the click in the distance?
Comments?
* P *
-*-
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Weiner
>
>The law gurus that were discussing the issue back last spring seemed
>to feel that the CIS's defense in this case would cite another case
>against them where it was ruled that a common carrier (and they are a
>common carrier) is only responsible for the maintenance of the system,
>not what's on it.
I don't think this argument will hold up for long. A common carrier
does not
a) make its transmissions publicly available
b) analyze and promote the use of its contents
c) save those contents for posterity
d) copyright the contents
Once all the wishful thinking is brushed aside, this is an incredibly
clear-cut case. It is certainly unfortunate if this kind of litigation ends
up damaging services like CIS, but they've been warned many times and still
choose to look the other way.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Weiner Lehigh University Computing Center (215) 758-3991
Mike Rivers
> I don't think this argument will hold up for long. A common carrier
> does not
>
> a) make its transmissions publicly available
> b) analyze and promote the use of its contents
> c) save those contents for posterity
> d) copyright the contents
>
> Once all the wishful thinking is brushed aside, this is an incredibly
> clear-cut case.
I'm not a lawyer . . . etc., etc. but let me assure that it is NOT an
incredibly clear-cut case. (a) and (b) are certainly true for any
telephone company. Compuserve claims copyright on it's messages, I
suspect to give them some leverage if the get upset over the type of
re-posts that we see here now and then, for instance, someone copying
a message about a bug fix or a new product announcement from the CIS
MIDI forum to r.m.m.s.
The MIDI file copyright issue is something different. The party who
initiated the lawsuit, The Harry Fox Agency (this has been confirmed)
is the agency that's responsible for collecting performance rights to
music, and nothing more. Their technical concern is how many times a
MIDI file of a song that's registered with them is played, not how it
gets into the hands of the one playing it.
I suspect that the ultimate resolution in this case will put the
burden of responsibility for obtaining proper clearances on the one
who uploads a sequence, not on the one who stores that sequence for
future retrival. Don't hold your breath, though. It will take a long
time.
> It is certainly unfortunate if this kind of litigation ends
> up damaging services like CIS, but they've been warned many times and still
> choose to look the other way.
I doubt that an organization as large and as well backed as Compuserve
can afford to "look the other way". I'm sure that their legal council
has thoroughly researched the issue and is convinced that they have at
least as strong a case as the Music Publisher's Association who
brought the lawsuit. If the litigation ends up with a decision that
CIS (and similar services, including privately operated BBS's and
Internet FTP sites) must remove sequence files, a series of similar
suits will no doubt follow demanding the removal of other types of
files, and will be detrimental not only to CIS but to the entire
"on-line" community.
Who knows? Maybe the Government will end up running all of our
informations services? Let's hope not!
Dave Tutelman
>
>In article <1993Dec24.2...@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> kr...@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu writes:
>
>> I don't think this argument will hold up for long. A common carrier
>> does not
>>
>> a) make its transmissions publicly available
>> b) analyze and promote the use of its contents
>> c) save those contents for posterity
>> d) copyright the contents
>>
>> Once all the wishful thinking is brushed aside, this is an incredibly
>> clear-cut case.
>
>I'm not a lawyer . . . etc., etc. but let me assure that it is NOT an
>incredibly clear-cut case. (a) and (b) are certainly true for any
>telephone company. Compuserve claims copyright on it's messages, I
>suspect to give them some leverage if the get upset over the type of
>re-posts that we see here now and then, for instance, someone copying
>a message about a bug fix or a new product announcement from the CIS
>MIDI forum to r.m.m.s.
I'm not a lawyer either. But it seems to me that Compuserve can't have it
both ways. The common carriers that WIN suits like this do not and
cannot care about the contents. But Compuserve DOES care about the
contents. It even copyrights them -- for WHATEVER reason. That means
they claim to OWN the contents, so they're wide open to be sued by the
REAL owner if it turns out there is one.
Maybe, just maybe, the result will turn on distinctions like that between
a song copyright and a performance copyright. But in the case of different
owners of these copyrights, what does the holder of a performance copyright
(say, Compuserve) owe the owner of the song that's being performed? I
really don't know the answer to this, but I suspect it's not zero.
>I suspect that the ultimate resolution in this case will put the
>burden of responsibility for obtaining proper clearances on the one
>who uploads a sequence, not on the one who stores that sequence for
>future retrival. Don't hold your breath, though. It will take a long
>time.
I'd agree ONLY in the case of a "Storage Common Carrier" -- that is, a
service that accepts uploads and offers downloads as its service. As
soon as it got into ANYTHING more than storage of bytes -- that is, into
contents -- it would be a target for this kind of lawsuit.
This is a great opportunity to separate information as a commodity from
the technical means to store and transmit it. If we are to become an
"information based economy", this is a neecessary distinction.
And no, I'm not holding my breath. The issue is important and complex,
well beyond the realm of music, and I don't expect it to be fully
resolved any time soon.
Dave
Kevin Weiner
>brought the lawsuit. If the litigation ends up with a decision that
>CIS (and similar services, including privately operated BBS's and
>Internet FTP sites) must remove sequence files, a series of similar
Sorry Mike, but that's exactly what should happen. The on-line community
has no business trading in unlicensed copyrighted material, no matter how
convenient it is. Any on-line service worth its salt will continue to do
perfectly well without libraries of copyrighted songs. I think big BBS's
like Sound Management should take the lead and start enforcing the rights of
song owners. Right now we're just technologically stifled, but it won't be
long before full 18-bit cuts from commercial albums start appearing in on-line
locations. If we don't start with MIDI files and develop some standards,
it's not going to end. It's the lowly song writers who will end up suffering
the most, while we're stuck listening to assembly line music that will be the
only thing recording companies can produce cost effectively.
Mike Rivers
> I'm not a lawyer either. But it seems to me that Compuserve can't have it
> both ways. The common carriers that WIN suits like this do not and
> cannot care about the contents. But Compuserve DOES care about the
> contents. It even copyrights them -- for WHATEVER reason. That means
> they claim to OWN the contents, so they're wide open to be sued by the
> REAL owner if it turns out there is one.
I'm not a CIS user, so I don't know just what's copyright there and
what's not. Can you clarify this for me? I know that they post a
copyright on the messages in the public forums, but I can't imagine
that they claim copyright ownership of the files. That would be silly
even for CIS.
And in the Cubby Vs. Compuserve case, which CIS won, they established
that they were not responsible (copyright or not) for the contents of
messages posted there.
Thomas Ford Brown
In article <1993Dec29.1...@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> kr...@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Kevin Weiner) writes:
>song owners. Right now we're just technologically stifled, but it won't be
>long before full 18-bit cuts from commercial albums start appearing in on-line
>locations. If we don't start with MIDI files and develop some standards,
>it's not going to end. It's the lowly song writers who will end up suffering
>the most, while we're stuck listening to assembly line music that will be the
>only thing recording companies can produce cost effectively.
I thought we were *already* getting stuck with assembly line music....
Mark Garvin
MR>> that for a test-drive awhile back - trust me, the sequencing job wasn't
MR>> very good at all. I gave it one listen and deleted it. It certainly
MR>> wasn't worth $100,000 - except to a lawyer.
I really don't see the justice in this. The implication is that these
midifiles are somehow robbing artists/composers of their due. Is someone
really at home right now listening to a midifile of "You've lost that lovin
feeling" and saying: "This is great! Now I don't have to buy that CD!"...
Spare me, please. During the (confusing) DAT copycode controversy, one
clear-headed musician said: "Gee, I just want people to hear my music.
It's fine with me if they copy it." Made me remember why I'm in the music
industry rather than working on Wall Street. The resulting DAT surcharges
are proportioned according to record sales, I believe. I'm glad that
Michael Jackson, recording execs, etc are not starving now that they
have their DAT surcharges coming in.
It's also very noble of CompuServe to point at their sysop and say "It's
all his fault".
Mark Garvin
---
ş SLMR 2.1a ş This tagline was written by an infinite number of monkeys
Mike Rivers
> The on-line community
> has no business trading in unlicensed copyrighted material, no matter how
> convenient it is. Any on-line service worth its salt will continue to do
> perfectly well without libraries of copyrighted songs.
[some stuff moved to reply in a different order]
> It's the lowly song writers who will end up suffering
> the most, while we're stuck listening to assembly line music that will be the
> only thing recording companies can produce cost effectively.
Pardon my French, but, er - HOGWASH ! !
The songwriters are not going to suffer from hobbyists exchanging
files of songs that they've sequenced. If you think that someone
would prefer to listen to a sequence of a song that they've downloaded
from a BBS than to listen to a CD of the full production with real
instruments, vocals, and played the way the artist intended for it to
be played, you're mistaken. They play the sequence on their computer
because it's "cool", not because it's musical entertainment. What's
available on-line is an entirely different product than what's
available (and properly royalty-paid) as a commercial product. Often,
the resemblance stops at the title. Frankly, I can't see the
fascination with listening to some of the really poorly done sequences
that have appeared on my BBS in the past, and generally, the best
sequences are of orignial material that's offered to the on-line
community by it's author without royalties. The bottom line, though,
is that people want someting to feed their sound cards that they got
for Christmas, and this fills the need. Restricting the availability
of sequences to those from commercial, licensed sources would have an
impact on the sound card market, too - something that I'm not against,
personally, but that's beside the point.
> I think big BBS's
> like Sound Management should take the lead and start enforcing the rights of
> song owners.
Get real, Kevin! How's SM to know which songs are "owned"? Some may
be obvious, but some are not. And, it's not clear yet that what's
being distributed on-line is what's owned anyway. That's what the
case will (or should) boil down to.
I'm not advocating trading in unlicensed copyright material. I,
however, do believe that the material in question, in most instances,
is not substantially identical to the material of a similar title that
is copyright, and that it's distribution does not materialistically
damage the copyright owner (like he's losing sales) and that's the
test. I recognize that there have been some pretty obtuse copyright
infringement cases won ("She's So Fine" vs. "My Sweet Lord", for
example) and the court may decide that a skeletal melody with crude
timing is "substantially similar" to the original song. If that
happens, I'll happily remove the MIDI sequence files from my BBS. At
this point, however, I can't see that there's a clear misuse of
copyright material, and I believe that the law has to be interpreted
or modified to allow exchange of interpretations of published music by
hobbyists, as hobbyists.
> Right now we're just technologically stifled, but it won't be
> long before full 18-bit cuts from commercial albums start appearing in on-line
> locations. If we don't start with MIDI files and develop some standards,
> it's not going to end.
Reproduction of a sequence is substantially dependent on the users's
playback system and, to a certain extent, his MIDI smarts. Until they
start producing commercial records with SoundBlasters, I guarantee
that the user will have only a representation of the "orignal" to
listen to, certainly not a copy of it.
Now, digitized sound files clipped from commercial albums are a
different story. That's an essentially exact replica of something
that's protected in it's published form, and there is potential for
damage to the owner of the copyright because people can produce the
identical sound from the file and their sound card as from a
commercial CD. This is a clear violation of mechanical copyright and
isn't substantially different from someone selling Billy Ray
Whatzizname tapes in plain white boxes off the tailgate of a pickup
truck at the local bluegrass festival. I don't carry sound files of
Capt. Kirk or Beavis & Butthead, or the little clips of Star Wars
music that are floating around on other BBS's, because I believe this
is a copyright violation.
I know it's not OK to violate a law just because I don't think I'm
violating it, but it's not clear that there even is applicable law in
this case. Otherwise the issue would have been settled a long time
ago. Sequences on BBS's aren't new.
In the past week or so, a few of the MIDILink network sysops have
kicked around the idea of pulling sequences from our BBS's right now,
and state publicly that we would not carry them until the law is
clarified and they are allowed. This would demonstrate that:
1. There won't be any additional revenue from MIDI file
distribution because there won't be any MIDI files distributed.
2. We don't want to deal with the heavy-handed tactics, and are
removing all MIDI files so we don't have to determine which ones
are protected by copyright and which are public domain.
Someone had expressed it as "Harry Fox's greed has chilled first
amendment rights". I don't really go along with the First Amendment
stuff, and my personal opinion is that, at this point, we, as sysops,
should express our feelings as individuals and continue to run our
BBS's as we have been, until the law is clear. I personally don't
want to dismantle part of my BBS, and then put it back after CIS wins
the case, nor do I want to imply, by removing MIDI files, that I
concur with HFA's interpretation of the law (which I don't), which may
not necessarily be the interpretation of the court (which I will abide
by).
Hey, if you're the copyright holder of a song that's on my BBS, tell
me what it is and I'll either pay you a dime every time it's
downloaded. Don't put the down payment on that yacht yet, though.
<g>
Jon Wätte
>I really don't see the justice in this. The implication is that these
>midifiles are somehow robbing artists/composers of their due. Is someone
>really at home right now listening to a midifile of "You've lost that lovin
>feeling" and saying: "This is great! Now I don't have to buy that CD!"...
No, it's like someone saying "This is great! Now I don't have
to buy the factory disk with MIDI files on it! (which, indeed,
is probably available legally)" If there is no factory disk,
you should buy the sheet music and sequence it yourself.
(Imagine that! Real SHEET music in the informatino age! :-)
>Michael Jackson, recording execs, etc are not starving now that they
>have their DAT surcharges coming in.
Yeah, and DATs are ONLY used for music, right? Copyrighted music, even?
It's not like it's a standard computer backup media either.
(I only use my DAT for my own recordings, I buy CDs or turn on the
radio for the rest)
--
-- Jon W{tte, h...@nada.kth.se, Mac Hacker Deluxe --
"Practice random kindness, and senseless acts of beauty."
Thomas Ford Brown
In article <1994Jan1.1...@kth.se> d88...@hemul.nada.kth.se (Jon Wätte) writes:
>In <49.1616.20...@cdreams.com> mark....@cdreams.com (Mark Garvin) writes:
>
>>I really don't see the justice in this. The implication is that these
>>midifiles are somehow robbing artists/composers of their due. Is someone
>>really at home right now listening to a midifile of "You've lost that lovin
>>feeling" and saying: "This is great! Now I don't have to buy that CD!"...
>
>No, it's like someone saying "This is great! Now I don't have
>to buy the factory disk with MIDI files on it! (which, indeed,
>is probably available legally)" If there is no factory disk,
>you should buy the sheet music and sequence it yourself.
>(Imagine that! Real SHEET music in the informatino age! :-)
>
This is silly, considering the accuracy of most published
sheet music. You could replicate the song much more accurately
by transcribing from a recording--preferably one you
taped illegally off the radio or a friend's copy.
Mike Rivers
> I really don't see the justice in this. The implication is that these
> midifiles are somehow robbing artists/composers of their due. Is someone
> really at home right now listening to a midifile of "You've lost that lovin
> feeling" and saying: "This is great! Now I don't have to buy that CD!"...
My sentiments exactly. The NY Times article (I finally got a copy -
I'd scan it and post it here, but it's probaby protected by copyright
<g>) said the song in question was "Unchained Melody". I actually
have a fairly decent sounding sequence of that on my BBS, done by Doc
Doc, one of the more prolific MIDI hobbyists. I was a good sport and
took it off line as a token protest.
> It's also very noble of CompuServe to point at their sysop and say "It's
> all his fault".
Actually, once I got the facts straight, it was the Music Publisher's
Association, in their lawsuit, that named the MIDI Sysop as well as
CompuServe. CompuServe is citing the "Cubby vs. CompuServe" case as
precedent that they (nor the sysop) are responsible for the contents
on line.
Victor Eijkhout
Pardon my French, but, er - HOGWASH ! !
Seulement un petit peu de `ogvash', mon ami ..
The songwriters are not going to suffer from hobbyists exchanging
files of songs that they've sequenced. If you think that someone
would prefer to listen to a sequence of a song that they've downloaded
from a BBS than to listen to a CD of the full production with real
instruments, vocals, and played the way the artist intended for it to
be played, you're mistaken. They play the sequence on their computer
because it's "cool", not because it's musical entertainment.
If listening is the only point. How about printing? A decently quantized
sequence will print perfectly through any number of score writers,
and I don't have to buy sheet music anymore.
Or maybe song writers will get more technically savvy, and start
producing their own commercial sequences. Or maybe they've licensed
the rights for their songs to a commercial sequence producer, who
will then lose income.
Much as I hate this lawsuit, I'm all for it.
--
Victor Eijkhout ................ `When the coughing increases, I leave out the
Department of Computer Science ...... next variation. If there is no coughing,
University of Tennessee ............... I play them in order. [...] The record
Knoxville TN 37996 .................... so far is 18 variations, in New York.'
+1 615 974 8298 .................. [Rachmaninoff on his 20 Corelli Variations]
Thomas Ford Brown
In article <EIJKHOUT.9...@cupid.cs.utk.edu> eijk...@cupid.cs.utk.edu (Victor Eijkhout) writes:
>
>If listening is the only point. How about printing? A decently quantized
>sequence will print perfectly through any number of score writers,
>and I don't have to buy sheet music anymore.
>
Why would anyone want to buy the sheet music in the first place?
You can transcribe the changes to most pop tunes in about
five minutes, with more accuracy than what's on the sheet music.
The melody is generally unnecessary, since with most
pop tunes I'm more worried about how I'm going to
get the damn thing OUT of my head, rather than into it.
For those too musically illiterate to take it down by ear,
I doubt if a full score printed out is really what they want or need.
Greg Earle
>In article <1993Dec24.2...@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> kr...@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu writes:
>> I don't think this argument will hold up for long. A common carrier
>> does not
>>
>> a) make its transmissions publicly available
>> b) analyze and promote the use of its contents
>> c) save those contents for posterity
>> d) copyright the contents
>>
>> Once all the wishful thinking is brushed aside, this is an incredibly
>> clear-cut case.
[ snip ]
>The MIDI file copyright issue is something different. The party who
>initiated the lawsuit, The Harry Fox Agency (this has been confirmed)
>is the agency that's responsible for collecting performance rights to
>music, and nothing more. Their technical concern is how many times a
>MIDI file of a song that's registered with them is played, not how it
>gets into the hands of the one playing it.
I'm not sure I'd sweat this too much, if the track record of the Harry Fox
Agency is any indication.
My wife was in a band which was signed to a Belgian record label. The label
put out 2 albums (CD/LP/Cassette) and a 12", as well as releasing their songs
on at least 2 different compilations. Most of those records were also released
domestically in the U.S. on San Diego's Cargo Records. The records sold in
the several thousand copies range; certainly enough for Mechanicals to be
collected. She was signed to ASCAP and The Harry Fox Agency was supposed to
collect her royalties; in reality they never even tried to collect a red cent
and all we've ever gotten from them is notices about board meetings and
balloting.
Of course, this issue is a slightly bigger fish to fry :-) ... but I still
don't think much will come of it. I'll be surprised if it's more than
temporary bluster and wind ...
--
- Greg Earle
Phone: (818) 353-8695 FAX: (818) 353-1877 [Call # again if
Internet: ea...@isolar.Tujunga.CA.US you get data tone]
UUCP: isolar!ea...@elroy.JPL.NASA.GOV a.k.a. ...!elroy!isolar!earle
Doug Blackley
<<<Until they
start producing commercial records with SoundBlasters, I guarantee
that the user will have only a representation of the "orignal" to
listen to, certainly not a copy of it.
Quite true. I do however produce commercial music with the sound cards
in my computer, which has better quality cards (it is a Mac-using the
samplecell & digidesign dirct to disk recorder). Just because the
soundblaster bites it right now in the quality department does not mean
that in a couple of years we will not be able to do REALLY good versions
of songs on home computers with cheap cards. If we let people establish
a precedent of allowing everyone free access to intellectual property,
as soon as the chaep sound cards give anything like commercial quality
audio we WILL see people not buying the album as they can get the
sequnces for free! Think of it this way--go back 10 years---now, let's
make it ok to upload ascii files of all the novels and periodicals
available. It should not be a problem, should it? After all, these
people that would download it don't have printing presses, do they? Of
course the quality of desktop publishing will never get any better than
it is right now... so what is the problem? (and then came desktop
publishing and a laser printer in the home...). Would you print out a
new novel on a couple of hundred pages of paper to save buying a bound
book that costs $30.00? I think lots of people would--if the files were
given away with no payment to the author! With audio cards that produce
a "commercial" music sound who will buy cd's.
Mike Rivers
> If listening is the only point. How about printing? A decently quantized
> sequence will print perfectly through any number of score writers,
> and I don't have to buy sheet music anymore.
That point has indeed come up, and it's a valid one, IF the sequence
is a good representation of the original song, and the notation
software is good. The first is often not the case - who wants sheet
music of someone playing with one finger and quantized to quarter
notes? And most notation software requires quite a bit of massaging
before you can get satisfactory notation printout. Sure you can do
it, but it's clearly not worth the trouble for a reasonable person (so
who called us "reasonable" anyway? <g>). You don't have to buy books
any more - you can take them out of the library and Xerox them - but
you don't, do you?
> Or maybe song writers will get more technically savvy, and start
> producing their own commercial sequences. Or maybe they've licensed
> the rights for their songs to a commercial sequence producer, who
> will then lose income.
I think this is where it's leading - the songwriters see sequences as
another source of income. Although they haven't lost any income yet
(because they never tried to make it from that source), by
establishing rights to a sequence version of a song, they're assuring
that they will have that source of income should they choose to
collect it.
If the only source of sequences of popular songs on my BBS is a disk
that I get from Sony, Warner Brothers, etc. once a month, and pay them
royalties based on my downloads of those sequences, it would certainly
improve the quality of sequences in circulation and would take care of
one of the questions I frequently ask (why would anyone want to listen
to THIS??!!). But it would change my BBS file operation from one of
providing a place for amateurs to trade their work to one of being a
distribution point for commercial software.
> Much as I hate this lawsuit, I'm all for it.
I'm all for getting a process formalized, but a lawsuit costs
everybody too much money, and instead of being able to offer files for
a dime a piece (a reasonable royalty) it might be a buck to cover the
cost of making and enforcing the laws.
Joe McLaughlin
>
>The songwriters are not going to suffer from hobbyists exchanging
>files of songs that they've sequenced.
>
>Hey, if you're the copyright holder of a song that's on my BBS, tell
>me what it is and I'll either pay you a dime every time it's
>downloaded. Don't put the down payment on that yacht yet, though.
><g>
>
>------------
>I'm really Mike Rivers (mri...@d-and-d.com)
Hi Mike. I'm really Barry Manilow and I wrote the songs that make the whole
world sing. I could take you for everything but I'll settle for your house
and any cool gear you have.(You wouldn't happen to have a Les Paul or an
ASR10 hanging around, would you?<g>)
Joe
Haakon Styri
:
: > Or maybe song writers will get more technically savvy, and start
: > producing their own commercial sequences. Or maybe they've licensed
: > the rights for their songs to a commercial sequence producer, who
: > will then lose income.
:
: I think this is where it's leading - the songwriters see sequences as
: another source of income. Although they haven't lost any income yet
: (because they never tried to make it from that source), by
: establishing rights to a sequence version of a song, they're assuring
: that they will have that source of income should they choose to
: collect it.
Please, this is about _copyright_ folks, and it protects the creators
rights to decide how his work is used as well as giving her/him a right
to get some income. Even if I don't demand money for something now
my work will not be moved into the public domain. Even if I do charge
I can still stop people from using my copyrighted work in eg commercials.
If I own the copyright to a song I don't need to "establish" the rights
to a sequenced version of that song.
However, copyright law is probably very different from the historical
tradition of composers stealing stuff from each other...
---
Haakon Styri
Michael Czeiszperger - Sun NC Development Center
!If I own the copyright to a song I don't need to "establish" the rights
!to a sequenced version of that song.
You're absolutely right. The posters who had a problem with using copyright
law to prevent people from trading MIDI sequences had one thing wrong--
no one is going to care if you trade sequences of major hits with your
friends. The problem is that when you do it through Compuserve, you're paying
them $12 for the opportunity to download the files. When the royalities per
album for many bands is less than a dollar, the fact that many people are spending
$12/hour to download MIDI versions of popular tunes looks attractive, especially
when Compuserve is making millions in profit.
---
Michael Czeiszperger | "Toyotas are irrelevant" -Locutus of Pontiac
Audio Software, Sun Microsystems |----------------------------------------------
cz...@sunpix.east.sun.com | Co-owner of Kissmee, the excitable 6-year
(919) 460-8369 | old chestnut-colored Trakehner mare.
Maurice Shihadi
as no one downloads from it from a service. Why not then collect all the
data and distribute it on CD charging only for expenses with no profit.
If that worked and it were clearly defined as legal. I'd be glad to
provide references for CD duplication . Would it be called a co-op?
maurices