maa@ssc-bee.UUCP (Mark A Allyn) (01/20/86)
Relyzing that almost all of sheet music; the type of music that church choirs and choruses use; is marked all over with copyright notices and dire warnings of consequences of unauthorized copying, I have the following question. I have sung in many church choirs and community choruses in several parts of the country and many of them still continue to use xeroxed copies of sheet music passed out to the members. As a singer, I occasionally get music that is blatently marked 'Copying Prohibited' all over it and yet is a xeroxed copy. The question is is can I as a choir member get into trouble or the group as a whole or what? And why is it still going on despite the warnings? Obviously it seems that whatever enforcement there is must be a joke otherwise I would think that these varous churches and choruses would not be doing it. If I were a composer, I frandkly would be very dissapointed. Thank in advance! Mark A. Allyn !uw-beaver!ssc-vax!ssc-bee!maa
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (01/21/86)
In article <462@ssc-bee.UUCP>, maa@ssc-bee.UUCP (Mark A Allyn) writes: > I occasionally get music that is blatently marked 'Copying Prohibited' all > over it and yet is a xeroxed copy. The question is is can I as a choir member > get into trouble or the group as a whole or what? And why is it still going > on despite the warnings? Obviously it seems that whatever enforcement there > is must be a joke otherwise I would think that these varous churches and > choruses would not be doing it. If I were a composer, I frandkly would be > very dissapointed. Bars that play live music have to pay the song's authors royalities. Using an authors copyright work without paying the author is stealing. Even if it is in a church. -- scc!steiny Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software 109 Torrey Pine Terrace Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 (408) 425-0382
ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (01/21/86)
> Relyzing that almost all of sheet music; the type of music that church > choirs and choruses use; is marked all over with copyright notices and > dire warnings of consequences of unauthorized copying, I have the > following question. I have sung in many church choirs and community > choruses in several parts of the country and many of them still continue > to use xeroxed copies of sheet music passed out to the members. As a singer, > I occasionally get music that is blatently marked 'Copying Prohibited' all > over it and yet is a xeroxed copy. The question is is can I as a choir member > get into trouble or the group as a whole or what? And why is it still going > on despite the warnings? Obviously it seems that whatever enforcement there > is must be a joke otherwise I would think that these varous churches and > choruses would not be doing it. If I were a composer, I frandkly would be > very dissapointed. I'm not a lawyer, and I may well be mistaken about this, but my understanding is that the activity that is prohibited is MAKING the copy. And no, it isn't a joke. I remember the following situation described in an article in Computing Reviews: A choir director bought copies of a book of hymns for each member of his chorus. However, he found that the arrangements of some of the hymns did not suit his particular situation, so he re-arranged them. He felt his arrangements were well done, so he wrote a letter to the publisher of the book offering to give them his arrangements in case they wanted to publish them in a future edition of the book. They sued him for copyright violations and won. The point is that an arrangement is a copy under the law. Moreover, if a publisher finds out about a violation, they're on the spot. If they don't prosecute, that fact can be used in the defense of some later case: "They are prosecuting me but they didn't prosecute those other guys. They don't really care about their legal rights; they're just harrassing me!" So: can you as a choir member get into trouble? Maybe; I don't know. Can the group as a whole get into trouble? Absolutely. Why is it still going on? Probably because the publisher hasn't found out. Just for fun, you might try phoning the publisher and describing the situation without identifying yourself. See what the publisher says...
pete@valid.UUCP (Pete Zakel) (01/21/86)
> In article <462@ssc-bee.UUCP>, maa@ssc-bee.UUCP (Mark A Allyn) writes: > > I occasionally get music that is blatently marked 'Copying Prohibited' all > > over it and yet is a xeroxed copy. The question is is can I as a choir member > > get into trouble or the group as a whole or what? > > Bars that play live music have to pay the song's > authors royalities. Using an authors copyright work without > paying the author is stealing. Even if it is in a church. > -- > Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software No, you don't have to pay the author unless you yourself are receiving money for performing the work. The author gets a share of the money you receive for performing the work (which is called a royalty). In reference to the original question, enforcement of copyright is almost impossible, and who wants to get the religious community mad at them because they prosecuted a church (which probably can't AFFORD to buy copies of ALL the music they use, or it may be currently out of print, etc.)? I myself perform music in church quite frequently, and whenever possible I try to use originals instead of photocopies. But if I already own a copy and I photocopy it to make page-turning easier or some other reason, do you think it's proper to prosecute me for it? -Pete Zakel (..!{hplabs,amd,pyramid,ihnp4}!pesnta!valid!pete)
bnapl@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) (01/22/86)
In article <ssc-bee.462> maa@ssc-bee.UUCP (Mark A Allyn) writes: >Relyzing that almost all of sheet music; the type of music that church >choirs and choruses use; is marked all over with copyright notices and >dire warnings of consequences of unauthorized copying, I have the >following question. I have sung in many church choirs and community >choruses in several parts of the country and many of them still continue >to use xeroxed copies of sheet music passed out to the members. As a singer, >I occasionally get music that is blatently marked 'Copying Prohibited' all >over it and yet is a xeroxed copy. The question is is can I as a choir member >get into trouble or the group as a whole or what? And why is it still going ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^ >on despite the warnings? Obviously it seems that whatever enforcement there >is must be a joke otherwise I would think that these varous churches and >choruses would not be doing it. If I were a composer, I frandkly would be >very dissapointed. > >Thank in advance! > >Mark A. Allyn >!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!ssc-bee!maa It is against the law to copy copyrighted information with the intent of defrauding the holder of the copyright out of his/her share of the preceeds from the material. When a musical group (sacred or secular) copies sheet music to avoid buying individual copies, that's illegal. As a Christian, once you know some activity is wrong you should try to avoid that activity at all costs. You may not get caught by the holders of the copyright, but you're already in trouble. Stuff like this gives Christianity a bad name. -- Tom Albrecht Burroughs Corp. ============ =============== The next time somebody said, "I find I can write much better with a word processor.", I replyed, "They used to say the same thing about drugs." Roy Blount, Jr.
dave@cylixd.UUCP (Dave Kirby) (01/22/86)
>> I occasionally get music that is blatently marked 'Copying Prohibited' all >> over it and yet is a xeroxed copy. Copyright by definition is the legal right of the copyright holder to control the copying of his works. The fact that he went through the trouble of marking "COPYING PROHIBITED" all over his music is obstensibly an indication that he expressly DID NOT give ANYONE permission to copy it. Anyone who copies a work thus marked and causes damage to the author is breaking the law. It is not only a civil offense for which one can get sued; under US law it is also a criminal offense. There is a provision in the copyright law for "fair use." In general, this means you may make copies without the author's permission for uses that don't damage the author. Making a personal copy of a copy you bought so you could turn pages better would fall into this category. But if you buy a copy and then make several copies for your choir, you are obviously trying to cheat the publisher out of his money for the extra copies, and you are cheating the author out of his royalties. That is illegal. It is a crime. The publisher and author are entitled to their money for every copy used. To cheat them out of this is theft, pure and simple. In reality, this sort of thing is done all the time by good Christian people. Most of the time it is because (1) they are ignorant, and (2) they are stupid, since it never occurs to them that their saving a dollar by cheating the publisher out of his is stealing. Also, in the real world, criminal lawsuits for copyright violations very seldom happen. Yes, the publisher could put you in jail for it, but (1) it does him no good, since only with a civil lawsuit can he collect damages, and (2) the rules of proof are much stricter and harder to prove in a criminal lawsuit. For instance, if someone wanted to put you in jail for copyright violation, he would probably have to get witnesses that actually saw you make the copy. In a civil suit, the fact that there are copies made, you're the choir director, and the choir is using the copies would be enough proof to win a judgment. This crime is widespread, especially among churches, and most publishers just grit their teeth and live with it. Some have adopted the aforementioned procedure of marking "COPYING PROHIBITED" all over the music, in hopes that some of these cretin Christian copyright criminals will get the picture (how's THAT for alliteration?). (Clarification here: I am a Christian, and this sort of thing makes me puke. As if you hadn't guessed by now.) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Kirby ( ...!ihnp4!akgub!cylixd!dave)
gordon@cae780.UUCP (Brian Gordon) (01/23/86)
In article <42@valid.UUCP> pete@valid.UUCP (Pete Zakel) writes: >No, you don't have to pay the author unless you yourself are receiving money >for performing the work. The author gets a share of the money you receive >for performing the work (which is called a royalty). > True -- and notice that the criteria is pay, not profit. Non-profi organizations, who charge admission for a show, must pay the fees. Fortunately you can pay ASCAP with one check to cover all music (USA performances only) and they worry about the distribution. Notice also that this is for live performance, not copying or recording. >In reference to the original question, enforcement of copyright is almost >impossible, and who wants to get the religious community mad at them because >they prosecuted a church (which probably can't AFFORD to buy copies of ALL >the music they use, or it may be currently out of print, etc.)? > Don't look now, but it has already been done -- ASCAP vs Archdiosces of Chicago, whose planned defense was EXACTLY those arguments, settled out of court for millions ... Does anyone have a specific reference to the case? I have heard of it several times, at least once with references, but can not find the source now. As the librarian of a not-for-profit singing group, I am WELL aware of the hastle of trying to get 100 copies of out-of-print music, but "just Xerox it" isn't one of the legal alternatives unless you have a hell of a lot of paperwork tracing your efforts to find the copyright owner. If the owner is found, and says "no", for any or no reason, you are SOL. >I myself perform music in church quite frequently, and whenever possible I >try to use originals instead of photocopies. But if I already own a copy >and I photocopy it to make page-turning easier or some other reason, do you >think it's proper to prosecute me for it? > "Proper" is an irrelevant decision on my part. Possible and legal are the objective reality. FROM: Brian G. Gordon, CAE Systems Division of Tektronix, Inc. UUCP: tektronix!teklds!cae780!gordon {ihnp4, decvax!decwrl}!amdcad!cae780!gordon {hplabs, resonex, qubix, leadsv}!cae780!gordon USNAIL: 5302 Betsy Ross Drive, Santa Clara, CA 95054 AT&T: (408)727-1234
ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (01/23/86)
> No, you don't have to pay the author unless you yourself are receiving money > for performing the work. The author gets a share of the money you receive > for performing the work (which is called a royalty). What is your evidence for this? The articles I have read about copyright law all say that it makes no difference whether you sell copies of a thing or not -- the illegal activity is making the copy, regardless of the use to which you put it. Public performance of a work, regardless of whether it is for profit or not, is making a copy. > I myself perform music in church quite frequently, and whenever possible I > try to use originals instead of photocopies. But if I already own a copy > and I photocopy it to make page-turning easier or some other reason, do you > think it's proper to prosecute me for it? That's really up to the copyright holder. Suppose you copy a work to make page-turning easier and then you sell the copies afterwards? Remember that the copyright holder can't stop you from selling the copies once you've made them, but can stop you from making them.
ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (01/23/86)
Tom Albrecht says: > It is against the law to copy copyrighted information with the intent of > defrauding the holder of the copyright out of his/her share of the preceeds > from the material. I don't believe that the intent makes any difference. Can you give me evidence that it does?
kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) (01/24/86)
In article <2311@burdvax.UUCP> bnapl@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) writes: >It is against the law to copy copyrighted information with the intent of >defrauding the holder of the copyright out of his/her share of the preceeds >from the material. When a musical group (sacred or secular) copies sheet >music to avoid buying individual copies, that's illegal. As a Christian, >once you know some activity is wrong you should try to avoid that activity at >all costs. You may not get caught by the holders of the copyright, but >you're already in trouble. > >Stuff like this gives Christianity a bad name. > You should also try to make restitution for the copyright violation. Trying to make restitution is the best way to demonstrate that you are sorry for your sin.
pete@valid.UUCP (Pete Zakel) (01/24/86)
> > No, you don't have to pay the author unless you yourself are receiving money > > for performing the work. The author gets a share of the money you receive > > for performing the work (which is called a royalty). > > What is your evidence for this? The articles I have read about copyright > law all say that it makes no difference whether you sell copies of a thing > or not -- the illegal activity is making the copy, regardless of the > use to which you put it. Public performance of a work, regardless of > whether it is for profit or not, is making a copy. > That statement was about performance royalties, not copyright. Public performance is NOT making a copy. Copyright refers to making a physical copy of the work. And royalties, as mentioned in another reply, don't come from profit. They are off the top. -Pete Zakel (..!{hplabs,amd,pyramid,ihnp4}!pesnta!valid!pete)
ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (01/25/86)
> That statement was about performance royalties, not copyright. Public > performance is NOT making a copy. Copyright refers to making a physical > copy of the work. And royalties, as mentioned in another reply, don't > come from profit. They are off the top. Sorry, my mistake. But I don't think you need to be paid for performing a copyrighted work in public in order to have to get permission from the copyright holder. Can you give me evidence to the contrary?
tenney@well.UUCP (Glenn S. Tenney) (01/27/86)
Although I am not a lawyer I finally had to put my 2.5 cents in: Music has a special copyright diferent from books. When you write music, to copyright it you have to score it and submit the sheet music. That affords you a special performance right. You as the score's copyright owner have the right to make the first performance. Note that any performance if made into a sound recording can contain a performance right notice ( a P within a circle). As I remember, the copyright law dictates something about royalties per minute for performances of a copyrighted work. In any event, the sheet music is PROTECTED and a performance of it must be approved or paid for. If I remember one of the first postings, someone said something to the effect that they could not afford for the entire choir to buy the sheet music: If my memory is correct, I am APPALLED, if my memory is in error I am just amazed. It is obviously not fair use to make copies to pass out to a choir for a performance, and if you can't afford that, why not also say you can't afford a piano and just 'borrow' it without permission (read steal). As to copying for classroom use: I vaguely remember something that even classroom copying is not fair use unless it is copying a small portion to make an example. That is why some publishers of class materials sell a special version intended to be copied.
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (01/27/86)
In article <4857@alice.UUCP> ark@alice.UUCP writes: >> I myself perform music in church quite frequently, and whenever possible I >> try to use originals instead of photocopies. But if I already own a copy >> and I photocopy it to make page-turning easier or some other reason, do you >> think it's proper to prosecute me for it? >That's really up to the copyright holder. Suppose you copy a work >to make page-turning easier and then you sell the copies afterwards? >Remember that the copyright holder can't stop you from selling the >copies once you've made them, but can stop you from making them. Not so. THe making of copies *for yourself only* to reformat, mark up, or whatever, are almost certainly "fair use". (I say almost certainly because fair use is a legal nebulosity whose exact nature is essentially determined by the courts.) C. Wingate
ron@brl-smoke.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (01/28/86)
> No, you don't have to pay the author unless you yourself are receiving money > for performing the work. The author gets a share of the money you receive > for performing the work (which is called a royalty). Misleading. Using the author's music is prohibited even when you don't receive money for performing it. Hence, closed circuit radio stations such as present in college campuses pay ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC fees. > In reference to the original question, enforcement of copyright is almost > impossible, and who wants to get the religious community mad at them because > they prosecuted a church (which probably can't AFFORD to buy copies of ALL > the music they use, or it may be currently out of print, etc.)? I'm sure someone has probably done it, but I haven't seen it for sure. I have seen them go after high schools though, for copying music even though they bought a sufficient number of copies for the entire band to have one each.
jsdy@hadron.UUCP (02/06/86)
In article <652@brl-smoke.ARPA> ron@brl-smoke.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) writes: >> In reference to the original question, enforcement of copyright is almost >> impossible, and who wants to get the religious community mad at them because >> they prosecuted a church (which probably can't AFFORD to buy copies of ALL >> the music they use, or it may be currently out of print, etc.)? >I'm sure someone has probably done it, but I haven't seen it for sure. >I have seen them go after high schools though, for copying music even though >they bought a sufficient number of copies for the entire band to have one >each. I'm not sure whether I'm jumping in the middle or the end ... But at my church we are very careful, if we're going to use music for more than a one-shot, to get publishers' permissions. This means that there is some music we can't use, because we can't afford the royalties. But that's life. Apparently, some publishers do regularly at least advance action against folks who use their material without paying. After all, that's how they eat. And on the other hand, at some pentacostal services and other services that just happen to be few and far-between, almost all the music is spontaneous or one-shot; so how do we determine the use? Back, I think, to intention. -- Joe Yao hadron!jsdy@seismo.{CSS.GOV,ARPA,UUCP}