No Subject

[microsoft!stevesc@uunet.uu.net]

From: microsoft!stevesc@uunet.uu.net (Steve Schonberger)
Reply-To: microsoft!stevesc@uunet.uu.net (Steve Schonberger)
Subject: More copyright comments
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
References: <Jun.22.14.11.36.1989.4605@porthos.rutgers.edu>
Keywords: kate, music, demos, copyrights

I'm in agreement with jessica <koeppel@porthos.rutgers.edu>, namely that
we aren't taking any income away from either Kate or EMI by these taping
operations.  I think all of us who are likely to participate in any of
tbe taping projects are nearly certain to buy legitimate copies of this
material if it comes out, so we can get the best quality reproductions
of it.  After all, Andrew is not (considering) making us CD copies from
studio masters, he is (considering) making us tape copies from a bootleg
LP.  If a high quality release of all this comes out, we'll have it at
full price, without even waiting for a discount release.

That's a pretty clear answer on the financial-loss-to-Kate grounds for
not going through with it.  The next issue is the legal matter.  We are
very clearly on the bad side of this one.  The copyright law in the U.S.
states that the U.S. is now party to the Bern Convention on copyright
law, which is much more strict than the previous U.S. law.  I think most
other Usenet readers are in countries that also subscribe to that body
of copyright law.

The Bern Convention says that _all_ works are copyrighted from their
creation, regardless of placement of any copyright notices, unless
the owner of the copyright (the creator, unless the creator contracted
ownership to someone else like a publisher or employer) specifically
places the work into the public domain, or the work lost its copyright
protection before the Bern Convention came into force (through age, or
improper copyright notice).  The reason a copyright owner should put
the notice on things is to protect it in countries that don't follow
the Bern Convention, and to make it easier to prosecute people who
infringe on the automatically granted copyright, since the penalties
are a lot more severe for knowing violations.  A copyright owner does
not lose a copyright for failing to prosecute.  That would be like a
person losing the right to press charges on a second mugger because
they don't press charges the first time they're mugged.  Anyway, we
are clearly afoul of the law in this, Andrew for copying and us for
sending the money, which enables him to make the copies.  But I think
we are very unlikely to be prosecuted, since EMI (and Kate) are much
more interested in prosecuting bootleggers who sell material that
they do lose money on.  The only reason they might have to pick on us
is if we do this so publicly that they could set an example by going
after us.

The _moral_ issue is what's hardest to guess.  We are a bit on the
bad side here, just because we are breaking a law.  (I break speed
laws too sometimes.)  But as far as going against Kate's wishes in
distributing this material, that's a big "I don't know".  Andrew
was told that Kate didn't want it out may be true, or it may be a
blanket disapproval of all bootleg work, especially pirates of
released works.  She has on occasion said that she's ashamed of
her early released work, so maybe it's true.

I think things work out in favor of doing this.  We aren't taking
income away from anyone but the bootleggers Andrew got his copy
from.  We might be hurting Kate's feelings by hearing stuff she is
ashamed of, but I think she'd more be likely proud that even stuff
she thinks is unfit for publication is venerated by us.  I don't
think we're far out of line morally.  We are clearly on the wrong
side of the law, but I still want the tapes (just like I want to
get to the other side of town sooner when I speed).

One final suggestion:  If there's extra money when (if) the tapes
are made, rather than send it back to the everyone, convert it to
Pounds (don't bother her with dollars that would be more hassle to
convert than they're worth to her) and mail it to Kate at whatever
address Andrew used to send his confession letter.

	Steve Schonberger	microsoft!stevesc@uunet.uu.net
	(My personal opinions, of course.)