(no subject given!)

[Jackie Zucconi <mailrus!gatech!netlink.cts.COM!lionhart@uunet.UU.NET>]

fiona_mcquarrie@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca writes:

> At the risk of fanning the flames even further, I'd like to have something
> clarified. Intergalactic Garage sells copies of a videotape that Kate Bush's
> brother has specifically asked not be circulated. Vickie sends out tapes
> of music by female artists which presumably are covered by copyright,
> royalty agreements for reproductions, etc. Why is one OK and the other not?
>  (disclaimer: I am not trying to take sides in this debate, having never
> bought from either IG or C-Side. I would just like some clarification of
> the issues involved here.)

can't believe I'm getting into this.....well here I go....
If "A" circulates copies of tapes technically he is breaking a copyright 
law mainly because of the copying involved NOT free circulation.
If "B" copies tapes and sells them there are two violations of copyright 
laws. 1) illegal copying of tapes and 2) illegal sale of tapes. This is 
my rudimentary understanding of the legal bits. Both are wrong but one is 
one more accounts. And actually the recording industry seems to be more 
adamant about stopping illegal sale as opposed to just illegal copying.
Making a home cassette tape of a Kate cd to play in your car is illegal 
copying but it's not enforced because it's hard to and it doesn't detract 
from record company sales.
                     Kateness,
                            Lionheart

--                    
INTERNET:  lionhart@netlink.cts.com (Jackie Zucconi)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!lionhart
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115