Nick Scheer wrote:
> While having covers of copyrighted songs available on your site may
> *technically* not be in compliance with copyright law, the reality is
> that I think it is most unlikely that the copyright holders would see
> fit to pursue you for any kind of damages, since the recordings you
> are providing access to are performed, produced, etc. by you, and you
> are not benefiting financially in any way, and someone is *not* going
> to download a cover song in lieu of purchasing a CD from the original
> artist, which is the main justification against the RIAA's
> well-publicized legal witch-hunts in the US.
My advice: First, get and read the book "This Business Of Music". Then
get a lawyer if you still feel you need one.
Some distinctions: Copyright refers to the holding of the rights to make
copies. Royalties are monies paid for the sales/distribution and
performance of a copyrighted work. IANAL, but I think Bob's dilemma
falls into the domain of performance or mechanical royalities. He's not
breaking copyright, but like the church musicians and bar bands he can
be compelled to pay a performance royalty. Enforcement of the law is of
course a matter for the police or other such agency. Collection of owed
royalties has been, in the US at least, a job done by the Fox Agency
(IIRC). I think that even though Bob's covers aren't for sale he is
still liable for the performance royalties.
Best,
dp
Received on Mon Mar 12 16:15:01 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Mar 12 2007 - 16:15:01 EET