[Jack[_5_]]

As a personal interest, I put together a great system for transcribing
vinyl and tape to CD level digital. Can I legally offer this as a
service to others? I have a friend who is into audio and he says it's
probably not legal. I am hoping that it falls under fair use for people
to pay an individual to have their vinyl transcribed to digital.

Has this area been addressed by courts?

Thanks,
Jack

[Mike Rivers]

On Jul 25, 8:39 pm, Jack wrote:

Can I legally offer this as a
service to others? I have a friend who is into audio and he says it's
probably not legal. I am hoping that it falls under fair use

"Fair use" has a very specific meaning, and it's not "the use that
seems fair to you and me." However, you are allowed to make a copy to
different media of a recording that you own. I believe that "a
recording that you own" would be inerpreted as a recording that your
client owns, and therefore you would be able to make a copy for him
without concern.

Where some engineers have found themselves in trouble is when they've
copied a portion of a recording for a client and then used that copy
in the client's production (as in "sampling").

[Geoff]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On Jul 25, 8:39 pm, Jack wrote:

Can I legally offer this as a
service to others? I have a friend who is into audio and he says it's
probably not legal. I am hoping that it falls under fair use

"Fair use" has a very specific meaning, and it's not "the use that
seems fair to you and me." However, you are allowed to make a copy to
different media of a recording that you own. I believe that "a
recording that you own" would be inerpreted as a recording that your
client owns, and therefore you would be able to make a copy for him
without concern.

Where some engineers have found themselves in trouble is when they've
copied a portion of a recording for a client and then used that copy
in the client's production (as in "sampling").

Kind of varies depending on which part of the world you are in too....

geoff

[Nono]

On 26 jul, 02:39, Jack wrote:
As a personal interest, I put together a great system for transcribing
vinyl and tape to CD level digital. Can I legally offer this as a
service to others? I have a friend who is into audio and he says it's
probably not legal. I am hoping that it falls under fair use for people
to pay an individual to have their vinyl transcribed to digital.

Has this area been addressed by courts?

Thanks,
Jack

I guess that the moment you start making more copies of the same
recording for the same client, it becomes reproduction and mechanical
right should be paid.
Otherwise, at least, the client would be illegal and you would be
participant in an illegal activity.
I wonder though if, say, 50 clients come with their own copy of the
same recording for you to transfer and you decide to use one original
to make 50 CD's, one for each client. I imagine that the clients then
would be legit, but what about you who has reproduced fifty copies?

Norman.

[Six String Stu[_2_]]

"Geoff" wrote in message
...
Mike Rivers wrote:
On Jul 25, 8:39 pm, Jack wrote:

Can I legally offer this as a
service to others? I have a friend who is into audio and he says it's
probably not legal. I am hoping that it falls under fair use

"Fair use" has a very specific meaning, and it's not "the use that
seems fair to you and me." However, you are allowed to make a copy to
different media of a recording that you own. I believe that "a
recording that you own" would be inerpreted as a recording that your
client owns, and therefore you would be able to make a copy for him
without concern.

Where some engineers have found themselves in trouble is when they've
copied a portion of a recording for a client and then used that copy
in the client's production (as in "sampling").

Kind of varies depending on which part of the world you are in too....

geoff

each customer comes through the door and provides the licensed media for
copying.
You preform service and complete transaction.
You don't need to fall into explaining why you have electronic copies on
your hard drive that you might not have the licensed media in storage.

[Mark]

On Jul 25, 8:39 pm, Jack wrote:
As a personal interest, I put together a great system for transcribing
vinyl and tape to CD level digital. Can I legally offer this as a
service to others? I have a friend who is into audio and he says it's
probably not legal. I am hoping that it falls under fair use for people
to pay an individual to have their vinyl transcribed to digital.

Has this area been addressed by courts?

Thanks,
Jack

so now I am curious...

how much do you think you can charge to transfer say an LP to CD or
MP3?

Mark

[[email protected]]

On Jul 26, 5:26 pm, Mark wrote:
On Jul 25, 8:39 pm, Jack wrote:

As a personal interest, I put together a great system for transcribing
vinyl and tape to CD level digital. Can I legally offer this as a
service to others? I have a friend who is into audio and he says it's
probably not legal. I am hoping that it falls under fair use for people
to pay an individual to have their vinyl transcribed to digital.

Has this area been addressed by courts?

Thanks,
Jack

so now I am curious...

how much do you think you can charge to transfer say an LP to CD or
MP3?

Mark

have you tweaked your turntable / arm / cartridge / phono pre amp??
are you doing a cleaning of the lp prior to playing it, ie using a
Keith Monks cleaning machine?
are you just dumping the audio files to cd or are you processing the
files to remove any artifacts created ??
the software/hardware you are using, is it freeware / computer
soundcard or do you use a Cedar system??

[Mike Rivers]

On Jul 26, 5:26 pm, Mark wrote:

how much do you think you can charge to transfer say an LP to CD or
MP3?

Depends on how long it is, but that sounds like about a $50/hour job
to me. This is why most people don't do it for a profit - they won't
get any customers other than "legitimate" ones like libraries or
historical archives.

[Six String Stu[_2_]]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Jul 26, 5:26 pm, Mark wrote:

how much do you think you can charge to transfer say an LP to CD or
MP3?

Depends on how long it is, but that sounds like about a $50/hour job
to me. This is why most people don't do it for a profit - they won't
get any customers other than "legitimate" ones like libraries or
historical archives.


It could be that the OP found a nitch in the market, or believes that he can
sell this service.
It'd be nice to contract a project digitaly archiving a library. I guess the
job's main selling point would be the copyrite issue. Also the best
stumbling spot. lol

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike Rivers wrote: On Jul 26, 5:26 pm, Mark wrote:

how much do you think you can charge to transfer say an LP to CD or
MP3?

Depends on how long it is, but that sounds like about a $50/hour job
to me. This is why most people don't do it for a profit - they won't
get any customers other than "legitimate" ones like libraries or
historical archives.

That sounds kind of low but it seems like an okay entry level price for
someone with a decent turntable setup, some basic digital NR, good
monitoring so they can actually use the NR, and an entry level
record cleaning system like the Nitty Gritty or even a mid-range like the VPI.

If you don't have to deal with acetates or acoustic recordings, you can
live with a couple standard styli and maybe a half-dozen oddly-sized
ones. If you have to deal with acetates or acoustics, your investment
goes through the roof because of the stylus costs and the need for more
serious EQ than you get from an RIAA preamp and a Re-Equalizer. And
that translates to having to bill more.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[DC]

Mike Rivers wrote:

Depends on how long it is, but that sounds like about a $50/hour job
to me. This is why most people don't do it for a profit - they won't
get any customers other than "legitimate" ones like libraries or
historical archives.


One of my jobs was working for a studio whose clients were major dance
companies. It was routine to record cuts from their albums, and make
leadered performance tapes at 15 ips and practice tapes at 7-1/2 ips.

Obviously, they were legally using the music in the performances. These
were big companies like Ailey, etc.

[Michael Rempel[_2_]]

My mom n pop needle drop to cd with cheap de-click and EQ if I feel
like it is $45 per album. No frills just the basics. I tell people to
ask their friends for the best copy of the album they collectively
own. 5 minimum 20 max per order. My mom got me started doing it with
her favorite records (for free of course), and now she sends her
friends over to get theirs done. I should charge more but little old
ladies know how to get to my soft side. And I copy cds (gasp) for them
if they show me they have a legit copy of the Album. I think I have
seen the same album cover a few times but I cant be certain. Hmmm. I
wonder....

No I dont do internet orders, so thanks for not asking.

Record cleaning? Yeah right. Not even cleaned in 1950 when they bought
em. Oh, yeah, and none of em get good styluses. I have 10 band
parametric EQ for that. yeah I know purists are scratching their eyes
out, complaining about velocity and articulation not frequency (you
idiot they say). I know, I just dont care. And my customers dont
either. At least they dont enough to pay more. Anything that has to
suffer by going through a phase distorting capacitor bucket like the
RIAA EQ can go through a little more of mine too.

As for filtering, Goldwave is surprisingly good for such a cheap
thing. The De-noise algorithm is no where near as good as cedar, but
who care$?

Michael

[Steve House[_2_]]

If your client makes a copy of their album for their own personal use,
no problem. But if they bring it to you and you charge them a fee to
make the copy for them, then you are actually in the business of
selling copies of the original. In other words, you are doing exactly
what the pirate does, making copies and selling them on the market.
The only difference between what you're doing and the guy at the
corner market who is selling pirated CDs and DVDs from under the
counter is that you have a smaller customer base than he does. But
you are doing the same thing - creating copies and making a profit by
selling them.

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:30:18 -0500, "Six String Stu"
wrote:


"Geoff" wrote in message
...
Mike Rivers wrote:
On Jul 25, 8:39 pm, Jack wrote:

Can I legally offer this as a
service to others? I have a friend who is into audio and he says it's
probably not legal. I am hoping that it falls under fair use

"Fair use" has a very specific meaning, and it's not "the use that
seems fair to you and me." However, you are allowed to make a copy to
different media of a recording that you own. I believe that "a
recording that you own" would be inerpreted as a recording that your
client owns, and therefore you would be able to make a copy for him
without concern.

Where some engineers have found themselves in trouble is when they've
copied a portion of a recording for a client and then used that copy
in the client's production (as in "sampling").

Kind of varies depending on which part of the world you are in too....

geoff

each customer comes through the door and provides the licensed media for
copying.
You preform service and complete transaction.
You don't need to fall into explaining why you have electronic copies on
your hard drive that you might not have the licensed media in storage.

[andy M]

On 27 Jul., 12:05, Steve House filmmaker at cogeco dot ca wrote:

you are actually in the business of
selling copies of the original.
......
But you are doing the same thing - creating copies and making a profit by
selling them.

As someone else in this thread mentioned, the exact legal status of
such actions will vary according to your geographic location and local
laws, but I very much doubt that there is a western democracy where
your interpretation is correct.

Quite clearly the OP is *not* manufacturing and selling copies, but
providing a service. In most areas of Europe, making and possessing a
digital copy of a work is not illegal, even more so if you actually
own an original version. In Germany at the moment, making digital
copies of *digital* media is illegal if you have to disable "an
effective copy protection system" to do it (and yes, that really is
as vague as it sounds). Making and owning digital or analogue copies
of analogue sources for your own use is expressly allowed, as is
giving your family and close friends a copy (German courts have set
the number of seven copies as being reasonable) for private use.

In Europe you can perfectly legally provide a digitalisation service
for copyrighted analogue media. Keeping a copy of a work you had
copied as a service on your HDD would be dodgy but you would probably
get away with it if you had a good defense in court. Making *further*
copies and distributing them to strangers, especially for sale, would
be piracy.


andy M

[Scott Dorsey]

Michael Rempel wrote:
Record cleaning? Yeah right. Not even cleaned in 1950 when they bought
em. Oh, yeah, and none of em get good styluses. I have 10 band
parametric EQ for that. yeah I know purists are scratching their eyes
out, complaining about velocity and articulation not frequency (you
idiot they say). I know, I just dont care. And my customers dont
either. At least they dont enough to pay more. Anything that has to
suffer by going through a phase distorting capacitor bucket like the
RIAA EQ can go through a little more of mine too.

Spend a hundred bucks and buy a used Nitty Gritty machine. You will
find you save a lot of time in the long run using the noise reduction
stuff.

Also, get some aloconox or at least Dr. Bronner's Baby Castile Soap to
pre-clean the most grubby records in the sink.

As for filtering, Goldwave is surprisingly good for such a cheap
thing. The De-noise algorithm is no where near as good as cedar, but
who care$?

The key is to get the thing clean and the playback solid, so you don't
need to do much reduction after the fact. The more time you spend doing
good prep work, the less time and money you'll need to spend doing noise
removal.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mark]

On Jul 26, 10:57 pm, Michael Rempel wrote:
My mom n pop needle drop to cd with cheap de-click and EQ if I feel
like it is $45 per album. No frills just the basics. I tell people to
ask their friends for the best copy of the album they collectively
own. 5 minimum 20 max per order....

This sounds like an interesting line but I don't get the economics of
it.

Why would someone pay you $45 to $50 to copy an album onto CD when
they can buy a new CD for less. Almost every record is now avaialbe
on CD.

Are these rare albums that are not avaialbe in CD?


Mark

[Deputy Dumbya Dawg[_8_]]

For one thing the record company CD may in many cases not
sound like the LP version you have.

Even LP's manufactured from similar time periods sound
different because the reproduction devices wore out and disks
that were pressed while the stamper was new sound different
from those that were pressed at the end of the stampers life
and depending on economies and demands some stampers may have
been run longer then their life dictated. We are talking like
quantities of 2-8 thousand life of a stamper.

Then stampers were made from mothers which wore out too. And
mothers were made from lacquers which were sort of a mixdown
by a mastering engineer and he may have had to make several -
each lacquer possibly different from the last.

And the master tape was wearing out and there was only one of
them.

When you think about how many stampers and presses were
involved in production of platinum selling albums the
possibilities for screwing up are endless.

And this is all before you open the wrapper on the record you
bought at the store.


Then add to that re issues and re masters.

Some people just want to hear their vinyl in the car like they
heard it in their home.


peace
dawg


"Mark" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 26, 10:57 pm, Michael Rempel
wrote:
My mom n pop needle drop to cd with cheap de-click and EQ
if I feel
like it is $45 per album. No frills just the basics. I tell
people to
ask their friends for the best copy of the album they
collectively
own. 5 minimum 20 max per order....

This sounds like an interesting line but I don't get the
economics of
it.

Why would someone pay you $45 to $50 to copy an album onto
CD when
they can buy a new CD for less. Almost every record is now
avaialbe
on CD.

Are these rare albums that are not avaialbe in CD?


Mark

[Richard Crowley]

"Steve House" wrote ...
If your client makes a copy of their album for their own personal use,
no problem. But if they bring it to you and you charge them a fee to
make the copy for them, then you are actually in the business of
selling copies of the original. In other words, you are doing exactly
what the pirate does, making copies and selling them on the market.

No, you are NOT "doing exactly what the pirate does". The pirate
takes a single original (legitimate or not) and makes many un-
authorized copies, pocketing the $$ that should have gone to the
rights-holders (composers, performers, producers, etc.)

Making personal-use, one-for-one copies of audio recordings
was explicitly authorized by law. The debate here is whether it
is legal to pay a 3rd party to perform the labor of making the
copy.

The only difference between what you're doing and the guy at the
corner market who is selling pirated CDs and DVDs from under the
counter is that you have a smaller customer base than he does. But
you are doing the same thing - creating copies and making a profit by
selling them.

You don't appear to grasp the big picture here.
Or you are unfamiliar with the law (at least in the US,
but perhaps you are writing from some other POV.)

[Jack[_5_]]

Mark wrote:
On Jul 25, 8:39 pm, Jack wrote:
As a personal interest, I put together a great system for transcribing
vinyl and tape to CD level digital. Can I legally offer this as a
service to others? I have a friend who is into audio and he says it's
probably not legal. I am hoping that it falls under fair use for people
to pay an individual to have their vinyl transcribed to digital.

Has this area been addressed by courts?

Thanks,
Jack

so now I am curious...

how much do you think you can charge to transfer say an LP to CD or
MP3?

Mark

I would like to think that I can get $30 an LP for cleaning,
transcribing, splitting into tracks and burning to CDR with no
processing. Of course, this would only be cost effective to people whose
LPs have not been re-issued on CD.

[Jack[_5_]]

Nono wrote:
On 26 jul, 02:39, Jack wrote:
As a personal interest, I put together a great system for transcribing
vinyl and tape to CD level digital. Can I legally offer this as a
service to others? I have a friend who is into audio and he says it's
probably not legal. I am hoping that it falls under fair use for people
to pay an individual to have their vinyl transcribed to digital.

Has this area been addressed by courts?

Thanks,
Jack

I guess that the moment you start making more copies of the same
recording for the same client, it becomes reproduction and mechanical
right should be paid.
Otherwise, at least, the client would be illegal and you would be
participant in an illegal activity.
I wonder though if, say, 50 clients come with their own copy of the
same recording for you to transfer and you decide to use one original
to make 50 CD's, one for each client. I imagine that the clients then
would be legit, but what about you who has reproduced fifty copies?

Norman.

I could always run the original file through a high pass digital filter
set at 10 hz. This would completely change the digital file but leave
the sound intact. I imagine that a file could be processed 50 times in
in succession in this fashion without degrading the sound. This way,
each customer would get a different file with exactly the same sound and
I could lie and say I recorded each individual LP. I could also vary the
size of the files given to each customer without much trouble... at
least with less trouble than re-transcribing the LP.

But we are discussing in the realm of the highly hypothetical. If fifty
people came to the same individual with the same LP to transcribe,
chances are that LP has already been re-issued on CD.

[Scott Dorsey]

Jack wrote:

I would like to think that I can get $30 an LP for cleaning,
transcribing, splitting into tracks and burning to CDR with no
processing. Of course, this would only be cost effective to people whose
LPs have not been re-issued on CD.

That's almost a two-hour job to do carefully. At that rate, you can't
afford to eat.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ty Ford]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 07:39:33 -0400, andy M wrote
(in article . com):

On 27 Jul., 12:05, Steve House filmmaker at cogeco dot ca wrote:

you are actually in the business of
selling copies of the original.
.....
But you are doing the same thing - creating copies and making a profit by
selling them.

As someone else in this thread mentioned, the exact legal status of
such actions will vary according to your geographic location and local
laws, but I very much doubt that there is a western democracy where
your interpretation is correct.

Quite clearly the OP is *not* manufacturing and selling copies, but
providing a service. In most areas of Europe, making and possessing a
digital copy of a work is not illegal, even more so if you actually
own an original version. In Germany at the moment, making digital
copies of *digital* media is illegal if you have to disable "an
effective copy protection system" to do it (and yes, that really is
as vague as it sounds). Making and owning digital or analogue copies
of analogue sources for your own use is expressly allowed, as is
giving your family and close friends a copy (German courts have set
the number of seven copies as being reasonable) for private use.

In Europe you can perfectly legally provide a digitalisation service
for copyrighted analogue media. Keeping a copy of a work you had
copied as a service on your HDD would be dodgy but you would probably
get away with it if you had a good defense in court. Making *further*
copies and distributing them to strangers, especially for sale, would
be piracy.


andy M


When I take published versions of my articles into Kinko's to get them
photocopies for framing, I usually have to identify myself as the author
before they will make copies.

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Steve House[_2_]]

I am not a lawyer but I believe Kinko's copy services lost a case
regarding the exact situation of copying printed matter brought to
them by their customers for the customer's personal use. I know that
in the US or Canada if you take a photo from a magazine, for instance,
to your local copy shop and ask them to blow it up to make a poster of
it for you, they will refuse on the grounds it is illegal for them to
copy any copyright material, even just one copy of material you own
for your own personal use. So how does offering a service copying
audio material differ from that? The media is different but process
is the same.

Hmmmm ... it's illegal to disable an "effective copy protection
system" but isn't the fact that you are even ABLE to disable it mean
that it's NOT an effective copy protection system by definition? A
protection system that can be defeated is a very INeffective
protection system indeed! LOL

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 04:39:33 -0700, andy M
wrote:

On 27 Jul., 12:05, Steve House filmmaker at cogeco dot ca wrote:

you are actually in the business of
selling copies of the original.
.....
But you are doing the same thing - creating copies and making a profit by
selling them.

As someone else in this thread mentioned, the exact legal status of
such actions will vary according to your geographic location and local
laws, but I very much doubt that there is a western democracy where
your interpretation is correct.

Quite clearly the OP is *not* manufacturing and selling copies, but
providing a service. In most areas of Europe, making and possessing a
digital copy of a work is not illegal, even more so if you actually
own an original version. In Germany at the moment, making digital
copies of *digital* media is illegal if you have to disable "an
effective copy protection system" to do it (and yes, that really is
as vague as it sounds). Making and owning digital or analogue copies
of analogue sources for your own use is expressly allowed, as is
giving your family and close friends a copy (German courts have set
the number of seven copies as being reasonable) for private use.

In Europe you can perfectly legally provide a digitalisation service
for copyrighted analogue media. Keeping a copy of a work you had
copied as a service on your HDD would be dodgy but you would probably
get away with it if you had a good defense in court. Making *further*
copies and distributing them to strangers, especially for sale, would
be piracy.


andy M

[Steve House[_2_]]

Yet the notion that it actually is copyright infringment to make a
copy of a copyrighted work for a third party in return for a fee for
doing so is exactly the basis on the Kinko's decision that I and Ty
have referred to.

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 08:58:38 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

"Steve House" wrote ...
If your client makes a copy of their album for their own personal use,
no problem. But if they bring it to you and you charge them a fee to
make the copy for them, then you are actually in the business of
selling copies of the original. In other words, you are doing exactly
what the pirate does, making copies and selling them on the market.

No, you are NOT "doing exactly what the pirate does". The pirate
takes a single original (legitimate or not) and makes many un-
authorized copies, pocketing the $$ that should have gone to the
rights-holders (composers, performers, producers, etc.)

Making personal-use, one-for-one copies of audio recordings
was explicitly authorized by law. The debate here is whether it
is legal to pay a 3rd party to perform the labor of making the
copy.

The only difference between what you're doing and the guy at the
corner market who is selling pirated CDs and DVDs from under the
counter is that you have a smaller customer base than he does. But
you are doing the same thing - creating copies and making a profit by
selling them.

You don't appear to grasp the big picture here.
Or you are unfamiliar with the law (at least in the US,
but perhaps you are writing from some other POV.)

[Romeo Rondeau[_2_]]

Ty Ford wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 07:39:33 -0400, andy M wrote
(in article . com):

On 27 Jul., 12:05, Steve House filmmaker at cogeco dot ca wrote:

you are actually in the business of
selling copies of the original.
.....
But you are doing the same thing - creating copies and making a profit by
selling them.
As someone else in this thread mentioned, the exact legal status of
such actions will vary according to your geographic location and local
laws, but I very much doubt that there is a western democracy where
your interpretation is correct.

Quite clearly the OP is *not* manufacturing and selling copies, but
providing a service. In most areas of Europe, making and possessing a
digital copy of a work is not illegal, even more so if you actually
own an original version. In Germany at the moment, making digital
copies of *digital* media is illegal if you have to disable "an
effective copy protection system" to do it (and yes, that really is
as vague as it sounds). Making and owning digital or analogue copies
of analogue sources for your own use is expressly allowed, as is
giving your family and close friends a copy (German courts have set
the number of seven copies as being reasonable) for private use.

In Europe you can perfectly legally provide a digitalisation service
for copyrighted analogue media. Keeping a copy of a work you had
copied as a service on your HDD would be dodgy but you would probably
get away with it if you had a good defense in court. Making *further*
copies and distributing them to strangers, especially for sale, would
be piracy.


andy M


When I take published versions of my articles into Kinko's to get them
photocopies for framing, I usually have to identify myself as the author
before they will make copies.

Regards,

Ty Ford

The other method is to take it in at night, those flunky's will copy
anything :-)

[Richard Crowley]

"Steve House" wrote ...
Yet the notion that it actually is copyright infringment to make a
copy of a copyrighted work for a third party in return for a fee for
doing so is exactly the basis on the Kinko's decision that I and Ty
have referred to.

But copying *AUDIO* material for non-commercial, private use
was *EXPLICITLY PERMITTED* by the "Audio Home Recording
Act" of the US Congress in 1992. There is no equivalent for
making copies of photos from magazines, etc. etc. etc. that
I am aware of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act

Note that debate continues whether the subsequent DMCA
(Digital Millenium Copyright Act) of 1998 takes away this
right.

[Lumpy]

Richard Crowley wrote:

But copying *AUDIO* material for non-commercial, private use
was *EXPLICITLY PERMITTED* by the "Audio Home Recording
Act" of the US Congress in 1992...

I've copied all of the Beatles recordings onto mp3.
I'll sell them to anyone that wants them but they
have to promise to only listen to them in their
home.


Lumpy

In Your Ears for 40 Years
www.lumpymusic.com

[Richard Crowley]

"Lumpy" wrote ...
Richard Crowley wrote:

But copying *AUDIO* material for non-commercial, private use
was *EXPLICITLY PERMITTED* by the "Audio Home Recording
Act" of the US Congress in 1992...

I've copied all of the Beatles recordings onto mp3.
I'll sell them to anyone that wants them but they
have to promise to only listen to them in their
home.

Was there some point to your posting?
Your offer is neither "non-commercial" nor "private"
and is not covered by the AHRA.

[Lumpy]

Richard Crowley wrote:
But copying *AUDIO* material for non-commercial, private use
was *EXPLICITLY PERMITTED* by the "Audio Home Recording
Act" of the US Congress in 1992...

Lumpy:
I've copied all of the Beatles recordings onto mp3.
I'll sell them to anyone that wants them but they
have to promise to only listen to them in their
home.

Richard Crowley wrote:
Was there some point to your posting?
Your offer is neither "non-commercial" nor "private"
and is not covered by the AHRA.

Man, have you been seriously wooshed!


Lumpy

In Your Ears for 40 Years
www.lumpymusic.com

[Steve House[_2_]]

Yep, that's true and I don't debate that. But the exclusion is for
"private, non-commerical" copying, meaning that it's legal for you to
personally make a copy of a CD you own so you can take it with you in
the car without risklng loss of your original. But when you are in
the business of making copies, you are not making "private,
non-commercial copies." Just the opposite, you are most definitely
making copies for commercial sale and profit, the very definition of
what a commercial copy would be. And while it's propbably for your
customer's private use, it's not for YOUR OWN personal private use. So
while the law permits the owner of the recording to personally make a
private, non-commercial copy for his own use, an audio duplication
business is doing just the opposite of that - making commercial,
copies for sale to the public. The fact that the customer is bringing
in the source recording instead of the duplicator obtaining it himself
on the open market is irrelevant.



On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:49:35 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

"Steve House" wrote ...
Yet the notion that it actually is copyright infringment to make a
copy of a copyrighted work for a third party in return for a fee for
doing so is exactly the basis on the Kinko's decision that I and Ty
have referred to.

But copying *AUDIO* material for non-commercial, private use
was *EXPLICITLY PERMITTED* by the "Audio Home Recording
Act" of the US Congress in 1992. There is no equivalent for
making copies of photos from magazines, etc. etc. etc. that
I am aware of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act

Note that debate continues whether the subsequent DMCA
(Digital Millenium Copyright Act) of 1998 takes away this
right.

[Ty Ford]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:55:51 -0400, Lumpy wrote
(in article ):

Richard Crowley wrote:

But copying *AUDIO* material for non-commercial, private use
was *EXPLICITLY PERMITTED* by the "Audio Home Recording
Act" of the US Congress in 1992...

I've copied all of the Beatles recordings onto mp3.
I'll sell them to anyone that wants them but they
have to promise to only listen to them in their
home.


Lumpy

In Your Ears for 40 Years
www.lumpymusic.com




Wasn't the Napster argument judged invalid?

Regards,

Ty Ford

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Ty Ford]

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 05:46:49 -0400, Steve House wrote
(in article ):

Yep, that's true and I don't debate that. But the exclusion is for
"private, non-commerical" copying, meaning that it's legal for you to
personally make a copy of a CD you own so you can take it with you in
the car without risklng loss of your original. But when you are in
the business of making copies, you are not making "private,
non-commercial copies." Just the opposite, you are most definitely
making copies for commercial sale and profit, the very definition of
what a commercial copy would be. And while it's propbably for your
customer's private use, it's not for YOUR OWN personal private use. So
while the law permits the owner of the recording to personally make a
private, non-commercial copy for his own use, an audio duplication
business is doing just the opposite of that - making commercial,
copies for sale to the public. The fact that the customer is bringing
in the source recording instead of the duplicator obtaining it himself
on the open market is irrelevant.

Ah, so you "rent" the gear to your customer and say, "Yes, come in and I'll
show you which button to press on my gear."

Regards,

Ty

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Steve House[_2_]]

Kind of like if I took some of your published articles in to Kinko's
they wouldn't copy them for me but no one would stop me from doing it
myself with the coin operated copy machine that's over by their front
window. Sure wish there was some common sense in the law.


On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 08:44:19 -0400, Ty Ford
wrote:


Ah, so you "rent" the gear to your customer and say, "Yes, come in and I'll
show you which button to press on my gear."

Regards,

Ty

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Mike Rivers]

On Jul 27, 11:14 am, Mark wrote:

This sounds like an interesting line but I don't get the economics of
it.

Why would someone pay you $45 to $50 to copy an album onto CD when
they can buy a new CD for less. Almost every record is now avaialbe
on CD.

"Would pay" and "Almost" are the operative words here. Most people
would not pay that much to get an LP copied unless it was not
available on CD and they really, really wanted a CD copy badly. And I
suspect that absolutely nobody would pay $50 a piece to get a whole
wall full or LPs copied.

People expect this to be cheap, but most people who are willing to do
anything beyond drop the needle don't want to do the job, so they try
to discourage the work. A $5 copy is a good modern day substitute for
a teen ager mowing the lawn to make movie money.

[Jack[_5_]]

Steve House wrote:
Yep, that's true and I don't debate that. But the exclusion is for
"private, non-commerical" copying, meaning that it's legal for you to
personally make a copy of a CD you own so you can take it with you in
the car without risklng loss of your original. But when you are in
the business of making copies, you are not making "private,
non-commercial copies." Just the opposite, you are most definitely
making copies for commercial sale and profit, the very definition of
what a commercial copy would be. And while it's propbably for your
customer's private use, it's not for YOUR OWN personal private use. So
while the law permits the owner of the recording to personally make a
private, non-commercial copy for his own use, an audio duplication
business is doing just the opposite of that - making commercial,
copies for sale to the public. The fact that the customer is bringing
in the source recording instead of the duplicator obtaining it himself
on the open market is irrelevant.

What if you provided the equipment and let the customer lower the needle?




On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:49:35 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

"Steve House" wrote ...
Yet the notion that it actually is copyright infringment to make a
copy of a copyrighted work for a third party in return for a fee for
doing so is exactly the basis on the Kinko's decision that I and Ty
have referred to.
But copying *AUDIO* material for non-commercial, private use
was *EXPLICITLY PERMITTED* by the "Audio Home Recording
Act" of the US Congress in 1992. There is no equivalent for
making copies of photos from magazines, etc. etc. etc. that
I am aware of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act

Note that debate continues whether the subsequent DMCA
(Digital Millenium Copyright Act) of 1998 takes away this
right.

[Mike Rivers]

On Jul 28, 9:52 am, Steve House filmmaker at cogeco dot ca wrote:
Kind of like if I took some of your published articles in to Kinko's
they wouldn't copy them for me but no one would stop me from doing it
myself with the coin operated copy machine that's over by their front
window. Sure wish there was some common sense in the law.

The fact that nobody would stop you from copying it yourself doesn't
mean that it's any more legal. Actually, there are legitimate and
legal uses for a copy and they're specified in the (US, I guess I have
to say) copy right law. Thing is that Kinko's doesn't want to risk
being involved in a lawsuit so they instruct the employees to turn
down work that's questionable. If you asked them to copy a few
selected pages, they'd do it, but not the whole book. They may or may
not copy a whole article from a magazine.

I do know that there are "mystery shoppers" who bring projects to
Kinko's that would represent copyright violations if reproduced. This
is why they're on their toes there. I've heard people in the copy shop
at my local Kinko's talk about them They can usually spot them because
of the kind of job that's requested, but they don't take chances.

[William Sommerwerck]

If it's legal for the owner to copy a work -- strictly for their own use --
why is not legal for someone else to do the work for said owner, and be paid
for the service?

If a magazine asked me to photograph a copyrighted painting -- "American
Gothic", say -- for inclusion in their magazine, what would be illegal or
immoral about the magazine paying me for my work?

[Steve House[_2_]]

Beats me. All I know is the courts don't usually take too kindly to
people trying creative workarounds (or creative rationalizations) to
get around the law.


On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:58:17 GMT, Jack wrote:

Steve House wrote:
Yep, that's true and I don't debate that. But the exclusion is for
"private, non-commerical" copying, meaning that it's legal for you to
personally make a copy of a CD you own so you can take it with you in
the car without risklng loss of your original. But when you are in
the business of making copies, you are not making "private,
non-commercial copies." Just the opposite, you are most definitely
making copies for commercial sale and profit, the very definition of
what a commercial copy would be. And while it's propbably for your
customer's private use, it's not for YOUR OWN personal private use. So
while the law permits the owner of the recording to personally make a
private, non-commercial copy for his own use, an audio duplication
business is doing just the opposite of that - making commercial,
copies for sale to the public. The fact that the customer is bringing
in the source recording instead of the duplicator obtaining it himself
on the open market is irrelevant.

What if you provided the equipment and let the customer lower the needle?




On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:49:35 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

"Steve House" wrote ...
Yet the notion that it actually is copyright infringment to make a
copy of a copyrighted work for a third party in return for a fee for
doing so is exactly the basis on the Kinko's decision that I and Ty
have referred to.
But copying *AUDIO* material for non-commercial, private use
was *EXPLICITLY PERMITTED* by the "Audio Home Recording
Act" of the US Congress in 1992. There is no equivalent for
making copies of photos from magazines, etc. etc. etc. that
I am aware of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act

Note that debate continues whether the subsequent DMCA
(Digital Millenium Copyright Act) of 1998 takes away this
right.

[Steve House[_2_]]

Depends on whether you are an employee or an independent vendor. If
you're an employee, the burden is on them. But if you're an
independent vendor, you have made a copy of a copyrighted work and
sold the copy to another party.

"American Gothic" may be in the public domain by now. It was first
exhibited in 1930 and I don't know offhand the copyright lifespan that
would apply to it. If it is in the public domain, using that work as
an example gets more interesting - if you photograph the original
painting for your client you're probably completely legal. But if you
copy someone else's original photograph of the painting such as
reproduced on the Art Institute of Chicago web site, you have probably
violated that photographer's copyright to his image. Go figure! Or
for music, Beethoven's 9th is certainly in the public domain. But a
recently published conductor's score of a particular arrangement of
"Ode To Joy" is still going to be copyright.


On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 07:45:30 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

If it's legal for the owner to copy a work -- strictly for their own use --
why is not legal for someone else to do the work for said owner, and be paid
for the service?

If a magazine asked me to photograph a copyrighted painting -- "American
Gothic", say -- for inclusion in their magazine, what would be illegal or
immoral about the magazine paying me for my work?

[William Sommerwerck]

Depends on whether you are an employee or an independent
vendor. If you're an employee, the burden is on them. But if
you're an independent vendor, you have made a copy of a
copyrighted work and sold the copy to another party.

But I haven't sold the copy -- I've sold my services in making the copy. In
this particular case, it's assumed the magazine has obtained the right to
print the copyrighted work. (I should have made that clear.)