Re: Re: Legalities

[Dave Phillips <dlphillips@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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