Re: [abcusers] Copyright Issues addressed (fwd)

2004-07-24 Thread Jon Freeman
From: "Richard Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > pushing on uk.music.folk unless I misunderstand him.> > > I was trying to remember what it was that would make session > playing illegal. As Richard Robinson said, it's probably best not exporting BUT I'll take the view that means not exporting on a p

Re: [abcusers] Copyright Issues addressed (fwd)

2004-07-23 Thread John Chambers
Michael Ellis wrote: | | Looks like ASCAP got shamed into backing off. BTW, this is a rather old | story... | Cheers, | Mike Ellis | | Copyright 1996 The Washington Post | | ASCAP Changes Its Tune; Never Intended to Collect Fees for Scouts' | Campfire Songs, Group Says ... Meanwhile, there are a

Re: [abcusers] Copyright Issues addressed (fwd)

2004-07-23 Thread Stephen Kellett
Anyone heard of the INDUCE act? Well just so happens the latest installment of this exceptionally dim-witted, ill-thought out, mean minded and mean-spirited saga is showing on Slashdot. http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/07/23/1742259.shtml?tid=103&tid=141&tid=12 3 If you think what is current copyr

Re: [abcusers] Copyright Issues addressed (fwd)

2004-07-23 Thread Stephen Kellett
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Chambers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes | Mind you, its the exact same mindset that Dan Plews was pushing on | uk.music.folk unless I misunderstand him. So can you enlighten us on that story? I'll keep it short: PRS thinks sessions should be licensed. So do some pr

Re: [abcusers] Copyright Issues addressed (fwd)

2004-07-23 Thread Chuck Boody
For one fictionalized take on all of this read the "Song Killer Saga" by Elizabeth Ann Scarborough. The premise is that the devil has realized he can only control the world if he eradicates the music of the people, and one of his solutions to this problem is an "expanded" ASCAP/BMI licensing s

Re: [abcusers] Copyright Issues addressed (fwd)

2004-07-23 Thread Michael Ellis
Looks like ASCAP got shamed into backing off.  BTW, this is a rather old story... Cheers, Mike Ellis Copyright 1996 The Washington Post ASCAP Changes Its Tune; Never Intended to Collect Fees for Scouts' Campfire Songs, Group Says By Ken Ringle Reeling from the worst public relations disaster

Re: [abcusers] Copyright Issues addressed (fwd)

2004-07-23 Thread John Chambers
Stephen Kellett komments: | In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Chambers | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes | >(A lot of the readers here probably already know this story. Note that the | >Girl Scouts caved on this one; they are paying an annual license fee so that | >the girls can sing songs around

RE: [abcusers] Copyright Issues addressed (fwd)

2004-07-23 Thread Richard Walker
I was trying to remember what it was that would make session playing illegal. To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Copyright Issues addressed (fwd)

2004-07-23 Thread Stephen Kellett
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes Are you ? You've lost me. It was tedious enough, there. Please don't export it. I know, thats why I left it at that. Stephen -- Stephen Kellett Object Media Limitedhttp://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk RSI Information:

Re: [abcusers] Copyright Issues addressed (fwd)

2004-07-23 Thread Richard Robinson
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 06:58:14PM +0100, Stephen Kellett wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Chambers > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >(A lot of the readers here probably already know this story. Note that > >the > >Girl Scouts caved on this one; they are paying an annual license fe

Re: [abcusers] Copyright Issues addressed (fwd)

2004-07-23 Thread Stephen Kellett
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Chambers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes (A lot of the readers here probably already know this story. Note that the Girl Scouts caved on this one; they are paying an annual license fee so that the girls can sing songs around a campfire.) My reaction to that is "

Re: [abcusers] Copyright Issues addressed (fwd)

2004-07-23 Thread John Chambers
Stephen Kellett writes: | In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Geoffrey Loker | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes | >> >If left up to Sonny Bono and the RIAA there would be no | >> >public domain. | | | | ...and of course you have to remember that this comes from the "Land of | the free". Yeah, but the re

Re: [abcusers] Copyright Issues addressed (fwd)

2004-07-23 Thread Geoffrey Loker
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 11:07:04 +0100, Stephen Kellett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Geoffrey Loker > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >> >If left up to Sonny Bono and the RIAA there would be no > >> >public domain. > > > > and of course you have to remember that this

Re: [abcusers] Copyright Issues addressed (fwd)

2004-07-23 Thread Stephen Kellett
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Geoffrey Loker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >If left up to Sonny Bono and the RIAA there would be no >public domain. ...and of course you have to remember that this comes from the "Land of the free". Stephen -- Stephen Kellett Object Media Limitedhttp://www.obj

Re: [abcusers] Copyright Issues addressed (fwd)

2004-07-22 Thread Geoffrey Loker
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 17:03:54 -0500, Christian M. Cepel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What does that mean? I still don't understand. > > Richard Walker wrote: > > >If left up to Sonny Bono and the RIAA there would be no > >public domain. Sonny Bono, of recording industry fame as one half of Sonn

Re: [abcusers] Copyright Issues addressed (fwd)

2004-07-22 Thread Christian M. Cepel
AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [abcusers] Copyright Issues addressed (fwd) This is groovy, but I'm a mite confused by the following... It seems contradictory to my small brain, but prolly is not Could you help me to understand? Perhaps I need to paste earlier rows as well... but thes

RE: [abcusers] Copyright Issues addressed (fwd)

2004-07-22 Thread Richard Walker
If left up to Sonny Bono and the RIAA there would be no public domain. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian M. Cepel Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 10:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [abcusers] Copyright Issues addressed (fwd

Re: [abcusers] Copyright Issues addressed (fwd)

2004-07-22 Thread Christian M. Cepel
This is groovy, but I'm a mite confused by the following... It seems contradictory to my small brain, but prolly is not Could you help me to understand? Perhaps I need to paste earlier rows as well... but these were the ones that troubled me. Unpublished works created before 1978 that w

[abcusers] Copyright Issues addressed (fwd)

2004-07-22 Thread I. Oppenheim
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 09:00:02 -0400 From: George Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: World music from a Jewish slant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Copyright Issues addressed Pardon the cross-listing but since questions about copyright come up frequently on thi