Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: copying CD's and the law
Message-ID: <3087@alice.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 9-Nov-84 12:55:48 EST
Article-I.D.: alice.3087
Posted: Fri Nov  9 12:55:48 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 10-Nov-84 09:31:25 EST
References: <268@cubsvax.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 37

Peter Shenkin claims that non-commercial copying of copyrighted
material is legal.  I'm afraid I must disagree.

A number of years ago, Computing Surveys wrote a long article
about the then-new copyright law.  To give an idea of how stringent
the law is, it gave the following example:

	The chorus director of a church bought copies of
	a book of hymns for use by his chorus.  While rehearsing
	for a performance, he realized that the arrangements in
	this book were not well suited for his particular
	singers, so he re-arranged one of the hymns and
	used this re-arrangement in the performance.

	Subsequently, he sent a letter to the publisher of
	the book telling them that he had done this new
	arrangement and offering to give it to them
	in case they wanted to publish it in a subsequent
	edition of the book.

	The publisher responded by suing him for copyright
	infringement.  They won.

The illegal activity in this case was in making a new arrangement
of the copyrighted music in the book.  An arrangement or translation
is considered a copy.

It did not matter that no commercial use was made of the copy.

It did not matter that no photocopies were made of the book.

It did not matter that the chorus director offered to GIVE this
copy to the original copyright holder.

All that mattered was that a copy was made of copyrighted
material without permission of the copyright holder.