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.religion,net.legal
Subject: Re: query on music copyright
Message-ID: <4857@alice.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 22-Jan-86 16:56:16 EST
Article-I.D.: alice.4857
Posted: Wed Jan 22 16:56:16 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 23-Jan-86 21:45:44 EST
References: <42@valid.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 19
Xref: watmath net.religion:8996 net.legal:2769

> No, you don't have to pay the author unless you yourself are receiving money
> for performing the work.  The author gets a share of the money you receive
> for performing the work (which is called a royalty).

What is your evidence for this?  The articles I have read about copyright
law all say that it makes no difference whether you sell copies of a thing
or not -- the illegal activity is making the copy, regardless of the
use to which you put it.  Public performance of a work, regardless of
whether it is for profit or not, is making a copy.

> I myself perform music in church quite frequently, and whenever possible I
> try to use originals instead of photocopies.  But if I already own a copy
> and I photocopy it to make page-turning easier or some other reason, do you
> think it's proper to prosecute me for it?

That's really up to the copyright holder.  Suppose you copy a work
to make page-turning easier and then you sell the copies afterwards?
Remember that the copyright holder can't stop you from selling the
copies once you've made them, but can stop you from making them.