Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site valid.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!pesnta!valid!pete
From: pete@valid.UUCP (Pete Zakel)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.legal
Subject: Re: query on music copyright
Message-ID: <60@valid.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 23-Jan-86 21:01:47 EST
Article-I.D.: valid.60
Posted: Thu Jan 23 21:01:47 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 25-Jan-86 08:15:30 EST
References: <42@valid.UUCP> <4857@alice.UUCP>
Organization: Valid Logic, San Jose, CA
Lines: 17
Xref: watmath net.religion:9022 net.legal:2784

> > 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.
> 

That statement was about performance royalties, not copyright.  Public
performance is NOT making a copy.  Copyright refers to making a physical
copy of the work.  And royalties, as mentioned in another reply, don't
come from profit.  They are off the top.

-Pete Zakel (..!{hplabs,amd,pyramid,ihnp4}!pesnta!valid!pete)