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!bellcore!petrus!scherzo!allegra!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.legal
Subject: Re: query on music copyright
Message-ID: <4878@alice.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 24-Jan-86 23:52:23 EST
Article-I.D.: alice.4878
Posted: Fri Jan 24 23:52:23 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 25-Jan-86 09:42:42 EST
References: <60@valid.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 9
Xref: watmath net.religion:9031 net.legal:2788

> 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.

Sorry, my mistake.  But I don't think you need to be paid for
performing a copyrighted work in public in order to have to get
permission from the copyright holder.  Can you give me evidence
to the contrary?