Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!decvax!decwrl!rhea!akov68!boyajian
From: boyajian@akov68.DEC
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: re: Copyright Violations
Message-ID: <6284@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 17-Mar-84 06:30:31 EST
Article-I.D.: decwrl.6284
Posted: Sat Mar 17 06:30:31 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 18-Mar-84 08:04:33 EST
Organization: DEC Engineering Network
Lines: 41


	While I don't necessarily condone copyright violations, there are some
things to consider when talking about reproducing song lyrics. Strictly speak-
ing, yes, it *is* violating Weird Al's copyright for someone to reproduce the
lyrics for "Eat It" (let's name names, OK?). I'm not sure that it doesn't come
under "fair use", though, just as say, my playing "Landslide" at a music party
doesn't in any practical sense violate Stevie Nicks's copyright on *that* song.
While the law is there to protect the copyright holder under any conditions, I
think in practice, it's used only when the copyright holder stands to take some
financial loss from the unauthorized reproduction.
	Printed song lyrics are not something that the copyright holder general-
ly puts out for sale (there are the music sheets, but the principal attraction
to them is the *music*, not the lyrics), so we netters aren't really getting
anything for free that we might otherwise have to pay the copyright holder for.
Remember, the only thing that we would theoretically pay for in this example,
is a copy of the *record* or the *music sheet*, not just the printed lyrics.
If anything, printing the lyrics might *generate* financial income for the CH,
since there might be some people out there who, amused by what they read, would
go out and, God forbid!, buy a copy of the record.
	To be honest, I hardly think that the "stealing a painting from a mu-
seum" example is a proper analogy. A more accurate (though still not quite on
the button) analogy would be the taping of television programs or cable movies
for later viewings, which the Supreme Court recently decided was "fair use",
if done for private home viewing and not to make a profit therefrom.
	I don't want to suggest, by the above, that copyright laws should be
ignored, but that some reasonable thinking has be done before crying "Foul!"
Before accusing anyone of criminal activities, think about the intent behind
them and what kind of effects will come about as a result.
	Please, no flames --- I'm not saying that "I'm right and you're
wrong, nyahnyahnyahnyahnyah". I'm just tossing out something to think about.


				  --- jayembee
				      (Jerry Boyajian, DEC Maynard)
				UUCP: (decvax!decwrl!rhea!akov68!boyajian)

PS: One thing I think Tim is definitely correct in pointing out, though, is
    it certainly is possible that a site could held responsible for viola-
    tions such as Tim describes, and that people should be more careful when
    submitting possibly legally-questionable material.