Discussion:
What is the name of your state? Illinois, but i'd like to know reasoning behind general US law....not just illinois law
1. Why is it legal to tape off of the radio?
2. Why is it legal to tape off of the television?
3. If a song is rearranged and posted on the internet in its rearranged form, is it illegal to download it in mp3 or midi form with only the consent of the arranger? Who has the copyright for the rearrangement?
4. Same for rearranged sheet music?
5. Is making a photocopy of a few pages from a book illegal?
I would really appreciate some answers. I am very curious to know.
Answer:
1. Why is it legal to tape off of the radio? Because the law says so. Google "audio home recording act", and read here: .
2. Why is it legal to tape off of the television? Because the law says so. See Sony v. Universal Studios 464 U.S. 417 (1984), .
The general idea is that copyright is generally -- but not always -- primarily concerned with the commercial market for the copyrighted work, and therefore since private, noncommerical use is unlikely to have a significant impact on the commercial market for the goods, why not make certain things that would technically be infringing legal for private use? Read the Sony v. Universal decision (the "Betamax case") for more insight into this line of reasoning.
3. If a song is rearranged and posted on the internet in its rearranged form, is it illegal to download it in mp3 or midi form with only the consent of the arranger? Who has the copyright for the rearrangement? One of the enumerated rights in 17 U.S.C. 106 is the right for the copyright holder to control the creation of "derivative works." Unless the person who rearanged the song had authorization from the copyright holder to create such a "derivative work," then the derivative work itself is infringing the copyright of the original copyright owner, and any unauthorized reproduction or distribution of the work is also infrining. So yes, it would be illegal to download, unless you had permission from BOTH the creator of the rearrangement AND the copyright owner of the original work.
Interestingly enough, the person who rearranged the song would very likely have a copyright in the newly-created derivative work -- however, that copyright would NOT give him the right to do anything with his work, since he doesn't have permission to use the underlying work. However, once he did obtain permission, then he could enforce his copyright or license his copyright just like any other copyright holder.
4. Same for rearranged sheet music? Yes.
5. Is making a photocopy of a few pages from a book illegal? Sometimes. Whether or not such a reproduction would be "illegal" will depend on whether or not the use of the work is a "fair use" or not. Determining "fair use" requires a "balancing" of the four factors listed in 17 U.S.C. 107; however, the factors are not weighted equally, and the most important of the four factors is the impact on the commerical market for the work. See Harper & Row v. Nation Eenterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985); Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994).
Oftentimes, short passages or excerpts are found to be a "fair use" and therefore noninfringing; however, in the Harper-Row case, even the use of a small part of a longer work was found to NOT be a "fair use" when the "small part" was the "heart" of the longer work.
In other words, there is no "bright-line" rule that says when a photocopying of a portion of a book is legal and when it is not -- it all depends on all of the relevant facts of the situation.
Answer:
Could you give me an explanation behind the rationale for the law for my first and second questions? Like...does it have something to do with the fact that advertisements are present on radio and TV so that the materials have been paid for to the degree that makes it ok with the producer/artist for me to tape/record them?
Answer:
Could you give me an explanation behind the rationale for the law for my first and second questions? Like...does it have something to do with the fact that advertisements are present on radio and TV so that the materials have been paid for to the degree that makes it ok with the producer/artist for me to tape/record them? Read Sony v. Universal Studios 464 U.S. 417 (1984), .
Answer:
Ok, so I understand that in the sony case, it was determined that TV was getting a larger audience due to timeshifting and such. What is the argument used for radio?
Answer:
Ok, so I understand that in the sony case, it was determined that TV was getting a larger audience due to timeshifting and such. What is the argument used for radio?
Google "audio home recording act" and read up on some of the congressional discussions and background behind the act.
Answer:
ok....so taping off of the radio is legal because of the royalty fund created to compensate artists for the proposed value they are losing by allowing audio recording devices to exist....new question now....
Is there a royalty fund for video products like the AHRA created for audio products? Like, does a portion of my VCR payment or DVD-R discs go to some sort of royalty fund?