Re: ASCAP sues the Girl Scouts -Reply

> From: Julia Taylor <JLTaylor at videodiscovery.com>
> A very interesting issue. Scary really.

I'm scared. That's why I'm bringing it up.

> I don't know much about this, but I thought
> that copyright was an issue only where
> money was changing hands. How can
> filkers, or anyone using music for their own
> entertainment, be asked for money if they're
> not making any? Is the justification in the
> girl scouts case because they are paying
> for the summer camps?

As I understand this, the logic is that by performing their song you are doing the same thing as making a full copy of it. The copyright laws DO NOT seem to distinguish whether the copy made money or not. Otherwise, you could copy any book at Kinko's. The idea is that if you own the copyright to a work you are entitled to compensation for EVERY copy of your work. This means that filk circles (which qualify as performances under the "outside immediate family and usual associates" clause) constitute copies for which the writer of the tune is entitled to compensation.

> I see how could be an issue at cons, since
> in theory, you must pay for the con to
> attend the filk circle.
>
> I fail to see how a FREE gathering in a
> private home could be construed by ASCAP
> as copyright infringement just because it
> was announced. Are they going to sue
> families for singing Happy Birthday at big
> parties because they are announced on the
> family mailing list? I see no technical
> distinction.

Yep... and by the LAW, they probably could. Keep in mind that we're dealing in law, not justice or common sense. What has been done in the past allowed things like this to continue, it doesn't mean they have to let it continue. They started with the big
offenders, like cover artists, lounges, and hotels. They've been working down to smaller offenders. They may continue to ignore us for now, but they might not.

> If anyone understands these legal issues,
> I'd really like an explanation.

I also would be VERY interested if the is a lawyer in the house.

Douglas Received on 08/22/96