R: [Rumori] Beatallica update

[Praemedia]

Compulsory licenses cannot be denied. No permission is
needed (only payment) and the original writer (or
current copyright holder) has no say in the final
product or in the price that has to be paid. There are
no qualifiers on the 'Compulsory'.

lance

--- kembrew mcleod <kembrew at kembrew.com> wrote:
> the trouble with the statutory or compulsory license
> is that it 
> implicitly allows you to cover a song without asking
> for permission -- 
> AS LONG AS YOU DON'T ALTER IT SIGNIFICANTLY,
> particularly the lyrics, 
> but also the melody.
> 
> what counts as altering is muddy, which is where the
> chilling effects 
> come in. so, for instance, Guthrie's copyright
> holder, TRO, regularly 
> denies permission to recording artists who want to
> update or alter his 
> folk songs.
> 
> best,
> 
> kembrew
> 
> On Mar 4, 2005, at 11:33 AM, illegal art wrote:
> 
> > I've been thinking about this angle as well. 
> Because covering a song 
> > is a
> > mechanical license, it is easy to obtain and I
> think you only pay 
> > based on
> > sales.
> >
> > Someone must know more about this than I do.  What
> are the 
> > llimitations on
> > what can be considered a cover?  As long as it
> fits their definition 
> > of a
> > cover, can they deny you the license?
> >
> > Philo
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Nicola Battista wrote:
> >
> >> David, please show this to your lawyers (from the
> Harry Fox Agency
> >> website):
> >>
> >>
>
http://www.harryfox.com/public/infoFAQDigitalLicensing.jsp
> >>
> >> "Oh no! I offered a download of me performing a
> cover on my website. 
> >> Is
> >> it too late for me to pay now?"
> >>
> >> "You should immediately remove the file until it
> is properly licensed.
> >> Once it is, you can make retroactive payments for
> the limited time 
> >> that
> >> it was up illegally."
> >>
> >> While I still think there is the "parody" issue
> in this case, suppose
> >> that we consider the songs simply as medleys of
> Beatles and Metallica.
> >>
> >> I think the "injury" this publisher had was
> ridiculous. But if the 
> >> above
> >> part is true, I think one should go for a HFA
> license and pay
> >> retroactively (probably a few hundreds of $) and
> then the "injury" 
> >> would
> >> disappear completely... avoiding bigger fees for
> copyright 
> >> infringments.
> >>
> >> see also:
> >>
>
http://www.harryfox.com/public/licenseeServicesDigital.jsp
> >>
> http://www.harryfox.com/docs/newMediaApplication.pdf
> >>
> >> ...this of course could be considered as a "last
> chance" thing.
> >>
> >> Nicola DjB
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Rumori mailing list
> >> Rumori at detritus.net
> >> http://detritus.net/mailman/listinfo/rumori
> >> older archives:
> http://detritus.net/contact/rumori/
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rumori mailing list
> > Rumori at detritus.net
> > http://detritus.net/mailman/listinfo/rumori
> > older archives:
> http://detritus.net/contact/rumori/
> >
> >
> ..................................
> http://kembrew.com
> ***************************
> kembrew mcleod
> assistant professor
> department of communication studies
> university of iowa
> 
> home contact info:
> 1037 e. washington st.
> iowa city, ia 52240
> kembrew-mcleod at uiowa.edu
> 319-621-4620
> 
> "We are going to show a new side of him. The Hoff
> will surprise people 
> with his rap skills." - Ice T, about David
> Hasselhoff's upcoming 
> hip-hop album, which the rap veteran is producing.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rumori mailing list
> Rumori at detritus.net
> http://detritus.net/mailman/listinfo/rumori
> older archives: http://detritus.net/contact/rumori/
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com