Question for dub cutters (legality)

[opcode66]

Exactly.

[emorritt]

Trag's information does seem to address the download issue, at least with iTunes. Others may disagree, but cutting a record for a customer to use is way different than taking a title presented by the client and burning several (or several hundred) CDs, recording on cassettes, etc. Anyone could do that. The technology, materials and skills required to produce a professional quality record are highly specialized and unless you cut many copies and your customer starts selling them, I don't see what we do as a mainstay of our businesses as being illegal. Original material, I'll make as many copies or pressings as a customer wants. Anything that I even suspect being licensed, one copy only.

[opcode66]

Again, EXACTLY!

[Steve E.]

I agree with ALL of this ethically. The problem is that the courts might not. Has anyone other than me consulted with a lawyer on this? I'd love a second opinion, especially one that that refutes the one I received.

[opcode66]

I think you would have to find an old school music industry lawyer to really get a good understanding of the legality, precedence, likelihood of a law suit and the possible defenses that could be taken. What happens in a courtroom is not precisely prescribed by the law, ordinances or procedures. Often, the opinions (and often biases) of the presiding judge as well as the quality of your defense (i.e. the money you spent on legal representation) usually determines the outcome of a trial. My 2 cents. I've been through a fairly intense law suit. This is essentially the synopsis that my legal defense explained to me. They were very very very expensive and had much experience winning cases.

[emorritt]

An interesting sidebar to all this is YouTube and other similar websites. At the college where I work, we have a TV show that airs on a local Charter access channel. While it's supervised by the Comm faculty, it is primarily student produced. Two of the shows each season consist of student music video projects they do in a class, using either still images in tertiary motion or that and a combination of animated images (no live video is allowed to tell the story). The music used comes from a variety of sources, but is current popular music. The final destination of the programs after air is YouTube. All other programs (interviews, demonstrations, etc.) never cause a problem. However, the music video shows are taken down shortly after posting because of "copyright infringement". However, after 4 - 6 months, they are available again. Go figure. That said, I would think that YouTube would be a target for many lawsuits, not only from the music industry but television and motion pictures as well, maybe even including the publishing industry. (I've seen a lot of people reading their favorite poetry, etc. with a visual of some kind.) I'm not aware of any current lawsuits against YouTube, but I'm sure there are probably many. There are so many people posting so much copyrighted material there and in other internet venues that I think because of the legal costs, bad publicity and other reasons, the lawsuits filed are carefully chosen by "the industry" versus who they think they can 1) get the most settlement from and 2) are most likely to win against. Going after small businesses and individuals who are not profiting from copyrighted material would be like trying to enforce everyone in the country to not eat ground beef. It would be impractical and ultimately impossible. When I was a teenager, we copied other's albums to cassette if we didn't want to buy the record. Or, we would make cassettes or 8 tracks to listen to in the car, even though a certain album was also available in both those formats. Some even made multiple copies for their friends. As far as the dub business goes, yes, it's probably not completely legal. But, I don't think anyone is in grave danger of a lawsuit. If we all said "no copyrighted material - at all" we'd all most likely go out of business. This is why as in a previous post, I suggested some small fee that could be paid to a publisher for format conversion, not re-release or re-issue, which is quite expensive. Is this maybe something we as a group could in some way "lobby" for, to help us be "compliant" with the music industry??

[rsimms3]

In relation to YouTube and use of copyrighted material, you attest to a statement to YouTube that you own all the material in the video being uploaded or that it meets Fair Use standards. The RIAA and MPAA troll YouTube and flag videos that they feel are violating the Fair Use clause. I once had a video on YouTube of a band doing a cover of the Supertramp song "Take The Long Way Home" removed because Supertramp felt it was infringing on their copyright. I was forced to watch a video on Fair Use and Copyright on YouTube, and was on probation for 3 months.

From YouTube:

What is fair use?

Fair use is a legal doctrine that says you can reuse copyright-protected material under certain circumstances without getting permission from the copyright owner. Check out the videos below for helpful examples of fair use.

Different countries have different rules about when it’s okay to use material without the copyright owner’s permission. For example, in the United States, works of commentary, criticism, research, teaching, or news reporting might be considered fair use. Some other countries have a similar idea called fair dealing that may work differently.
Courts analyze potential fair uses according to the facts of each specific case. You’ll probably want to get legal advice from an expert before uploading videos that contain copyright-protected material.

[tragwag]

I asked a friend who does work with music copy writing and licensing.
Again, he said it was mostly a case to case basis if the licensing company or band decides to take action.

[opcode66]

Exactly X 3

[boogievan]

I've just talked to a cutter in Blue Ball, Ohio who has done a lot of research on this, including talking to a big music industry law firm in Nashville. The bottom line is: you can cut, reverse-plate, and press anything as long as you are not the producer, since it's only the producer who is exposed (since only he or she is required to comply with the statutes). You might be made codefendant by a confused lawyer representing the plaintiff, but you will be dismissed from any suits that don't involve your own productions by all sage courts.

Please read Title 17 of the U. S. Code and also the section under Copyright Infringement of the U. C. C. Also look at the famous case, Feist v. Apollo (Records) (1961-1969) in which Sidney Feldman (disc cutter) was named codefendant in the copyright infringement case brought by Feist against Apollo (the record label) for not obtaining the compulsory license required for making "covers." {It does have to be obtained even though it's "compulsory" that it be granted.}

Although the OP was asking about dubbing (from) a master record (i.e., "sampling," if it were digitally copied), rather than cutting an original performance of a copyrighted (unoriginal to the performer and producer) work, the same principles apply... You can't do it for yourself, since you'd be the Manufacturer - but you can do it for hire, since it's not your job to seek compliance, according to the statutes and the case history...

For the purposes of the Copyright Act of 1909 (and its revision in 1976), there can be only one Manufacturer and that is not the cutter and that is not the pressing plant - it is the person who hires them... The client! Sidney Feldman and Mastertone, as a whole, were dismissed from the suit. The pressing plant (Silver Park) was never made codefendant, fwiw. Apollo (not the lacquer maker - the old record label) was fined treble damages. Also, Feist was chastised for avoiding Apollo's late attempts to make good on the mechanical royalty payments, as Feist was obviously attempting to increase its revenue through litigation. It's a mess and took a decade to unfurl.

During manufacture, unless that takes more than one month (yuk-yuk) it's technically too soon to force a Customer into complying with the Law. Why? Because Title 17 explains that the Manufacturer (i.e., the person who hires the contractors (who hires the subs, etc....)) has up to 30 days AFTER the infringing work is copied in order to start seeking licensing. So, mastering and also galvanoplasty are free and clear.

Plus, there have to be more than 10 copies made for the charges to become "criminal." Otherwise, they are only "civil," and punishment for "covers" amounts to a sort of fine for a late payment. For unauthorized use of master records (as-if "sampled), one still has 30 days for compliance and the responsible party is, again, the producer. (Make sure you are not affiliated legally with such a producer. Only work for him as an independent contractor!)

The maximum penalty for the producer of an infringing work of a cover is treble damages (3x the statutory rate). However, it's true that for more than 10 copies, if the retail value is over $2500, criminal charges take effect and the producer can be fined $250,000 per offense and go to jail for 5 years (per offense). But the disc cutter, the electroformer, and the pressing plant will be dismissed from these cases, since the Uniform Civil Code shields vendors from copyright infringement when they are making something to the customer's specifications (such as mastering and pressing an LP).

Don't be scurred. Unless you have other reasons for refusing the job but want to preclude hurt feelings, cut that side, spray it with Silver and sugar, reverse-plate the Silver onto the forming Nickel stamper, preform the stamper for the dies (and the target disc profile), and go ahead and press those vinyls. The producer is the only one who is exposed and he or she has a month to get his or her ducks in the proverbial row. So, don't make them sign something sooner than is necessary...

Pressing plants often seek warranty and indemnification since they know it will take at least a Season to get the order filled and will involve way more than 10 copies. But there's no case in history in which a plant was successfully sued for Copyright Infringement errors by their customer. U. C. C.! {Yes, vinyl, and lacquers span the continuum of goods and services.}

Want more Copyright Law trivia? How's this? For the purposes of the Copyright Act, a record (disc, tape, etc...) is not a "copy." It's a "phonorecord" of a "copy." A "copy" is merely the sheet music, itself!

- Boogie

[Dub Bull]

Uniform Civil Code automatically indemnifies the vendor of a "good" from errors of the customer in specifying customization of the good to be sold to him containing infringing work (i.e., you're hearing: "I want you to cut tightly spaced grooves, but make sure the modulation is to this master tape playback and not that..." as meaning, they gave you a possibly mystery job which seemed plausible and lawful, so you proceeded blamelessly...). The contractor can't have familiarity with all intellectual property, and, as you mention, the contractor is not the party responsible for compliance, anyway... U. C. C. also indemnifies the customer against third-party claims of infringement where the Seller specifies the qualities (and properties) of the item being sold (as is the case in most Vendor-Buyer (financial) relationships).

It is truly sudden to demand warranty before non-compliance is actionable, but if a demand of representation is phrased so that it demands present or eventual (within 30 days) compliance, at least you tried to state a position on the matter without "pressing the issue..." (legally meaningless, but possibly advantageous for "pleasing" courts, or maybe for horse-whispering Jimmy Bananas out of smashing something valuable since you clearly had no intention of making an unauthorized copy (; of his boss' music). If there can be only one manufacturer and the UCC views lacquers, matrices, and pressings as "goods," rather than (merely) "services," we are home free.

Mastering rather parallels the restaurant which sells both the goods (food ingredients heated and/or put together) and the service (chopping, dicing, slicing, heating, mixing, pouring, serving, provision of ambiance, chair seat-resistance to downward personal vectors, etc..); With cutting, you are supplying the lacquer (for resale after fabrication by stylus fu (and scribe)), plus the service of knowing your room's stereo system's sonics and room's acoustics where the gear being used is used, and the service of sweating the disc computer settings, mortgaging the cylinder, "eating" scrap, etc...

Praise Hymn Daily, bruh'
Father José

[platesrecords]

Great topic guys, I needed some clarification on the laws around cutting certain dubs for people.

I'm new to the cutting game but have a specific case id like to share and get advice on:

Lots of DJs now looking to get cut rare and now pricey early jungle and hardcore records (93-94) that cost a bomb now to pick up on a 12".

Aside from discussion of hitting up artists etc...which I think is the best way, what do people think on this? A lot, like me are the younger generation who weren't old enough or even alive when the records were released and now they are so unaffordable. For that reason many of the tunes aren't getting played out much and it's a shame. I expect I will only cut with written permission from the artist (and or label?) but thinking of also maybe a disclaimer to sign to say it will only be for" home use" to cover ourselves. It is up to the dj to decide if they want to play it out then I guess;) thanks, nick

[Maistrow]

Contact the Harry Fox Agency in New York City.
They will issue you a license to use the song.
It is a small fee and easy to do.
Then you will be legal and have clearance to use the song.
I do this with my clients when they want to use someones music for there project.

[THEVICTROLAGUY]

as to being legal, i record custom cylinders, copy original cylinders as well as make custom recordings of anything someone wants. my sources are on line archives but for modern music 99% of the time i go to you tube, find the song and download it as an mp3 and do the transfer. you tube is claiming copyright on EVERY SONG EVER WRITTEN, from the star spangled banner to recordings made in the 1880's and post a commercial on all of the videos featuring any of the songs they claim copyright to. considering they are collecting illegally on songs they do not own have not the royalties been paid for anything i do happen to use from you tube ? also, i advertise custom cylinder recordings one bay, i sell the blank cylinder, the cost is the same with or without a recording. so the person is buying the blank, what they want me to put on it is there business.

while cylinder recordings are esoteric in the extreme there are hundreds of thousands of people around the world with cylinder phonographs, who would police the recordings ? i could put a Beatles cylinder on ebay, ebay wont care it is not there business to enforce copyright laws. i seriously doubt anyone making a single disc recording of anything for anyone is going to raise eyebrows anywhere. its impossible to enforce a copyright law on a single recording, even if it has been sold, your customer bought a blank disc and paid for your ability to transfer a song he wanted to it for his own use. yes on a bad day a cop will give you a ticket for spitting on the sidewalk, but in the real world when it comes right down to it, no one is really going to care. the 2 cents they lost from the sale will cost a hundred thousand to prosecute, even if they win, they have gained nothing. in my youth i made 4 and 8 track bootleg tapes as did hundreds of others and in many cases the bootleg tapes were far better in quality than anything the factory put out. at the height of the 8 track craze most of my friends had 8 track recorders, and transferred lots of LPs to 8 track for friends, and in the old days who didnt record a cassette of an album for use in the car ? i just dont see it being an issue unless you begin making copies of albums for sale or faking rare original disc recordings. i really doubt if the powers that be would have the time or the interest to bother with a single lathe cut disc, or cylinder for that matter.

there is a major dispute over copyright on the online archives, the university of California @ Santa Barbara has one of the largest cylinder archives in the world and offers free mp3 downloads. the national jukebox operated by the library of congress allows you to listen to anything in the library of congress database but you cant download it. on you tube they have claimed copyright on cylinders that were recorded in 1888 which i disputed AND LOST !!! there is no copyright law in the u.s. that covers a recording made 127 years ago and yet the copyright claim was upheld on you tube and they posted a commercial on the video. seems to me anything i may have owed in copyright fees has been more than paid for.

just as an interesting side note, when you dispute a copyright claim on you tube it is not reviewed by you tube, it is reviewed BY THE COMPANY CLAIMING COPYRIGHT, you lose every time. if they can make a profit off of a song they do not own, why cant we ????

[opcode66]

I have plenty of videos that received that warning. Never once has the license owner contacted me and demanded the video removed. Most of my Project Bladerunner videos have been flagged since I am using rather big names as test cut program material.