Copyright Information Thread - Know the Laws

[ampnation]

In 1998 the Supreme Court ruled that copyright holders could not restrict the importation of legally acquired materials from overseas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_King_v._L'anza So I guess it would make a site like allofmp3 technically legal to use for Americans.

Can't get to the full court decision easily atm but that sounds like the case involving college textbooks. In the allofmp3 case, I would think buying in Russia then bringing those songs to the US would be legal but MAYBE buying them while you are physically in the US would be different. Sometimes little stuff like that can make q difference.

I remember analyzing a burglary case where the distinction was about whether or not a part of the perp's body had crossed the imaginary line/plane constituting the boundary, beyond which was considered "inside." If just the tip of his nose was past that line, and the other elements were met, it was burglary.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

[djAj90]

If I was going to become a mobile dj when i start on my own,i'd consider going to moscow for a week to download a million songs onto a few 2TB hard-drives. But the fact that it would cost at least $1345,plus visa fee etc. I could get nearly 3,000 songs from emusic.com which is probably way more then I need for my sets,means that its to much of a effort.

[djAj90]

What about getting music from a country where all u.s. copyrights have been suspended and that all WTO approved the resolution including the United States? https://torrentfreak.com/antiguas-le...zation-130128/ And that you go to that country to download all the music just to be double sure for the gray market issue that may arise?

[DJAkash]

So, if I make a remix and use samples from songs and not play songs for more than a chorus. that is still illegal?

[thehadgi]

What about getting music from a country where all u.s. copyrights have been suspended and that all WTO approved the resolution including the United States? https://torrentfreak.com/antiguas-le...zation-130128/ And that you go to that country to download all the music just to be double sure for the gray market issue that may arise?

I researched it. At the moment negotiations are being held with the US and Antigua regarding Antigua's decision to put sanctions, approved by the WTO, in place against the US. The approved sanctions include 'lawful suspension of US intellectual property rights'. It was suggested that Antigua is pondering setting up a site, allowing consumers (does not specify who that includes) to download (or possibly pay for) media that is intellectually copyrighted by the US. Without sending any royalties to US copyright holders.

The issue started with the US imposing restrictions on access to remote gambling, by US citizens, provided by online gambling services in Antigua. Antigua claims these restrictions have severely hurt their economy financially and employment-wise. There were negotiations, and a settlement led to the US paying $500k to Antigua, while Antigua puts the actual losses around $3 billion. So Antigua brought it up again. The WTO held a tribunal, and decided that negotiations in good faith between the good countries should continue until a fair resolution was reached; if not, it would provide approval for Antigua to impose a suspension of intellectual property rights (ie, Antigua not paying the US royalties on anything intellectually copyrighted) as a remedy to earn back revenue lost from the gambling restrictions.

Now Antigua is pushing the WTO to formally approve the sanctions against the US, as they have NOT yet done so. in the meantime Antigua states it hope negotiations will work out, but it's not looking like the US is going to cave. So to repeat: the WTO still has to formally approve these sanctions.

As for buying music or media in Antigua (and Barbuda, I've been forgetting to include them) that is copyrighted in the US, after Antigua decides to 'lawfully suspend' property rights...

This is pretty much a theoretical discussion. First, no one would ever go to another country for the sole purpose of buying large quantities of music for the sake of a slightly lower price (assuming someone couldn't purchase the media from Antigua's site from the US). Second, even if you did, there's really no way of enforcing that policy, as no one ever submits to a 'music' screening at the airport to make sure all media was legally purchased by US standards. Third... I don't have a third.

To sum it up: I don't see the US smiling on music bought from Antigua or any other place where proper royalties were paid to the copyright holder. The US can and does make items that are legal in other countries, illegal here at home. Just because the WTO approves Antigua to do something, doesnt mean the US has to allow another country's 'goods' to be legally recognized as legal in its own borders. Sure, maybe you can buy it in/from Antigua, but still it's theoretical because no one would ever check. Only REAL consequence I can see would be that instead of content creators not being reimbursed for their work because someone pirated their product without paying anyone for it, now they STILL aren't getting reimbursed, and that money is going to Antigua's government.

[thehadgi]

So, if I make a remix and use samples from songs and not play songs for more than a chorus. that is still illegal?

Yes. Length, by itself, having anything to do with legality of sampling is a myth

[Nebula]

Great thread thehadgi! Definitely should be stickied.

It looks like you already put a lot of work into this so I won't be offended in the least if you don't want to, but could you possibly clarify some of the copyright laws pertaining to subscription record pools (DJ City, ZipDJ, etc.) and the use of edits/redrums/remixes obtained through them?

Taken from the DJ City Copyright Terms of Use:

Notwithstanding the foregoing, you shall be allowed to reasonably edit, re-mix, blend, mash-up, add intros/outros, compile and create derivative works of the Content and perform the Content online (including on mobile and tablet platforms) and offline in customary media (i.e., spinning at clubs/radio, mixtapes/CDs, mixshows, blogs, social media, audience-driven events, etc.), solely for promotional and non-commercial personal/professional use purposes, and with proper credit given to the Content Providers and underlying performers, producers, songwriters.

This makes it sound like making your own edits/mashups/remixes and recording mixes with these tracks and then posting them online is acceptable as long as it's promotional and you're not making any money off of it. Am I wrong?

EDIT: Here's the link to the DJ City Terms of Use Page: http://www.djcity.com/t-termsofuse.aspx
Copyright Policy is section 7.

[thehadgi]

^^Hm ok ill try to do some research tmrw, but I feel that in the majority of cases you'll be fine when using those tracks/possible edits at clubs and soundcloud/mixcloud sites, since they are being used for 'promotional' purposes. I'm not an expert on DJ pool sites, so maybe someone else can chime in, but I think in 'reality' you should be fine; if you get an infringement notice from a site you'll just have to comply, but I don't think you'll really need to worry about a lawsuit. At least there is no precedent I'm aware of for a lawsuit against a DJ using a record pool. As always, it's murky waters, but I'd just utilize your best judgement and add 'promotional purposes' to mixes posted online, and that's the best you can do at this point I believe. As stated before, an infringement notice is an infringement notice; just comply and move on, and try to make sure you are utilizing sites that appear to be popular and paying royalties properly (ie, maybe avoid sites located in Russia and Eastern Europe lol)

Ill try to dig up what I can, but that's what I'd guess for the time being.

[thehadgi]

'Fair Use', according to YouTube (included for those interested in why uploads to YT are blocked, etc)

http://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/fair-use.html

What is fair use?

In many countries, certain uses of copyright-protected works do not infringe the copyright owner’s rights. For example, in the United States, copyright rights are limited by the doctrine of “fair use,” under which certain uses of copyrighted material for criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research may be considered fair. U.S. judges determine whether a fair use defense is valid according to four factors, which we’ve listed below for educational purposes. In some other countries, there is a similar concept called "fair dealing" that may be applied differently.
Remember, it is your responsibility to understand the relevant law and whether it protects the use you have in mind. If you plan to use copyrighted material you didn’t create, we'd strongly advise you to take legal advice first. YouTube cannot provide legal advice or make legal determinations.
The four factors of fair use:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes

Courts typically focus on whether the use is “transformative.” That is, whether it adds new expression or meaning to the original, or whether it merely copies from the original.
2. The nature of the copyrighted work

Using material from primarily factual works is more likely to be fair than using purely fictional works.
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole

Borrowing small bits of material from an original work is more likely to be considered fair use than borrowing large portions. However, even a small taking may weigh against fair use in some situations if it constitutes the “heart” of the work.
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

Uses that harm the copyright owner’s ability to profit from his or her original work are less likely to be fair uses. Courts have sometimes made an exception under this factor in cases involving parodies.

Some other FAQ page by youtube

http://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/faq.html

[DJ Darkmero]

Good thread that actually answers my questions. The one thing I am curious about still is, mainly out of curiosity how would you go about taking a podcast that is remixed that is NOT your work and getting the O.K to put it up publically say on Soundcloud? Is there anyway you can get permission from the Artist? Or is thy far too much work to be worth it? Sorry if this answer was already given I may have missed it. I could see getting permission from each and every DJ in a podcast you mixed to be quite a challenge if not impossible. Long story short, I'm curious as to how Pro DJ's can make podcasts with other people's work and be just fine where people like us can't. Seems kind of discriminatory but I see the reasoning. I am not doing it for money, only because I love it and what to get the DJ's music out there for people to hear. Sorry this is so long and also sorry if this should have been posted in a different thread.