On 02/12/2013 09:32 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
There is a difference between walking down the street whistling a tune,
vs. recording a song for sale, or performing a song, especially for
profit (although, presumably the composer would be a member of a
"performing arts society" such as BMI or ASCAP, so a performance would
be 'licensed' as long as the venue is a member of those societies).
As for listening to a song being recorded, it's the same. Consider the
case of a studio musician who is hired to play on a song which is being
recorded. He can play the riffs to that song at home. He can whistle
them while he drives around. What he can not do is record the song as
his own and release it, without paying royalties (licensing fee).
You seem to think that a copyright prevents someone from whistling a
song while they walk, singing a song while they shower, or ponder the
song in their head while they daydream, and this is simply not the
case. A copyright prevents you from recording a song, or creating sheet
music, and providing copies to others. The "right of copying" remains
with the author/composer.
My bands, CD projects, music, news, and pictures:
My blog, with commentary on a variety of things, including audio,
mixing, equipment, etc, is at:
Staat heißt das kälteste aller kalten Ungeheuer. Kalt lügt es auch;
und diese Lüge kriecht aus seinem Munde: 'Ich, der Staat, bin das Volk.'
- [Friedrich Nietzsche]
Linux-audio-user mailing list