R: [Rumori] Beatallica update

[illegal art]

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/
>