copyright and egg on face

[Sroundtable@xxxxxxx]

This is from Title 17- U.S. Copyright Law:

"(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;" 

I stand corrected.  I guess I better look into what I need to do for my band.  Maybe I can get Pete to give me permission to play his music for free (wink, wink).  I suppose there are so many coverbands that don't pay the fees, and it's not enforced, that i made an erroneous assumption.

"in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly" 

I admit I am wrong again.  Clubs would have to get permission or pay fees for such permission in order to legally play the music.  I know also that this is not always adhered to (I would say non-compliance is rampant).  

On the issue of GWB, we don't know that the fees weren't paid.  In any event, he wouldn't actually need Pete's permission to play it at a victory party.  The Bush campaign would also not necessarily have to pay the fee as it was a private party by invitation, if my memory serves me.  Just because media may have covered it doesn't necessarily make it a public event.  If I were a lawyer, I could make a convincing argument that it was a private party.

In any event, one out of three ain't... hmmm, well, i guess it blows.  

Mc (with egg on my face)


PS- Did The Who really have to pay to play their songs on their recent tours?  That makes no sense to me, if Pete holds the copyright.  The wording of the U.S. law seems to protect the owner of the copyright.