I am not a crook!

[Travis Cossel]

Originally Posted by Vic Owen

Heh.. I'm not very smart, so I try to keep things simple. <g> That's why I used the word "sell" in my stem. Whether I sell it, or buy it from someone, if it contains copyrighted music, then I'm making a choice to skirt the law. Seems pretty clear to me. (I try to not over-think this stuff...)

cheers

I think you still missed my point. The argument here is that it IS legal for an individual to do this, but not for a paid professional. You have two situations. One that is legal and one that is not - despite both using the exact same process with the exact same result. Thus, the ambiguity.

[Mark Ganglfinger]

Chris,
I did not realize that this type of thread was not appropriate. I had seen other threads with a "what do you think of this or that?" kind of tone to them, and not really looking for a specific answer, just wondering what people thought.

I was curious if I was the only one experiencing this kind of frustration. I certainly was not trying to abuse the boards, so I will be more careful in the future.

I was clear in my first post that I was not asking a question, but I was really pleased to see so much good information presented.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

MarkG

[Mark Ganglfinger]

Originally Posted by Travis Cossel

Property tax or "use" tax? I've never heard of paying property tax on equipment.

The list they sent me said "Personal Property" at the top. The town office told me that since I was in the phone book, then I was a business and had to pay property tax of all of my equipment.

Mark G

[Doug Okamoto]

Mark, consult a tax attorney that is familiar with your town and it's tax laws. According to my attorney he said that it was a way that a city tries to accumulate a 'voluntary tax' basis. Since equipment changes all the time it is very difficult for the city to track. He explained to me that it's not enforceable, but consult an attorney, the laws in your state may be different.

[Mark Ganglfinger]

Thanks Doug, I think you may be on to something with the "voluntary tax" theory. I talked to the state government, and they said that there was no state law concerning this and that local towns basically are allowed to do whatever they want. I have heard that this procedure is popping up in small towns all around me. Without a state law to back it up I think it would be hard to enforce.
The letter they sent was quite intimidating, and stated "If you choose not to furnish a list, then you will lose your right to appeal the decision of the tax assessor" Which sounds to me like, we will tax you whatever we want and theres nothing you can do about it.
Fortunately, the tax is minimal and may not be worth fighting. It's just the principle of the thing.

Mark G

[Dave Blackhurst]

Originally Posted by Steve House

...You would be reasonably expected to know all the rules and regulations governing your profession and would be the one who bears the ultimate responsibility to insure your business practices and the products you deliver are in compliance with them.

And other than the Business and Professions code, those R&R's would be??? I don't think videography is established enough to have any codes or regulation, there's certainly no licensing involved, and with the substantial grey area in copyright with the ongoing digital revolution, I'm not sure we have sufficient guidance in the copyright area...

I'm thinking about another business I'm familiar with. A guy brings me a part to install in the guitar I'm building him - it's protected by patents, and I'm installing it on one of MY custom instruments. I don't ask where he got it, whether the patent holder got compensated or anything else - it's not really any of my business whether he purchased it on eBay or off the back of a truck, or in some other retail channel. I incorporate it in the end work. Or let's say I bought the part for him from a legitimate source. Maybe my guitar sucks, and even makes the part I installed look bad. It could happen, I've seen it happen with hacks... My point being I'm taking something which the client has a right to, and incorporating it into a larger body of work, which the client has the right to pay me to do for him.

The IP holder gets compensated when the item is purchased, he can't keep charging over and over, or necessarily protect against misuse of his "great idea". I know that the RIAA and all the media lawyers would like this to not be true, and are desperately trying to make us believe that we have to "subscribe" and pay over and over, for each and every use, but practically speaking I can Play the 1's and 0's off the DVD of "Cars" I paid $15 bucks for...

With stuff that is easily copied digitally, like audio, video, stills, software, etc. it certainly is more difficult to "protect" the work from random, illegal and rampant mass copying (which is what really devalues the product), but in reality it CAN and perhaps should be connected back to the purchase of the physical product and the subsequent ownership thereof. IP is more ephemeral than physical product, but there are shared principles, including legal concepts. One of the ways Content owners protect against piracy is making it so reasonable to buy LEGITIMATE copies, only an idiot (or someone hoping to sell massive quantities) would bother with a bootleg... it works...

If the client brings the music and agrees he purchased and "owns" the rights to play it back, which I think he DOES under current legal precedent, I believe he has the right to pay someone to shift the format for him, attaching it to the derivative work documenting a "moment" of the client's life, which is also the "property" of the client for his personal use, it's tough to argue that either created a liability or an infringement. I'd like to see a case which states otherwise.

I think the problem is the outmoded concept of sync rights being a separate entity. It's important for big movie business, but for the end client, it creates the inadvertent criminal who just would like to enjoy their favorite song along with a video record of a special moment that has ABSOLUTELY NO COMMERCIAL VALUE outside of that person and perhaps their immediate relatives/friends/family. "Dave and Gina's Wedding" is never going to crack the top 100 bazillion sales spot on the charts, no matter how well it's done...

Plays, dance recitals and such present a slightly more complex question as the audience might be a tad larger, but still... miniscule and very limited "commercial" value.

THAT's the thing that's got the OP's goat as they say, as well as what Travis and I are saying, and unless you've got specific case law (and I will look it up, I've read my share of case law), it's speculation to say that my approach won't work. As others have noted, law and the application thereof, vary widely, perhaps depending on what the Judge ate for lunch...

My thoughts are oriented towards a reasonable approach that MIGHT offer the event videographer some protection from a frivolous lawsuit - no guarantees, but unless I see case law to the contrary, I'm pretty comfortable with my interpretation. Leave the copyright issues to the client, and give him the copyright on the final product along with the disks (which is probably worth nothing to you anyway - after youve edited a video and proofed it a couple times with revisions, how many of you want to see it again!??).

[Vic Owen]

Originally Posted by Mark Ganglfinger

Thanks Doug, I think you may be on to something with the "voluntary tax" theory. I talked to the state government, and they said that there was no state law concerning this and that local towns basically are allowed to do whatever they want. I have heard that this procedure is popping up in small towns all around me. Without a state law to back it up I think it would be hard to enforce.
The letter they sent was quite intimidating, and stated "If you choose not to furnish a list, then you will lose your right to appeal the decision of the tax assessor" Which sounds to me like, we will tax you whatever we want and theres nothing you can do about it.
Fortunately, the tax is minimal and may not be worth fighting. It's just the principle of the thing.

Mark G

Mark --

Some states are more agressive about this than others. Here in Washington State, there are numerous stautes on the books mandating collection of this tax. Here is part of the RCW:

"In this state, personal property refers to assets used in conducting a business. The chief characteristic distinguishing personal property (RCW 84.04.080) from real property (RCW 84.04.090) is mobility. Washington State law requires that all non-exempt personal property be assessed for tax purposes (RCW 84.36.005).

Taxable personal property includes (but is not limited to): office machinery and equipment as well as supplies and materials which are not held for sale or do not become an ingredient or component of an article being produced for sale."

Here in Washington, the counties are responsible for the administration of this, but it's pretty hard for them to track it. Some jurisdictions are intent on tapping the revenue stream, others aren't. As Travis might say, "The application of the RCW is fairly ambiguous!"

Consider yourself fortunate if you're in a state that doesn't pursue it.

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Travis Cossel

I guess the ambiguity lies in the idea that it's legal for someone to tape their own wedding and set it to music for use in their home, but it is illegal for someone else to do it for them. The process used and the end product and the usage for that product are exactly the same in both cases, so it doesn't seem to make sense that one is considered legal and the other is not. That's why it's not black and white.

In a nutshell the difference is that in the first case you're making it for yourself and your own personal use while in the second, you're making it expresslly with the intent to transfer it to a third party in order to receive in exchange some benefit to yourself (money, praise, thanks, etc). You are thereby profiting (monitarily or otherwise) and deriving benefit from the fruits of someone else's labours without their permission. It's that transference to the other party that makes all the difference. You can legally copy your favourite CD in order to take it with you in the car with impunity. You may not give the copy to a friend for his birthday.

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Mark Ganglfinger

Thanks Doug, I think you may be on to something with the "voluntary tax" theory. I talked to the state government, and they said that there was no state law concerning this and that local towns basically are allowed to do whatever they want. I have heard that this procedure is popping up in small towns all around me. Without a state law to back it up I think it would be hard to enforce.
The letter they sent was quite intimidating, and stated "If you choose not to furnish a list, then you will lose your right to appeal the decision of the tax assessor" Which sounds to me like, we will tax you whatever we want and theres nothing you can do about it.
Fortunately, the tax is minimal and may not be worth fighting. It's just the principle of the thing.

Mark G

LOL there's nothing voluntary about a tax - Heinlein write "There has never been a tax that was for the benefit of the taxed." Still, your "voluntary" self-assesment of the value of your property will probably be well under the value the tax assessor would assign to it and save you money. As for whether your community has the right to tax you, I can't imagine why they wouldn't. If the duly elected local government passes a valid law requiring a tax on property used by all businesses operating in the jurisidiction and you're operating a business, you pay the tax like everyone else. What's to fight? You might want to try to run the scoundrels out of office come next election so you can repeal the law but that's a different issue - there's nothing unfair about having it applied to you as it is to others in the meantime (unless you're not operating a business after all).

[Travis Cossel]

Originally Posted by Steve House

You can legally copy your favourite CD in order to take it with you in the car with impunity. You may not give the copy to a friend for his birthday.

No one is talking about taking music that THEY have purchased, and just giving it to the client. We're talking about music that the client has purchased. Totally different scenario.

If the client has purchased the CD and wants a backup of it (which is legal as you have pointed out), but has no equipment to make a backup, then why is it illegal for him to pay someone to make a backup for him?

Same goes for a wedding video. If the client has already purchased the music, and it is legal for him to edit his wedding footage to it, then why is it illegal for someone else to be paid to do it for him. The process and result are exactly the same. All they are doing is editing the piece. They aren't providing their own music to him that he hasn't purchased.

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Travis Cossel

...If the client has purchased the CD and wants a backup of it (which is legal as you have pointed out), but has no equipment to make a backup, then why is it illegal for him to pay someone to make a backup for him?

It is not for us to question why, it is for us to do ir die. The person who makes a personal backup is not profiting from the original work. If he can't make one, and wants one, presumably he would buy another copy of the CD. If instead he chooses to pay someone to make a copy, the person doing the copying is eroding those sales that would otherwise go to the copyright holder.

If the client has already purchased the music, and it is legal for him to edit his wedding footage to it, then why is it illegal for someone else to be paid to do it for him. The process and result are exactly the same. All they are doing is editing the piece. They aren't providing their own music to him that hehasn't purchased.

That's like saying a writer's sole contribution is pushing keys on a keyboard. Editing not just pushing buttons, it is decision making creative process. The editor is not paid an hourly wage for pushing buttons - he's paid a fee for the results of his creative talent. The music is an integral part of the work that is being created and sold. And that makes the final video as much a product of the music creator's work as it is the editor's. As such, the music creator deserves to be paid for his contribution, just as the editor does. I don't think you would debate that the creator of the theme of "Ironman" would deserve to be paid for the use of his music - how is that different from music used in the wedding video you create except for the matter of scale? No mater how you cut it, it's the use of someone else's work in the furtherance of your own career and when you do that, they deserve to be paid for their contribution.

[Travis Cossel]

Originally Posted by Steve House

It is not for us to question why, it is for us to do ir die. The person who makes a personal backup is not profiting from the original work. If he can't make one, and wants one, presumably he would buy another copy of the CD. If instead he chooses to pay someone to make a copy, the person doing the copying is eroding those sales that would otherwise go to the copyright holder.

I'm not so sure the law states that a person can't pay someone to make the backup for him. But regardless, I think you continue to miss my point on everything. I'm not necessarily arguing what the law IS, because as I pointed out earlier ... no one, including yourself, has actually posted any of the actual law in question. I am simply making the point that IF the law is set up a certain way it doesn't make sense, and should be revised. If you continue to assert what you think the law IS, then I think our debate is over because I have no interest in that kind of debate.

Originally Posted by Steve House

That's like saying a writer's sole contribution is pushing keys on a keyboard. Editing not just pushing buttons, it is decision making creative process. The editor is not paid an hourly wage for pushing buttons - he's paid a fee for the results of his creative talent. The music is an integral part of the work that is being created and sold. And that makes the final video as much a product of the music creator's work as it is the editor's.

Once again you've missed my point. Obviously the choice in music is integral to the piece from a creative standpoint. The point is that it is legal for an individual to edit to that music, but not for someone else to do it for him. I don't know that I can state my point any more clearly. It's a paradox in the law.

[Frank Simpson]

Travis, with all due respect, you are the one who is repeatedly missing the point. Your presumptions as to at what point a law comes into effect are grossly inaccurate. It is not legal for anyone to edit to music that declares "all rights reserved". I can buy the CD for myself, and if I want to make a video for myself, I am NOT allowed to use it in my video, from a legal standpoint.

To try to couch use as "making a backup" does not work. Technically you are allowed to make ONE backup copy of a work to keep in a secure location pending an untimely failure of the original media. Really you are not supposed to use the backup (as mentioned above in one's car) but keep it as what it is called...a backup.

Using someone's copyrighted music in ANY context other than recreational listening in the purchased condition constitutes re-use. As background music for a dance, or any other activity the music has been recontextualized, and it is the artists' perogative to disallow such use of their material.

Realize that when you purchase a CD you are NOT buying the music, but rather a limited-use license of said music. Whether you feel entitled to the music is of, literally, NO consequence.

So rather than continuing to toss out half-baked scenarios, I suggest we all take it to the lawmakers if we really feel like change is necessary. Because the air in here is getting awfully hot.

[Travis Cossel]

Frank,

I'm not really sure where to start with your post, but here goes:

A) I'm not missing the point, you are. My point is that you have two potential real-life situations with the same process and result, and some people on here are stating that one is legal and the other is not. MY POINT is that IF THIS IS TRUE then I THINK it does NOT make sense. That is my point.

B) I never suggested "use" could be qualified as "making a backup". Please read my posts more carefully. Instead, I was wondering out loud if it was legal for someone to make a backup for you if you didn't have the capability to make your own backup.

C) I realize that purchasing a CD for "personal use" is not the same as purchasing "rights". I never claimed they were the same thing so I don't know why you're pointing that out. I think everyone on this forum probably already knows this and understands this.

D) I agree that if we want change we need to head to our lawmakers. I'm not having a discussion in here with the hopes that it will magically cause change. I'm having a discussion because there are interesting ideas and concepts on the law and how it applies. The different perspectives can be very enlightening.

Thank you.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Travis Cossel

If the client has purchased the CD and wants a backup of it... but has no equipment to make a backup, then why is it illegal for him to pay someone to make a backup for him?

It's illegal because the point at which somebody is paid to do it is the point at which it falls clearly and specifically within the realm of unauthorized duplication. If somebody buys a CD and wants a "backup copy" but doesn't have the means to make one, their obvious remedy is to simply purchase another CD (or better yet, just buy the tracks from iTunes or similar service).

Originally Posted by Travis Cossel

no one... has actually posted any of the actual law in question.

Title 17 of the U.S. Code, Chapter 11, Section 1101: Unauthorized fixation and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos. Google it.

I'm not so sure the law states that a person can't pay someone to make the backup for him.

You certainly have the right to try the law by attempting to use that excuse as a defense to infringement; after all that's what courts are for, but in my opinion it would not be worth the considerable expense and effort to find out.

If you continue to assert what you think the law IS, then I think our debate is over because I have no interest in that kind of debate.

Well, you're right about one thing: the "debate" is certainly over.

Remember the goal of this site is to produce useful information that you can carry into your day and apply in real life. I have no use for circular arguments or idealistic crusades here. Start your own web site if you want to effect a change to the U.S. Code -- this site isn't the right place. Please go lobby Congress.

Closed. Many thanks and much respect to Frank Simpson and other cooler heads here -- much appreciated,