Comments on: iTunes in indie class action http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8803 p2pnet.net - reader powered Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:11:09 -0300 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8803/comment-page-1#comment-41128 Reader's Write Thu, 18 May 2006 06:53:29 +0000 #comment-41128 I think the complaint is that the record lables didn't have the online distribution rights, only physical unit rights. Apple therefore couldn't have the right to sell the songs online. I think the complaint is that the record lables didn’t have the online distribution rights, only physical unit rights. Apple therefore couldn’t have the right to sell the songs online.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8803/comment-page-1#comment-41035 Reader's Write Wed, 17 May 2006 20:31:49 +0000 #comment-41035 "Copyright law provides for compulsory licenses so publishers can't refuse to license already released songs" Some clarifications are in order: Compulsory licenses can be requeted only by a recording company for the purpose of making the records. It must be requested before the record is released or very shortly thereafter. It can be requested if the owner of the rights cannot be located and if the song is copyright registered. As a practical matter, compulsory licenses are really worthless, because they do not allow for the performace (play) of the recording or the song anywhere, including radio. Just the recording is licensed. As a matter of fact, the owners of the rights to songs can refuse to issue a license for public performance and without that a recording is useless even if it is licensed. Apple is a store that sells the recordings. It is fair to say that they can presume that what they sell has a proper license. Therefore they are not responsible for whatever infringement was done by the record company up to the point in time that they (Apple) are notified that they are selling infringing recordings. If they continue the sale, they are therafter infringing, if the recording has no license. Consult your lawyers. Rafael Venegas http://www.gvenegas.com “Copyright law provides for compulsory licenses so publishers can’t refuse to license already released songs”

Some clarifications are in order:

Compulsory licenses can be requeted only by a recording company for the purpose of making the records. It must be requested before the record is released or very shortly thereafter. It can be requested if the owner of the rights cannot be located and if the song is copyright registered.

As a practical matter, compulsory licenses are really worthless, because they do not allow for the performace (play) of the recording or the song anywhere, including radio. Just the recording is licensed.

As a matter of fact, the owners of the rights to songs can refuse to issue a license for public performance and without that a recording is useless even if it is licensed.

Apple is a store that sells the recordings. It is fair to say that they can presume that what they sell has a proper license. Therefore they are not responsible for whatever infringement was done by the record company up to the point in time that they (Apple) are notified that they are selling infringing recordings. If they continue the sale, they are therafter infringing, if the recording has no license.

Consult your lawyers.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

]]>