Bryan Cather wrote:

> In reference to the ongoing discussion regarding copyright, and the
> playing of copyrighted pieces in public, a few things come to mind.
> The first is the distinction between "public performance" and "public
> performance for profit".

At least in Germany, this distinction is irrelevant.  If you "use"
music (to "attract people", it is assumed), then you pay.  There are a
few exceptions, but they are explicitly mentioned.  (As far as I know,
acknowledged churches can use copyrighted music during a service
without paying).  But obviously, if there really was a distinction,
then many concerts would suddenly be "free, with a suggested donation
of __", which, somehow, you would not be able to escape.

Also, the huge debate about downloading copyrighted music from the
Internet shows that "free performances" (a download from the Internet
is a 1-person performance) have to pay fees, the only question being
whether each download counts as a performance (the stance of the
composers' + arrangers' associations) or as one huge performance.

> I wonder how, for example, my junior high school band handled the
> ASCAP regulations (which they surely were aware of) when we played
> arrangements of such pop tunes as "Feelings", "Copacabana", ...

I would guess they just got away with it ...

> Still, ASCAP wouldn't budge on their stance, even though [Kortlander]
> was able to show them convincing evidence that they were wasting both
> time and money.  Ahh, bureaucracy...

His alternative would have been not to be a member of ASCAP -- this is
totally voluntary -- and try to collect the fees himself.

Regards

Harald M. Mueller

 [ Some of the publishers of music for school bands also collect
 [ the performance fees, since the school band is very likely to
 [ play the songs in public performance.  -- Robbie