JOE TURCZAK spoke thusly to: DICK ROEBELT
JT>DR>    Since there had been previous court cases in which the
JT>DR> federal  courts had limited the demands of the ASCAP and BMI
JT>DR> folks (with regard to playing a radio to/in public), I assume
JT>DR> someone told ASCAP to shove it and a case ensued.  To my best
JT>DR> recollection, the sleaziods at ASCAP/BMI lost.  But I don't
JT>DR> have that case in my file so I don't have all the particulars,
JT>DR> just what I recall reading in the papers. 
JT>Cool, I'll have to look into it deeper, are you a lawyer or
JT>something?? 
   No law degree, but I do study law in my spare time. 
   What got me interested in this is my wife's company got a nasty-
gram from ASCAP a number of years ago for playing her radio to folks 
on hold.
   Several things I did note.  One was the more recent major revision 
to the copyright law (1976) excluded sound recordings from performance 
rights - a significant and important change while empowering recording 
companies to prosecute pirates under the copyright changes given the 
industry under the 1972 act.  However, the rights of authors of 
musical works did not change.
   Under the old 1909 act, the court held that the reception of radio 
transmissions and the playing of those receptions to consumers, even 
without direct charge, constituted an impermissible performance. (Buck 
v. La Salle Realty Co.  A hotel was playing the radio over a speaker 
system for their guests. There were other like-cases.)
   Then a case in 1975 was heard.  In Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. 
Aiken the court held that the owner of a fast food chicken store did 
not infringe by playing a radio connected to four speakers in his 
establishment.  The court said that the reception was not a 
performance that belonged exclusively to the copyright owner for a 
number of reasons (too deep to enumerate).
   Because of all the hair-splitting, the 1976 act inserted a whole 
bunch of exemptions (one or two were to codify the Aiken case).  And I 
believe that if a person rebroadcasts (via the telephone) and there is 
no commercial gain (for the performance), that the equipment used 
(receiving apparatus) is a "private home-type device," that the 
broadcast that is being played is from a signal in the local reception 
area and there is no "direct charge" for the listening - then folks 
who pipe the music into their phone system have little to worry about. 
JT>DR>    I hope no one relies on my memory on this matter.  One
JT>DR> should always check the rulings themselves for the exact
JT>DR> language and incorporated nuances.
JT>Love the disclaimer!!!
   Hey, I am human.  I DO make mistakes.  And when I do, they are 
usually boners!
JT>DR> Always look out for #1 and be careful not to step in #2
JT>now that's a good tagline!!
   Yep, and proud to say I stole that one along with the other 200 or 
so in the collection. 
   Dick
BATF:  Brutalizing America Through Force.
þ CMPQwk 1.42 84 þ
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/Wildcat5! v2.0GG
---------------