<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
face=Arial color=#000000 size=4>
<DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=4>Lets just drop this issue and agree to disagree.
This will eventually take a Court ruling because there are other things to add
in to this. It ain't black and white.</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=4></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=4></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=4>SNOOPI</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=4></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=4></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 3/6/2006 12:50:34 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
tony@baechler.net writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000
size=2>Hi. That's all very interesting, but that doesn't change the
law. I <BR>have no special "tune" here. Really, I don't. I
agree with <BR>you. However, the US law doesn't look at it that
way. I can tell <BR>you a story too. There was a country music
star who wrote a <BR>book. She wanted the book up in Braille. She
was refused because it <BR>was against US copyright law. Unfortunately,
and here is where we <BR>get into things like Creative Commons and the new
music revolution <BR>gradually taking place, it isn't up to the stars.
Often stars have <BR>no say. They have to do what agents tell
them. Often they report to <BR>RIAA which is very controling.
There are musicians unions and <BR>recording artist unions, all of which want
their piece of the <BR>pie. Therefore, it makes no difference what you
think, what I think, <BR>or what the stars think. I understand that you
aren't selling songs <BR>on the CD, however it is still public performance so
it still falls <BR>under the law. As I said before, find the actual code
to contradict <BR>me in USC Title 17 and I'll apologize and shut up, but I'm
99% sure <BR>that I'm right.<BR><BR>Now, I'll address your other points.
About singing in public bars, <BR>etc. They probably pay ASCAP
fees. I'm almost sure of <BR>it. Obviously if you go to someone's
house and sing, they aren't <BR>going to pay royalties. However, that
isn't a public performance <BR>since it is a private person's house.
Even though say 20 people are <BR>invited over for a party, it isn't a public
establishment that anyone <BR>can walk into and sing. Therefore, while
you have a fine argument, <BR>it doesn't really apply. Look at most
Internet broadcasters. Yep, <BR>they have to pay ASCAP and BMI fees
also. Ask restaurants. I bet <BR>they do or maybe there is a
provision I'm overlooking but <BR>doubtful. Heck, they have to pay to
play recorded music so I don't <BR>see why letting the public sing should be
different.<BR><BR>For your third point, I would say that you're mixing apples
and <BR>oranges. You say that people who can't speak use synthesized
speech <BR>as their voice. OK, granted. I have two arguments on
that. First, <BR>even at that, it is you who wrote the files, not the
person who <BR>doesn't speak. that's no different than saying that I can
share a <BR>book by Tolkien with the world because I can't read. Sorry,
the law <BR>doesn't work that way. Second, you're right in that it might
be <BR>overlooked since the person couldn't sing otherwise, but how many
<BR>people on this list and who download from the archive or buy your CD
<BR>really fall into that classification? I know there are deaf people
<BR>who are blind but they can generally speak. If there are people here
<BR>who don't speak except with a synthesized voice, please don't be
<BR>offended. My point is not at all to pick on you, but rather to show
<BR>that the law still applies to everyone else. I suppose if you had a
<BR>disclaimer that your CD was only for people who can't speak that <BR>might
work, but how would you enforce it? Sorry, but most of your
<BR>arguments don't hold water. For the final time, please look up
<BR>U.S.C. Title 17 and read the law for yourself. Show me where I'm
<BR>wrong. I will not discuss this further on list, it's off topic and
<BR>only results in people being upset. I'll leave you with one final
<BR>link. http://www.copyright.gov/<BR><BR>At 01:08 PM 3/5/2006, you
wrote:<BR>>Oh really? Maybe this will change your
tune.<BR>><BR>>Sandi Patty, Donny and Maurie Ozmond, Tim Mchraw, Cher,
and Leanne <BR>>Rhymes all have heard their own songs coming out of
Dectalk, even <BR>>Joni Erickson. Plus I personally sang in a Sandi
Patty <BR>>concert. Not one of these people has had an issue with
their songs <BR>>being converted and shared among the disabled. Sandi
thought I was <BR>>nuts for making a computer voice sing like her, but
didn't have a <BR>>problem with what I was doing. Come to think of it
a 9 year old <BR>>sang the Anthem for President Bush at the White House
with no <BR>>problem. Donny and Maurie ended up buying a device for a
hospital <BR>>after it sang Paper Roses as part of the dedication.
Joni Erickson <BR>>was excited when I personally met and told her I had
some of her <BR>>stuff in Dectalk. Shoot, there's a guy in Nashville
who sings for <BR>>every big star he meets.<BR>>The point is, if there
was a legal issue, don't you think one of <BR>>these big stars would have
said something? Not one ever has! They <BR>>all understand that
this is how the disabled community sings and <BR>>that Dectalk is not a
recording of any kind.<BR>><BR>>I have 2 CD's out and I paid royalties
because that is recorded stuff.<BR>><BR>>But look at karaoke and how big
that is. Karaoke is done publicly <BR>>and no one pays
royalties. Well, some of my songs are karaoke <BR>>compatible so the
disabled can sing karaoke just like any other <BR>>person. I'm sorry
but this is not an copy right issue, it's simply <BR>>equal
access.<BR>><BR>>I think the problem with bluegrasspals is you all view
Dectalk as a <BR>>fun toy. But for people who can't talk, this is
their voice. There <BR>>is a Minsing quire, a group of adults that
all sing in harmoney with <BR>>Dectalk. Lots of people go Christmas
Caroling using Dectalk. Kids <BR>>who can't talk are able to take
part in music class because of Dectalk.<BR>><BR>>You guys are making me
mad because by suggesting that we are all <BR>>breaking the law by
programming Dectalk to sing, is like saying you <BR>>want to vanish singing
from the entire disabled community. So you <BR>>may as well put the
[:phone off] command right into the speak button <BR>>so no one can ever
sing ever sing again?<BR>><BR>>Make your mark in the world by taking
away people's only way of <BR>>singing.
(SICK)<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>DECtalk
mailing
list<BR>DECtalk@bluegrasspals.com<BR>http://jaybird.no-ip.info/mailman/listinfo/dectalk<BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=4></FONT></STRONG> </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>