tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post115867566338262315..comments2024-03-15T11:42:21.265-04:00Comments on The Patry Copyright Blog: Praise the Lord, But Pay the PROWilliam Patryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-1158683854489148552006-09-19T12:37:00.000-04:002006-09-19T12:37:00.000-04:00I agree Section 110(3) can lead to some very iffy ...I agree Section 110(3) can lead to some very iffy distinctions. In many cases, those problems can be avoided by relying instead on Section 110(4), which exempts performances that are without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage and without dee to the performers. If profits are made or fees paid, the performance may fall into the realm contemplated by Representative Cummings (and thanks for the quote, Zvi).William Patryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-1158682632077200612006-09-19T12:17:00.000-04:002006-09-19T12:17:00.000-04:00Is not "of a religious nature" in the ear and mind...Is not "of a religious nature" in the ear and mind of the beholder, though? Nowadays, there is a bit of a blurred line (at least in music) between "religious" and "secular." For instance, there are several famous musical artists who are self-professed Christians, but who intentionally do not market themselves in the "Christian industry," preferring rather to build careers in the "mainstream market." But often these marketing choices are as much a result of philosophical considerations as economic ones. Do their songs fall under the exemption?<BR/><BR/>A similarly blurry line exists almost perpetually between Christian music and country music, which share common historical roots. Songs which can be found in the "country" section of your favorite record shop are regularly performed in church services.<BR/><BR/>Then there are the situations in which a song which is clearly not intended to be religious is performed in church services. This sometimes takes place when a "mainstream" song with ambiguous lyrics, which can be liberally interpreted to be spiritually applicable to certain belief systems, is performed in church in an attempt (the success of which is quite debatable) by that church to be culturally relevant.<BR/><BR/>In sum, songs ranging from the overtly religious to the decidedly non-religious are regularly performed in church services, at least down here in the Bible Belt, and especially in the larger cities. How, if at all, does this reality jive with the statute? Or is it simply a case where lots of churches owe the PROs money (above and beyond their CCLI fees)?<BR/><BR/>MuzzBuzz in NashvilleAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-1158679543989763042006-09-19T11:25:00.000-04:002006-09-19T11:25:00.000-04:00This is interesting...when the original public pef...This is interesting...when the original public peformance bill for music was debated in congress, it was discussed whether public performance for "charitable or benevolent purposes" should be allowed. Rep. Cummings (the bill's sponsor) responded "If it is wrong to rob a man at all, is it not wrong to rob him through the operation of a church? For that is adding hypocrisy to theft." 54th Congress, 2nd Session, Cong. Rec at 88 (Dec. 10, 1896). They decided against this amendment, although of course in 1909 this was reversed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com