First I should iterate that I'm not doing a book, I'm doing an article. I lecture on this subject quite a bit, because there is confusion from all quarters on this subject.
Perhaps my tire analogy wasn't a good one. Because when you buy a tire, you own a tire. When you buy a VHS, you buy a physical(mechanical) device that contains copyrighted information. You do not own the information, you merely own the package it comes in. You are free to do with the package what you wish to do, so long as it does not compromise the copyrighted contents of the package. If you wish to erase the copyrighted information, you have every right to do so, and you still own the package the media was contained in. You do not have the right to copy it, edit it, or publically display it. You do not have the right to excerpt it, except in specific, Fair Use circumstances where it's used for education, criticism, government, or comparison. Anything that affects the information contained, is untouchable by law.
If the VHS wears out, like a tire, it's disposable. You no longer have a license to view that media, because it wore out. Just like a shirt, or food item, once it's consumed, it's consumed.
It starts getting tricky when it's digital media, because digital media has no life span, it's eternal in theory. DCMA attempts to address this for software, but in terms of music/video/entertainment media, it's pretty adamant that you have zero rights to copy. The jury is still out on backing up movies as it is, if the backup defeats or alters the copyright protection in any way.
Much of this will go away soon. Longhorn will give us the ability to determine who can copy what, and when. In the further future, it may well be that you buy a license to listen/watch, and it's a database control scenario where whatever device you have, you can access a particular form of media, by wireless authorization.
Lots of changes, lots of possibilities, but until we can control and protect our intellectuals, it's going to (rightly so, IMO) fall into the category of convervative. It's a Pandora's box, no doubt.

> In fact, correct me if I am wrong, but an individual
> can actually use the patented schematics/blueprints
> to make their own pencil.

You are wrong. :-) No one but the creator of a work can use that work without the creator's permission. Doesn't matter whether it's a video or a blueprint.

> People making backup copies of videos/DVDs for
> their own use are not demanding the manufacturer
> give them another copy, thus, your analogy isn't perfect.

His analogy is fine-- the whole point (or at least a *major* point) of copyright law is to establish that intangible things are PROPERTY, just like physical things. There's a tendency for people to think that making a copy of a video is different than stealing a car, and in some ways that's true, but NOT in terms of whether they're both stealing, because they both are. And they both have a very real financial impact on the owner.

The concept of "back-up copies" exists because some software used to (or still does) mention that in the license agreements. But that's something the copyright holder allows, it's not part of copyright law itself. If I own the copyright on something I can tell you it's OK to make a back-up copy, or that you can only back it up onto floppies, or VHS or whatever; it's up to me. It's called granting rights or granting licences. Copyright law itself makes not mention (that I'm aware of) of "back-up copies."

To me the whole copyright issue would be laid to rest if people put themselves in the positon of the copyright holder instead of the user for a moment. They'd quickly see what all of the fuss is about from the RIAA, MPAA and other organizations with AA in their name. :-)

Vitalforces,

I'd be very interested to hear how much has to be paid for performance rights of Beethoven / other classics when using a CD orchestral recording.

In the past I've used midi software and produced my own passable versions of short sections, such as the opening part of Beethoven's 5th. If it's financially worthwhile I may produce a range of these. With the advent of software samples, sound quality can be very impressive.

Problem with all your analogies is that a deck, painting, or any other physical object can't be reproduced. We've had this discussion before.
ANYTIME an artists work is mechanically reproduced, he/she should be paid for it, period.
You don't buy a song on an LP, you buy the right to listen to it. You DO have the right to replicate it on a mechanical device for personal use. That's not illegal.
Learn the laws and it makes more sense. It's a mess, but it's also a sensible mess for the current clime.
No one is trying with all their might to steal your deck or your painting, whereas I recently learned that there is even a Douglas Spotted Eagle radio station that plays my music non-stop. They are illegal MP3's of my music. I've now taken action to shut them down. If they had my permission, if they had a license from my label, if I were being paid a performance royalty or other royalty, then I'd have no issue. It's my music, I wrote it. Why should people be able to enjoy the fruits of my labors without me being compensated in any way?
If I wanted to make music for free, I'd be a busker. But I've invested literally a couple million bucks in gear, 28 years of education and hard learning, and a hell of a lot of failures to get to where I'm at. If you're gonna enjoy what I put out, then I damn well ought to be paid for it, don't you think? Otherwise, where is the incentive to create good compositions?
Same goes for video. We all strive to make the best vids we can, that's why we are all in this and other forums, to learn, improve, share, and excel at our craft. All I can say is I wish like all hell there had been a forum and access like this when I was coming up in the world. but there wasn't. So, I'm pleased to share most of my knowledge, but that knowledge is hard-won. I expect that if people copy my tutorials, my works, and my words that I'll get credit for it, which is my 'payment' for what I put out there. I expect it, and deserve it, just as any creative force does.

How soon they forget. Maybe they should refresh themselves because of doing these "history" type things - Skip Gillette was the drummer who played on the first album, the one that came out in Japan (Say...come to think of it wasn't it CBS/Sony Japan?) with Randy, although he was 'uncredited' old time fans of the band at that time knew Skip played on it. I have been with Skip when people who were Randy/QR fans asked Skip to sign that album. But to be fair Skip's involment was before Rudy and Frankie were involved. But than again maybe it doesn't look good to say your drummer didn't really play on all the albums? The drummer being Chris (Drew?) Forsyth at the time. As I say - Skip kind of gets overlooked a lot. Skip was the drummer in Gamma with Ronnie Montrose. In later years when Ozzy was looking for a drummer he called Skip because he was "the best" but he refused to play double bass...he did, however, refer Ozzy to one of his best drum students - Randy Castillo. When DLR quit Van Halen Eddie called Skip because the future of the band wasn't really known - Eddie talked about doing a jazz/metal fusion project with Skip. Skip was in WWIII with Chet Thompson, a student of Randy Rhoads, matter of fact it was at one of their shows that Skip called up Frankie and invited him down and at that show Skip actually introduced me to Frankie that night. I don't recall Frankie asking "Who the @#$ is Skip?" that night or any other night.

"Who the @#$ is Skip?" indeed!!!

(P.s - this sort of reminds me about the whloe Greg Pecka / Dokken thing. He was the drummer in Dokken and recorded the first album with them, but that album never came out. Than Greg was dumped when they started to get big. Maybe it is just a drummer thing. I dunno)

Yes, the topic has come up wy too often in the forum and obviously you're still rather anal about it. You made your point, you like to get paid for your work. Ah... we all do, not just you Douglas.

Curious, do you feel the same way about books? I did have a chance recently to thumb through your book SPOT. While nicely done and I'm sure newbies will find it useful, I must say I was rather surprised that MUCH of it (actually most of it) was a little more than a duplication of Vegas manual like many computer how-to books are. You think that's fair to the person/persons that slaved over writing the manual?

Did you pay SoFo or Sony for using their work? Don't get mad, you're the one always bringing up these kind of issues, so I think its fair to ask how you see it when on the other side of the fence where you are benefiting from someone's else's work, which seems to be one of your arguments.

I'm only asking knowing how your feel about copyright issues. So I think its a fair question. You are making money off a book in part based on the work of others. And if typical the person or person's that put the Vegas manual together probably didn't get paid much (looks like an in-house job) so aside from a salary, first Sonic Foundy, then Sony and now you are/will stand to profit from the work of someone else that don't even get his/her name mentioned for authoring the manual which your subsequent work is heavily based on. I ask again, you still think copyright laws are always fair?

"Why should people be able to enjoy the fruits of my labors without me being compensated in any way?"

Look up the word hypocrite SPOT. Quickly.

"So, I'm pleased to share most of my knowledge, but that knowledge is hard-won. I expect that if people copy my tutorials, my works, and my words that I'll get credit for it, which is my 'payment' for what I put out there. I expect it, and deserve it, just as any creative force does."

Like you grabbed my tutorials UNASKED and linked to them on your site? When did you get my permission to do that? Answer: You never bothered. I see you apply copywrite laws selectively.

Spot,

> You DO have the right to replicate it on a mechanical device for personal use. That's not illegal.

I’m not sure I follow. Are you saying that my augment is moot because I AM allowed to transfer a vinyl LP to a CD (after all, it’s still the same scratchy recording, I really haven’t gotten anything new) because it’s for personal use? But earlier you said you had to throw out your VHS tape and couldn’t transfer it to DVD. Doesn’t this constitute personal use also? You paid for the right to listen or watch. How are you violating that right by listen or watching on different media? It’s still the same performance you paid a right to listen to.

I have no argument with you about DSE radio. You should absolutely be compensated for your work. What they’re doing is stealing plain and simple.

~jr

BB -

I have to take issue with the bits about the SoFo manual vs. Spot's book...the way VV works is the way VV works. If both DSE's book and the manual say that Spacebar = play, well, that isn't an infringement. It's the way the darn thing works. If paragraphs of text were copied from the manual to DSE's book verbatim then that would be plagerism, no doubt. But I'm sure that's not the case.

As for your tutorials, which I like btw, if you can get to them from the sundance site - cool. Again, he didn't scrape your page and repost it, right? It's just a link to your site - no permission needed, I don't think.

But I could be wrong. Been wrong before. Might happen again :)

BillyBoy,

How was Spot linking to your web site a violation of your rights? If he had copied your tutorials and made it look like they were part of the Sundance site that would be a violation but a web link is a referral. I don’t think a referral violates anything. Spot linked to a tutorial on my site and I was honored that he thought enough of my work to do so. He doesn’t need my permission. That’s what my web site is there for, to share with the community.

I publish papers in computer journals and other people cite my papers in their work. No one has to ask my permission to cite my paper. In fact, the more my papers get cited, the more relevance, validation, and value they have. I welcome it. I don’t think a web link is any different than a citation in a paper.

As for his book ripping off the Vegas manual, I have read the book (it sound like you haven’t) and let me tell you, there are lots of insights in that book that are NOT in the Vegas manual. I don’t think you should be making that claim without reading the book first. I knew a lot of material in the book because I’ve worked with Vegas for two years but I still got some good tips on workflow by reading the book. I am more productive at editing from reading Spot’s book.

~jr

You're missing my point. I'm trying to illustrate what rigid thinking gets you. Douglas many times has made a big deal about copyright issues. While technically what he's done with regards to the book and linking to a bunch of sites isn't a violaiton, it does spit on the principle which he otherwise so fiercely defends, namely what's mine is mine, you have no right, blah, blah, blah.

BTW, I don't object to SPOT or anyone linking to my tutorials. I just used that as an illustration. Its the same kind of thing where some guy goes off half cocked about someone repeating a paragraph from what someone else wrote and whining they didn't give the original author credit. Then you see the same guy at the library photocopying page have page of a stack of books. Go figure. ;-)

jbjones: People hand over wedding videos to their customers all the time, knowing the customer isn't going to air it on local TV (there is a doctrine of "fair use" but it's so narrow it should be viewed as a land mine, not an open door). But technically it's a copyright violation (translation: you're doing it at your own risk) and the current "climate" SPOT refers to is a reaction to the explosion of duplication and Internet technologies in the hands of consumers, epitomized by the first incarnation of NAPSTER. The handful of major corporations who make up 90% of the music CD industry have been hit with substantial losses and are trying to get the public's attention by actually suing people. (I'm staying away from the issue of what happens to the royalty money you pay to ASCAP/BMI). A recent Federal court decision drew the line at serving subpoenas on users to produce the materials and equipment involved in alleged copyright violations, the court saying you can't use a subpoena to intimidate people. They have to actually commence a lawsuit. It's not the end of the world if you get yourself sued, but--damn, it's expensive.

PeterWright: I haven't picked out a university orchestra as a candidate yet, but my goal is to ask them to allow use of their self-recorded performance (outside ASCAP jurisdiction) in exchange for a credit in the movie. In addition, I will be recruiting a concert pianist in the New York area to record various piano passages from Beethoven for the film.

P.S.: My first, short film in 2001, about a homeless Vietnam veteran, had a director who had won a Grammy in the music business, and she confidently decided that the fair-use doctrine entitled her to burn two Jimi Hendrix songs onto the soundtrack. I hit the roof and told her, essentially, that she should have known better. I took a shot at contacting Hendrix Experience LLC in Washington State, but I received the expected reaction--absolutely not (the Hendrix family has been ripped off big-time by major players in previous years who blatantly used his music). HOWEVER, my solution was to buy a short stack of Acid loops and put together new, similar songs with Acid Music 3.0. I have a 2002 email from a Sonic Foundry officer assuring me that Acid loops are absolutely royalty-free, including in film soundtracks. The music was a hit.

BillyBoy on SPOT: My $0.02 worth--Perhaps don't be too hard on Mr. Spotted Eagle for a tone of voice which sounds like part of the digital industry establishment. When you work your way up the ladder until you're in a goldfish bowl sitting on a bulls'-eye, you can't be too free-wheeling with your remarks about a controversial area of the entertainment industry. He has to be sensitive about copyright issues when his words are given tremendous credence by a large Internet population. On the other hand, I suspect he'd agree with someone who wanted to make a documentary, say, about how certain major oil companies got away with the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska by paying virtually nothing in the end, and destroying the economy of a local Native American population and ruining all sea life in the area for years to come. P.S. Be sure to edit that on Vegas.

This is one of those places the law is weird. One law says you CAN copy an LP to a CD, DCMA technically says you can't. I think in a personal case, the DCMA laws would not be upheld.
VHS tapes on the other hand, were not covered in the ruling of 1976, but were covered in the laws of 1982. CD's weren't technically covered in the laws of 1974, but cassettes were. In fact, cassettes had a specific royalty attached to them because of the RIAA lobby for royalty payments for duplicatable media. CD's did at one time too, until it was demonstrated that CD's were being used far more for data storage than for audio copying, and the technology at the time was that it was pretty challenging for the average person to copy a CD anyway. Of course, now all that's changed.
The laws, no matter what, can't keep up with technology. It doesn't take a genuis to know that the government operates 20 years behind the rest of the world. Heck, several government offices are still on Windows 98, and a few are even on 95 for standard work. The accounting machines in the local tribal offices are MSDOS!
The bigger part of the DCMA is covering media that is duplicated that can be viewed or used in more than one place at one time. This is why it's such a morass of red tape, because no one anticipated 20 years ago, that we'd be making exact digital duplicates with zero loss, and no one anticipated the legal fallouts.
Here's where it really boils down; what's legal, and what's sensible. Making backup copies of digital media is still in the air. But, if you are making a backup of a digital medium, the argument that it's a backup holds pretty strong, whereas a record/cassette was always known to be something that would wear out. So, RIAA was able to get a royalty instilled into replicate media to 'cover' the losses due to replication. Make sense? But that royalty was at a different techno-time. Dinosaur years, basically.
I think we all know what's moral and what isn't. That's what it comes down to.
And Billyboy, 2 comments. First, I don't know who linked your specific tutorials from the Sundance site, I've only linked to your home site. For all I know, you submitted your own links to your site, but all it is is a pointer to your site. Just as you've pointed to ours. From our perspective, your tutorials are valuable and worth being pointed to. But if you don't want them there, I'll track down whomever posted them, and ask their permission to remove them. (BTW, copyright laws are pretty damn clear on this. Linking to a site is absolutely legal unless it's done in a fashion to remove clear ownership, create a derivative work, or take credit for other's works. Your tutorials open up on their own, in your pages, in your window, and there is no possible interpretation that could be made of Sundance having anything to do with your site other than providing a pointer to further beneficial information)
Second, calling me a hypocrite takes me aback, as I've generally defended you and supported you in most issues that others have taken with you. I guess I'm a fool. No hypocrisy here, my message has always been "my voice, my choice" when it comes to copyright.
It'll be interesting to see what transpires if you ever have your own copyrighted media in a DVD or CD that has worldwide distribution, and you find it duped at a flea market, on a file sharing site, or on a television show or big screen film. It's one thing to bluster about copyright based on your own inexperienced and untried opinions; it's quite another to have experienced both sides of the issue firsthand as both a licensee and licensor.
I'd be very careful of whom you accuse of plagiarism. Particularly in a public forum.

YOU ARE STILL overreacting SPOT. Read what I said again more carefully. What saddens me is a few people here keep pulling out the "I'm a professional" card even when they act VERY unprofessionally blindly defending some primative, outdated laws that makes it all but impossible to follow without breaking one or more of them one way or another. Present copyright laws have the potential to greatly enrich the artist and publisher at the expense of severely limiting the rights of the consumer, who without, many artists would be sitting on some street corner begging for change from every passersby.

There's a difference between saying you are a hypocrite and defending a postion that is surely hypocrtical. And clearly the music industry is that if anything. THAT is what I'm saying and why I used the examples I did.

You make it very clear you get really pissed if anybody not just copies your music even if they just make a backup apparently (fair use) but also if they alter it in any way (crazy position) from a consumer's viewpoint.

For example based on what you've said in the past you are so far out in left field you apparently take the position that if somebody hooks up an equalizer to their stereo and adjusts it so they can enjoy the music as they like to hear it since they paid for it, you fly into a rage and say NO, NO, NO its your music, how dare you attempt to even play it back in a way that suits you, it should only be played back as you wrote it. Period.

The reason I brought up your book is you like every other author writing a how-to book on any software application are heavily depending on the contents of the manual to write "your" book. Its totally amazing considering your extreme viiew on "artist rights" how you don't see yourself doing the very thing you otherwise wail against. That is hypocritical in my opinion.

What I said was for ILLUSTRATIVE purposes. I thought you had a thicker skin. I'm not knocking your book. I'm simply wondering out loud how it seems you can play both sides of the fence at once. Because in my view you fiercely defend your rights to YOUR exclusivity as far as your music, yet in the next breath you say its OK to author a book based mostly on someone else's labor. And stop the nonsense about plagiarism. I didn't suggest that and you know it.

Over the past several weeks I've seen your posts growing more shrill in tone. In this thread and in the every thread where the external monitor topic comes up its obviously a sore point with you. Again you trot out that "I'm a professional" card and try to run amog in the forum strongly hinting you aren't a professional unless you do like SPOT. That may feed your ego, it doesn't make you look very professional in my eyes.

BTW, I authored a book about a dozen years ago, way ahead of you.

I'm kind of saddened that this discussion is fast taking a turn for the worse. As I said at the outset the big copyright picture has been done to death and will continue to get flogged for years to come and I'm certain there's better places for those discussions than here.

I really wanted us to focus on the loss of images and sounds that is happening, the copyright thing I saw as almost a side issue. What I had in my hand and what caused me to start this discussion was a a bit of footage of a city in the USA taken over 30 years ago. For all I know it could be the last copy on earth. At other times on peoples home movies I find similar stuff, none of it broadcast quality for sure but in years to come maybe to someone it'll be of great value in a historical sense. You might think this trivial, but almost the entire first series of Dr Who were lost because the BBC thought it had no commercial value. Much of what has been recovered came from private illegal copies.

Maybe we should just let the present fade away lest we weigh the planet down in an ever increasing pile of tapes/CDs/DVDs.

That's the issue I'd love some input on, is the present worth preserving, is what is mundane to us now worth saving?

1. Billyboy, my first book was published in 1980. Look it up. Second book was in 1982. Both are registered with the LOC. The Vegas book perchance is my 9th publication.
2. Fair Use is a legal term not remotely related to the arcane manner in which you describe it. The right to make a backup is covered in Section 109 of the DMCA, not in the Fair Use definition of 1976.
3. We're not debating opinion here. It doesn't matter whether you or I agree with the laws, the laws are clear. That was the question, I provided an answer as best I can. Neither of our opinions are worth anything in this discussion.
4. Your example of using an equalizer is so far off base it's beyond ridicule. Doing so does not comprise a derivative work in any manner. I've never suggested it did, so don't put words in my mouth.
5. I am a professional. Doesn't make me better, but does mean that I've got a lot of experience as a creative force. If that bothers you, tough beans. I work my butt off daily to do the best work I can do. Usually it's work that clients appreciate, sometimes I'm let down by not meeting their expectations. But I'm never going to be let down because I don't have the knowledge or tools. I might sometimes lack the creative vision that a client wants, but it's not for lack of tools or trying that I can't create what they want.
6. I didn't write a book on someone else's labor. I labored to write that book, pure and simple. If you are so foolish as to imply that I wrote a book on a software application that someone else wrote, you really are off your rocker. That's not an issue of plagiarism, copyright, or anything else. How idiotic can you be? So, if I write a book on how a digital Beta camera works, then I'm violating Sony's copyright? If I write a book on changing a tire, am I then violating Ford's copyright? If I write a cookbook, am I then violating Betty Crocker's copyright?
Since you don't get it, apparently, copyright laws are different for print, motion picture, and audio recordings. Before lumping them all into one category, learn the scope of the laws.
You need a serious lesson in copyrights, Billyboy. C'mon over to Spokane on January 7, I'm doing a class on behalf of NARAS on the subject. I'll get you a free pass. It's not just that I'm a professional, it's that I've been hit on both sides of this issue, having found my music illegally used, and having found myself wanting to illegally use music. I haven't done so, because that would not only make me a hypocrite as well as a criminal, and could easily spell the end of my career.
I'm not defending any laws, Billyboy, simply abiding by them, and hoping to inform others of those laws.
Folks aren't unprofessional "if they do like Spot." But on this issue, they could well end up losing everything they've worked for if they "do like Billyboy."
Accusing me of plagiarism for "illustrative purposes" is still an accusation. One I thought was well beneath you.
For those interested, the laws are available at the www.loc.gov website, if you want to muddle through them. It's far easier to pay a lawyer for a couple hours over lunch, and you'll come away feeling less confused.

JR, one thing I failed to mention, if you make a copy of a phono record, you must:
A. Destroy it following the copy, so as to assure no further copies will be made, or:
B. Store it for archive purposes in a manner which restricts access for purposes of replication/duplication for a period of not greater than 7 years. The 5th District Appeals Court upheld a ruling recently where a public library had kept archived LP's not available for checkout and did not have a phonograph on the premises as being sufficient means of protecting the phonograph from unauthorized copying. The copyright holder held that the library should have destroyed the LP upon making a digital copy. I'm sure it was an expensive loss for the copyright holder. And in my opinion, rightly so. I would submit that the library had an obligation to create a digital copy for purposes of protecting the integrity of the LP's quality and existence. It was a Tex Ritter recording that was at issue. Thought you might be interested in the minor detail.

Farss, THERE is an interesting discussion.
In the States, a building that is historic in nature may be preserved through order of the court and by public opinion, but these are buildings that are either very old or very unusual, and have become in many cases, eyesores or landmarks.
Video or film records are so 'new' that I'm certain that while copyrights might exist, the copyright holders may be dead and their kin are not interested or perhaps aware. So, do you save the work? Legally, you can't, not without permission. But what about the case in point of the quality of the work diminishing as time passes, but a digital copy would preserve the life of the work? While that's a legal battle, my personal view would be that the replicate copy be made in digital form, and protected from access until such time the owner of copyright could be contacted and grant (or not) permission.
"Return of Navaho Boy," a Sundance Film Festival winner, was just exactly that. A reel of film was found in an attic, the producer found it, replicated it, then located the copyright holder. It took 2 years to find a surviving family member of the original director/producer. Turned out, the film was really owned by VistaVision, who had long gone out of business, no copyrights assigned. The "new" producer recut the film, added a great deal of 'modern' footage to better tell the story, and it became a documentary about the actor in the original 1950's film. Would the film have survived another 2 years in a hot attic? Probably so, although it would have deteriorated that much more. But when the original director's family learned that the footage even existed, they funded the search for copyright, and funded the new version of the film. (BTW, the soundtrack for that film was done in Vegas) They were present when the film won, and it was a happy day for all.
I submit, contrary to my cultural beliefs, that all media/information in any form, regardless of what someone thinks of it, should be preserved digitally in some manner, so that future generations might look at it and learn from our faults, frailties, beautiful moments, brilliance, and existence.
But, I see this particular question falling way outside the boundary of the thread above. But that's just my opinion.

SPOT,
thanks for your insight. Please pardon my ignorance on this but can I ask how your culture views the recording of their traditions. The orginal inhabitants of this land are very sensitive about this. One of their most interesting mores is that the name of a deceased person should not be spoken.
I've travelled to what were to me at least a few far flung reaches of the planet and I'm always very cautious about who and what I point a camera at. I ALWAYS ask the people involved and I feel damn hostile towards those that cannot grasp the concept. I personally feel much more strongly about this than the issue of ripping off someones already recorded music, all you're hurting is their hip pocket. Stealing someones image who doesn't want it taken maybe to them an offence that no amount of money can compensate.

If I every have the time and resources I'd much like to go back to those places and record properly as much as possible just for posterity. Don't know how good a job I could do, trying to really capture the moment, the sounds, the emotion and even the smells is much harder than it looks. That's apart from getting permission not just from the locals but also central control thousands of miles away. I have much respect for those that do this, they'll never get their names up in lights yet I think their work expands our experience more than that of most of those who do.

Here's an example for opinion...

Someone makes a video montage of photographs for their spouse and syncs music from commercial CDs to it. The montage is given on DVD as a gift to the spouse. All the commercial CDs are owned by the couple and were acquired legally.

Does the creator of the montage have to get permission to use the music in this manner or is this a violation of copyright?

Farss, in indigenous cultures for the most part, it's felt that dwellings, farm lands, sacred sites should be left to their own to crumble and return to the land. This was a huge issue for the Utes during major fires in the Mesa Verde canyons 3 years ago. Culturally, sacred songs should never be recorded not because they are sacred, but because it creates an access to what should be an oral tradition. I've made a fairly strong reputation recording some of these old songs from various haataa'lii' or holy men, with the understanding that I never do anything with them. It's a dilemma, because culturally, the songs should be allowed to die if no one passes them on. While I have the recordings, I'm also not authorized to sing or teach the songs, nor share them. Only once in 12 years has a haa'taa'lii asked me to make a copy of a song, and he did that because his grandson was serving in Desert Storm, and the man knew he'd not live to see his grandson come home. So, I made a dupe of the original DAT for the grandson. The man indeed passed on before his grandson came home. The grandson is now a teacher of culture at Navaho Community College.
Anyway, long explanation for a simple subject. So, I've archived these songs, much like Alice Fletcher and Frances Densmore did at the turn of the 20th century. But unlike them, my copies won't go to the Smithsonian. I honestly don't know what I'll ever do with them, except eventually turn them over to the tribal government with all documentation.
there is an underlying movement to preserve language, music, and craft at all costs, without regard to the cultural tradition of letting things go, but it's fairly quiet in the west.

Who is the creator? The other spouse? Or a third party for profit?
If it's a third party, it's a clear violation of law. If it's the spouse, it falls into a grey area. If there is money involved, it gets even uglier.
But, if it's a one-time, one copy deal, it's not going to turn into an issue, I don't think. I'm not a lawyer, I've just paid a lot of money to lawyers and attended a lot of schooling on this subject.
Scott, Multimedia: Law & Practice 14-4, n. 6, makes a good statement on this. It's illegal, but not enforceable.Unless there is money involved. Even in that instance, you'd probably get by. Proceed at your own risk.
Again, if the editor is the spouse, and it's for personal, non public display (you didn't show it at your company party) one time use, (by one time, it means one copy) then it's a non-issue.
The real test in this particular instance would likely be the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Since there is no potential value loss, ie; you aren't potentially removing the copyright holder from enjoying the benefit of sale of another copy of the song, then there is no foundation for suit. But, third party could be zapped for sync licensing. So, I wouldn't recommend advertising this as a business bullet. :-)

SPOT,
thanks for the insight. I hadn't really considered the issue in the way you explained it. Of course you can never capture something that only has meaning when it's passed directly from one human to another, don't know how that slipped past me.

Perhaps your recordings in the decades to come can serve as yet another reminder of what we've let vanish, of how there's one less thing to enrich our lives, not because we may ever go there but just knowing there is something different over the next ridge.

It seems the real SPOT has emerged: bombastic, touchy, with a obviously excessive view of his importance which he can't stop reminding us about at every opportunity and commenting on legal issues, yet admits he isn't an attorney.

Douglas is free to express his opinions. What I object to is is heavy handed 'how dare you disagree with my opinions' lecturing. Not very professional from where I sit.