New Segovia Web Page...
William R. Cumpiano
the life and career of the old fascist Guitar God (a most complicated man, he). The
links I have up so far are:
Announcing
WILLIAM CUMPIANO'S ANDRES SEGOVIA WEB PAGE:
New York Time's 1927 article announcing the advent of Segovia first American Tour: "the
leading exponent of an instrument that heretofore had little consideration as a vehicle
for the interpretation of serious music."
New York Times 1928 review of Segovia's United States debut: A great master who "did not
and cannot succeed in removing the limitations which will always surround his
instrument."
New York Times, January 23, 1928
Segovia's Musical Forum, Guild Theatre Concert
New York Times, January 30, 1928
Packed Theatre Hears Segovia
New York Times, February 5, 1928
Ovation to Segovia: Guitarist Gives a Work of Variations With Glittering
Effects
Biography of Segovia's life and work
Bach's Chaconne and the Guitar,
translation of 1930 article by Marc Pincherle, Secretary of the French Society of
Musicology in Paris
Segovia's luthier, Manuel Ramirez
reminisces about making guitars for him and his vain efforts to please him
Segovia Town Hall Recital Program Text
Interview with Segovia by members of the New Jersey Classical Guitar Society (not up
quite yet).
You'll find all those, plus a bunch of interesting old photos of him at:
http://members.tripod.com/~cumpiano/Segovia.html
Enjoy!!
--
William R. Cumpiano
William R. Cumpiano, Guitarmakers
studio:
(413) 586-1596
8 Easthampton Road, Northampton MA 01060
office:
(413) 584-4596 voice/fax
(413) 585-1596 voice
mail:
PO Box 854
Easthampton MA 01027
internet:
elji...@crocker.com
http://members.tripod.com/~cumpiano
http://www.cuatro-pr.org/
Larry Deack
>Biography of Segovia's life and work
Nice start but you may want to ask someone to review your work since there
are some interesting typos like:
"His father was a prosperous lawyer and hoped his soil would ultimately join
him in this profession. "
John Philip Dimick
>Nice start but you may want to ask someone to review your work
..
Yes, and he might also want to post in plain sight that he got
permission from the copyright holders of the various articles and
photos to republish their works on the Web. I have all the same
material here at home and would love to have republished it on my
website, but I don't have permission.
The times, they are a'changing.
--
John Philip Dimick
j...@guitarist.com
www.guitarist.com
William R. Cumpiano
>
> he might also want to post in plain sight that he got
> permission from the copyright holders of the various articles and
> photos to republish their works on the Web. I have all the same
> material here at home and would love to have republished it on my
> website, but I don't have permission.
>
> The times, they are a'changing.
No, they're not changing as much as you think.
Those articles are over seventy years old, and they're being copied for non-commercial
purposes, so they're in fair use. If that isn't good enough for you, this is from the
US Patent and Copyright FAQ:
"For works published in the years 1904 through 1963, the copyright lasts
for 28 years from date of publication; if the copyright was not renewed,
it lapsed, and the work went into the public domain. Another 28 years of
protection could be obtained by filing a renewal, for a total term of 56
years (1906 comes from the fact that the U.S. effectively switched to a
47-year second term in 1962, and 1962 minus 56 (the old maximum duration
of two 28-year terms) equals 1906). If the copyright was not renewed
after its initial 28-year term, the work lapsed into public domain.
Generally, all copyrights secured in 1918 or earlier lapsed at the latest
in 1993 and are now in public domain (1993 (last year) minus 75 equals
1918). Copyrights secured in the period 1919 through 1949 continue to
exist only if they were renewed, and expire in the period 1994 through
2024."
Best wishes,
Lutemann
In article <36AE95B5...@crocker.com>, "William R. Cumpiano"
<elji...@crocker.com> writes:
>For works published in the years 1904 through 1963, the copyright lasts
>for 28 years from date of publication; if the copyright was not renewed,
>it lapsed, and the work went into the public domain. Another 28 years of
>protection could be obtained by filing a renewal, for a total term of 56
>years (1906 comes from the fact that the U.S. effectively switched to a
>47-year second term in 1962, and 1962 minus 56 (the old maximum duration
>of two 28-year terms) equals 1906). If the copyright was not renewed
>after its initial 28-year term, the work lapsed into public domain.
Does this mean that any piece of music that was originally copywritten in the
20's must be in the public domain? This seems reasonable to me. I'd like to
arrange a whole bunch of 20's tunes for guitar.
Kent
William R. Cumpiano
According to the above source, the worst possible case (a 1929 copyright that was
renewed 28 years later) would mean the sheet music entered the public domain in 1985.
But, cheez, Captain Kirk, I'm a guitarmaker, not a copyright lawyer!
schi...@up.net
>
> Does this mean that any piece of music that was originally copywritten in the
> 20's must be in the public domain? This seems reasonable to me. I'd like to
> arrange a whole bunch of 20's tunes for guitar.
>
> Kent
>
Nay... "PL 102-307 makes renewal registration optional An author need not
file the renewal in order to extend teh original 28-year copyright to the
full 75 years."
Ray S.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Larry Deack
>Nay... "PL 102-307 makes renewal registration optional An author need not
>file the renewal in order to extend teh original 28-year copyright to the
>full 75 years."
There is a great web site for copyright information:
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copyright.html
that has links to everything you ever wanted to know about copyright law
including a link to the text for the US laws. At the bottom of the page is
this:
"Under the Berne copyright convention, which almost all major nations have
signed, every creative work is copyrighted the moment it is fixed in
tangible form. No notice is necessary, though it helps legal cases. No
registration is necessary, though it's needed later to sue. The copyright
lasts until 50 years after the author dies. Facts and ideas can't be
copyrighted, only expressions of creative effort."
There are lots of fun subtleties but the statement above covers most cases
in most countries.
Allan Jones
>
>
> The copyright
> lasts until 50 years after the author dies.
>
> in most countries.
70 years in most of Europe.
Allan Jones
Larry Deack
>> There are lots of fun subtleties but the statement above covers most
cases
>> in most countries.
>
>70 years in most of Europe.
And 75 in the US, but the Berne convention sets the minimum standard so no
country that signed is less than 50 years. (again there are some interesting
exceptions but they don't apply %99 of the time).
William R. Cumpiano
>
> Larry Deack wrote:
> >
> >
> > The copyright
> > lasts until 50 years after the author dies.
> >
> > in most countries.
>
> 70 years in most of Europe.
>
Keep in mind that you fellows are talking now about copyrights of RECENT works filed in
relatively recent years. But earlier copyrights were not subject to such generous
protection. My earlier post was about my posting seventy-year-old New York Times Segovia
debut review, and I was scolded for ripping the New York Times off.
My defense was not only my non-commercial intent, but quoting copyright "scripture":
>For works published in the years 1904 through 1963, the copyright lasts
>for 28 years from date of publication; if the copyright was not renewed,
>it lapsed, and the work went into the public domain. Another 28 years of
>protection could be obtained by filing a renewal, for a total term of 56
>years.
Obviously the generous 70-year protection began on works published AFTER 1963.
So if you want to reprint or republish old music or articles, they may indeed be in the
public domain.
John Philip Dimick
>John Philip Dimick wrote:
>>
>> he might also want to post in plain sight that he got
>> permission from the copyright holders of the various
>> articles and photos to republish their works on the Web.
>> I have all the same material here at home and would love
>> to have republished it on my website, but I don't have
>> permission.
>>
>> The times, they are a'changing.
>
>
>No, they're not changing as much as you think.
>
>Those articles are over seventy years old, and they're being
>copied for non-commercial purposes, so they're in fair use.
Don't rely on that notion, William.
1- Noncommercial does NOT equal Fair Use.
2- Your website is not noncommercial; it promotes your
services and products. Adding the Segovia material to your
website adds commercial value to your commercial website, since
it attracts more visitors (potential customers) to your site.
However, I am pretty sure that no one will take you to court over
it. Furthermore, it is not my intention to persuade you to take
the stuff down. I was just letting you know that it is advisable
to display permissions when republishing copyrighted material.
>If that isn't good enough for you, this is from the
>US Patent and Copyright FAQ:
It's not a matter of it being good enough for ME...
And as long as I'm here...
"Larry Deack" <lar...@zeno.com> wrote:
> William, please understand that there are some people here
> who get in a huff over this issue which comes up every couple >
of months or so.
Indeed they do, on *both* sides of the issue.
> Above all don't freak out because somebody here says something
>about you doing something horrible.
Horrible? Who said--? Oh, I get it: more sarcasm.
Larry Deack
>Obviously the generous 70-year protection began on works published AFTER
1963.
>
>So if you want to reprint or republish old music or articles, they may
indeed be in the
>public domain.
This is why there are copyright lawyers. Please read section 2.4 of the
following article of Mark Eckenwiler's Legal Research FAQ on this issue.
ftp://ftp.aimnet.com/pub/users/carroll/law/copyright/faq/part2
And his Copyright FAQ Addendum on section 2.4 at:
http://www.aimnet.com/~carroll/copyright/faq-update.html
William, please understand that there are some people here who get in a
huff over this issue which comes up every couple of months or so. I am
sitting on the fence on this issue but I do have a number of concerns on
both sides.You are quoting parts of the law that are out of date from what I
can tell. There have been a number of changes in the laws including the
latest law that further extends the copyright for many recent works 20 more
years. Please read the above FAQ carefully. If you want some help on this
particular issue I'd suggest that you call the NY Times and ask them what
they think.
Above all don't freak out because somebody here says something about you
doing something horrible. It's obvious that you had no intention of breaking
the law and you had a reasonable expectation that what you did was legal. I
don't think any judge in his right mind would award the NY Times damages and
I doubt that the NY Times would even prosecute. The most that would likely
happen is they would ask you to remove the post, but I'm not a lawyer and
neither are you. :-)
schi...@up.net
>
> >For works published in the years 1904 through 1963, the copyright lasts
> >for 28 years from date of publication; if the copyright was not renewed,
> >it lapsed, and the work went into the public domain. Another 28 years of
> >protection could be obtained by filing a renewal, for a total term of 56
> >years.
>
> Obviously the generous 70-year protection began on works published AFTER 1963.
>
> So if you want to reprint or republish old music or articles, they may indeed be in the
> public domain.
>
> -- I quote: (for works published before 1978) "During the last year of the first term, the copyright was eligible for renewal. The current copyright law has extended the renewal term from 28 to 47 years for copyrights subsisting on 1/1/78, making these works elibible for a total term of protection of 75 years."
Ray S.
> William R. Cumpiano
> William R. Cumpiano, Guitarmakers
>
> studio:
> (413) 586-1596
> 8 Easthampton Road, Northampton MA 01060
>
> office:
> (413) 584-4596 voice/fax
> (413) 585-1596 voice
>
> mail:
> PO Box 854
> Easthampton MA 01027
>
> internet:
> elji...@crocker.com
> http://members.tripod.com/~cumpiano
> http://www.cuatro-pr.org/
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Larry Deack
>The reason some people get freaked out in here is because
>in this business most of us know someone who has published
>copyrighted music, etc and we like to stand up for one another.
>For many of our friends, copyright is an important part of
>their livelihoods, so this isn't necessarily just a theoretical
>issue.
As I said, I understand this but this is a perfect example of what happens
to an honest person who tries to do something to help out the CG community.
He expressed the idea the he felt attacked and I think this shows that some
here go overboard when it comes to this issue. There are many much more
egregious copyright transgressions that should be attacked if we wish to
help people to understand why this issue is important to them. By attacking
the innocent we diminish our argument against piracy of other people's
intellectual property. It would be nice if in the future we could be a bit
more kind when we see a post like the one that started this thread. JPD
could have been more tactful.
Larry Deack
>Horrible? Who said--? Oh, I get it: more sarcasm.
Wasn't your post to Mr. Cumpiano's original post was sarcasm?
John Philip Dimick
>...this is a perfect example of what happens to an honest person
>who tries to do something to help out the CG community. He
>expressed the idea the he felt attacked and I think this shows
>that some here go overboard when it comes to this issue. There
>are many much more egregious copyright transgressions that
>should be attacked if we wish to help people to understand why
>this issue is important to them. By attacking the innocent we
>diminish our argument against piracy of other people's
>intellectual property. It would be nice if in the future we
>could be a bit more kind when we see a post like the one that
>started this thread. JPD could have been more tactful.
"Larry Deack" <lar...@zeno.com> also wrote:
> Wasn't your post to Mr. Cumpiano's original post was sarcasm?
No, of course not. Nor was it an attack. Wasn't even an
objection. Maybe you should take another look at it.
Btw, I emailed the New York Times about one of the reviews in
question, to see if anything had changed since my last inquriy
back in 1994. Here is what I wrote:
==========
>Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 18:03:11 -0800
>To: repr...@nytimes.com
>From: John Philip Dimick <j...@guitarist.com>
>Subject: Copyright expiration?
>
>Hello,
>
>I am interested in reprinting some 1928 NYT music reviews on my
website. In particular, I am interested in reprinting the 1928
reviews of classical guitarist Andres Segovia, written for the
NYT by Olin Downes.
>
>Do I need permission, or have the articles passed into the
public domain?
>
>Regards,
>etc.
============
Here is their response (which I take the risk of reprinting here
without their permisson! ;-)
==========
>Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 12:16:06 -0500
>To: John Philip Dimick <j...@guitarist.com>
>From: Diane Meuser <meu...@nytimes.com>
>Subject: Re: Copyright expiration?
>
>No, we still hold the copyright on the article. We charge
>permission fees to use our material, $100 for non-profit
>posting for 30 days and profit org. the fee is $200 for 30
>days to use the text. If you would like to continue with
>the request, please provide a complete mailing address and a
>fax number.
>thank you,
>diane meuser
===========
So, make of it what you will. Perhaps they are incorrect about
the copyright of the article.
My final remarks on this thread:
It makes little difference to me whether Mr. Cumpiano wants to
leave the Segovia material on his site. Larry Deack pointed out
that there were some typos on the site; I followed up by pointing
out that there might be more serious problems. Then Larry went
off the deep end and accused me of attacking Mr. Cumpiano, of
accusing Mr. Cumpiano of "horrible" things, of going overboard,
and godonlyknows what else. And even Mr. Cumpiano seemed to
think that I was raising some kind of objection to his site when
he said "...and if that's not good enough for you, here's the
Copyright FAQ..." etc.
Well, that's just life on Usenet. I've been around here long
enough that it hardly bothers me any more.
Mr. Cumpiano, whatever you decide to do, I wish you the best. As
I said earlier, I seriously doubt the NYT will take any action
against you. (If you are like most luthiers I know, I doubt your
pockets are deep enough to stir much interest from the NYT!)
I'm done with this thread.
Larry Deack
>Then Larry went
>off the deep end and accused me of attacking Mr. Cumpiano, of
>accusing Mr. Cumpiano of "horrible" things, of going overboard,
>and godonlyknows what else. And even Mr. Cumpiano seemed to
>think that I was raising some kind of objection to his site when
>he said "...and if that's not good enough for you, here's the
>Copyright FAQ..." etc.
John Sloan wrote:
>"(perhaps a private email would have accomplished the same end)".
I guess we all went off the deep end. I really don't like miscommunications
like this. It makes me feel bad that someone takes offense at what I said
then I read it and, too late, see how they see it. I only tried to help you
understand how your words sounded to Mr. Cumpiano, that is, much like how my
words sound to you. I do not mean to hurt with my words and appologise for
any discomfort they may have caused you.
>Well, that's just life on Usenet. I've been around here long
>enough that it hardly bothers me any more.
The copyright issue always bothers you. It's one of your hot buttons and
understandable so considering the abuses you've suffered in the past. I'm
sure it will come up again but hopefully not with the same result.
William R. Cumpiano
I don't wish to rip the New York Times off, or anybody else for that matter. I am
waiting for a response from a project partner who just retired from the Times after 30
years, to inquire about whether the articles are still claimed as proprietary. Indeed it
was this same colleague who gave me copies of the articles as a gift in the first place.
I simply meant to spread my good fortune to others. Yes, my web page has a commercial
intent. But if you take the trouble, you'll see that I have been teaching my craft for
almost thirty years and evidence of the page's strong didactic intent is abundant.
But the information in this thread indicates that someone inquired of the Times about
the same articles long ago, and sure enough, they claim it as theirs. So I am removing
the page forthwith.
I didn't take any offense or felt hurt at anybody's response. I know that this medium is
a rough and tumble environment where people speak curtly and rarely mince words, mainly,
I'd like to think, because most people are slow, hunt-and-peck typists. So I responded
just as smartly and curtly as I was spoken to.
I do however appreciate the consideration so many strangers treated me with.
Best wishes to all of you.
--
Mark
Please don't be discouraged. In the past 6 months since I discovered this
NG, I've been amazed at the anal-retentive, obsessive compulsive nerds who
hang out here and subjectively criticize everything from your intentions (or
mine) to Segovia's technique (or purported lack thereof)... If only these
geeks had 1/100 of the initiative of a luthier like you or an artist like
Segovia who's actually DONE something... Instead, they sit behind the
safety of their keyboards and pronounce judgements, opinions, and invective
on everyone who challenges their purported academic/legal opinions. Ignore
them.
Please keep up the good work. I found your postings of the NY concert
reviews wonderful. Besides, one can Xerox (can I use that word without a
copyright symbol?) them at any major library for a quarter or so... <S>
Best regards,
Mark
William R. Cumpiano wrote in message <36B3B2E3...@crocker.com>...
Rogluthier
Mr. Cumpiano:
Too bad. I enjoyed the page even though is appears there may be some "legal"
problems. I think your intentions are completely legit.
Fretfully Yours,
Roger Thurman
Thurman Guitar & Violin Repair, Inc.
900 Franklin Ave.
Kent, OH 44240
330-673-4054
http://members.aol.com/rogluthier/index.html
25 years in repair, making and sales.
Martin Warranty Repair
Visa/MC Shipment on approval
Mark
Thanks for the "unwritten" rule.
Mark
John Sloan wrote in message <36B3D4...@telusplanet.net>...
>Mark wrote:
>>
>> Please don't be discouraged. In the past 6 months since I discovered
this
>> NG, I've been amazed at the anal-retentive, obsessive compulsive nerds
who
>> hang out here and subjectively criticize everything from your intentions
(or
>> mine) to Segovia's technique (or purported lack thereof)... If only
these
>> geeks had 1/100 of the initiative of a luthier like you or an artist like
>> Segovia who's actually DONE something... Instead, they sit behind the
>> safety of their keyboards and pronounce judgements, opinions, and
invective
>> on everyone who challenges their purported academic/legal opinions.
Ignore
>> them.
>
>Mark, there is an unwritten rule in here which goes something like
>this: you are free at any time to dispense with your own brand of
>personal attacks and name-calling (reread the above paragraph), and,
>instead, to refute or rebutt the CONTENT of what anyone else in here
>has actually said with arguments and evidence of your own. No one
>and nothing is preventing you from posting only sound arguments
>and coherent posts to this NG yourself.
>
>John Sloan
>
Mark
I hope you've also sent similar "lecturing" notes of reprimand to yourself,
Luteman, and the rest of you here who like to insult anyone and everyone who
doesn't agree with your academic pontifications...
art almeida.
dollars last year. You are in no position to rip them off.......
Rogluthier <roglu...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990131010018...@ng-cf1.aol.com>...
Mark
Mark
art almeida. wrote in message <01be4d5c$ec87b800$40665ed1@default>...
art almeida.
Please read the thread BEFORE ranting. Thanks... (The thread is listed
below for your perusal....If you don't understand what the thread is about,
then either ask or move on - hint: it involves the reprint of an old review
of a Segovia performance published in the New York Times).
Art
Mark <mwes...@home.com> wrote in article
<g74t2.236$4B6...@news.rdc2.occa.home.com>...
Mark
If you're alluding to the reprint of one of the 1928/1929 concert reviews,
then I think there are better things in this world to worry about... Having
worked for a major U.S. newspaper, I can tell you NO ONE there has the time
of day to chase down a private individual who used a reprint of a 60-year
old concert review, especially when the person gave credit to the
newspaper... If the newspaper doesn't care, why should you?
Mark
art almeida. wrote in message <01be4de9$d772db60$3d675ed1@default>...
Julian Lewis
If the law is stupid and enough people break it, then it will be changed,
unless you happen to be living in a dictatorship. If your philosophy was in
place black people wouldn't be able to sit in the same bus as whites,
homosexuals would be prosecuted, and no one would be able to smoke
grass !!
Julian
>
>Because it's still ILLEGAL! Just because you probably won't get
>caught doesn't give you the right to break the law.
>
>Sharon
>Secretary to Christopher Parkening
>http://www.musdoc.com/parkening
art almeida.
reprinting this review for which the Times wants a $100 payment, he would
be ripping them off i.e. depriving them of a $100 for a 70 year old review
(which, in my opinion, is an amazing rip-off). It was my position that, as
the NYT grossed over 2 billion dollars, it would be pretty hard to rip them
off. I can understand the position that if the reprint of the review would
produce income for the poster, Sharon D. might have a point. But, if
reprinting it advances some knowledge for the rest of us...then I don't
really care.
Art,,,,
Mark <mwes...@home.com> wrote in article
<TAut2.424$4B6...@news.rdc2.occa.home.com>...
Lutemann
In article <36B3B2E3...@crocker.com>, "William R. Cumpiano"
<elji...@crocker.com> writes:
>But the information in this thread indicates that someone inquired of the
>Times about
>the same articles long ago, and sure enough, they claim it as theirs. So I am
>removing
>the page forthwith.
You should check on this yourself. Don't listen to what someone else says
about these kind of issues. My gut feeling is that the NY Times articles are
in the public domain just like the old Crescendo Magazine articles that concern
Segovia.
Kent Murdick
-----------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail me for a free catalog...NEW, IMPROVED WEB SITE!!!
Free Guitar Music: http://members.aol.com/lutemann/guitar.html
NEW MUSIC! "Four More Latin American Pieces"
Julian Lewis
>
>As is typically the case with liberals, you missed the point
>completely.
>
>
Oh Yes, name calling. In that case why not have all liberals put away.
Right now your wonderful Republicans are not doing too well are they.
If you lot dont learn to control your bigoted point of view, then you
are destined for extinction, and I for one will not morn your passing.
Copy right laws are good but not in all cases, and I stick to my point
in this case they are not functioning as intended. In this case they are
not serving the public good.
It is people like you who are guilty of abusing the law in order to get
what you want (money and power), whilst feeling sanctimonious about it.
Allan Jones
>
> As is typically the case with liberals, you missed the point
> completely.
Interesting. Can you identify the features of a liberal outlook that
make
one more likely to 'miss the point' than is the case with, say, a
conservative
or fundamentalist outlook?
Not that this has much to do with the guitar, I appreciate.
Allan Jones
remove 'z' for real email
Allan Jones
>
> As is typically the case with liberals, you missed the point
> completely.
Interesting. Can you identify the features of a liberal outlook that
make
one more likely to 'miss the point' than is the case with, say, a
conservative
or fundamentalist outlook?
Not that this has much to do with, I appreciate.
Julian Lewis
>
>Interesting. Can you identify the features of a liberal outlook that
>make
>one more likely to 'miss the point' than is the case with, say, a
>conservative
>or fundamentalist outlook?
>
>
>Allan Jones
John Cleese was on American TV recently and was asked for the difference between British and American people. In reply he said that
there were three differences:
1. We speak English and you don't.
2. When we hold a World Championship for a particular sport, we invite teams from other countries.
3. When you meet the head of state in Britain, you only have to go down on one knee.
Julian
art almeida.
Sharon D. <Miss....@NOSPAM.scvnet.com> wrote in article
<36b86486...@news.scvnet.com>...
> My apologizes for posting this "disclaimer." It was not relevent to
> the discussion, and I was out of line. I was caught up in the
> frustration of those who think stealing is OK as long as it's
> 1) from a large corporation, and/or
> 2) for noble purposes.
And what do we call the New York Times' request for $100 for a 70 year old
review of a Segovia concert. We can certainly establish that the author of
the review is dead and that his heirs receive nothing from the NYT. In my
country it's called a rip-off. It supresses the free flow of information to
further corporate greed. (Jeez - I sound like a sixties radical! -
......I'm having a Hendrix flashback!)
Art.....
art almeida.
heirs are not compensated for reprints stealing. The $100 charge is
designed to enrich the Times at the expense of the rest of us. It supresses
the free flow of information and puts the NYT in a monopoly position which
is where they would like to be - charging the rest of us for access to
information. That's why there are limits to copyright law otherwise we'd
all be struggling for access to information that only the wealthy among us
could afford. Thank God for the public domain! Does anyone know if in fact
this article might be in the PD?
Art............
Mark <mwes...@home.com> wrote in article
<ZpTt2.969$4B6....@news.rdc2.occa.home.com>...
> Art,
>
> I disagree. Its irrelevant how much the NY Times earns in revenue (or
> profit) to judge whether depriving them of $100 is ethical or not.
Stealing
> is stealing regardless of the financial position of the victim. No wonder
so
> many large corporations have so much theft (of time, materials, etc)
> occurring; no one thinks it's wrong "as long as it's a big corporation" -
> what nonsense...
>
> My earlier post was based on my experience in publishing which has shown
me
> that a major newspaper who is given proper credit would probably not
> prosecute (nor care much about) such a case regarding the use of a
60-year
> old concert review (especially in a non-revenue producing venue like
> Cumpiano's web page). I also assumed Cumpiano addressed the issue of
giving
> the NY Times appropriate credit... But then perhaps the NY Times is
simply
> more aggressive in this area...
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark
>
>
> art almeida. wrote in message <01be4ee6$8c278f40$31675ed1@default>...
> >Mark...That was precisely my point. A previous poster was concerned that
by
> >reprinting this review for which the Times wants a $100 payment, he
would
> >be ripping them off i.e. depriving them of a $100 for a 70 year old
review
art almeida.
lower your rate or go out of business. Not so with monopolies that control
information, pay up or stay ignorant. That's what I like about the
Net....It's tough to control and tough to meter..information is flowing
everywhere. I always found it interesting that the Information Revolution
started with the break-up of the Bell System's control of phone lines (I
think it was Bell v. Ericsson). And they're still trying to control data
transmission over phone lines - it makes them crazy that they can't charge
us more for data. Monopolies don't have ethics....they just have power.
(I'm having another Hendrix flashback---somebody pass the brownies)
I apologize to all for being wildly off topic....(I'm going up to the attic
to find my SDS badge...)
Art.........
Sharon D. <Miss....@NOSPAM.scvnet.com> wrote in article
<36b994eb...@news.scvnet.com>...
> On Wed, 03 Feb 1999 16:48:20 GMT, "art almeida." <ar...@bestweb.net>
> wrote:
>
> |>And what do we call the New York Times' request for $100 for a 70 year
old
> |>review of a Segovia concert.
>
> The owner of a copyrighted piece has the right to charge whatever fee
> he wants. It's his to do what he wants.
>
> If you wanted to rent my car, I would have the right to charge a
> penny, or $500 per day. You have the right to take it or leave it.
> It may not be fair, but as the owner, it's my right.
>
> Sharon
>
Greg Gammill
news:01be4f97$37ddeea0$3c675ed1@default...
>I call a $100 charge for a 70 year old review in which the author or his
>heirs are not compensated for reprints stealing.
-snip-
The NYT owns the story, not the employee that wrote it. This is the case
with anything produced for a company... you think the guy in r&d at 3M that
came up with "post-it" notes gets money every time a pack is sold? I
design, print and mount graphics for an exhibit building company, sometimes
worth more than $10k a month... all I get is my paycheck. Look at the
Beatles, they lost the rights to the songs they wrote, and got nothing! Is
it fair for Michael Jackson to get a (proverbial) ton of money every month
from royalties for something he had absolutely NOTHING to do with? No, but
it's legal.
I don't necessarily agree with the NYT's stiff asking price, but Sharon's
right, they can charge whatever they want, they own the story.
Greg
Greg Gammill
>Firstly, Paul McCartney sold the rights (Northern Music) to MJ for many
>millions. His problem was that he sold it too cheap and so MJ reaps the
>benefit. Had Paul invested the money he got from MJ in the market, it would
>be MJ who would be doing the crying. The poor sap who invented Post-It
>notes should have had the wit to find a good patent attorney before he
>handed it over to 3M...
-snip-
Fearing that this thread is taking a turn for the worse...
I heard a VERY different story about Northern Songs. In the early
seventies, Apple Records was in the toilet and the Beatles (Paul) decided to
get quick capital by selling the rights to their songs, on ill advice.
Years later, after he had made a few kajillion bucks as a solo artist, he
tried to get the songs back, to divee up with the group, in hopes that
George and Ringo would have enough money to live on and spare the rest of
the world their sore attempts at making any more records. However, the (I
believe) corporation that owned Northern Songs refused to sell to Paul
(reason unknown to me). In the mid eighties, Paul buddied up to MJ.
Together, they had made a gentlemen's agreement that MJ would buy the songs,
then immediately resell them to Paul (for a tidy profit, I'm sure). It
seems MJ had other plans though, and decided to keep the songs for himself,
thus proving Paul's theory true, for MJ hasn't put out a decent album since
'Thriller.' Since then, MJ has been in constant fear for his life, thinking
Paul would retaliate. This is obvious in that his skin color has turned
white. (This does not explain his hankering for monkeys and litte boys,
however)
I'm sure there's a LOT that I'm leaving out, I'll need to read up on it to
get the facts (sorry John S.)
As for the guy who invented Post-It Notes he developed it at 3M, and even if
he would have snuck all the data and experiments out of his office, 3M would
been all over him like a pit bull on a 2 year old, claiming intellectual
property, which, of course, they would be correct.
In any case, (trying to get back to the thread), I don't disagree with you
that the NYT charges entirely too much money for use of their articles. All
that I am saying is THAT IS THEIR RIGHT. I personally think cigarette
companies (along with gov't taxes) are charging WAY too much now for their
precious cancer sticks that I crave so dear, nonetheless it gives me no
right to just grab however many I want in the store and walk out without
paying for them. If you think about it, that's what is happening when
copyrights are violated.
Greg
art almeida.
millions. His problem was that he sold it too cheap and so MJ reaps the
benefit. Had Paul invested the money he got from MJ in the market, it would
be MJ who would be doing the crying. The poor sap who invented Post-It
notes should have had the wit to find a good patent attorney before he
buy the generic ones for a third the price....
While the NYT might own the story, their predatory pricing only encourages
those among us who believe that they are in the business of controlling
information to be less than respectful of their "property" rights. (I can't
find the blacklight for my Fillmore East posters....where the hell did I
put it?)
Art.................apologizing yet again for slipping down the road to the
Sixties.
.
Greg Gammill <graphic...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<79a7jn$8l1$1...@camel21.mindspring.com>...
> art almeida. <ar...@bestweb.net> wrote in message
hogr...@inreach.com
>
> Oh Yes, name calling. In that case why not have all liberals put away.
> Right now your wonderful Republicans are not doing too well are they.
> If you lot dont learn to control your bigoted point of view, then you
> are destined for extinction, and I for one will not morn your passing.
>
>
Republicans are not doing too bad. They control both houses of congress and
impeached the whore monger in the white house, which he will never live down.
Having said that, lets get back to guitar subjects.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Mark
Wrong again. The author of the review has no commercial rights to the
review. He/she was an employee (possibly a free lance writer) of the NY
Times. In either case, the "content" he/she wrote is the property of the NY
Times, not the writer and his/her heirs...
Mark
art almeida. wrote in message <01be4f95$65e85940$3c675ed1@default>...
>
>
>Sharon D. <Miss....@NOSPAM.scvnet.com> wrote in article
><36b86486...@news.scvnet.com>...
>> My apologizes for posting this "disclaimer." It was not relevent to
>> the discussion, and I was out of line. I was caught up in the
>> frustration of those who think stealing is OK as long as it's
Mark
don't like the rules.
Mark
art almeida. wrote in message <01be4f97$37ddeea0$3c675ed1@default>...
>I call a $100 charge for a 70 year old review in which the author or his
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> art almeida. wrote in message <01be4ee6$8c278f40$31675ed1@default>...
>> >Mark...That was precisely my point. A previous poster was concerned that
>by
>> >reprinting this review for which the Times wants a $100 payment, he
>would
>> >be ripping them off i.e. depriving them of a $100 for a 70 year old
>review
>> >(which, in my opinion, is an amazing rip-off). It was my position that,
>as
>> >the NYT grossed over 2 billion dollars, it would be pretty hard to rip
>them
>> >off. I can understand the position that if the reprint of the review
>would
>> >produce income for the poster, Sharon D. might have a point. But, if
>> >reprinting it advances some knowledge for the rest of us...then I don't
>> >really care.
>> >
>> >Art,,,,
>> >
>> >
>> >Mark <mwes...@home.com> wrote in article
>> ><TAut2.424$4B6...@news.rdc2.occa.home.com>...
>> >> Art,
>> >>
>> >> If you're alluding to the reprint of one of the 1928/1929 concert
>> >reviews,
>> >> then I think there are better things in this world to worry about...
>> >Having
>> >> worked for a major U.S. newspaper, I can tell you NO ONE there has the
>> >time
>> >> of day to chase down a private individual who used a reprint of a
>60-year
>> >> old concert review, especially when the person gave credit to the
>> >> newspaper... If the newspaper doesn't care, why should you?
>> >>
>> >> Mark
>> >>
Mark
You're still just rationalizing theft...
Mark
art almeida. wrote in message <01be4fd1$cc6ce3c0$b0665ed1@default>...
>Firstly, Paul McCartney sold the rights (Northern Music) to MJ for many
>millions. His problem was that he sold it too cheap and so MJ reaps the
>benefit. Had Paul invested the money he got from MJ in the market, it would
>be MJ who would be doing the crying. The poor sap who invented Post-It
>notes should have had the wit to find a good patent attorney before he
>handed it over to 3M. Have you ever noticed how expensive PI notes are? I
>buy the generic ones for a third the price....
>While the NYT might own the story, their predatory pricing only encourages
>those among us who believe that they are in the business of controlling
>information to be less than respectful of their "property" rights. (I can't
>find the blacklight for my Fillmore East posters....where the hell did I
>put it?)
>
>Art.................apologizing yet again for slipping down the road to the
>Sixties.
>.
>
>
>Greg Gammill <graphic...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
><79a7jn$8l1$1...@camel21.mindspring.com>...
>> art almeida. <ar...@bestweb.net> wrote in message
>> news:01be4f97$37ddeea0$3c675ed1@default...
>> >I call a $100 charge for a 70 year old review in which the author or his
>> >heirs are not compensated for reprints stealing.
>>
Julian Lewis
OK Let agree to disagree on our definition of who is
the crook in this case, and who is stealing from who.
By the way copyright laws in the US seem to be unique,
in Europe the rule is 50 Years, and even that is stretching it.
The rules are put in place to guarantee a reasonable return
on an investment, after which the idea, invention or whatever
is public property.
Allan Jones
>
> I call a $100 charge for a 70 year old review in which the author or his
> designed to enrich the Times at the expense of the rest of us.
That is no doubt true. But all sorts of property is assigned to people
who had no part in its creation. I could leave my house to a charity
rather
than my heirs. The original author knew that the newspaper would have
the
rights in the piece. If we now regard their ownership as unjust, and
restrictive,
how would that differ from my looking at another property (such as a
piece of
land) and thinking 'The means by which the current owners of that land
came to own it are unjust, so I'll help myself to some of it.'
As it happens, quoting from an old review may not be an infringement. I
missed the
start of this. Much depends on how old and how much.
>It supresses
> the free flow of information and puts the NYT in a monopoly position which
> is where they would like to be - charging the rest of us for access to
> information. That's why there are limits to copyright law otherwise we'd
> all be struggling for access to information that only the wealthy among us
> could afford.
Does that apply to goods, property and services too? Only the wealthy
can afford some
of those things. Should they be made free to all? Sounds like socialism
to me
(and not necessarily a bad thing)?
At least intellectual property does eventually enter the public domain,
as you say.
Private property never does, but continues to generate wealth for people
who had
no part in its creation. Is that more just or less just than copyright
legislation?
I merely ask.
Julian Lewis
>At least intellectual property does eventually enter the public domain,
>as you say.
>Private property never does, but continues to generate wealth for people
>who had
>no part in its creation. Is that more just or less just than copyright
>legislation?
>I merely ask.
Only in the US, every where else the death duties are very severe, so
inheriting wealth is likely to be taxed well above 60%.
Intellectual property becomes public property after only 10 years unless
it is patented, then the maximum limit is 50 years.
Julian
Bill Schreiner
art almeida. wrote:
> I call a $100 charge for a 70 year old review in which the author or his
> heirs are not compensated for reprints stealing.
Golly, Gosh, Gee, Whizz. Does that mean if I own a 70 year-old Picasso
painting that I should give it away rather than sell it? I prefer the old law
of supply and demand. The only people who seem to like the "give it away"
theory are the one who don't have any money and don't think farther ahead than
the next meal. But that's their choice and I respect them for it.
regards,
Bill Schreiner
Regor3
In article <79bsjs$j9l$1...@sunnews.cern.ch>, "Julian Lewis"
<Julian...@cern.ch> writes:
>
> Only in the US, every where else the death duties are very severe, so
>inheriting wealth is likely to be taxed well above 60%.
> Intellectual property becomes public property after only 10 years unless
>it is patented, then the maximum limit is 50 years.
>
> Julian
>
Right...and the Queen of England has all that money because she earned
it...LOL. I always love it when other countries do it soooo much better. :-) Of
course there is no poverty any place except the USA and all wealth is
distributed equally to all in all other countries...including to the
thiefs....and we all agree that what is mine mine and what is yours is mine
too.
Julian, the short of it is that rationalization of theivery does not moralize
it. If you don't like the law then change it. Or you can steal ...but stay
away from my house as I can never know when your ethics will decide that what
is mine should really be yours.
Are Mark JJ and I really together here? :-)
art almeida.
to make any photographic copies whatsoever of your Picasso painting, any
scholarship on the works of Picasso would be frustrated by your refusal.It
would be known that Picasso made a particular painting that no one has ever
seen because Bill Schreiner has exercised his right to refuse the world a
look at this painting. Now Bill Schreiner decides to sell photographic
copies of the painting that can be seen but not reproduced by a single user
for $1000. Bill Schreiner certainly has this right doesn't he. But, SOB
that he is, he's making it impossible for the rest of the us to pursue
scholarship or expand our societal knowledge of Art or it's history. He has
his own little monopoly - and I once again observe that monopolies aren't
interested in ethics, only in power.
Art......apologizing yet again for being off-topic...Still trying to
remember that recipe for hash brownies.
Bill Schreiner <wsc...@intella.net> wrote in article
<36B9BB58...@intella.net>...
ALLAN JONES
>By the way copyright laws in the US seem to be unique,
>in Europe the rule is 50 Years, and even that is stretching it.
It used to be 50 years in the UK, but there was quite a lot of disparity
in various European countries. France had a very
strange ruling that added extensions to copyright for years
of military service (or something equally strange). One consequence
of that was that Debussy came out of copyright in the UK before
he did in France, enabling some British musicologists to
get new sholarly editions published before their French counterparts.
However, that's all history now, because it's pretty well 70 years now
throughout most of Europe. Thus Ravel, Elgar, Holst, Roussel, and
several others who died in the 30s are now back in copyright having been
briefly out of it.
Julian Lewis
Regor3 wrote in message <19990204130909...@ngol06.aol.com>...
Look this whole thread is a joke, and shouldn't be taken seriously at all.
However our wonderful queen, isn't really the owner of all that stuff, she cant
sell it, and she cant exactly pay taxes to herself can she. Although I might add
there are those who think she should pay some contribution to the running of
her (possessive -> "her") country. But in England, royalty is in a unique category,
and yes, unlike with presidents, you only go down on one Knee when you meet
them. More seriously, I think the law in this case should be changed, and I don't
like it as it stands, but I don't think I am going to protest, or do anything about it.
Lets get back to GUITARS, I am full of new inspiration, and cant wait to try out
all the things I have learned this morning at my lesson. All kinds of revelations
concerning the two planes of rotation of the left hand to position the fingers
naturally with minimum movement ..... do you want me to tell you about it ?
Julian
Regor3
In article <79ef1p$m0a$1...@sunnews.cern.ch>, "Julian Lewis"
<Julian...@cern.ch> writes:
> Look this whole thread is a joke, and shouldn't be taken seriously at all.
snip a lot of non guitar stuff about Queens and oversexed presidents
>Lets get back to GUITARS, I am full of new inspiration, and cant wait to try
>out
>all the things I have learned this morning at my lesson. All kinds of
>revelations
>concerning the two planes of rotation of the left hand to position the
>fingers
>naturally with minimum movement ..... do you want me to tell you about it ?
> Julian
Julian...you do have your tongue firmly planted in your cheek and a sly grin on
your face....right?? Because you have sent in six posts on this non guitar
related thread. Hell I thought the NG was renamed
alt.thief.copyright.rationalize. :-)
No, I take lessons too so I have little to add to the issue of planes of
rotation of the hands. Am I wrong here...can't there be three (or more
..where's Einstien when you need him) planes of rotation of the wrist when
including the twisting of the forearm? As I hold up my left hand...a thing of
beauty... I can, while holding the plam pointed at my rather large nose, bend
my wrist so my hand moves toward me and away..and in the same position I can
rock the hand left and right (actually more to the right than the left). Is
that two planes? Then I can swivel the palm ( by twisting the forearm) so that
it points away from my face. Is that another plane? Don't they all affect the
natural placement of the fingers no matter how you define planes?
Just wondering.
William Jennings
met with him. It is a shame and disgraceful in the
manner he has been accorded.
William David Jennings
Bruner wrote:
> Mr. Cumpiano - I thoroughly enjoyed reading the old articles on your
> website. I would never have been able to read them if you had not
> posted them. Thanks!!
Larry Deack
>Mr. Cumpiano - I thoroughly enjoyed reading the old articles on your
>website. I would never have been able to read them if you had not
>posted them. Thanks!!
I read and loved them also. Is it illegal to read them knowing they were
probably still under copyright? I read them as soon as the copyright came
into question. Is this immoral? If it was an individual who owned the rights
and they had complained would I have done it? Dang I have these morality
questions :-)
Michael Mayo
(Sharon D.) wrote:
> If you wanted to rent my car, I would have the right to charge a
> penny, or $500 per day. You have the right to take it or leave it.
> It may not be fair, but as the owner, it's my right.
Here is where most people sneak in the equivocation. Stealing a physical
object ( a car ), and "stealing" an "expression of an idea" are two very
different things. If I steal your car, I deny it from you. You cannot use
it. If I "steal" your thoughts, am I denying you of the ability to think
and enjoy them??
Even the conservative supreme court (ruling on software copyright/patent
issues) admitted that there is no moral basis for this uniquely western (and
uniquely strange) idea that a person can have ownership over an abstract
thought, idea, or concept. If I think fire engines are ugly, should I
therefore "own" that thought? Is it amoral for anyone else to think it??
The only reason we have copyright/patent laws is that a capitalistic
economy simply cannot survive without them. Well, fine. But does that mean
we should excessively and oppressively extend these laws to the point at
which it slows - or stops - the intellectual use and benefit of far outdated
information? I think everyone so far in this thread has admitted that
charging $100 to use a 70-year-old article is more than a little excessive.
So before you go around shouting about people trying to "rationalize
theft," ask yourself who the thief in this case is. The NY Times, or Mr.
Cumpiano? Laws are often bad. This is a bad law.
-Michael A Mayo
Bill Schreiner
Michael Mayo wrote:
> Here is where most people sneak in the equivocation. Stealing a physical
> object ( a car ), and "stealing" an "expression of an idea" are two very
> different things. If I steal your car, I deny it from you. You cannot use
> it. If I "steal" your thoughts, am I denying you of the ability to think
> and enjoy them??
>
No but I am denying your ability of making the money you deserve as a result of
your efforts. I'm going to steal your thoughts that you wrote down and called
"music" and I'm going to use it in a motion picture and make millions. And I'm
not going to give you a cent, because you still have your music and can enjoy
it.
>
>
> The only reason we have copyright/patent laws is that a capitalistic
> economy simply cannot survive without them.
This is probably true, comrade, but what is the alternative? No music because
"Why should I write it if someone will immediately steal it?" I'll write music
and keep it to myself so no one can steal it. Now you don't have the music,
money or not.
> Well, fine. But does that mean
> we should excessively and oppressively extend these laws to the point at
> which it slows - or stops - the intellectual use and benefit of far outdated
> information? I think everyone so far in this thread has admitted that
> charging $100 to use a 70-year-old article is more than a little excessive.
Right, it is excessive but the owner has the right to charge whatever he/she
pleases. I don't like it but I'll defend it. Why? Becasue the alternatives
scare the hell out of me. I don't want to write music or write stories so that
some lazy tightwad slob can steal it from me.
>
>
> So before you go around shouting about people trying to "rationalize
> theft," ask yourself who the thief in this case is. The NY Times, or Mr.
> Cumpiano?
Thief? What thief? Did the NY Times steal something here when I wasn't
looking? I think they are the stealee, not the stealer.
> Laws are often bad. This is a bad law.
If you remove the incentives for invention you will have nothing. We have a
system that is based on greed. And hey, it works! If you don't like it, the
wonderful thing is, you can move to another country. In this world we have
countries that have just about every political system imaginable. You could
pick whatever country you wanted.
Pick one, please!
Regards,
Bill Schreiner
Greg Gammill
>treated, you're pretty much on the right track. As an example, I
>have several scores which I have transcribed or "arranged" for
>guitar which I have not and will not put up on the Internet. It
>belongs to someone else and if someone wants a copy they can go
>buy it like I did and work up their own transcription. Now if someone
>could not buy it in their area or could not afford it I _might_
>mail them a copy on the condition that they don't put it up on
>the Internet either and only if I trusted them. It's a value call.
>
>I believe that the creation of artificial scarcity is morally
>wrong, but there are considerations which temper that position.
>Ultimately it's just me and my conscience and I have to live
>with it.
>
>Best,
>Jim
Seems like it would be almost as easy for this person to mail you a check
and you _purchase_ this item and mail it to him.
Greg
Julian Lewis
myths, and if you take a look at Re: What scales to learn, you will see my
start, we shall see what ensues...
PS to Kent, this is all good fun, I am not being malicious.
Julian
Regor3 wrote in message <19990205153144...@ngol04.aol.com>...
Mark
How can you say it's "excessive to charge $100"?
I may think what Madonna or any NBA player makes is "excessive" or possibly
even "obscene", but my opinion is unimportant; it's simply what the market
bears.
Just because you don't like what the NY Times wants to charge for ITS
property (not yours, not mine, not public domain) doesn't make it right for
you to rationalize theft. The simple fact of the matter is that the NY
Times OWNS that article, regardless of whether you agree with it or not...
Mark
Michael Mayo wrote in message <79l0t3$fku$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>In article <36b994eb...@news.scvnet.com>, Miss....@NOSPAM.scvnet.com
>(Sharon D.) wrote:
>> If you wanted to rent my car, I would have the right to charge a
>> penny, or $500 per day. You have the right to take it or leave it.
>> It may not be fair, but as the owner, it's my right.
>
>Here is where most people sneak in the equivocation. Stealing a physical
>object ( a car ), and "stealing" an "expression of an idea" are two very
>different things. If I steal your car, I deny it from you. You cannot use
>it. If I "steal" your thoughts, am I denying you of the ability to think
>and enjoy them??
>
> Even the conservative supreme court (ruling on software
copyright/patent
>issues) admitted that there is no moral basis for this uniquely western
(and
>uniquely strange) idea that a person can have ownership over an abstract
>thought, idea, or concept. If I think fire engines are ugly, should I
>therefore "own" that thought? Is it amoral for anyone else to think it??
>
> The only reason we have copyright/patent laws is that a capitalistic
>economy simply cannot survive without them. Well, fine. But does that
mean
>we should excessively and oppressively extend these laws to the point at
>which it slows - or stops - the intellectual use and benefit of far
outdated
>information? I think everyone so far in this thread has admitted that
>charging $100 to use a 70-year-old article is more than a little excessive.
>
> So before you go around shouting about people trying to "rationalize
>theft," ask yourself who the thief in this case is. The NY Times, or Mr.
>Cumpiano? Laws are often bad. This is a bad law.
>
> -Michael A Mayo
>
Jim String
>>In general, if you treat people decently, as you would like to be
>>treated, you're pretty much on the right track. As an example, I
>>have several scores which I have transcribed or "arranged" for
>>guitar which I have not and will not put up on the Internet. It
>>belongs to someone else and if someone wants a copy they can go
>>buy it like I did and work up their own transcription. Now if someone
>>could not buy it in their area or could not afford it I _might_
>>mail them a copy on the condition that they don't put it up on
>>the Internet either and only if I trusted them. It's a value call.
>>
>>I believe that the creation of artificial scarcity is morally
>>wrong, but there are considerations which temper that position.
>>Ultimately it's just me and my conscience and I have to live
>>with it.
>
>and you _purchase_ this item and mail it to him.
Quite true, that's another alternative. Also, there's value in their
doing their own transcription/arrangement rather than blindly following
what I may or may not have done correctly. Eventually the work (at least
it's _supposed_ to) will return to the public domain and then all of those
transcriptions and arrangements are freed up too, adding even more value
to the work.
Best,
Jim
Jim String
>
>
>Michael Mayo wrote:
>
>> Here is where most people sneak in the equivocation. Stealing a physical
>> object ( a car ), and "stealing" an "expression of an idea" are two very
>> different things. If I steal your car, I deny it from you. You cannot use
>> it. If I "steal" your thoughts, am I denying you of the ability to think
>> and enjoy them??
>>
>
>your efforts. I'm going to steal your thoughts that you wrote down and called
>"music" and I'm going to use it in a motion picture and make millions. And I'm
>not going to give you a cent, because you still have your music and can enjoy
>it.
>
>>
>>
>> economy simply cannot survive without them.
>
>"Why should I write it if someone will immediately steal it?" I'll write music
>and keep it to myself so no one can steal it. Now you don't have the music,
>money or not.
>
>> we should excessively and oppressively extend these laws to the point at
>> which it slows - or stops - the intellectual use and benefit of far outdated
>> information? I think everyone so far in this thread has admitted that
>> charging $100 to use a 70-year-old article is more than a little excessive.
>
>pleases. I don't like it but I'll defend it. Why? Becasue the alternatives
>scare the hell out of me. I don't want to write music or write stories so that
>some lazy tightwad slob can steal it from me.
>
>>
>>
>> theft," ask yourself who the thief in this case is. The NY Times, or Mr.
>> Cumpiano?
>
>looking? I think they are the stealee, not the stealer.
>
>
>system that is based on greed. And hey, it works! If you don't like it, the
>wonderful thing is, you can move to another country. In this world we have
>countries that have just about every political system imaginable. You could
>pick whatever country you wanted.
>
>Pick one, please!
The law is one thing but individuals need to decide for themselves
whether they believe in the morality of creating artificial scarcity.
Those folks selling water in little plastic bottles are undoubtedly
delighted at the prospect of most naturally occurring water supplies
becoming polluted. Now this analogy has somewhat limited application
to the issues surrounding intellectual "property," but extend it as you
will.
In general, if you treat people decently, as you would like to be
treated, you're pretty much on the right track. As an example, I
have several scores which I have transcribed or "arranged" for
guitar which I have not and will not put up on the Internet. It
belongs to someone else and if someone wants a copy they can go
buy it like I did and work up their own transcription. Now if someone
could not buy it in their area or could not afford it I _might_
mail them a copy on the condition that they don't put it up on
the Internet either and only if I trusted them. It's a value call.
I believe that the creation of artificial scarcity is morally
wrong, but there are considerations which temper that position.
Ultimately it's just me and my conscience and I have to live
with it.
Best,
Jim
Earnest Bovine
ALLAN JONES wrote:
However, that's all history now, because it's pretty well 70 years now
> throughout most of Europe. Thus Ravel, Elgar, Holst, Roussel, and
> several others who died in the 30s are now back in copyright having been
> briefly out of it.
>
Hmmm
Does that mean that Elgar's stuff will go into the Public Domain in 2004?
I have 5 years to do my CD of the Adagio from the 1st symphony on pedal
steel guitar.