Barrios's Julia Florida
Nattapong Nithi-Uthai
to download on-line before I go out order one.
Thanks
Natt
William Gourlay
In addition to Julia Florida you'll find more Barrios, Villa Lobos, Granados,
Tarrega, Sor, and some more.
Oscar Arevalo
Stanley Yates
>From: William Gourlay gou...@pacbell.net
wrote:
>Try this link http://www.members.tripod.com/zappasfrank
>In addition to Julia Florida you'll find more Barrios, Villa Lobos, Granados,
>Tarrega, Sor, and some more.
All very nicely reproduced, from what I've seen. And all an illegal rip-off of
various editors and publishers who I'm sure did not invest a good deal of time,
money and expertise with the expectation that people like you would do their
best to put them out of business.
Think about it.
Mark Westling
afford a $1,000-5,000 guitar, a $1,500 PC, a $20/month ISP account, then try
to avoid paying $10 for a legal copy of the hard-earned work of composers,
editors, and publishers.
Mark
"Stanley Yates" <syate...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010511012104...@ng-ck1.aol.com...
Sharon
<mwes...@home.com> wrote:
>Well put, Stanley. I continue to find no logic (or ethics) in those who can
>afford a $1,000-5,000 guitar, a $1,500 PC, a $20/month ISP account, then try
>to avoid paying $10 for a legal copy of the hard-earned work of composers,
>editors, and publishers.
You might as well call it what it truly is: STEALING. I
hope the publishers go after this guy. Where's Ophee when
you need him? :-)
If you would like to comment on this webmaster's thievery,
his e-mail is Gitarren...@gmx.net
Yours for copyright integrity,
Sharon
Secretary to Christopher Parkening
http://www.parkening.com
Klaus Heim
"Sharon" <mus...@earthlink.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:eu0oftg5p2cq8c22f...@4ax.com...
It is obvious who this is. He has also used the name "zappasfrank" in an old
email-address: zappa...@gmx.de .
A little more research turns up a web-page, some more an address and
telephone number.
Big Brother is watching.
Klaus
Matanya Ophee
>You might as well call it what it truly is: STEALING. I
>hope the publishers go after this guy. Where's Ophee when
>you need him? :-)
I learned over the years that protesting on line thievery is
counter-productive. It only helps to advertise the pirate's location
and enocurage more stealing. The best policy is to simply ignore the
bastards and not give then the exposure they seek. If any action
should be taken, it'd better be taken privately, as you suggested.
Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: 614-846-9794
http://www.orphee.com
John Wasak
> Well put, Stanley. I continue to find no logic (or ethics) in those who
can
> afford a $1,000-5,000 guitar, a $1,500 PC, a $20/month ISP account, then
try
> to avoid paying $10 for a legal copy of the hard-earned work of composers,
> editors, and publishers.
>
Logic doesn't figure into it. It happens because the science for such a
thing exists. If people could anonymously download $1,000-5,000 guitars,
$1,500 PC's, or even TV's, Stereos, Clothing, Cars....you name it...directly
into their homes without paying for it, you can bet good money that this too
would happen.
That's why we see all the electronic detection devices and equipment in
stores, why we see security guards and store detectives, I believe it's
called the 'dark side of human nature'.
JW
Michael Caracena
time
so that the copyright law has run out.
( Besides, the real money should go to Barrios or his wife.
I think that wisdom (hmm) is in some U.S.-International law. )
For example,
I could take whatever editions of Fernando Sor,
write them down in my own way,
and sell them.
It's legal .
I'm not sure if this person is breaking the law ...
unless (s)he photo copied the sheet music itself.
Anyone has more insight?
Michael Caracena
Larry Deack
> Anyone has more insight?
Yes.
Stanley Yates
>Publishing Barrios' music is not illegal if he has been dead a significant
>time
>so that the copyright law has run out.
>( Besides, the real money should go to Barrios or his wife.
>I think that wisdom (hmm) is in some U.S.-International law. )
It is legal to publish music that it is the public domain only if the new
edition is based on a previous edition that has now itself entered the public
domain, or on a manuscript for which written permission has been given from
the owner.
Duplication or re-editing of an existing edition of PD music when the edition
itself was published within the last 75 years (or whatever the current number
is) is a copyright infingement against that edition - not against the music
itself.
If you want to make and reproduce your own edition of Leyenda you must track
down a copy of the music that was made early enough to be in the public domain.
Then base your work on that. You cannot, for example, legally reproduce my
edition of this piece, nor base a new arrangement upon it, without written
permission from my publisher - even though the piece itself is in the public
domain. Nor can you legally reproduce or base an arrangement on, for example,
any of the Albeniz manuscripts reproduced in my edition without the written
permission of the current owners of those manuscripts (The Royal Conservatory
of Music in Madrid) - even though the music itself is in the public domain.
When my edition enters the public domain - in about 70 years, you will be free
to reproduce any part of it - if you're still kicking.
In other words, ALL of the music on the site we are discussing is illegally
reproduced, despite the fact the some of the music has entered the the public
domain.
I'm about to send off to the publisher a two-volume collection of
classic-romantic guitar sonatas - written 200 years ago, all of this music is
in the public domain (with the exeception of a couple of things that were never
published at the time and exist today only in unique manuscripts). Furthermore,
probably 30% of the collection is already available in miltiple modern
editions, including some facsimle editions of the early, public domain,
edition. Still, I have spent the best part of two years tracking down and
securing - and paying for - authorized copies of all this stuff from various
libraries and archives around the world upon which I can legally base a new
modern edition. It would have been easy indeed to simply rip-off someone else's
edition - who would know?
As Mark Twain pointed out, if you dont tell lies, you don't havre to bother
remembering anything.
An artistic person is likely to do whatever it takes to follow his calling -
just don't broadcast the fact.
Richard White
syate...@aol.com (Stanley Yates) wrote:
The issues of copyright in general and derivative works in particular come
up regularly in many of the newsgroups and mailing lists to which I
subscribe.
I must say, Stanley's post is perhaps the clearest and most provocative
answer(s) on the issue.
Please take what he has to heart and understand that in order for
composers and publishers to continue to bring _all of us_ the music we
want, we mustn't impede their path by taking money from their pockets by
engaging in illegal acts. Each of us has a responsibility to the community
as a _whole_ to safeguard our heritage.
It really is this important if we each _really_ think about it.
Richard White
--
Hear Linda Ronstadt sing Richard White on
ŚA Merry Little Christmasą Elektra #62572-2/4
CDs: ŚMusic for Guitarą and ŚMusic for Woodwinds and Piano'
available at: http://www.mp3.com/richardwhite
http://listen.to/richardwhite whi...@flash.net
Jeff Gower
> I'm about to send off to the publisher a two-volume collection of
> classic-romantic guitar sonatas - written 200 years ago
Can you offer us any details on this, Stanley? What sonatas will be
included? (perhaps you want to wait for publication to give out info, I
understand) Anyway, I look forward to checking it out.
(A suggestion: have the publisher use the spiral-bound method you had
done for your Bach cello suite arrangements - it is great, much better
than glue-bound - thanks!)
> An artistic person is likely to do whatever it takes to follow his calling -
> just don't broadcast the fact.
Very true - someone must have broadcast this fact (that I love
performing regardless of my own personal $ gain) to to the various
venues in my area! D'oh!! ;-)
Jeff
Sam Culotta
Thank you, Stanley.
That is the clearest explanation of this subject I've seen yet..in fact, I
think I understand it now.
By the way, when your publications fall into public domain in 70 years I'll
be 130 and, hopefully, will have advanced above my current intermediate
level. Look forward to downloading and playing them.
Sm
Larry Deack
> Please take what he has to heart and understand that in order for
> composers and publishers to continue to bring _all of us_ the music we
> want, we mustn't impede their path by taking money from their pockets by
> engaging in illegal acts. Each of us has a responsibility to the community
> as a _whole_ to safeguard our heritage.
>
> It really is this important if we each _really_ think about it.
I really think it is much bigger than just music. We forget about
intellectual property in software. Many who won't copy music will freely use
illegal software assuming that Microsoft or some other giant entity can
absorb the cost but it's no different from ripping off a composer. Remember
that most of the rights for music are NOT owned by individuals. This is more
about how we hurt ourselves by the little ways we steal from companies
because we somehow think it's OK to do that but not OK to steal from and
individual.
Richard White
<cg...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Never meant to imply otherwise; I'm in full agreement here. But the thread
_is_ about music and this is my only concern with this issue.
However, companies and corporations are, in fact, comprised of
individuals. Stealing from them actually affect _more_ than one person.
The point is, the system is not open-ended; Actions taken against anyone
(or group) eventually produce an adverse affect on the whole: i.e., we all
suffer in the end.
Good points, though.
Lutemann
>If you want to make and reproduce your own edition of Leyenda you must track
>down a copy of the music that was made early enough to be in the public
>domain.
>Then base your work on that. You cannot, for example, legally reproduce my
>edition of this piece, nor base a new arrangement upon it, without written
>permission from my publisher - even though the piece itself is in the public
If I were to take Segovia's edition of Leyenda and change a bunch of notes,
fingerings, etc it would no longer be Segovia'a edition. There is no way to
prove that one arrangment is based on another's edition. I've even heard that
changing one note makes of an arrangement yours legally (publishers have done
this with piano edtions, I believe). I don't think this is a good idea,
however. It's a bit cheesey.
*****************************************************
Kent Murdick
New Free Flute and Guitar Piece!! Minuet No. 10 by Telemann
http://members.aol.com/lutemann/guitar.html
Lutemann
> Furthermore,
>probably 30% of the collection is already available in miltiple modern
>editions, including some facsimle editions of the early, public domain,
>edition. Still, I have spent the best part of two years tracking down and
>securing - and paying for - authorized copies of all this stuff from various
>libraries and archives around the world upon which I can legally base a new
>modern edition. It would have been easy indeed to simply rip-off someone
>else's
>edition - who would know?
The only reason I can think of for tracking down the Sonates is to get a more
authentic edition. There is no legal problem involved with taking published
editions and reworking them. This is not dishonest; no lies need to be told,
in fact, nothing needs to be said. Of course, such an edition wouldn't add much
to the repertoire.
BTW, I can't wait to get a hold of yours. When's it coming out?
Larry Deack
> Never meant to imply otherwise; I'm in full agreement here. But the thread
> _is_ about music and this is my only concern with this issue.
The thread is about intellectual property rights and how they apply to
music specifically. They indicate the level of understanding of broader
issues that affect our lives as musicians. If people do not respect
intellectual property rights in the general use as with software they cannot
be expected to understand how this affects a community that is not so flush
with money. Our ability to fool ourselves about what is theft is the problem
that in turn makes it difficult to make money with our art. But the same
cannot be said for the software industry where we are making lots of money.
My problem with any arguments about it taking money from poor artists is
that this has very little to do with most cases. People will rationalize
arguments like this saying that it's ONLY corporations that we hurt but as
you say we all eat it because of this basic lack of respect for other's
property.
In other words the problem is systemic to our culture not localized to
music.
Thomas F Brown
Richard White <whi...@flash.net> wrote:
>I must say, Stanley's post is perhaps the clearest and most provocative
>answer(s) on the issue.
>
>Please take what he has to heart and understand that in order for
>composers and publishers to continue to bring _all of us_ the music we
>want, we mustn't impede their path by taking money from their pockets by
>engaging in illegal acts. Each of us has a responsibility to the community
>as a _whole_ to safeguard our heritage.
>
>It really is this important if we each _really_ think about it.
It's not at all important to me, because I make my own versions
of everything I play. No disrespect to Stanley et al, but if he
decides to stop publishing, it's unfortunate but I'll still have
all the music I need or want. Become a creative artist rather than
an interpreter and you won't have to walk on eggshells when this
issue comes up.
Stanley Yates
> syate...@aol.com (Stanley Yates) wrote:
>
>> I'm about to send off to the publisher a two-volume collection of
>> classic-romantic guitar sonatas - written 200 years ago
>
>Can you offer us any details on this, Stanley? What sonatas will be
>included?
It's a comprehensvie annotated anthology which presents around 50 complete
works, fully representing a wide range of sonata styles employed by guitarists
during the late classic and early romantic periods. All the works are genuine
sonata forms (none of those generically titled simpler peces that composers
often also called "soanta"). Most are multi-movement works, though some are
single-movement overture-styles sonatas.
The two volumes are divided roughly Spain-France (Porro, Lhoyer, Doisy,
Marescot, Carulli, Molino, Sor) and Italy-Austria (Moretti, Matiegka, Molitor,
Matiegka, Giuliani, Diabelli, Scheidler).
The 4 Doisy sonatas, 10 Matiegka sonatas (some in the style of Haydn, some in
the style Schubert) and 3 Molitor sonatas, mostly not available in any modern
editions (to my knowledge), are particularly interesting, and a lot of fun to
play.
Anyway, there will be plenty of discussion in the edition - interpretation,
style, expression, etc.
Should be available at the GFA, along with the contempory music anthology I
prepared a while back and the the early volumes of graded teaching repertoire
I'm in the middle of editing for Mel Bay (lots of music by our favorite
contemporary guitar composers here, as well as the earlier periods - very
carefully selected and graded, and very exciting!).
While I'm on a roll, I'll also be giving the first modern performance of three
classic-period guitar concertos at the GFA (Vidal, Doisy and the fabulous
Doisy-Viotti). My editons of these (with Artaria) shoulds also be available at
the festival.
Can't believe i'm doing all this, considering the amount of travelling I did
this Spring! And the local summer soccer league ("football" where I come from)
starts next month (still have't managed to fully re-grow my toe-nail from last
season).
Stanley Yates
> syate...@aol.com (Stanley Yates) writes:
>
>> Furthermore,
>>probably 30% of the collection is already available in miltiple modern
>>editions, including some facsimle editions of the early, public domain,
>>edition. Still, I have spent the best part of two years tracking down and
>>securing - and paying for - authorized copies of all this stuff from various
>>libraries and archives around the world upon which I can legally base a new
>>modern edition. It would have been easy indeed to simply rip-off someone
>>else's
>>edition - who would know?
>
>The only reason I can think of for tracking down the Sonates is to get a
>more
>authentic edition. There is no legal problem involved with taking published
>editions and reworking them. This is not dishonest; no lies need to be told,
>in fact, nothing needs to be said. Of course, such an edition wouldn't add
>much
>to the repertoire.
>
>BTW, I can't wait to get a hold of yours. When's it coming out?
It should be available in time for the GFA festival in October.
Jeff Gower
syate...@aol.com (Stanley Yates) wrote:
> The two volumes are divided roughly Spain-France (Porro, Lhoyer, Doisy,
> Marescot, Carulli, Molino, Sor) and Italy-Austria (Moretti, Matiegka,
> Molitor,
> Matiegka, Giuliani, Diabelli, Scheidler).
Sounds terrific. I look forward to your versions of the ones I know,
and especially to the ones I've never known! Thanks for the hard work -
it will be appreciated by many, I'm sure.
Jeff
Larry Deack
> Can't believe i'm doing all this, considering the amount of travelling I
did
> this Spring! And the local summer soccer league ("football" where I come
from)
> starts next month (still have't managed to fully re-grow my toe-nail from
last
> season).
Well I'm happy that you can do this for the GFA and I'll be there to tell
you so in person and hear your wonderful playing.
Richard White
(Thomas F Brown) wrote:
Who are you talking to?
Stanley Yates
>Amen to that! The only criticism I have of Stanley's Albeniz edition is
>binding that won't allow the book to lay flat open on any page I choose.
>I've already destroyed the binding on my copy from bending it back so it
>will stay open. It's a shame, because an anthology like that one should be
>made to last. It deserves to last.
Hi john,
I'm pleased you're enjoying the edition, but a bit surprised about problems
with the thing staying open. The edition (and the first run of the Bach
edition) were given (so-called) "lay-flat binding."
I've not had probems myself, especially with the Albeniz, which seems to have
been printed on slightly lighter weight paper. Anyway, the good news: all
future reprints and new editions are to be produced with spiral binding (I
understand the latest run of the Bach edition already has it).
Ironic thing is, I actually requested
lay-flat' binding (which I understand is a little more expensive for the
publisher to produce) for the Bach edition (my first edition), thinking it
would be nicer for everyone than spiral, which can sometimes erode the covers.
One consolation: MB do price their editions by the page count, rather than the
type of binding.
Stanley
Stanley Yates
http://www.StanleyYates.com
Austin Peay State University
Department of Music
PO Box 4625
Clarksville TN 37043
(001) 931 221-7351
(001) 931 221-7529 (fax)
Michael Caracena
Michael Caracena
Michael Caracena
( and I'm not a lawyer.)
My understanding is that if someone like Barrios is dead for over 60+ years,
the music is public domain. ( period )
Sure the written manuscript of a Barrios' works can be copyrighted;
The way you write down Barrios' music can be copyrighted.
( It's now a copyright piece of art.)
However, the music itself is STILL in the public domain.
That can NEVER be copyrighted.
I could cook up my own editions right now and sell them:
AKA the "Caracena Editions" if you will.
No one could sue me.
( Or could they? )
It's kind of like taking a picture.
Lets say I copyright the picture.
Then it becomes famous.
When I die and picture has been around for more than 60 years,
then the picture is in the public domain.
What your arguing, it seems to me,
is that the picture can be recopyrighted by altering it by just a little.
Is that right?
In my opinion,
If an editor changes a work,
(s)he really ought to say so.
Anything else, it totally intellectually dishonest ( IMHO ) - kind of like
lying.
If you say a work is written by Barrios,
well then, it should have been written by Barrios.
Right?
Since Barrios music - I'm assuming - is now in the public domain.
What's the real point?
I guess what I'm really trying to say are his works are now officially
freeware.
Kind of like operating system Linux:
You could try to profit off it but others can still download it for free.
I guess the sheet music industry is going to have a rough ride through the
coming years ....
( Since it's not really there work in the first place. )
Michael Caracena
cara...@AmericanISP.net
Michael Caracena
else who
have been gone for more than 60 years is now public domain.
Are they?
That's what I want to know.
Micahel Caracena
cara...@AmericanISP.net
Michael Caracena
Especially if the composer has been gone for awhile.
( Just being blunt ... no disrespect intented.)
Michael Caracena
cara...@AmericanISP.net
Larry Deack
> The following is my understanding of the law ...
> ( and I'm not a lawyer.)
Thank God you aren't a lawyer.
> My understanding is that if someone like Barrios is dead for over 60+
years,
> the music is public domain. ( period )
You might want to do some homework. This is dumb in light of what has been
posted to this thread. Did you even bother to read what Stanley wrote? If
not read it and for one thing note his mention of the 75 year date (in the
US it's now 100 in some cases thanks to Sunny Bono). There is plenty of
information on the web if you are interested in learning how not to break
the law.
Michael Caracena
So here I am trying to clarify some issues as it relates to guitar playing.
That's not dumb;
That's smart.
And I think this is the appropriate place to do that.
( Copyright issues, of course, relate to classical guitar. )
So here are some real questions that
I have that haven't really been answered:
1) Can I copy sheet music and distribute it over the internet?
1b) When can I copy sheet music and distribute it over the internet?
2) When can I perform the music and not have to pay royalties?
3) When can I record copyrighted music and not have to pay royalties?
4) If I hand copy some sheet music that's copyrighted and change few notes,
can I sell it legally?
5) Can I sell the Billy Joel ( or Barrios ) knock off transcription I want
to write without paying royalties?
6) Could I give away that "Billy Joel" ( or Barrios ) knock off
transcription for free without having to pay royalties?
7) Can I create a piece of music that's a variation on a theme from Billy
Joel and not have to pay royalties?
Michael Caracena
cara...@AmericanISP.net
Sean Winkler
>
> I don't fully understand copyright law yet.
> So here I am trying to clarify some issues as it relates to guitar playing.
> That's not dumb;
> That's smart.
> And I think this is the appropriate place to do that.
>
> ( Copyright issues, of course, relate to classical guitar. )
>
> So here are some real questions that
> I have that haven't really been answered:
>
> 1) Can I copy sheet music and distribute it over the internet?
>
> 1b) When can I copy sheet music and distribute it over the internet?
>
IF the EDITION you are copying is copyrighted, you cannot copy it
period. Distributing it is also illegal. Again, you must differentiate
between the piece of music itself, which may be in the public domain,
and the edition of the music, which may is probably copyrighted.
> 2) When can I perform the music and not have to pay royalties?
>
In the case of a concert/recital, the venue generally arranges for
performance rights. The owners of the concert hall/theater/restaurant
pay a fee that covers the performance of copyrighted material on their
premises. If you are playing someplace that has not made such
arrangements, then it is technically illegal.
> 3) When can I record copyrighted music and not have to pay royalties?
>
Never. If it is copyrighted, you must pay mechanical royalties.
> 4) If I hand copy some sheet music that's copyrighted and change few notes,
> can I sell it legally?
>
> 5) Can I sell the Billy Joel ( or Barrios ) knock off transcription I want
> to write without paying royalties?
>
> 6) Could I give away that "Billy Joel" ( or Barrios ) knock off
> transcription for free without having to pay royalties?
In all three cases, you have created a derivative work of a copyrighted
work. Whether you sell it or give it away is irrelevant. Derivative
works are protected by copyright law as well.
>
> 7) Can I create a piece of music that's a variation on a theme from Billy
> Joel and not have to pay royalties?
Probably. It would likely depend on how much of the original material
you use and how much original material you compose. But in items 5-7,
you are confusing the issue. It's not a matter of paying royalties, but
rather obtaining permission to use copyrighted material.
No offense, Michael, but have you bothered to follow any of the links
people have posted? There is a wealth of information on this subject
available, and my responses to your questions come solely from
information I have obtained online. Contrary to what many people
assert, the US copyright code is not particularly difficult to
understand. You can read it online at
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/
In a different post, you gave the time span of 60 years for a piece to
pass into the public domain. This is inaccurate. Look at Chapter 3 of
the copyright code.
Sean Winkler
Dana Johnson
infringement of copyright law.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
Joe Cunningham
> > 3) When can I record copyrighted music and not have to pay royalties?
> >
>
> Never. If it is copyrighted, you must pay mechanical royalties.
OK this is the one that caught my eye. Sean (or others) can probably help
me out on this. Lets say I make a recording in my limited home studio and
give it as a Christmas present. Do I have to pay royalties on that? I mean
I didn't make any money on the sale of it (and actually am in the -$$ if you
consider price of recording media). Just wondering 'cause I am thinking of
Christmas presents early this year ... believe me this will be a stocking
stuffer (or maybe a substitute for a lump of coal LOL).
On a related note, does anyone know the version of Greensleeves that is on
the Bream "Ultimate Guitar Collection" CD? I have a couple versions that I
have been kicking around, but none sounds quite the same (and its not just
because I am playing them).
thanks,
JC
Larry Deack
> OK this is the one that caught my eye. Sean (or others) can probably help
> me out on this. Lets say I make a recording in my limited home studio and
> give it as a Christmas present. Do I have to pay royalties on that?
No, you have to get permission first then record.
> I mean I didn't make any money on the sale of it
But did you cost the people who own the copyright a possible sale? You may
not have represented the piece the way the owner wants and they think you
caused damage to them and you could be in trouble. In the real world such
disregard for the law most often goes unnoticed so without enforcement the
law is not likely to stop you but you have to ask if it's morally OK.
Dana Johnson
(including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research,
[copying] is NOT an infringement of copyright. (Emphasis, and [] mine.)
Kind regards,
Larry Deack
> ... for purposes SUCH AS criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
> (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research,
> [copying] is NOT an infringement of copyright. (Emphasis, and [] mine.)
Read more carefully and you will find further restrictions on each of these
cases. For example, how much do you think teachers can copy for classroom
use before it becomes a violation? Many teachers violate this part of the
law thinking they are covered under fair use.
Be very careful in interpreting fair use. Fair use is a lot like freedom of
information, there are limits and reasons why there are limits.
Sean Winkler
Dana,
You have not given a complete quotation of the fair use clause. It goes
on to say:
"In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is
a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such
use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation
to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not
itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon
consideration of all the above factors. "
In most, if not all, cases discussed thus far in this thread, I would
argue that the fair use clause does not apply.
Sean Winkler
Dana Johnson
Absolutely! "Fair-use" is intended to foster innovation, NOT infringe
on
anyone's livelyhood.
Kind regards,
Richard White
<cara...@AmericanISP.net> wrote:
>
>I don't fully understand copyright law yet.
>So here I am trying to clarify some issues as it relates to guitar playing.
>That's not dumb;
>That's smart.
>And I think this is the appropriate place to do that.
I appreciate your directness and desire to understand such a complex
issue. I suggest, however, that you treat this venue as _only one of many_
in your quest for answers; you would be much better served and informed in
the long run. You will only get _opinions_ here, some more informed than
others for sure, but opinions nonetheless. Beware.... (even of mine).
My answers are applicable to music(s) that are still _under copyright_ .
>So here are some real questions that
>I have that haven't really been answered:
>1) Can I copy sheet music and distribute it over the internet?
Absolutely not.
>1b) When can I copy sheet music and distribute it over the internet?
When you have written permission from the copyright holder(s).
>2) When can I perform the music and not have to pay royalties?
When the venue in which you perform already pays a blanket fee to a
performing rights organization (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, etc.).
>3) When can I record copyrighted music and not have to pay royalties?
You can't. You must serve notice on the copyright holder(s) (or, if they
are represented by a mechanical rights organization (Harry Fox Agency))
and pay mechanical royalties. These fees are regulated by law in _very
specific terms_ , but are negotiable should the copyright holder(s) be
willing to do so.
I might add that permission to record is not needed for music that has
already been recorded and distributed professionally. Once this has
occurred, you may record such music (cover) without express permission,
but must _still pay_ mechanical royalties.
>4) If I hand copy some sheet music that's copyrighted and change few notes,
> can I sell it legally?
How you copy is irrelevant; changing a "few notes" and then "selling" your
new creation is _highly suspect_ from the outset. It is not likely you'd
get very far were you to be detected.
>5) Can I sell the Billy Joel ( or Barrios ) knock off transcription I want
>to write without paying royalties?
Man, the ink wouldn't even be dry on anything you do with Billy Joel's
music before you'd be sued up the wazoo...
>6) Could I give away that "Billy Joel" ( or Barrios ) knock off
>transcription for free without having to pay royalties?
See answer to #5.
>7) Can I create a piece of music that's a variation on a theme from Billy
>Joel and not have to pay royalties?
Absolutely not. As with the transcription, this is a derivative work:
Permission - in writing - must first be obtained.
Finally: When _truly_ in doubt, always ask permission of the copyright
holder(s). Their position(s) on their work _supercedes_ anything the law
has to say about it. If you want to build a dog house in your neighbor's
yard, ask _him_ what he thinks, not the rest of the neighborhood. :-)
Hope this helps you.
Larry Deack
> In most, if not all, cases discussed thus far in this thread, I would
> argue that the fair use clause does not apply.
The sad part about this is that fair use is exactly what is being debated
in the law at this time. The US senate hearings on this subject were held
not long ago and all who attended agreed that the fair use portion of the
law is the most difficult to understand since there are specific
technologies that enable new way of thinking about this. It is not clear how
this will all turn out but there is some concern that fair use is a portion
of the law that will continue to evolve with technologies. This is not a
trivial thing we are looking at folks.
I'd agree with Sean that most of the arguments for using copyrighted
material have been mostly wishful thinking and not really trying to be
objective. It's too difficult for most people to realize what work goes into
obtaining all the rights. It's a bitch and it costs money and time.
Companies hire people to do searches on trademarks, copyrights and patents
and even then they miss things. Like Microsoft who tried to sue another
Washington company for using the name Micro Softaware only to find out they
had the prior claim but they were nice enough to let Microsoft continue
using their name.
Patrick Read
> the Bream "Ultimate Guitar Collection" CD? I have a couple versions that I
> have been kicking around, but none sounds quite the same (and its not just
> because I am playing them).
>
> to. It can be found in most anthologies. He wraps this around a version
> composed by Francis Cutting. It can be found in Fred Noad's "The Renaissance
> Guitar".
Dana Johnson
Actually, my original message did reference the complete clause.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
I agree with you. If I had to 'argue', perhaps not all of the
cases discussed thus far in this thread would fall under the 'fair-use'
clause, but there are exceptions to copyright law intended to foster
innovation. Or so I've heard.
:')
Kind regards,
Larry Deack
> Beware.... (even of mine).
Yes, but your post is very nice and clear, thanks.
> >2) When can I perform the music and not have to pay royalties?
>
> When the venue in which you perform already pays a blanket fee to a
> performing rights organization (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, etc.).
In the case I was involved in ASCAP asked the board of our group for the
money not the performers. We asked some of the performers if ASCAP had
contacted them but they did not. We are now covered under the umbrella of a
university but we did negotiate a fee with ASCAP after a few letters and
phone calls. It was very enlightening.
> Hope this helps you.
Helps us all, thanks. It's interesting that as professional musicians we
end up learning all this stuff to survive.
Richard White
<joNseph_cOu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>OK this is the one that caught my eye. Sean (or others) can probably help
>me out on this. Lets say I make a recording in my limited home studio and
>give it as a Christmas present. Do I have to pay royalties on that? I mean
>I didn't make any money on the sale of it (and actually am in the -$$ if you
>consider price of recording media). Just wondering 'cause I am thinking of
>Christmas presents early this year ... believe me this will be a stocking
>stuffer (or maybe a substitute for a lump of coal LOL).
What composition _specifically_ are you referring to?
But, nonetheless...
Despite the informal and nonprofit character of your project, if the music
you are considering is still under copyright, mechanicals must still be
paid.
The good news is, if the run you are considering is 500 or under and the
music is five minutes or less in length, the current (and soon to be
raised if it hasn't already) minimum mechanical rights fee is 7.55 cents
($.0755, U.S.) for each distributed recording. Total: $37.75. Not at all
unreasonable as compared with attorneys' fees should the unthinkable
happen. ;-)
LVF
it goes. If I buy a piece of sheetmusic. Is the sheetmusic itself the
permission I need to perform (I said perform- *not* record) this music in a
public venue? OK so I'm gonna go ahead and ask. What about recording
published sheetmusic?
Like I said before, I'm new to this arena. So be gentle.
TIA
Larry
"Richard White" <whi...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:whitco-1405...@a010-0034.tcsn.splitrock.net...
> OA Merry Little Christmasน Elektra #62572-2/4
> CDs: OMusic for Guitarน and OMusic for Woodwinds and Piano'
Tim Berens
<joNseph_cOu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > 3) When can I record copyrighted music and not have to pay royalties?
>> >
>>
>> Never. If it is copyrighted, you must pay mechanical royalties.
>
>OK this is the one that caught my eye. Sean (or others) can probably help
>me out on this. Lets say I make a recording in my limited home studio and
>give it as a Christmas present. Do I have to pay royalties on that? I mean
>I didn't make any money on the sale of it (and actually am in the -$$ if you
>consider price of recording media). Just wondering 'cause I am thinking of
>Christmas presents early this year ... believe me this will be a stocking
>stuffer (or maybe a substitute for a lump of coal LOL).
>
That one caught my eye too because it's not quite right. You may
record all the copyrighted material you want without any sort of
permission. But, you may not distribute the recordings without going
through the right hoops. Distribute means to sell or give away -- the
law makes no distinction between the two.
It's really a pretty simple process. See http://www.harryfox.com for
information about how to get the proper rights for distribution.
If we are discussing public domain music (anything written before your
grandma was born is a safe rule of thumb), you can record that without
permission or fees of any sort.
Tim
Tim Berens records for Red Mark Records
Sound clips on Amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00004RC22/102-7001331-0566459
Klaus Heim
"Larry Deack" <cg...@mindspring.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:9dp3rd$jad$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
Will these moral questions go away, when the work enters the public domain?
"You may not have represented the piece the way the owner wants" - this
question does not have anything to do with copyright laws. So, if you set a
moral basis for your deeds, then you must do so even if the piece is in
public domain. If you find it morally OK to modify pieces in the public
domain (ie in most cases of people long dead), you should also have no
qualms about doing so with copyrighted pieces. You must ask, if the morals
you upload are your own, or if they are dictated by laws.
Klaus
Larry Deack
> I'm gonna ask a dumb question, but I'm new to musical performance, so here
> it goes. If I buy a piece of sheetmusic. Is the sheetmusic itself the
> permission I need to perform (I said perform- *not* record) this music in
a
> public venue?
No. Copyrights and performing rights are related but not connected like you
suggest. You go to different folks to get the rights. Read all the thread
again and you will find this information. Especially read Stanley Yates and
Richard Whites posts.
Larry Deack
> You must ask, if the morals
> you upload are your own, or if they are dictated by laws.
Morals and law, what an interesting intersection they create.
Richard White
<klh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
This is an excellent point; but may I suggest it be continued in a thread
with a _different name?_
The legal issues with regards to copyright law(s) (from those nations that
support them) and their myriad interpretations represent a slippery enough
slope as they now stand. :-)
Respectfully,
Richard White
--
Hear Linda Ronstadt sing Richard White on
ŚA Merry Little Christmasą Elektra #62572-2/4
CDs: ŚMusic for Guitarą and ŚMusic for Woodwinds and Piano'
Dana Johnson
In my opinion, arguments for not using copyrighted material have
been
mostly made by musicians who have a vested interest in protecting their
(hard won) artistic creations. Objectively and without wishful
thinking,
it seems that there is a fair use clause in copyright law (Intended to
foster innovation, as I understand), and it applies to all sorts of
material besides music (such as software).
My experience is in this technical field, and it's interesting (to
me)
to note that anytime one uses a browser (Microsoft's IE and Netscape for
example) to visit a website, one makes a precise duplication (copy) of
the
site on one's local disk. Computers functioning in this manner make no
distinction about copyrights of software, music, or any digital
information it might happen upon.
In light of these 'technologies', my questions are : Should
copyright
holders put protected material on the Internet? Should they use the
Internet until 'fair use' is less difficult for us lay-people to
understand?
Kind regards,
Richard White
(Tim Berens) wrote:
> On 14 May 2001 17:00:09 GMT, "Joe Cunningham"
> <joNseph_cOu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >> > 3) When can I record copyrighted music and not have to pay royalties?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Never. If it is copyrighted, you must pay mechanical royalties.
> >
> >OK this is the one that caught my eye. Sean (or others) can probably help
> >me out on this. Lets say I make a recording in my limited home studio and
> >give it as a Christmas present. Do I have to pay royalties on that? I mean
> >I didn't make any money on the sale of it (and actually am in the -$$ if you
> >consider price of recording media). Just wondering 'cause I am thinking of
> >Christmas presents early this year ... believe me this will be a stocking
> >stuffer (or maybe a substitute for a lump of coal LOL).
> >
>
> That one caught my eye too because it's not quite right. You may
> record all the copyrighted material you want without any sort of
> permission. But, you may not distribute the recordings without going
> through the right hoops. Distribute means to sell or give away -- the
> law makes no distinction between the two.
I would add here that _permission_ to record and distribute is not
required once the composition in question has already been recorded and
distributed. (The right of first recording resides with the copyright
holder(s). )
However, the law stipulates that a copyright holder may not subsequently
withhold permission to record and distribute their copyrighted material
once it has already gone through this process.
In all cases, however, mechanical rights must be paid if the copyright
holder(s) demand it.
> It's really a pretty simple process. See http://www.harryfox.com for
> information about how to get the proper rights for distribution.
Their site is a wealth of information. Anyone with even a _passing_
interest in this area should visit and learn more about the process. (And,
yes, it's pretty straightforward.)
> If we are discussing public domain music (anything written before your
> grandma was born is a safe rule of thumb), you can record that without
> permission or fees of any sort.
In my case, that would be 1885; but I would take care with such a loose
statement. If in even the slightest doubt, do your due diligence! so your
grandma can rest in peace. ;-)
Richard White
<se...@cfm.brown.edu> wrote:
Sean Winkler <se...@cfm.brown.edu> wrote:
>Dana Johnson wrote:
>
>> ... for purposes SUCH AS criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
>> (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research,
>> [copying] is NOT an infringement of copyright. (Emphasis, and [] mine.)
>
>Dana,
>
>You have not given a complete quotation of the fair use clause. It goes
>on to say:
>"In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is
>a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
>
> (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such
>use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
> (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
> (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation
>to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
> (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
>the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not
>itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon
>consideration of all the above factors. "
As an aside...
These are indeed the criteria suggested by law as guides to rendering an
opinion on the applicability of "fair use."
But anyone with even an ounce of larceny in their heart and a modicum of
common sense can see the open-ended possibilities if these criteria are
applied either in whole or in part.
Suffice it to say that in a legal setting, the respective skills of the
attorneys involved have much to say in this regard. And the final outcome
is - and this is the kicker - an _opinion_ rendered by the court.
FWIW: While it is an opinion that carries much more weight than any of
ours does, it is, nonetheless, an opinion. There is very little, if
anything, that is _initially_ clearcut about the fair use provisions.
Richard White
<da...@danajohnson.net> wrote:
<snip>
> In my opinion, arguments for not using copyrighted material have
> been
> mostly made by musicians who have a vested interest in protecting their
> (hard won) artistic creations. Objectively and without wishful
> thinking,
> it seems that there is a fair use clause in copyright law (Intended to
> foster innovation, as I understand), and it applies to all sorts of
> material besides music (such as software).
Yes, in my case, I make an effort at protecting my rights whenever I see
the need to do so. But I would more liken my efforts to educating first,
protecting mine (and others) second. If necessary, the law can be used for
the latter anyway.
So far, however, no one has brought up any specific issues in this thread
that indicate "fair use" is applicable. Have I missed something?
<snip>
>
> In light of these 'technologies', my questions are : Should
> copyright
> holders put protected material on the Internet?
Good question! I think each copyright holder needs to answer this question
for himself. So, in my case, since the plusses outweigh the minuses, my
answer is yes.
>Should they use the
> Internet until 'fair use' is less difficult for us lay-people to
> understand?
See above. But to be honest, fair use - unless it becomes a black and
white issue rather than a set of relatively vague criteria - will _never_
be less difficult for _anyone_ to understand. Just my opinion. :-)
In light of the newer technologies, Harry Fox Agency is in negotiations
with at least one online distributor of recorded music. (Those of us privy
to this information are pledged to secrecy until a later time.) Perhaps
there are more, but I'm not aware of any at this time. I'd wager that,
when the time comes to announce any agreements between Harry Fox and
online distributors of recorded music it would become available at their
website: www.harryfox.com
But this is only a beginning...
'Round and 'round she goes, where she stops... ???
Joe Cunningham
Well, I hadn't thought it through to be honest. It is just May after all
and I have some time to work that out (less than I think though). Not sure
its going to be a 'Christmas' cd so much as a cd I give as a Christmas
present. So it will probably have pieces I studied with my instructor (with
his copyright) and maybe a few others.
Hmm, my run is expected to be about 5 (LOL) so I think I can swing the 37.75
cents. I'll check out the http://www.harryfox.com site for more info.
Thanks,
Joe
"Richard White" <whi...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:whitco-1405...@a010-0557.tcsn.splitrock.net...
who...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>In article <9dpbl8$j4m7d$1...@ID-89355.news.dfncis.de>, "Klaus Heim"
><klh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>This is an excellent point; but may I suggest it be continued in a thread
>with a _different name?_
>
>The legal issues with regards to copyright law(s) (from those nations that
>support them) and their myriad interpretations represent a slippery enough
>slope as they now stand. :-)
Well, 106(A) starts to get us into moral/natural rights. I hesitate
to suggest we look at the philosophy's underlying European
intellectual property law to shed light on this country's approach!
Larry Deack
> Well, 106(A) starts to get us into moral/natural rights. I hesitate
> to suggest we look at the philosophy's underlying European
> intellectual property law to shed light on this country's approach!
That would be great for another thread. I think this whole issue is
interesting but I also think that Richard has the right approach of trying
to keep this thread clear and to the point as it relates to what one needs
to understand to comply with the law as it is enforced.
Richard White
<cg...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Precisely my point.
So you read minds also, Larry? ;-)
Larry Deack
Naw it took me a bit of you knocking me over the head to get your point.
Bob Ashley
> "Larry Deack" <cg...@mindspring.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:9dp3rd$jad$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
>> "Joe Cunningham"
>>> OK this is the one that caught my eye. Sean (or others) can probably
> help
>>> me out on this. Lets say I make a recording in my limited home studio
> and
>>> give it as a Christmas present. Do I have to pay royalties on that?
>>
>> No, you have to get permission first then record.
>>
>>> I mean I didn't make any money on the sale of it
>>
>> But did you cost the people who own the copyright a possible sale? You
> may
>> not have represented the piece the way the owner wants and they think you
>> caused damage to them and you could be in trouble. In the real world such
>> disregard for the law most often goes unnoticed so without enforcement the
>> law is not likely to stop you but you have to ask if it's morally OK.
Klaus Heim wrote:
> Will these moral questions go away, when the work enters the public domain?
> "You may not have represented the piece the way the owner wants" - this
> question does not have anything to do with copyright laws. So, if you set a
> moral basis for your deeds, then you must do so even if the piece is in
> public domain. If you find it morally OK to modify pieces in the public
> domain (ie in most cases of people long dead), you should also have no
> qualms about doing so with copyrighted pieces. You must ask, if the morals
> you upload are your own, or if they are dictated by laws.
Good point, Klaus. It irks me, too, when moral issues get conflated with
legal issues. Copyright law, to my mind, holds a shard of a dim reflection
of what might be right or wrong. Law is about who gets to say how things
will happen and how they won't. It's an instrument of power.
Copyright law merely says, "Around here we do like this, or else." That such
a law presents an highly idiosyncratic, peculiar custom is clear once
juxtaposed to those thousands of cultures who do not estimate art as
'property', material, intellectual, or otherwise.
More reasonably, one might offer that copyright is simply 'right' given the
capitalist economic context it occupies. And if there is moral imperative,
it must be counted as a merely local imperative, which is why I say, 'How we
do things around _here_.
Frankly, I think copyright law is still an embarrassing sham, even within
its proper context. It's tokenism writ large, a highly functional gratuity
which relegates the average artist to squalor. As low a status as a typical
McDonald's job might possess, it still enjoys a top-down view of the artist
teetering precariously a few rungs lower on the social ladder. Now and then
a blazing star ascends to riches, but most artists are candles in the wind,
economically speaking. Copyright law is less effective than food stamps in
its provisions and its enforcements. Now that's a socio-economic phenomenon
which invites a sober, moral dialectic. But few seem interested in
interrogating the dominant status quo, as ostensibly crippled as it is.
Generally speaking, in this North American dominated barnyard, an argument
which criticizes copyright law carries no truck. But I'd love to witness the
occasion of a Canadian or American trying to extol the moral correctitude of
copyright protection of art to the Yanomamo culture of South America.
I'd love to hear, "That's not that way we do things around here" coming at
us.
***
rib
Larry Deack
> Frankly, I think copyright law is still an embarrassing sham, even within
> its proper context.
And what is your solution?
Bob Ashley
> "Klaus Heim"
>> You must ask, if the morals
>> you upload are your own, or if they are dictated by laws.
Larry Deack wrote:
> Morals and law, what an interesting intersection they create.
And as often as not, what is created is a bifurcation.
Organizations like Greenpeace, The National Poverty Coalition, and the
Canadian Women and the Law Association and a gaggle of other NGOs know,
firsthand, how laws which protect a few, oppress many others. We might call
many laws "legal evils". A bifurcation.
***
rib
Richard White
<cg...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > So you read minds also, Larry? ;-)
>
> Naw it took me a bit of you knocking me over the head to get your point.
Ouch! Sorry about that!
Larry Deack
> And as often as not, what is created is a bifurcation.
I think the intersection is very small but the basic ideas are there. The
idea that we must decide on some system seems obvious. What that system is
is certainly debatable but we do have a system in place. What I find is more
complainers than doers. I can complain like the best but when the
complaining is done all that is left is the work to make things happen. A 19
year old UCI student just recently stopped a developer from taking advantage
a situation on land owned by UCI. That's what I like about getting involved
with things and not just talking. Talk radio is just a gripe line of pundits
who offer very little except a forum to vent. Organizations like the UCI
arboretum where I volunteer do real work to change things using an
unbelievably small budget and lots of great volunteers. Sometimes real work
is better than words.
Larry Deack
> Ouch! Sorry about that!
Richard, I'm the one who was dense, no reason for you to apologize to me,
bud. I like what you post and will gladly shut up so you can speak more
clearly than I seem to be able to do. Like Rib, I like tangents too much.
Bob Ashley
> "Bob Ashley"
>> Frankly, I think copyright law is still an embarrassing sham, even within
>> its proper context.
Larry Deack wrote:
> And what is your solution?
Revolution.
I realize you rest your snap question confident on the fundament of that
more (moray) which says, "If you can't offer a constructive alternative,
then your criticism carries no truck". That is a fallacy. American
pragmatism loves this sort of question. It evaluates the 'philosophy' of
something based on the 'utility' of something. The universe, however, is
bigger than pragmatism and utility.
But you realize, also, that your question's rhetorical power resides in the
impossibility of garnering a reasonably well-thought out, well-researched,
in-depth analysis, based on much data collected by numerous sorts of legal,
social, political, artistic and other sorts of experts. It's a Goliath.
Yours is a rhetorical shut-down question, because I have neither time, nor
inclination, nor resources to properly answer it. You know that.
This does not preclude me from opining on the obvious reality, the less than
adequate compensation experiences of most artists I know personally, or know
about, or for that matter, who frequent this newsgroup. Compensation for
work done represents an absurdly disproportionate ratio. All artists are
"Waiting for Godot" in this sense. It takes no expert, no research, to
assert the commonplace platitude that, generally speaking, the cliché
'starving artist' is not far off the mark. Evidence of the inadequacy of
copyright is all around us, everywhere there is art and artists.
The purpose of my criticism was not to offer solutions but encourage a
further interrogation of an existing system. The purpose of my criticism is
to communicate incredulity towards what appears to be defense of a
disfigured, emaciated status quo. Thus, in a volley back, I should ask you,
"Why is copyright law defensible?". Such a leading question!
Mine the same sort of fat, fat snap question you ask me. Transparent to my
own rhetoric, I know you can't answer that question adequately, which is
exactly why I act it out. Call it the 'mirror-manoeuver' That's postmodern
self-reflexive guilt for you! How much time, inclination, or resources do
you have, realistically to properly answer that question--in your leisure?
Fortunately, I don't put you on the hot-seat, because you can simply serve
me notice of my own mirror-manoeuver and I must resign.
More likely than not, when it comes to figuring out answers to big, fat
questions, you're in the same boat as I am. At a loss.
"It's right" vs. "Revolution". We each spin our superficial wheels, and in
opposite directions, yours toward salvation, mine toward apocalypse. Nothing
short of revolution could reverse our spins.
My answer. Revolution. When that happens I invite you to interrogate my the
sham which will be my gulag.
***
rib
Bob Ashley
> "Bob Ashley"
>> And as often as not, what is created is a bifurcation.
I agree with these sentiments which sanction social movement for social
change.
But to be fair to the gripers, most of us are in the straightjacket grip of
social structures which disempower opposition at every turn, every step.
Alienation, disaffection, frustration, resignation is everywhere, I think,
because so many feel powerless to effect real change. Too, we live in a
context of enshrined individualism making it nigh impossible for many people
with common gripes to organize.
Artists are like farmers in this respect. Independent people, proud
individuals, self-sufficient, resourceful, but next to impossible to
organize for the purpose of social change.
If there was some way that artists could walk out, a general strike, some
important people might take notice. An 'Artist Shrugged'. But individualism
is a perfect political passivization mechanism because it discourages
assembly. Artists, as hyper-individualists, splintered, then become an
inadvertent apparatus of the ideological state. Ironic, in that our culture
is demonstrably the most conformist in human history.
I guess, at heart, I'm a socialist, but with a difference; I'm am condemned
by my own resignation to accept the futility of that system which I prefer,
as futile as that which I hold in contempt. Some call this postmodern
nihilism. Some call it play. Lyotard called it, "Incredulity towards all
metanarratives", Derrida the 'critique of logocentricism or the
transcendental signified', Baudrillard, the 'simulcrum', Lacan, 'the
slipperiness of self-identity, Bloom, 'misprision', Fukuyama, 'the end of
history'.
I commend your volunteer spirit. It answers all these guys in one fell
swoop.
***
rib
Michael Caracena
Also, thanks for the website link.
I'll check it out.
Michael Caracena
cara...@AmericanISP.net
Larry Deack
> Revolution.
-snip-
> But you realize, also, that your question's rhetorical power
No. I was serious. I think that it's just fine to play philosophy 101 and I
love to explore the patterns but as I said that doesn't accomplish much to
make things better for us. Revolution can take many forms. I already told
you my solution, just get out a do something to make things better no matter
how frustrating it can get. Enough talk, do something. That would be a
revolution since so many people I meet seem to think somebody else is
supposed to fix things. Things are complicated and the problems we are
facing are not trivial. We need help in every non profit group I'm involved
with. We need lawyers and financial people not just artists to want to help
with the arts. We need scientist like professor Gutman who took over the
OCGC web site to join us. We need executive secretaries like one of my
students who helped with the OCGC for years. We need people to help in
Hospice so people can die with some dignity. All of these things often
tremendous rewards to those who help. I have learned so much by just
volunteering. Do what you can but please just do something don't just talk
about it.
Klaus Heim
> "Bob Ashley"
> > Revolution.
> -snip-
> > But you realize, also, that your question's rhetorical power
>
> No. I was serious. I think that it's just fine to play philosophy 101 and
I
> love to explore the patterns but as I said that doesn't accomplish much to
> make things better for us. Revolution can take many forms. I already told
> you my solution, just get out a do something to make things better no
matter
> how frustrating it can get. Enough talk, do something. That would be a
> revolution since so many people I meet seem to think somebody else is
> supposed to fix things.
So you are in favor, not of the how, but of the why, of those who do things
to change the status quo of copyright laws by publishing copyrighted works
on the Internet? "Revolution can take many forms". After all, the recent
site (zappasfrank, Gitarrenfanatiker), and the person behind it is a
"non-profit organization".
Klaus
who...@hotmail.com
"The Congress shall have Power . . . To promote the Progress of
Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and
Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and
Discoveries."
U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 8
Congress doesn't have to grant any monopoly. But if Congress didn't,
then what incentive would inventors and writers have? I write things
for money. These pass into the public domain because they are written
for the government. So I get paid and you get the work. If the
government didn't pay me, if I had to sell this work, wouldn't it be
wrong for you to pick a copy up off my desk and sell it?
Steve
JamieWG
<cg...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
> Read more carefully and you will find further restrictions on each of these
>cases. For example, how much do you think teachers can copy for classroom
>use before it becomes a violation? Many teachers violate this part of the
>law thinking they are covered under fair use.
Larry is correct here, but often case research must be done to assist in
knowing the courts' interpretations of the law. In the instance of teaching and
educational research, a college professor had articles copied from several
different sources and bound together for his students for the semester. The
copyright holders took the school to court and won. They took the stand that he
had actually republished the music.
In the case of research, Texaco lost a lawsuit brought by a scientific journal
when one of its researchers copied an article that was then used by 400 or so
researchers working on a project, even though Texaco did own an original of the
issue!
Jamie
Jamie W. Grossman
Intermediate Classical Guitar Repertoire Favorites Homepage:
http://www.maui.net/~rtadaki/intcgrep.html
JamieWG
>In the instance of teaching and
>educational research, a college professor had articles copied from several
>different sources and bound together for his students for the semester. The
>copyright holders took the school to court and won.
Actually, I don't remember if it was the teacher, school, or Kinkos that was
sued, but whichever it was, the copyright holder did win.
And I also said:
> They took the stand that
>he
>had actually republished the music.
In this instance it was a series of articles, not music. Sorry for the mistake!
Bob Ashley
I understand your point here, however, there is no moral high ground from
which to legitimately prod pro-action. Pragmatists must accept that axis
this world spins on is not pragmatic. That's just one philosophy.
(Continental postmodern philosophy, BTW, is a sophmore, not freshman class!
201). There is nothing inherently unethical or deficient or defective about
critical discourse. And it is merely another form of critical discourse to
urge that critical discourse must be accompanied by action--unless you do
something about THAT. We are a politicized onion. Layers that make us cry.
My resignation is swallowed up by the immensity of your question. I can't
imagine how you could have been serious about posing it, expecting a serious
answer. I don't take you to be a naive person.
A closing curtain. Registering public complaint and criticism such as I have
done is a form of social action, but perhaps not of the type you had in
mind. I could lurk in silence. Most do. This particular environment is
hostile to socialist thinking. But no protest goes anywhere without words.
Words are action. No social movement exists without them. Words do things.
People do things with them.
More ironic resignation. Words bind people in assembly, especially those who
share value systems. The silence which thunders from artists about their own
_collective_ plight gives one to believe that the one thing artists don't
really give a shit about is other artists. Most are fiercely independent,
moral entrepreneurs. Here is an irony, and I surrender to its seductive
hopelessness.
Who will act on behalf of a group without cohesion, solidarity, or shared
purpose or aims? Not me! You? In this respect the formally organized, craft
guilds of the middle ages had developed a social contract with artists far
superior to our system of copyright alms. Feudal Europe was not ALL dark.
Art, reified as 'intellectual' capital, is a modern psychopathological
abomination. The guilds had other fetishes, but not this one.
I buy music.
***
rib.
Larry Deack
> So you are in favor, not of the how, but of the why, of those who do
things
> to change the status quo of copyright laws by publishing copyrighted works
> on the Internet? "Revolution can take many forms". After all, the recent
> site (zappasfrank, Gitarrenfanatiker), and the person behind it is a
> "non-profit organization".
Non profit organizations in the US are legal entities and difficult to set
up properly. The officers are financially responsible. For you to even
suggest that a thief is the equal of those who put in all this time is an
insult to those who do so much work. It becomes obvious how few actually do
volunteer work when you ask people what they are doing about the problems.
Too many complain and too few do anything, end of story.
Larry Deack
> I understand your point here, however, there is no moral high ground from
> which to legitimately prod pro-action.
You are right, there isn't any moral ground in our words. So come join me
and find out how it works in the real world. You had threatened to start
your own CG group, what happened to that? I don't want tot ask everyone Rib,
just you at this point. I can't appeal to masses of people. I only know how
to talk to 1 person at a time and this is you and me here so why not just
tell me what you are doing not what you are saying about the problems we
have.
At some point in this NG if we were to meet we would play music and shut
up. Words are fun and this forum is a lot about words but it can also serve
to connect us to the real world as I have done with it. I meet real people I
talk to in this forum. Most of the real work is done offline in person. We
chat a lot here but not much changes. In person we can change things. I will
be helping at the GFA this year and at La Guitarra California. I will meet
folks and I will talk but we will all listen to the players and they won't
be using words to communicate. This is the real world not this barnyard
where people can avoid getting real.
Bob Ashley
> "Bob Ashley"
>> I understand your point here, however, there is no moral high ground from
>> which to legitimately prod pro-action.
Larry Deack wrote:
> You are right, there isn't any moral ground in our words. So come join me
> and find out how it works in the real world. You had threatened to start
> your own CG group, what happened to that? I don't want tot ask everyone Rib,
> just you at this point. I can't appeal to masses of people. I only know how
> to talk to 1 person at a time and this is you and me here so why not just
> tell me what you are doing not what you are saying about the problems we
> have.
What I am doing is saying. Seriously.
> At some point in this NG if we were to meet we would play music and shut
> up. Words are fun and this forum is a lot about words but it can also serve
> to connect us to the real world as I have done with it. I meet real people I
> talk to in this forum. Most of the real work is done offline in person. We
> chat a lot here but not much changes. In person we can change things. I will
> be helping at the GFA this year and at La Guitarra California. I will meet
> folks and I will talk but we will all listen to the players and they won't
> be using words to communicate. This is the real world not this barnyard
> where people can avoid getting real.
Well, each to his/her own priorities. You seem to like, like me, lingering
in the barnyard, piece of straw in the teeth. It's okay, ain't it. I like it
because in the real world people tend to avoid facing their barnyard
reality. Appearances count more in substantive world.
We say things here that would never, never see the real light of a real day.
Presence is often more prohibitive. Reality only masks the barnyard self.
The barnyard, though, admittedly is unfufilling. It lacks the delirious
everyday pleasure of anal retention. I communicate to you now, sitting in my
underwear.
There is no such thing as an anal retentive hog, horse, cow, sheep, or
chicken. The barnyard is a different sort of socialization, not a lesser
one. Why are we always goaded on by the spirit of hierarchy? And
any-elsewise-hoo, why waste so much, much time slurping at the trough?
Anyhoo, as you can guess by now, I'm just goading you on at this point. You
know I don't mean any harm by these entanglements. It's sort of co-operative
Houdini enterprise whereby we both end up at the bottom of the river,
straitjacked, chained, anchored.
I don't know about you but I'm presently having a hell of a time with this
final lock, running out of breath! I wonder what it shall feel like to be a
blip on an angler's fish-finding radar. Might I be mistaken for school? No,
no, no, that's Lutemann, that lump lying over there, by the sunken schooner.
***
rib
Larry Deack
> There is no such thing as an anal retentive hog, horse, cow, sheep, or
> chicken. The barnyard is a different sort of socialization, not a lesser
> one. Why are we always goaded on by the spirit of hierarchy? And
> any-elsewise-hoo, why waste so much, much time slurping at the trough?
In the spirit of hierarchy in have to go to a meeting now. Maybe that's the
problem Rib, I have to do things or bad things happen so I prioritize and
the barnyard is lower than eating.
Klaus Heim
No, you haven't understood the underlying principles of "revolution" (your
word). A revolution would do little good by abiding by the laws of the
system it is opposing. The American revolutionaries would not have gotten
very far, had they obeyed British law.
The website I used as an example, is not good, because it is not politically
motivated. As a theory (for those with difficulties - a thought experiment,
not real life), let us say someone with biased feelings towards existing
copyright laws decides to publish his rightfully purchased scores on the
Internet, as a public statement against these laws. Accusing him of stealing
may not be quite correct, after all he has rightful ownership to his copies.
Accusing him of taking the wrong action may not be quite correct, after all
you prodded people into taking action. This will leave you battling those
who came when you called them to arms, instead of those you initially wished
to fight.
So, if you call people to action and in the same paragraph use the word
'revolution', you must be aware of the consequences, which may not be so
favorable.
Klaus
P.S. You may notice that while we continue to lead our discussion, someone
has shown us a course of action which can be taken, and solved the problem
of the offending web-site. It is off-line.
Larry Deack
> No, you haven't understood the underlying principles of "revolution" (your
> word).
Actually Rib's.
> A revolution would do little good by abiding by the laws of the
> system it is opposing
That is the strict political definition I suppose but I broadened it to
include things like the wireless revolution. You have said something quite
different from what I was talking about. A lot of how I think is very
practical since I am an engineer and thinking that way is part of my job but
I also was a musician for many years so I like things more chaotic that most
engineers. I think true ground roots of simply talking to one person at a
time works for me. I am NOT calling for anything from the masses but simply
posting to friends on the web ideas while others listen and sometimes
contribute. I think some of us here see this forum very differently.
Bob Ashley
responses to your repartee and trashed it, by accident.
By technical knockout, then, you win.
Ha, ha!
One or two brief comments. I was not arguing a causally, that copyright
'causes' artist poverty, as you seem to be suggesting. No, I see it as a
positive measure to correct it, however, I believe it is grossly
inadequate to the task. It doesn't 'cause' the poverty, rather copyright
just fails to solve it. Neither does it follow that I condone thievery
just because I oppose copyright's defining constitution. It the majority
say, 'We don't rightly care what you think, this is how we do things are
here.' then I do it. But just because I don't shout, "COPYRIGHT, RIGHT OR
WRONG: ANYONE THAT FAILS TO SHOUT IT, IS A TRAITOR". I'm a critic, not
one attempting to incite insurrection. I buy music.
In a nutshell I simply see copyright as a form of capitalist tokenism,
alms for the poor. 'Let them eat cake' kind of thing.
What astounds me is not copyright's defining moment so much as the zealous
advocacy for it. Nobody, seems equipped, however, to present an argument
which demonstrates the functional effectiveness of copyright as a fair and
reasonable compensatory mechanism.
It seems that its correctitude is casually taken for granted, and by and
large, it thus escapes serious or sustained interrogation. Fortunately,
for me, I quite enjoy the vagaries of benumbment, the postmodern feeling
of aporia and resignation.
***
rib
On Wed, 16 May 2001, John Sloan wrote:
> "Bob Ashley" <ax...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
> news:B7263BB4.A944%ax...@chebucto.ns.ca...
> >
> > This does not preclude me from opining on the obvious reality, the less
> than
> > adequate compensation experiences of most artists I know personally, or
> know
> > about, or for that matter, who frequent this newsgroup. Compensation for
> > work done represents an absurdly disproportionate ratio. All artists are
> > "Waiting for Godot" in this sense. It takes no expert, no research, to
> > assert the commonplace platitude that, generally speaking, the cliché
> > 'starving artist' is not far off the mark. Evidence of the inadequacy of
> > copyright is all around us, everywhere there is art and artists.
>
> Now this is a total inversion of the truth, if I ever saw it. Artists are
> not starving because of copyright laws which protect their work from
> unauthorized use by others. Let's accept the reality of the situation: not
> enough people are buying their stuff. This lack of sales might be for many
> reasons, including: 1) poor advertising - consumers aren't aware of their
> products; 2) consumers are aware of their products, but choose not to buy
> it, and many more.
>
> The worst is: 3) pirates are stealing the work and not paying for it, a
> ubiquitous reality as we all know.
>
> Bob would have us believe there's something wrong with trying to prevent
> #3 - that protecting the sanctity of an artist's work in the market place,
> thereby increasing the likelihood of their getting paid for their work, is
> wrong.
>
> Copyright protection does not prevent people from buying an artists work; it
> doesn't penalize them for buying an artist's work; nor does it discourage
> them from buying it. Nor is copyright is the reason that John Williams
> makes more money from his music than John Doe.
>
> John Sloan
>
>
>
>
>
Bob
Ashley
******************************
John Philip Dimick
>Nobody, seems equipped, however, to present an argument
>which demonstrates the functional effectiveness of copyright as a fair and
>reasonable compensatory mechanism.
"Compensatory mechanism"? Say wut? If by that you mean "a way for creators to
be [monetarily] compensated for their creations," well, that's not what
copyright is about -- not directly, anyway. To fault it for not providing a
benefit that it is not designed to provide, well....
I think if you want to make any headway against the institution of copryright,
you've got to declare against property rights -- and, frankly, you wouldn't be
on any better moral ground than are those who declare *for* property rights.
It's just gang warfare: the biggest, baddest, smartest gang will exercise its
own subjective will to power, invoking the God Who Is On Our Side or The
People or whatever idol is necessary to win the day.
--JPD
Bob Ashley
> Bob Ashley <ax...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>> Nobody, seems equipped, however, to present an argument
>> which demonstrates the functional effectiveness of copyright as a fair and
>> reasonable compensatory mechanism.
>
> "Compensatory mechanism"? Say wut? If by that you mean "a way for creators to
> be [monetarily] compensated for their creations," well, that's not what
> copyright is about -- not directly, anyway. To fault it for not providing a
> benefit that it is not designed to provide, well....
Say double wut-wut!?? Your phrase, "not directly, anyway" indicates that
indeed copyright is a compensatory mechanism, albeit protection, not
compensation may be the prime mover. Protection or compensation, let us call
the basement motive 'economic'.
> I think if you want to make any headway against the institution of copryright,
> you've got to declare against property rights -- and, frankly, you wouldn't be
> on any better moral ground than are those who declare *for* property rights.
> It's just gang warfare: the biggest, baddest, smartest gang will exercise its
> own subjective will to power, invoking the God Who Is On Our Side or The
> People or whatever idol is necessary to win the day.
Exactly, yes, I agree completely. This why I think copyright is a symptom of
systemic dysfunction which is bigger than any of us. Power. The bottom
argument shall always come to phoney democracy vs phoney socialism. And like
you say, the 'biggest, baddest, smartest gang' will bully the rest.
What irks me, something you're doing at all, is the phoney alignment drawn
between power and moral correctitude. That copyright is 'inherently' right,
or a ''natural' right of some sort. All it says, really, is "Around here, we
do things like this". It's a variant of, "Our country, right or wrong!
Anyone who fails to shout it, is a traitor!"
As Mark Twain said of that slogan, 'Why, even a burglar could have said
that!'. I think what he meant, by understatement, was that it actually _was_
a burglar, of a higher order, who did say it.
The copyright issue goes both ways, too, if one cares to cure one's
historical amnesia. No so-called intellectual capital is born in the mind of
the artist 'ex-nihilo', out of nothing. Everything the artist creates is
sucked directly out of the cultural tradition he/she inhabits. A western
artist, therefore, however hard he/she might try will never create a
masterpiece of Pakistani music. Somehow, through a warped economics, all
this raw material comes to the artist, free! A society owns the tempered
scale, a cultural endowment, but nevertheless, we look at it the way a
thankless, aristocratic brat inherits his grandfather's fortune. By dint of
his own blindness he comes to believe that the inheritance was just simply,
always was, is, without obligation or fidelity, or memorial, his.
It is the grand swaggering arrogance of western modernism that invades the
consciousness of the artist who actually believes he/she is thinking up
something without the whole staff of historical lives which supplied all the
raw materials. The modernist artist is a transcendental being, a young petty
god, spoiled to such an extent that the artist's social conscience is
disfigured and stillborn.
No one talks about compensation for history, respect for the dead,
responsibility to the living and the yet to born. Capitalism has overruled
that objection, transmogrified the modern artist into brooding, petty, brat,
who feels nothing is owed to his own parentage. This isn't universal, of
course, some artists do have a social conscience and it would nice, too, if
society met such a thinking being half-way, with a more sensitive artistic
conscience. To my mind, both artist and artist's society have failed each
other. My point: there is more than one way to cut at the joints of problem.
I exaggerate. But our cultural cloth has not just a weave, but a warp. The
social texture is a woven fabric, not a fishing line with a hook at the end
of it, swaying opportunistic.
Copyright is just the artist's sign, "NO FISHING HERE". These signs, stabbed
into the beaches, by western modern artist, circumscribe the grand pond
which is western culture. To me, 'intellectual capital' makes about as much
sense as one of these anglers laying a deed of landed title to one of the
pond's waves.
It's absurd, but not nearly as absurd as our fetishization of it. An
examined life is always maladjusted to the absurdity of such contemporary
commonplaces. And as far as the socially maladjusted usually go, they are
taken by their contempories, to be mad. History marks out this pattern also,
but unfortunately our epoch is beset with historical amnesia.
O! Blake. Whither art thou in my hour of need? In Newton's sleep?
I buy music. I don't cheat on my taxes. My social conscience, not moral
correctitude, keeps the madness in check.
***
rib
Richard Yates
> or a ''natural' right of some sort.
The confounding of morality and copyright shows its seam most clearly to me
in the sudden switch once the composer has been dead for x number of years.
At that moment the cutthroat, self-centered, psychopathic thieves magically
become sainted and noble preservers of the past. Yet the cut-off is an
arbitrary, conventional one.
Richard Yates
(By the way, Chipmunks has been removed from the servers. I tried finding
the copyright holder's e-mail address to apologize (and I guess mostly
because I was curious to see if I got any response - or even 'retroactive
permission' (viz. 'dispensation')) but was unsuccessful.)
Matanya Ophee
>One or two brief comments. I was not arguing a causally, that copyright
>'causes' artist poverty, as you seem to be suggesting. No, I see it as a
>positive measure to correct it, however, I believe it is grossly
>inadequate to the task. It doesn't 'cause' the poverty, rather copyright
>just fails to solve it.
Just as gravity has no part in the effect of moonshine on cow's milk.
Copyright was never intended to solve poverty. It is simply a measure
of protection against thievery. Artist's poverty can be caused by many
other societal and personal factors, such as an utter lack of talent
and inspiration, hence, unjustifiable delusions of grandeur, no
interest in the artist's work by patrons, a political system
(engendered by revolution) in which the artist's work belongs to the
people as represented by the state (Shostakovich would have been a
multi-millionaire _in his life time_ had he lived under capitalism),
and personal traits which make it difficult for interested parties to
deal with the artist. Thievery of the artist's work is only a small
part of the story.
>In a nutshell I simply see copyright as a form of capitalist tokenism,
>alms for the poor. 'Let them eat cake' kind of thing.
Nonsense when you consider the alternatives.
>What astounds me is not copyright's defining moment so much as the zealous
>advocacy for it. Nobody, seems equipped, however, to present an argument
>which demonstrates the functional effectiveness of copyright as a fair and
>reasonable compensatory mechanism.
Again, copyright is not meant to be a compensatory mechanism. It
simply an official title to one's work, which can be negotiated on the
open market. When I engage a composer to publish his/her music, I buy
the copyright. In exchange, I promise to pay the composer a royalty on
the sale of printed paper. Mechanical royalties to the composer on
recordings and performances are not my concern. they are handled by
performance rights societies. The mechanism for compensation, then, is
not the copyright itself, but the _agreement_ between myself and the
composer. It is up to the parties directly involved to determine if it
is fair and reasonable, and to put it frankly, it is none of your
business.
>It seems that its correctitude is casually taken for granted, and by and
>large, it thus escapes serious or sustained interrogation.
Considering the experience of Soviet composers under an alternative
system, where copyright protection was not assigned to the creator,
but to the political system to which s/he was subject, I would suggest
that before you begin a serious or sustained interrogation, you
propose a specific remedy to what you see as unfair. Any ideas?
How about this one: Nikita Koshkin, due to the vagaries of the Soviet
system at the time the Usher Walse was published, never got a dime for
recordings and public performances of his work. (Neither did I as the
publisher of the work). Would anyone who plays this music in public,
for fun or for profit, and all those who recorded the work, please
send Nikita a token fee for using his work for their own personal
purposes. You can actually also send me such a token fee, but I hereby
assign all such fees directly to the composer. I would be happy to
provide a mailing address for accumulating all this money. How much?
would $10US be enough?
Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: 614-846-9794
http://www.orphee.com
Matanya Ophee
>The copyright issue goes both ways, too, if one cares to cure one's
>historical amnesia. No so-called intellectual capital is born in the mind of
>the artist 'ex-nihilo', out of nothing.
In other words, Shakespeare has not created anything new because he
used words in a language which existed before he was born?
> Everything the artist creates is
>sucked directly out of the cultural tradition he/she inhabits.
Certainly. But the nature of creation is the manipulation of the
cultural tradition in a particular personal way.
> A western
>artist, therefore, however hard he/she might try will never create a
>masterpiece of Pakistani music.
That is patently false. The best piece of Jewish guitar music I know
is the Rhapsody written for me by Vladislav Uspensky, a Russian born
in Siberia with no visible connection to Jewish culture. The best
masterpieces of Spanish music in the 19th century were written by
Glinka, Bizet, Chabrier, Rimsky-Korsakov and later on, by Ravel, none
of whom sucked out this music out of the cultural tradition they
themselves had inhabited. Could they have written Spanish music as
well as Albeniz and Granados? as well as as Chapi, de Falla and Espla?
perhaps not. But there is no way you can avoid labeling their works as
masterpieces.
> Somehow, through a warped economics, all
>this raw material comes to the artist, free! A society owns the tempered
>scale, a cultural endowment, but nevertheless, we look at it the way a
>thankless, aristocratic brat inherits his grandfather's fortune. By dint of
>his own blindness he comes to believe that the inheritance was just simply,
>always was, is, without obligation or fidelity, or memorial, his.
You are implying here that the artist is a mere vehicle for the
transference of a pre-existing societal fortune, without adding
anything to it. If that was true, there would be no art, no
literature, no music which has ANY specific traits of excellence. It
would all be the same eclectic mush. Your own words, here and now,
meaningless borrowings of literary concepts which do not belong to you
and which you use freely, without crediting the language for enabling
you to do so.
>
>It is the grand swaggering arrogance of western modernism that invades the
>consciousness of the artist who actually believes he/she is thinking up
>something without the whole staff of historical lives which supplied all the
>raw materials.
For example: Bob Ashley pontificating.
Matanya Ophee
>The confounding of morality and copyright shows its seam most clearly to me
>in the sudden switch once the composer has been dead for x number of years.
>At that moment the cutthroat, self-centered, psychopathic thieves magically
>become sainted and noble preservers of the past. Yet the cut-off is an
>arbitrary, conventional one.
Which keeps on changing over the years. The issue you raise, however,
is more important than the empty socialist sloganeering we have been
reading here. Take the case of an important piece of music which was
discovered. We have many such examples. Let's assume that it is still
protected by copyright, and there is no way to find the copyright
owner, and if they can be found, there is no way to negotiate a
reasonable deal which will enable the music to become available to
all. Should one publish it anyway, thus becoming a saint and noble
preserver of the past, or a cutthroat, self-centered, psychopathic
thieve, while risking a debilitating law suit either way?
My answer to this is simple, and I am speaking from particular
experience: I'd do nothing of the sort. Can't afford debilitating law
suits. I have done it once or twice before, with mostly unpleasant
results. C'est immorale, mais c'est comme-ca.
>(By the way, Chipmunks has been removed from the servers. I tried finding
>the copyright holder's e-mail address to apologize (and I guess mostly
>because I was curious to see if I got any response - or even 'retroactive
>permission' (viz. 'dispensation')) but was unsuccessful.)
Consider the real world, where many people do NOT have access to the
Internet. Try the post office.
Larry Deack
> (By the way, Chipmunks has been removed from the servers. I tried finding
> the copyright holder's e-mail address to apologize (and I guess mostly
> because I was curious to see if I got any response - or even 'retroactive
> permission' (viz. 'dispensation')) but was unsuccessful.)
Thanks Richard. I was stumped on that one since it was you doing the
transcription I had thought you would have gotten the permission but when
you didn't speak up I started to wonder. I wish that there was some easier
way to get the rights, it was a cool arrangement. I suppose I should burn
mine now... :-(
I also agree with your first paragraph about the idea of intellectual
property right expiring. There is NOTHING like 'intellectual property'. Real
property makes more sense to me but the laws about intellectual property are
weird and arbitrary. In our industry we are plagued by horrid Patent Office
decisions. Too many technologies are being introduced without increasing
what we spend on the legal stuff. This is why in the Senate hearing on
digital media everybody thought that the law needed to be constantly updated
to keep up with changes in technology. This stuff is NOT trivial and it will
just get worse since so much of this is emotionally charged.
Richard White
<ax...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
<snip lots of blarney>
>A western artist, therefore, however hard he/she might try will never create a
>masterpiece of Pakistani music.
Try and try as I have, this fact has been the bane of my existence for
forty years now! Why the hell was I born in Brooklyn? :-)
<snip a less blarney>
> Copyright is just the artist's sign, "NO FISHING HERE".
You left off the last half: ...WITHOUT TALKING TO ME FIRST."
<snip even less blarney>
> I buy music. I don't cheat on my taxes. My social conscience, not moral
> correctitude, keeps the madness in check.
Which makes you a very good boy. I'm impressed.
Richard White
--
Hear Linda Ronstadt sing Richard White on
ŚA Merry Little Christmasą Elektra #62572-2/4
CDs: ŚMusic for Guitarą and ŚMusic for Woodwinds and Piano'
available at: http://www.mp3.com/richardwhite
http://listen.to/richardwhite whi...@flash.net
Richard White
"Richard Yates" <yate...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> (By the way, Chipmunks has been removed from the servers. I tried finding
> the copyright holder's e-mail address to apologize (and I guess mostly
> because I was curious to see if I got any response - or even 'retroactive
> permission' (viz. 'dispensation')) but was unsuccessful.)
A good move. Thank you.
However, the ASCAP site has plenty of _addresses_ and _phone numbers._ A
simple search will do the trick if this is really of interest. Let us know
how you make out.
John Wasak
> A lot of art that doesn't sell
> is simply garbage anyway, so no wonder it doesn't sell (then again, a lot
> of bestsellers, whether records, books, paintings, etc. are certifiably
> garbage, too, so quality certainly has nothing to do with financial
success
> when it comes to art).
>
I was reading an article in yesterdays New York Times about an art auction
held at Sotheby's. This statement, that quality in art has nothing to do
with financial success, reminded me of the porcelain sculpture by Jeff
Koons, titled, "Michael Jackson and Bubbles," that sold for $5.6 million at
this auction.
If you want to smile, laugh, or maybe just be envious of the new owner of
this work of art, the article and a photo of Koons' sculpture can be found
on line at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/16/arts/16AUC2.html
JW