Tune Books (was Tune Search ...)
Maeve
more. In the past, I've posted my feelings about copyright laws, how I've
been ripped off by pirates for HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars, and now I'm
as passionate over tune books as I was over my own artwork!!
While we have all discussed the composers rights to financial compensation,
the subject goes MUCH deeper than that. I speak from personal experience
here. It was just over a year ago that I began helping Sandy Keith with his
tune book. I've been transcribing tunes (do you know composers equal doctors
in illegibility skills??), designing book covers, correcting tunes,
re-correcting tunes, corresponding with the composers to get their approvals
and changes, etc. etc. etc. It would be safe to say that I have hundreds of
hours of work into this book. It USED to be Sandy's book ... it's now MY
baby. I will receive no compensation for this .... I began the endeavor in
order to see a man's dream fulfilled and to see good, new tunes introduced
to the bagpipe world. (I'll be shot at sunrise for this statement and this
post!)
When I look at the "behind the scenes" production of one of these books, I
realize that there is not enough money in the bagpiping world to make this a
profitable endeavor for anyone involved. It's not like any bagpipe tune book
will hit the Top Ten Reader's List and rake in millions for the author.
Without volunteers, long hours and hard work, these tune books would NEVER
be offered. When it comes the day that this book is released, I will feel
GREAT pride in my contribution, knowing that each tune is as correct and
close to what the composer intended as I can possibly get it. Again, I
expect nothing from this. It's self-satisfaction knowing that a worthy
contribution is being made to the piping community. BUT .... (big verbal
eraser here!) .... the first time that I see one of these tunes sent in BMW
(or any other format) to anyone, it will break my heart. Sandy (and others
who have published books) have spent a lifetime putting these tunes together
... and the LEAST that he/they should expect is to break even on the
venture. KNOWING the cost of publication (yes, the colors on the cover cost
a LOT of money!) and the time invested makes me respect ANYONE who has put
forth the effort to offer a new book to the public.
I have been totally blessed in taking on this challenge. I have spoken to
MANY great pipers/composers personally, taken their advice and input,
offered mine (in some cases), and handled original manuscripts that are
priceless. I have, in my possession, the original hand-written manuscript
for the LAST piobaireachd written by Angus MacDonald ..... and I genuflect
before it every morning :) :) :) :) This will be in the tune book, copied
(not transcribed) so that his original "hand" is available to a number of
pipers. Would anyone be interested in the legalities that we faced in
obtaining permission to do this??? All of the composers have donated the
tunes to this book and, as far as I know, will not receive monetary
compensation. It is out of the goodness of THEIR hearts and the hard work of
others that these tunes will be introduced.
This book will be out very soon ... and it is killing me to think of people
copying one tune in order not to have to spend a few dollars for the book.
There are so many GOOD tunes that the person who would be losing out is the
person that didn't buy the book. This is NOT a plug since I have not even
mentioned the name yet (that will come later!!). It's simply a viewpoint
from the other side of the fence and a plea to SUPPORT those who put in long
hours to supply the piping community with great music.
Okay .... I'll get off of my soapbox now. My intention is NOT to start a
flame war, big discussion or debate. I really only wanted to remind everyone
of the work that goes into tune books. If we want to keep the books coming,
we need to support those who invest their time into the production of them.
I think I've said all that is on my mind ..... except that you all HAVE to
hear this great little hornpipe in this new book!!!! :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
It's called "M&M" (for "Maeve and her Magic") by Sandy Keith!!!!!!! (small
plug and a bit of joy showing!). It's Sandy's "thank you" for my helping
out! :) :) :) :) :) :) :) Sorry, Sandy .... couldn't help myself on this one
:) :) :) :) :)
Love and Light be with you all,
Maeve .... looking at a few dozen more corrections in the book laying next
to me from today's reviewing!
http://people.delphi.com/terralyn
ter...@sanctum.com
authoring http://sandykeith.com
MrRobotTow
>realize that there is not enough money in the bagpiping world to make this a
>profitable endeavor for anyone involved.
Then frankly, if you go into it with open eyes, knowing it wont make money, why
would you do it? Out of the goodness of your heart? For the good of the
bagpiping world? I find that all hard to swallow. The truth is that you do it
to share the tunes with others, right? In most cases the people with
copyrighted songs in BMW or BGP have said "they only want to share the music
with others, and only ask that THEY BE GIVEN CREDIT for their work, which I
have always done by including the composers name and any info that goes along
with the tunes. I was contacted twice regarding copyright issues, and it ended
up that all they wanted was credit, which I never tried to deprive them of, and
we reached an agreement (the tunes are still in the file, so what does that
tell you? and its with permission.) Everyone says "I do it for the music" or
for "the good of piping", if that were true we wouldnt be seeing so much
squabbling about it. Go into a venture like that knowing you probably wont
break even, and with your eyes wide open, and be satisfied the tunes are out
there for all to play. Shouldnt this disqualify bitching about it? I mean its
not even published yet, and warnings are already being issued. Seems premie to
me.
The internet has changed the world as we know it, and copyright laws are
lagging far behind. The days are here when for $800 bucks and a phone line, any
Joe-schmoe can get on the internet and get thousands upon thousands of tunes
for free.
Perhaps a voluntary fee of .50cents to download a copy, would elicite far more
cash for the composer. I know I'd feel good about sending the actual composer
half a buck, rather than pay it to a bunch of leeches and being left wondering
what percentage actually made it to the artist.
I am only trying to get some answers to questions I have, and not to start a
flame war or arguement.
Quote of the year "Its bad to treat a woman like an object, but its worse to
treat an object as a woman"
ccc31807
"Maeve" <ter...@sanctum.com> wrote:
>In the past, I've posted my feelings about copyright laws, how I've
> been ripped off by pirates for HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars, and
now I'm
> as passionate over tune books as I was over my own artwork!!
I agree 100% that someone who copies or passes on the work of a
composer that is copy protected is a thief, pure and simple. If a
composer works, he should be paid for his work.
But I'd like to point out that rip-offs can occur by the ABUSE of the
copyright as well. Two examples:
1. Several years ago, I developed an interest in a tune called "Waly,
Waly." I researched the tune, and traced it back to the middle ages, it
first surfaced in a recorded form in the 12th or 13th century. It's now
a popular tune, and in several books, one I know of is "Border Ballad"
in Russ Spaulding's book. This tune has recently been used in a
film, "Ladies from Hell" amd "Call to the Blood" and in a musical
production. I am aware in both cases that individuals have had threats
made against them for using this tune, which is about 700 years old at
least, by persons having a financial in the musical and in the film.
It's not right for someone to change one or two notes, or one or two
phrases, in a tune and then claim that the tune is solely his and that
on one else can use it without paying a fee. This is an abuse of the
right of copy protection.
2. As we discovered in the Napster case, those that make the financial
return are not the original artists by and large, but the passive
investors that can take advantage of the copyright laws. Several years
ago, there was a series of articles published concerning a dying
painter, whose name I don't remember now. His paintings were selling
for six figures, and in one case for seven figures, yet this artist
died in poverty. Who made the money? The persons who bought the art for
very little and sold it for a lot. Who created the work? The artist who
had nothing to show for it. Yes, the middle men are entitled to a fair
return on their investments, but the artist, whether he is a composer,
writer, or painter, is entitled to a return as well. This also is an
abuse of the right of copy protection, IMO.
Point is: we need to deal fairly with each other no matter if we
violate the law or abuse it to serve an end which it did not intend,
which was the protection of the creators of art.
And a final note: The whole concept of "intellectual property" is
problematical. Who can "own" a thought? Or a melody? Or an idea?
Throughout most of human history, thoughts and ideas were like the air -
freely available to all. For about the past 200 years we have been
developing this concept of "owning" ideas, and one reason that we are
having so much trouble with it is because it runs counter to thousands
of years of human experience, and millions of years of human evolution.
Just a thought. (I don't claim ownership!)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Calum
> I agree 100% that someone who copies or passes on the work of a
> composer that is copy protected is a thief, pure and simple. If a
> composer works, he should be paid for his work.
>
> But I'd like to point out that rip-offs can occur by the ABUSE of the
> copyright as well. Two examples:
>
> 1. Several years ago, I developed an interest in a tune called "Waly,
> Waly." I researched the tune, and traced it back to the middle ages, it
> first surfaced in a recorded form in the 12th or 13th century. It's now
> a popular tune, and in several books, one I know of is "Border Ballad"
> in Russ Spaulding's book. This tune has recently been used in a
> film, "Ladies from Hell" amd "Call to the Blood" and in a musical
> production. I am aware in both cases that individuals have had threats
> made against them for using this tune, which is about 700 years old at
> least, by persons having a financial in the musical and in the film.
> It's not right for someone to change one or two notes, or one or two
> phrases, in a tune and then claim that the tune is solely his and that
> on one else can use it without paying a fee. This is an abuse of the
> right of copy protection.
>
There's a lot of classical composers out there who have taken folk melodies
and written them into there work, sometimes silently, sometimes not, but
never has the folk process been given the slightest musical credit. Just a
thought.
>
> 2. As we discovered in the Napster case, those that make the financial
> return are not the original artists by and large, but the passive
> investors that can take advantage of the copyright laws. Several years
> ago, there was a series of articles published concerning a dying
> painter, whose name I don't remember now. His paintings were selling
> for six figures, and in one case for seven figures, yet this artist
> died in poverty. Who made the money? The persons who bought the art for
> very little and sold it for a lot. Who created the work? The artist who
> had nothing to show for it. Yes, the middle men are entitled to a fair
> return on their investments, but the artist, whether he is a composer,
> writer, or painter, is entitled to a return as well. This also is an
> abuse of the right of copy protection, IMO.
>
This is a point that interests me. How is it that a painting, which is
unquestionably the work of the artist as he intended, can be freely bought
and resold with no recourse to the author, whereas a tune, which is a living
changing thing, can be subject to a myriad of case and statute law on the
issue? Odd.
>
> Point is: we need to deal fairly with each other no matter if we
> violate the law or abuse it to serve an end which it did not intend,
> which was the protection of the creators of art.
>
> And a final note: The whole concept of "intellectual property" is
> problematical. Who can "own" a thought? Or a melody? Or an idea?
> Throughout most of human history, thoughts and ideas were like the air -
> freely available to all. For about the past 200 years we have been
> developing this concept of "owning" ideas, and one reason that we are
> having so much trouble with it is because it runs counter to thousands
> of years of human experience, and millions of years of human evolution.
> Just a thought. (I don't claim ownership!)
Excellent thought. I had never looked at it like that before.
As I've said before, my dislike of book buying often stems from having to
buy the book for one or two tunes. If I'm lucky, I might find one more I
like. For £8-15, at least, I see this as a waste of money, particularly
since I'll never make money from a specific tune. When I'm asked to play
pipes for money, they want a piper, not a fine rendering of Lament for the
Harp Tree. Sure, I might play one of these tunes, but then again I might
not.
I'll buy a book if it's worth the while, and at the moment, I'm finding it
better to buy text books on piping than tune books.
Maeve
news:3A64A837...@abdn.ac.uk...
> This is a point that interests me. How is it that a painting, which is
> unquestionably the work of the artist as he intended, can be freely bought
> and resold with no recourse to the author, whereas a tune, which is a
living
> changing thing, can be subject to a myriad of case and statute law on the
> issue? Odd.
Odd, at best! I've lived in the "artist" world for many years, and I've
found that the laws, copyrights and protection to be as clear as mud. Let's
see if some of what I've learned can be of any help whatsoever!
When I first create a piece of art, I copyright it and register it with the
Library of Congress. That all means virtually nothing. What it truly means
is that if I take someone to court and sue them, with the copyrights in
place and the registration, and I win, I can collect my court costs from the
pirate. The copyright means that no one can use MY piece of artwork without
my permission .... unless they change it by 10% (which is very subjective).
Now ... I can sell a piece my original artwork, and then it is out of my
hands. I don't have to sell the design. So, when I sold an edition of dolls
at $295 each and closed the edition, the secondary market began. There have
been people who have paid over $3500 for one of these dolls on the secondary
market, but I can't collect a thing on it because I relinquished all of my
rights to it when I collected the $295.
However .... since I retain the original artwork, I can reproduce it and
sell more. UNLESS .... I sell the RIGHTS to the artwork to someone and sign
off completely. Then I have NO rights or say to what goes on from that
point. Or, I can sell the rights for XXX years and then it comes back to me
in the end, but I have no say as to what goes on during that time. Clear,
eh?!?!?!?
Believe me, Calum ... all of the same stuff goes on in the art world as well
as the music world (they are all one and the same). I knew the Federal
Marshals on a first name basis. I communicated with the FBI daily. I knew
the copyright laws inside and out. I knew that it would take $15,000 to take
each case to court ... and there was NO grouping items together. If a pirate
had 5 of my dolls, it was 5 x $15,000 to take them to court ... per pirate
(and at one time I was fighting 3) ... and then came the expenses. On
principle, an artist friend of mine did go through with prosecuting a pirate
... and was granted $86,000 in damages + court costs (registered with the
Library of Congress). The pirate was broke, couldn't pay, closed his
business and opened the same business under his wife's name the next week.
Even used the same molds that my friend had just sued over.
And you want to know what happened to me in the end? I got so tired of
fighting with the pirates that I quit. I had a business that was grossing
$2.5 million a year, employed 48 people (directly) full time, and I closed
up shop and walked away, much to the chagrin of my husband and those around
me. I'm really afraid that this same thing will happen to the music writers
... and deprive everyone of good music. I still get "fan" letters from those
who collected my work, begging me to produce again. I haven't got the
"fight" left in me to do it again. Money isn't important to me at all ...
those who really know me know this to be the truth. I just couldn't take the
dishonesty and the way the legal system is set up.
Although misconstrued as a "warning" in my original post, the post was
clearly meant as a plea for people to understand and do "what is right" ...
although my thoughts on the human condition don't grant me much optimism in
that area. Hope this cleared things up ;) :) :) :) :) RIGHT!!!!!! LOL!!!!!
Love and Light be with you,
Maeve