Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:00 pm
I'll try to give you an answer without getting into too much detail.
1. There is no such thing as a work that is completely "immune" from claims of copyright protection - irrespective of how false such claims may be. There are, for example, more than a few libraries and archives that make a claims of what amounts to copyright protection upon the manuscripts of composers who have been dead for well over 100 years, and even make claims upon scans or upon images made from older printed scores. (A vandal from France attempted to destroy IMSLP based upon such ridiculous claims just last year.) That fact that such claims have no basis under either statutory or case law does not prevent anyone with the money (like UE) from hiring lawyers to write threatening letters, bringing phoney and malicious lawsuits to court, etc.
2. The only way an entity like IMSLP can protect itself from the type of legal harrassment and thuggery so exquisitely demonstrated by UE and their lawyers is to incorporate as a non-profit, have an operating budget, and retain attorneys to defend against malicious lawsuits, threats of lawsuits, etc. Alternatively, IMSLP could continue operation as a division of an already existing non-profit (like Project Gutenberg), a University Music Library, or even a government arts agency.
3. There is no agenda apart from the fact that we don't want to be in a position of personal financial vulnerability from every crazed idiot in the universe who thinks they have some claim to a public domain work. There is no law to prevent anyone from claiming copyright upon a Mozart work and binging suit under a completely ridiculous pretense. Yes, they'd lose the case but Feldmahler would still have to pay an attorney to defend himself in court. So, we have to set up a non-profit corporation, or find a non-profit to back us with their legal staff, etc. It all takes time, naturally.
1. There is no such thing as a work that is completely "immune" from claims of copyright protection - irrespective of how false such claims may be. There are, for example, more than a few libraries and archives that make a claims of what amounts to copyright protection upon the manuscripts of composers who have been dead for well over 100 years, and even make claims upon scans or upon images made from older printed scores. (A vandal from France attempted to destroy IMSLP based upon such ridiculous claims just last year.) That fact that such claims have no basis under either statutory or case law does not prevent anyone with the money (like UE) from hiring lawyers to write threatening letters, bringing phoney and malicious lawsuits to court, etc.
2. The only way an entity like IMSLP can protect itself from the type of legal harrassment and thuggery so exquisitely demonstrated by UE and their lawyers is to incorporate as a non-profit, have an operating budget, and retain attorneys to defend against malicious lawsuits, threats of lawsuits, etc. Alternatively, IMSLP could continue operation as a division of an already existing non-profit (like Project Gutenberg), a University Music Library, or even a government arts agency.
3. There is no agenda apart from the fact that we don't want to be in a position of personal financial vulnerability from every crazed idiot in the universe who thinks they have some claim to a public domain work. There is no law to prevent anyone from claiming copyright upon a Mozart work and binging suit under a completely ridiculous pretense. Yes, they'd lose the case but Feldmahler would still have to pay an attorney to defend himself in court. So, we have to set up a non-profit corporation, or find a non-profit to back us with their legal staff, etc. It all takes time, naturally.
), and I'm sure others will be vocal as well.