Second U-E cease and desist letter (new topic)

[danikonpiano]

...except that it IS called the INTERNATIONAL music score library project... therefore copyright laws of all countries should be observed.

No.

And in any event, how do you do that when "all countries" have contradictory copyright laws? There are countries which have "domaine public payant", and those which do not. You cannot simultaneously observe the laws of a "domaine public payant" country, and a non-DPP country. You cannot simultaneously observe the laws of the United States and Canada with respect to a pre-1923 work by an author who died in 1960.

Just as with the various Projects Gutenberg, music projects of this sort should make their activities — by being organized in and hosted in one single country — subject to the laws of that country.

To say that you have to observe the copyright laws of all countries, means you have to observe the copyright law of the strictest country, which means that the whole world must now run on Mexican copyright law.

No thanks.

No thanks?!? If a composer who 'died in 1960' wrote beautiful music for us to enjoy pre-1923, shouldn't we still be eager to send a bit of our monies toward his/her family who undoubtedly still own the pub. rights to his/her compositions? God knows being a composer for a living isn't very profitable... ESPECIALLY these days (even 200 years ago... I can't think of any composer besides Haydn who became a fat cat by composing alone). Buy the modern scores, download the old ones!

I would repeat (from my 1st post) that composers born after 1860 have no business being on the site. I know that this includes quite a few composers who we would all love to study for free, but unfortunately, it's bloody illegal. Suck it up & quit whining. BUY the Debussy, Mahler, Rachmaninov, or whoever's scores. They're relatively cheap in Dover editions. I did, and it was worth it... books keep better than printer paper anyway.

[Carolus]

danikonpiano,

I think it is eminently unreasonable to remove composers born after 1860 from IMSLP. Doing so would basically deny access to a large segment of the public domain to the very public whose interest the copyright laws ostensibly serve. It violates the spirit and goals of IMSLP, one of which is to ensure that the public domain actually belongs to "the public."

Not even UE is requesting such a thing. Moreover, according to the behavior of certain academic ibrarians and archivists, all manuscript items should be treated as if they are under copyright - regardless of how long-dead the creator is. Access to the holy writ is permitted to only those with the magic decoder key inherited by members of the secret priesthood at birth. Where would it stop? Why have a public domain at all? Thankfully, there is next to zero chance that such an insanely restrictive rule will be applied to IMSLP.

[horndude77]

No thanks?!? If a composer who 'died in 1960' wrote beautiful music for us to enjoy pre-1923, shouldn't we still be eager to send a bit of our monies toward his/her family who undoubtedly still own the pub. rights to his/her compositions? God knows being a composer for a living isn't very profitable... ESPECIALLY these days (even 200 years ago... I can't think of any composer besides Haydn who became a fat cat by composing alone). Buy the modern scores, download the old ones!

I would repeat (from my 1st post) that composers born after 1860 have no business being on the site. I know that this includes quite a few composers who we would all love to study for free, but unfortunately, it's bloody illegal. Suck it up & quit whining. BUY the Debussy, Mahler, Rachmaninov, or whoever's scores. They're relatively cheap in Dover editions. I did, and it was worth it... books keep better than printer paper anyway.

I think you're missing the point. This isn't a question of buy vs. download:
1. Many people in the world don't have the access to these scores the way we do in more affluent nations. There are many initiatives to make the world more connected through the internet (OLPC is a good example). Giving free access to these public domain resources can help in promoting the arts and education. Many people believe that these directly influence the political and social stability of nations (I'd need to do some research to back this up).
2. I don't have access to many scores. Period. There are many old scores I'd love to search for through old european libraries. I don't have the means to do this. I'll work with what I have for now in hopes that someday someone will find those old scores. There were quite a few gems I found through IMSLP.
3. Many composers choose to add their music which would otherwise remain unknown.

I don't believe music publishers are going to lose money because of IMSLP. As you say a piece printed by a music publisher is generally higher quality than that coming out of my printer. As long as music publishers are adding value to a piece they will do fine. Also many publishers promote new works which will not be PD for a very long time.

<rant>From what I understand copyright law exists to foster creativity and encourage people to create things. The terms lasting well after a person is dead do not help in this purpose.</rant> That said, I am not a lawyer and copyright law is what it is today. (Many pieces by composers born after 1860 are in the public domain.) IMSLP does its best to follow canada's laws and to also alert users to the laws of where they are at. I think through all the discussion some good ideas have been brought up improve in how copyright laws of other countries are respected as well.

I disagree that someone's descendents should be paid for what they did. This is a very odd situation that artists and composers are in. My kids will not receive a penny from people buying products which I make now after I die. I'd rather see more promotion of new works and give my money to those composers which are alive.

[Melodia]

I would repeat (from my 1st post) that composers born after 1860 have no business being on the site. I know that this includes quite a few composers who we would all love to study for free, but unfortunately, it's bloody illegal. Suck it up & quit whining. BUY the Debussy, Mahler, Rachmaninov, or whoever's scores. They're relatively cheap in Dover editions. I did, and it was worth it... books keep better than printer paper anyway.

And just where do you think the money goes when you buy a Dover edition? Perhaps you need a bit of education: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_Publications

And no, it's NOT "bloody illegal" to download Debussy or Mahler in the majority of the world. Or in the US for Rachmaninoff most of his music, or Canada for almost all of it (barring things published well after his death in 1945)


-Lala-

[WJM]

In any case there's only the law of one country: the country where you distribute the music. That is, the country where the end user is sitting. Mexico will not prevent you from distributing Bartók in Canada. But you can't do that in Mexico or in Austria. You can choose not to offer the service there at all, or abide the local laws.

What is your authority, your legal authority, for the statement "That is, the country where the end user is sitting."?

And does this only apply in copyright law? What about contract law? consumer protection? indecency?

[Yagan Kiely]

No thanks?!? If a composer who 'died in 1960' wrote beautiful music for us to enjoy pre-1923, shouldn't we still be eager to send a bit of our monies toward his/her family who undoubtedly still own the pub. rights to his/her compositions?

Please remind me how offspring can inherit an intellect? It is physically impossible. A house on the other hand is physically possible.

God knows being a composer for a living isn't very profitable... ESPECIALLY these days (even 200 years ago... I can't think of any composer besides Haydn who became a fat cat by composing alone). Buy the modern scores, download the old ones!

(John Williams would be quite rich ) I AM a composer, I do not wish to be rich, (unlike some people I do not live for money) I am doing it because I love it. I offspring will never be able to have my intellect, why should they have my pieces? They can have my house however.

I would repeat (from my 1st post) that composers born after 1860 have no business being on the site.

This is just crazy. Copyright should last 80(+) years after the death of a composer? That's over two generations............. And quite frankly, you are acting like you know what you are talking about, the way you should have written that is that it is your opinion, not that it is a fact. I'm sure even UE would be against a 80(+) year copyright expiration. It is morally unacceptable.

I know that this includes quite a few composers who we would all love to study for free, but unfortunately, it's bloody illegal. Suck it up & quit whining. BUY the Debussy, Mahler, Rachmaninov, or whoever's scores. They're relatively cheap in Dover editions. I did, and it was worth it... books keep better than printer paper anyway.

Pardon me, but scores are expensive (for one), having Mahler and Debussy still under copyright is absurd (to say the least) and a digital copy actually lasts for ever.

[WJM]

Noone will enforce Mexican copyright law for works distributed in Austria. But Austrian laws do apply there.

No, they do not.

Mexican law applies in Mexico.

Austrian law applies in Austria.

And Canadian law applies in Canada.

[WJM]

No thanks?!? If a composer who 'died in 1960' wrote beautiful music for us to enjoy pre-1923, shouldn't we still be eager to send a bit of our monies toward his/her family who undoubtedly still own the pub. rights to his/her compositions?

Not in the United States.

And on, it is not "undoubtable" that the family owns the publishing rights. In fact, the odds are against that.

God knows being a composer for a living isn't very profitable...

Especially not when you are trying to make that living after you are dead.

I would repeat (from my 1st post) that composers born after 1860 have no business being on the site.

Why not? What is the possible relevance, in law, of the birth date, let alone the birth date of 1860?

[Yagan Kiely]

WJM and PI:

Please edit your posts rather than double posting, there is not need to create another post.

AW7

[Blouis79]

it seems that the no-brainer in this situation is to REMOVE ALL COMPOSERS born after 1860[...] --DK--

But all copyright law is based on date of copyright notice (ie date of first publication) and extends during the author's life and past date of death to end of calendar year + something usually 50+ depending on jurisdiction.

Nothing to do with when they were born.

See legal information thread for more.

[nikolas]

Yes, actually the date of birth is totally irrelavent to any discussion in here I'm afraid...

[WJM]

WJM and PI:

Please edit your posts rather than double posting, there is not need to create another post.

AW7

I know what "double posting" means. Do you? I haven' t "double posted".

[WJM]

Nothing to do with when they were born.

See legal information thread for more.

There may, in some countries, be a provision for presuming the term of copyright based on the birth date of an author, when the death date is unknown. However, that is not the case in Canadian law.

[Zithren]

I am a tenor living in the US. If you need any help with reaching the New England musical world once your site is back online I'm willing to help. I'm also willing to scan an opera for you from the New England Conservatory's library if you need it later on.

[Yagan Kiely]

I know what "double posting" means. Do you? I haven' t "double posted".

I always see you post a message after you post one.

You posted:

ArcticWind7 wrote:
WJM and PI:

Please edit your posts rather than double posting, there is not need to create another post.

AW7


I know what "double posting" means. Do you? I haven' t "double posted".

Then posted again straight after with:

Blouis79 wrote:
Nothing to do with when they were born.

See legal information thread for more.


There may, in some countries, be a provision for presuming the term of copyright based on the birth date of an author, when the death date is unknown. However, that is not the case in Canadian law.

That is double posting, and you have been doing this alot, as has PI.