rconroy wrote: monteverdi wrote:
Are you all aware that there is a statement about the IMSLP case on UE's website? It's quite interesting to read, I think.
Maybe we all should send our opinion in written form to UE as they don't seem to take it serious what is obvious here in these forums.
You find it there:http://www.uemusic.at/truman/en_templat ... f_id=14921
(The German title says: »The Rise and Fall of IMSLP«
Indeed, I received a courteous and prompt reply from Mr Irons when I emailed him about my concerns. I quote it here in full, as it seems that UE is being demonised rather hastily. When I replied, thanking him for taking the time to reply, he told me that everyone who has emailed UE has been replied to. Both this and the tone of his email strike me as far from the unreasonable stance that has been alleged in some quarters.
Poor Mr Irons! Is he upset that some folk who have read his flim-flam have not been deceived by it and that some have even taken to making nasty
comments about him?
UE's Chief Flim-flam Man wrote:Text of UE's reply
thanks for your e-mail. We are of course concerned that you should feel that Universal Edition has acted inappropriately. Whilst copyright protection exists for composers (and their families) after their death, we are entitled and indeed obliged to follow up on copyright violations.
We contacted the administrators of the IMSLP and voiced our concerns. There were no lawyers involved and our letter was polite. The IMSLP flatly refused to even discuss the issues concerned with us, simply stating that we were wrong. That is of course no basis for a cooperation
Perhaps it isn't a "basis for a [sic] cooperation", but it is correct under Canadian Law to say that copyright extends for 50 years after an author's or composer's death. Some of those composers listed by Herr Irons died more than 70 years ago. Indeed, that letter actually admitted "In Canada these composers are in public domain" and, hence, the best response would surely have been to refer UE to the retort in the (unreported) English case of Arkell v. Pressdram. (vide http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/arkell.htm
UE's Chief Flim-flam Man wrote:
Apart from this, we have no idea why the website was taken down - and why it is still down, although everyone seems to think they were in the right. Can it really be true that a whole site has to close simply because UE complains about 70 works? Is it really not possible that there might be another reason? Is it not a happy coincidence to be able to point the finger of blame at a respected publishing house?
Typical PR flim-flam. He knows perfectly well why the site was taken down: UE has money to spend on shysters, whereas the site owner hasn't.
UE's Chief Flim-flam Man wrote:
The idea of the IMSLP is applaudable. But please remember, for them to freely distribute public domain sheet music, someone has to publish that sheet music in the first place. Is it not ironic that the site includes sheet music by Mahler, who would be widely unknown today (as he was in the 1960's) if it were not for UE?
More flim-flam - and patently incorrect, at that!
For one thing, UE was not involved in the production of the movie "Death in Venice", was it? You may recall that the soundtrack made extensive use of Mahler's music, which brought that music to a far wider audience than any publisher might have done.
UE is not the only present-day publisher of works by Mahler, so that self-congratulatory claptrap can be readily seen for what it is: more than a little imaginative! Indeed, it was Leonard Bernstein - and a host of other conductors and musicians - rather than UE who sought to champion Mahler's work
For a PR man to seek to put a positive "spin" on unpleasant facts is neither new nor unexpected, as it is almost part of the job description. It is, however, somewhat unusual for a PR man to invent tales, especially when those tales can so easily be proven to be less than wholly accurate.