Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums
Over 2.7 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers (it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

SEARCH
Piano Forums & Piano World
(ad)
Piano Life Saver - Dampp Chaser
Dampp Chaser Piano Life Saver
What's Hot!!
PIANO TEACHERS Please read this!
-------------------
European Tour for Piano Lovers
JOIN US FOR THE TOUR!
--------------------
Posting Pictures on the Forums
-------------------
Forums RULES & HELP
-------------------
ADVERTISE on Piano World
(ad)
Best of Piano Buyer
 Best of Piano Buyer
Find a Professional
Our Classified Ads
Find Piano Professionals-

*Piano Dealers - Piano Stores
*Piano Tuners
*Piano Teachers
*Piano Movers
*Piano Restorations
*Piano Manufacturers

Advertise on Piano World

Who's Online Now
134 registered members (ajames, Amedeus, 8ude, Alex C, ando, Animisha, almo82, A Guy, 31 invisible), 1,499 guests, and 8 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
(ad)
Estonia Pianos
Estonia Pianos
Quick Links to Useful Piano & Music Resources
Quick Links:
*Advertise On Piano World
*Free Piano Newsletter
*Online Piano Recitals
*Piano Recitals Index
*Piano & Music Accessories
*Live Piano Venues
*Music School Listings
* Buying a Piano
*Buying A Acoustic Piano
*Buying a Digital Piano
*Pianos for Sale
*Sell Your Piano
*How Old is My Piano?
*Directory/Site Map
*Virtual Piano
*Music Word Search
*Piano Videos
*Virtual Piano Chords & Scales
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Re: Copyrights discussed! [Re: Nikolas] #2204678
12/29/13 06:56 PM
12/29/13 06:56 PM
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 244
Calgary
wower Offline
Full Member
wower  Offline
Full Member

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 244
Calgary
Originally Posted by Nikolas
And as I said my whole thesis was done with Open Office, but I remain solid that with very few exceptions open source or freeware software are (still) no match to commercial products. At least not yet and with the very valid exceptions, I repeat that.


I think returning to the point about open software muddles your view on account of the limited framework initially laid out. I see all sorts of other factors at play. For example, I work almost exclusively with commercial software yet release things in the creative commons. The best question to test the connection would be to ask if a creative commons project is better when made with open source tools? I answer in the negative.

Originally Posted by Nikolas
Now, the Creative Commons licenses are fine as they are, but I find that there's something disturbing in there: They cannot be revoked, and last time I checked every license includes a "free to redistribute" clause.

(4.0 seems to be the "stricter" yet it allows redistribution: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.en_GB).

This simply means that anything you attach a CC license on is "gone for good". You can't stop people from sharing it... :-/

The lack of middlemen is not because of CC licenses, but because of the Internet by large I think.


Two things above left me scratching my head: Firstly, the concerns raised in regard to free redistribution policies strike me as moot. Perhaps this is just opinion. Perhaps you place a far greater importance on control of the work after release. I can see for myself downsides as to how works might be used negatively but perhaps I don't classify the risks as serious enough to warrant panic or have managed and mitigated them to my satisfaction in moving forward. I just kind of shrug and go "so what?". Secondly, I disagree with your conclusion CC licenses do not reduce the effect of 3rd party drain. Perhaps its the analyst in me that we should be so happy to have found an abstract model which reduces real economic overhead. All sorts of such processes are found in the business literature and I was under the impression the behaviour of the CC license was understood in this light. Though if we try to drive the discussion and describe the effect most realistically, a more accurate statement might be the reduction of middlemen economic overhead is due 50/50 to the CC model/internet (actual numbers may vary) because absolutely use of the internet can produce such a reduction.


Bad spellers of the world untie!
Piano & Music Gifts & Accessories (570)
Piano accessories and music gift items
Re: Copyrights discussed! [Re: Nikolas] #2204693
12/29/13 07:34 PM
12/29/13 07:34 PM
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 6,093
J
JoelW Offline
6000 Post Club Member
JoelW  Offline
6000 Post Club Member
J

Joined: May 2012
Posts: 6,093
Interesting read. Thanks, Nikolas. Could you talk a little about publishing music?

Re: Copyrights discussed! [Re: Nikolas] #2204818
12/30/13 01:37 AM
12/30/13 01:37 AM
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,541
UK
Nikolas Offline OP
6000 Post Club Member
Nikolas  Offline OP
6000 Post Club Member

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,541
UK
wower: Here's an example about CC license and the redistribution issue: I release a lovely work, under a CC license. You, and another 30,000 people download it and all is fine.

Then at some point I decide to sell my lovely work. How I can stop those 30,000 from distributing the said work? See the problem now? A CC license can never be revoked, which means that it's 100% or 0%!

In fact I had a number of works in IMSLP, which were (ALL) downloaded by another website, which was working under a subscription model! I went insane: I'm NOT getting anything, yet people are paying someone else to get MY works! Not so moot, if you think about it. However, I was fortunate that the web owner was a reasonable guy and deleted my stuff (and plenty of other stuff actually) from his website.

So, for me, personally (especially since I'm out here commercially now), the redistribution issue is a serious one.

As for CC helping out to take out the middle man, there's a few issues to discuss here.

1. The middle man is not always a bastard taking your work and money for nothing. He adds quite a lot, that you (the artist) can't do on your own. In regards to what Joel is asking, as a publisher I deal with all the editing, proof reading, printing, graphic design, selling, approaching people, lawyering up, getting paid (YAY! grin), promoting, shipping, handling all web issues, all real life issues, etc. A single person won't be able to do all those things easily... And I can tell you that it's taking SO much time from my hands that I haven't been able to actually do what I'm supposed to be doing: Compose!

2. In my case, I happen to be the middle man. I'm the publisher and people come to me. I do believe that I'm offering quite a lot in terms of service, quality, etc to every artist that signs with EMF. Money wise I can't talk, but I can promise you that direct sales are very small... the money's elsewhere.

Re: Copyrights discussed! [Re: Nikolas] #2204864
12/30/13 07:05 AM
12/30/13 07:05 AM
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 9,063
W
wr Offline
9000 Post Club Member
wr  Offline
9000 Post Club Member
W

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 9,063
Originally Posted by Nikolas
wower: Here's an example about CC license and the redistribution issue: I release a lovely work, under a CC license. You, and another 30,000 people download it and all is fine.

Then at some point I decide to sell my lovely work. How I can stop those 30,000 from distributing the said work? See the problem now? A CC license can never be revoked, which means that it's 100% or 0%!

In fact I had a number of works in IMSLP, which were (ALL) downloaded by another website, which was working under a subscription model! I went insane: I'm NOT getting anything, yet people are paying someone else to get MY works! Not so moot, if you think about it. However, I was fortunate that the web owner was a reasonable guy and deleted my stuff (and plenty of other stuff actually) from his website.

So, for me, personally (especially since I'm out here commercially now), the redistribution issue is a serious one.



I still don't see a problem, as long as the composer knows the score, so to speak. It's not a secret that you can't revoke the CC license and it's not a secret that the material can be redistributed. You can choose to restrict the license to be only for non-commercial redistribution if you want (it's not clear in your example whether you had done that). So what's the issue?

I might add that revoking a license would seem to be impossible at any rate, since, once the redistribution process got started, there would be no way to stop it. The only way to do it would be to keep track of every single copy in every format, until copyright expired, with some way of destroying it if the license was revoked. That's just not part of the scheme, I don't think (but I haven't delved into it far enough to know for sure).


Re: Copyrights discussed! [Re: stumbler] #2204868
12/30/13 07:12 AM
12/30/13 07:12 AM
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 9,063
W
wr Offline
9000 Post Club Member
wr  Offline
9000 Post Club Member
W

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 9,063
Originally Posted by stumbler
I think it would drive publishers away from older living composers if copyright didn't extend past the death of the composer.


Which argues in favor of having a flat number of years of copyright from publication date, as the law was originally conceived, instead of letting the composer's death date enter into the calculation.

Re: Copyrights discussed! [Re: hv] #2204874
12/30/13 07:28 AM
12/30/13 07:28 AM
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 9,063
W
wr Offline
9000 Post Club Member
wr  Offline
9000 Post Club Member
W

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 9,063
Originally Posted by hv

I think Sonny Bono's strongest argument when he spearheaded extensions, was that it would be nice for composers to leave more to their relatives. Not sure how that relates to encouraging or supporting creativity unless he was thinking about their possible composing genes.


I'm sure that Sonny Bono's arguments were invented and groomed by the big corporations that wanted the legislation passed, and that was certainly only after they had spent a good amount of time and money working out exactly what arguments would likely play best to the public, to quell some of the outrage they knew to expect when they made their bid to grab even more than they already had. It worked.


Re: Copyrights discussed! [Re: wr] #2204935
12/30/13 10:45 AM
12/30/13 10:45 AM
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,541
UK
Nikolas Offline OP
6000 Post Club Member
Nikolas  Offline OP
6000 Post Club Member

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,541
UK
Originally Posted by wr
Originally Posted by Nikolas
wower: Here's an example about CC license and the redistribution issue: I release a lovely work, under a CC license. You, and another 30,000 people download it and all is fine.

Then at some point I decide to sell my lovely work. How I can stop those 30,000 from distributing the said work? See the problem now? A CC license can never be revoked, which means that it's 100% or 0%!

In fact I had a number of works in IMSLP, which were (ALL) downloaded by another website, which was working under a subscription model! I went insane: I'm NOT getting anything, yet people are paying someone else to get MY works! Not so moot, if you think about it. However, I was fortunate that the web owner was a reasonable guy and deleted my stuff (and plenty of other stuff actually) from his website.

So, for me, personally (especially since I'm out here commercially now), the redistribution issue is a serious one.



I still don't see a problem, as long as the composer knows the score, so to speak. It's not a secret that you can't revoke the CC license and it's not a secret that the material can be redistributed. You can choose to restrict the license to be only for non-commercial redistribution if you want (it's not clear in your example whether you had done that). So what's the issue?

I might add that revoking a license would seem to be impossible at any rate, since, once the redistribution process got started, there would be no way to stop it. The only way to do it would be to keep track of every single copy in every format, until copyright expired, with some way of destroying it if the license was revoked. That's just not part of the scheme, I don't think (but I haven't delved into it far enough to know for sure).
Which means that for whichever work you decide to go the CC way, there's no turning back.

At least for me, this kinda back fired a tiny bit, as I explained earlier. I went from offering scores for free, to selling scores, which present an issue if there's a CC license attached, no?

There's no secret, or tiny footprint at play; it's just that one cannot change his mind with a CC license (while a regular copyright can always be revoked later on! grin)

Re: Copyrights discussed! [Re: wr] #2205050
12/30/13 03:20 PM
12/30/13 03:20 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,446
Philadelphia
D
Derulux Offline
5000 Post Club Member
Derulux  Offline
5000 Post Club Member
D

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,446
Philadelphia
Originally Posted by wr
Originally Posted by stumbler
I think it would drive publishers away from older living composers if copyright didn't extend past the death of the composer.


Which argues in favor of having a flat number of years of copyright from publication date, as the law was originally conceived, instead of letting the composer's death date enter into the calculation.

I'm not sure it necessarily does this or the opposite. Death + 70 (general rule in the US) would give a very similar result for older composers as "Publication + 80", give or take a decade. What it would do, however, is potentially reduce that composer's revenue from earlier works if they happened to outlive the copyright.


Every day we are afforded a new chance. The problem with life is not that you run out of chances. In the end, what you run out of are days.
Re: Copyrights discussed! [Re: Nikolas] #2205172
12/30/13 06:11 PM
12/30/13 06:11 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 370
Toronto
S
stumbler Offline
Full Member
stumbler  Offline
Full Member
S

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 370
Toronto
Originally Posted by Nikolas
A CC license can never be revoked, which means that it's 100% or 0%!


If the work released under CC isn't supported by some other revenue stream then CC doesn't make sense. That assumes that there is a viable way to generate revenue---which seems to be the big problem these days.

The model for open source software is somewhat different. There, the anticipated revenue stream is via paid support for the product. I've seen occasional posts where someone asks if they should open source their software product. The sensible response seems to be that if sales of the software product itself is the only source of revenue, then don't open source.

Originally Posted by Nikolas

As for CC helping out to take out the middle man, there's a few issues to discuss here.

1. The middle man is not always a bastard taking your work and money for nothing. . . .


I take back my earlier comment regarding corporations. I was lazy, using a stereotype rather than spend the effort to write a properly nuanced comment. Incorporation is obligatory in many commercial enterprises, and in no way implies an abusive relationship between the artist and the corporation. Historically there are instances of unfair practices, but that doesn't make it the norm.

Re: Copyrights discussed! [Re: Nikolas] #2205270
12/30/13 08:39 PM
12/30/13 08:39 PM
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 244
Calgary
wower Offline
Full Member
wower  Offline
Full Member

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 244
Calgary
It sounds to me Nikolas like you might not be a good candidate to profit by a more open source path. I agree with WR about the whole "no turning back" thing. The license is open and fair to all participants. I'm just not going to get too worked up when things people said were going happen, happen. I think people make choices daily the consequences of which later limit future choices. Where I think each differs is in one's tolerance of said risks and consequences.

Perhaps I've already found my hybrid model which keeps a roof over my head. A last suspicion is perhaps you're just revealing my radical open source views. For example, the below quoted text: You seem to be trying force the old style model right into and overtop of the open source model. No wonder you find it frustrating! smile I see a (hypothetically perfect) Creative Common license weaving itself much deeper into the substance of a project or piece. Changing the possibilities of a work. It can change the sequence, scale or even necessity of any given role you outlined. I ask myself, does any of those roles have any fundamental right to exist? I feel working under an open source structure frees one to completely push aside all roles and start afresh, restructure them, reorganize, and even use resources or approaches not included. It's a bit daring and I don't know if your heart is really it in. You might feel more comfortable, and meet more success, staying in a more traditional stream and allowing them to develop a social media strategy etc. for your work. Something seems to be blocking your ability to even see some of the economic utility offered by a CC model.

Quote
1. The middle man is not always a bastard taking your work and money for nothing. He adds quite a lot, that you (the artist) can't do on your own. In regards to what Joel is asking, as a publisher I deal with all the editing, proof reading, printing, graphic design, selling, approaching people, lawyering up, getting paid (YAY! grin), promoting, shipping, handling all web issues, all real life issues, etc. A single person won't be able to do all those things easily... And I can tell you that it's taking SO much time from my hands that I haven't been able to actually do what I'm supposed to be doing: Compose!

2. In my case, I happen to be the middle man. I'm the publisher and people come to me. I do believe that I'm offering quite a lot in terms of service, quality, etc to every artist that signs with EMF. Money wise I can't talk, but I can promise you that direct sales are very small... the money's elsewhere.


Bad spellers of the world untie!
Re: Copyrights discussed! [Re: Nikolas] #2205303
12/30/13 09:29 PM
12/30/13 09:29 PM
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 9,063
W
wr Offline
9000 Post Club Member
wr  Offline
9000 Post Club Member
W

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 9,063
Originally Posted by Nikolas
Originally Posted by wr
Originally Posted by Nikolas
wower: Here's an example about CC license and the redistribution issue: I release a lovely work, under a CC license. You, and another 30,000 people download it and all is fine.

Then at some point I decide to sell my lovely work. How I can stop those 30,000 from distributing the said work? See the problem now? A CC license can never be revoked, which means that it's 100% or 0%!

In fact I had a number of works in IMSLP, which were (ALL) downloaded by another website, which was working under a subscription model! I went insane: I'm NOT getting anything, yet people are paying someone else to get MY works! Not so moot, if you think about it. However, I was fortunate that the web owner was a reasonable guy and deleted my stuff (and plenty of other stuff actually) from his website.

So, for me, personally (especially since I'm out here commercially now), the redistribution issue is a serious one.



I still don't see a problem, as long as the composer knows the score, so to speak. It's not a secret that you can't revoke the CC license and it's not a secret that the material can be redistributed. You can choose to restrict the license to be only for non-commercial redistribution if you want (it's not clear in your example whether you had done that). So what's the issue?

I might add that revoking a license would seem to be impossible at any rate, since, once the redistribution process got started, there would be no way to stop it. The only way to do it would be to keep track of every single copy in every format, until copyright expired, with some way of destroying it if the license was revoked. That's just not part of the scheme, I don't think (but I haven't delved into it far enough to know for sure).
Which means that for whichever work you decide to go the CC way, there's no turning back.

At least for me, this kinda back fired a tiny bit, as I explained earlier. I went from offering scores for free, to selling scores, which present an issue if there's a CC license attached, no?

There's no secret, or tiny footprint at play; it's just that one cannot change his mind with a CC license (while a regular copyright can always be revoked later on! grin)


And...?

I mean, what's your gripe, if you know at the time of attaching a CC license to your work that you can't change your mind later? If that's a problem for you, the solution is simple: just don't use it.

It's not really right to say it backfired on you, IMO, since there was nothing that happened that you couldn't have figured out at the time you attached the license. The way it looks to me, you just made a mistake, that's all - it's not that there is some problem with CC.

When I uploaded something to IMSLP, it was clear that I needed to think carefully about what license to choose, and about whether to upload at all. So I did make the effort to think through the ramifications of making the choice. At the time, it seemed like an inordinate amount of legalese to consider and digest when all I wanted to do was share something with the world, but as time passes, I can better understand the need for it. Anyway, at this point, if it turns out that someone is making money off of my work, that's fine with me, because I made the licensing choice that allows it, and I knew what I was doing when I made it.


Re: Copyrights discussed! [Re: wr] #2205321
12/30/13 09:48 PM
12/30/13 09:48 PM
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 6,093
J
JoelW Offline
6000 Post Club Member
JoelW  Offline
6000 Post Club Member
J

Joined: May 2012
Posts: 6,093
Originally Posted by wr
When I uploaded something to IMSLP...


How does one do that?

Re: Copyrights discussed! [Re: JoelW] #2205341
12/30/13 10:12 PM
12/30/13 10:12 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,446
Philadelphia
D
Derulux Offline
5000 Post Club Member
Derulux  Offline
5000 Post Club Member
D

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,446
Philadelphia
Originally Posted by JoelW
Originally Posted by wr
When I uploaded something to IMSLP...


How does one do that?

http://imslp.org/wiki/How_to_Submit_a_Score


Every day we are afforded a new chance. The problem with life is not that you run out of chances. In the end, what you run out of are days.
Re: Copyrights discussed! [Re: Nikolas] #2205346
12/30/13 10:16 PM
12/30/13 10:16 PM
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,326
New York City
P
Polyphonist Offline
9000 Post Club Member
Polyphonist  Offline
9000 Post Club Member
P

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,326
New York City
Thanks for the link.


Regards,

Polyphonist
Re: Copyrights discussed! [Re: Nikolas] #2205395
12/30/13 11:49 PM
12/30/13 11:49 PM
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,541
UK
Nikolas Offline OP
6000 Post Club Member
Nikolas  Offline OP
6000 Post Club Member

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,541
UK
There's too many issues and formats and comments going on and I have to break them down, cause it's getting increasingly difficult to follow up on everyone.

1. There's the free, there's the open source, there's the dirty cheap and there's the normally priced product. Each one differs and we need to be reminded that actually open source does NOT equal free. There's an important difference there.

2. CC came into play to resolve a few issues in regards to "public domain" pretty much. There's a (relatively old in Internet years) saying that goes "Anything that enters the net is public domain", which is half true. Legally there's no true in that, but practically speaking, once it's in, it's in and you can't take it out. CC came in to explain this is simple English and help people understand a bit better what's going on. All of this is simple. And it is fair and square.

All I'm saying is that by choosing a CC license, you can't go back. Some people don't find it all too clear actually. More over, as I said earlier, it is rather interesting that the more strict copyright model can be revoked anytime, but a CC license cannot (for practical reasons of course).

3. Personally I came into the Internet about 10 years ago, to a freeware adventure games engine forum. They taught me the basics of the Internet and one of the most important and interesting rules: "If it's free work for free. If it ain't free, don't work for free". So, if someone's going to profit of your work you should not work for free, but if it's a freeware game, song, whatever, then do so. It's simple enough I think it makes sense more or less...

I understand the concept of open source, of freeware and of demoing for free. And, if I'm allowed to say, the publishing business is a very very traditional one, with very very traditional expenses. I'm not interested in making a totally new business concept work like that, to be honest, though I hope that it's clear that I'm keeping my eyes open.

But I am rather obsessed to see that art is getting the respect it deserves (and believe me in the commercial media world it's NOT).

4. wr: Yes on all accounts. I made a mistake, I thought this was clear. Just that the mistake was not the type of "Gargh... I missed the right turn here, now we're doing downtown", but more of "After 5 years I actually changed my mine... now what?".

Anyhow it is a brave new world. And a very interesting one. And it's a brave new year to come in about 24 hours for you guys (and less time for me... tee hee hee), so here we are waiting to see what should happen, or what will happen.

But I honestly hope that the copyrights laws will lighten up, cause it is rather ridiculous right now. (In fact I have an email from a well known record company telling me that even if it's actually illegal to make mp3s from a legally bought MP3 they wouldn't mind me doing so: They're not after their loyal customers"! wink

In fact here's his reply:

Quote
Dear Nikolas,



The strict answer is that it is not legal to transfer a digital sound recording from the CD to a MP3 player or the like, even if this is for personal use. This is due to the way in which the Copyrights Designs and Patents Act 1988 (and its predecessors) were drafted. The reality, as you know, is rather different from this position, and the authorities are trying to find a way in which to amend the legislation and the commercial framework so as to allow people to carry their music on an alternative platform (usually an i-pod or the like).



So, the strict answer to any formal request to make a copy of a disc has to be “we are unable to give that permission”. I’m sure, given the trouble you have taken to write, that you appreciate the spirit in which the “formal” answer is given. We are not in the business of making trouble for loyal customers such as you who, for the sake of convenience, wish to transfer, temporarily, the music they have bought to one other medium only.



I hope this helps


Dated in 2008! wink

Last edited by Nikolas; 12/30/13 11:50 PM.
Re: Copyrights discussed! [Re: Nikolas] #2205470
12/31/13 01:43 AM
12/31/13 01:43 AM
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 9,063
W
wr Offline
9000 Post Club Member
wr  Offline
9000 Post Club Member
W

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 9,063
Originally Posted by Nikolas

All I'm saying is that by choosing a CC license, you can't go back. Some people don't find it all too clear actually. More over, as I said earlier, it is rather interesting that the more strict copyright model can be revoked anytime, but a CC license cannot (for practical reasons of course).


Maybe the CC licenses should say more directly "Once done, it cannot be undone, ever" if people are having trouble understanding "irrevocable".

Is copyright revocable? I don't see how it could be, since once published and distributed, a work can't really be pulled back. For example, I have purchased and own scores by living composers (I know, shocking!!), and I don't know of any mechanism by which the composers can revoke the copyright on them.

Permission for performance can be revoked or denied, but that's not the same as copyright itself.

Re: Copyrights discussed! [Re: wr] #2205479
12/31/13 02:02 AM
12/31/13 02:02 AM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,446
Philadelphia
D
Derulux Offline
5000 Post Club Member
Derulux  Offline
5000 Post Club Member
D

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,446
Philadelphia
Originally Posted by wr
Originally Posted by Nikolas

All I'm saying is that by choosing a CC license, you can't go back. Some people don't find it all too clear actually. More over, as I said earlier, it is rather interesting that the more strict copyright model can be revoked anytime, but a CC license cannot (for practical reasons of course).


Maybe the CC licenses should say more directly "Once done, it cannot be undone, ever" if people are having trouble understanding "irrevocable".

Is copyright revocable? I don't see how it could be, since once published and distributed, a work can't really be pulled back. For example, I have purchased and own scores by living composers (I know, shocking!!), and I don't know of any mechanism by which the composers can revoke the copyright on them.

Permission for performance can be revoked or denied, but that's not the same as copyright itself.

There really isn't a need to revoke copyright. (Assuming, for the sake of this part of the discussion, we mean an officially registered copyright, and not just the copyright that exists upon creation of the work -- US law.) What registering does is give you the ability to seek compensation for damages resulting from another party illegally profiting/distributing your work. If you choose not to seek those damages, then you don't have to do anything.


Every day we are afforded a new chance. The problem with life is not that you run out of chances. In the end, what you run out of are days.
Re: Copyrights discussed! [Re: Nikolas] #2205484
12/31/13 02:05 AM
12/31/13 02:05 AM
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,326
New York City
P
Polyphonist Offline
9000 Post Club Member
Polyphonist  Offline
9000 Post Club Member
P

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,326
New York City
What are the rules about typesetting and public domain?


Regards,

Polyphonist
Re: Copyrights discussed! [Re: wr] #2205489
12/31/13 02:09 AM
12/31/13 02:09 AM
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,541
UK
Nikolas Offline OP
6000 Post Club Member
Nikolas  Offline OP
6000 Post Club Member

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,541
UK
Originally Posted by wr
Originally Posted by Nikolas

All I'm saying is that by choosing a CC license, you can't go back. Some people don't find it all too clear actually. More over, as I said earlier, it is rather interesting that the more strict copyright model can be revoked anytime, but a CC license cannot (for practical reasons of course).


Maybe the CC licenses should say more directly "Once done, it cannot be undone, ever" if people are having trouble understanding "irrevocable".

Is copyright revocable? I don't see how it could be, since once published and distributed, a work can't really be pulled back. For example, I have purchased and own scores by living composers (I know, shocking!!), and I don't know of any mechanism by which the composers can revoke the copyright on them.

Permission for performance can be revoked or denied, but that's not the same as copyright itself.
Copyright can be revoked, by the copyright holder: "Here you are: The scores that you once bought, are now free of charge".

Simple as that.

EDIT: You bought a work from a living composer? Congratulations! grin

Last edited by Nikolas; 12/31/13 02:41 AM.
Re: Copyrights discussed! [Re: Nikolas] #2205514
12/31/13 03:24 AM
12/31/13 03:24 AM
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 9,063
W
wr Offline
9000 Post Club Member
wr  Offline
9000 Post Club Member
W

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 9,063
Originally Posted by Nikolas

Copyright can be revoked, by the copyright holder: "Here you are: The scores that you once bought, are now free of charge".

Simple as that.

EDIT: You bought a work from a living composer? Congratulations! grin


I don't think revoking a copyright is as simple as that in the US, where I live. For one thing, copyright is created automatically when the work is created - so, if you tried to revoke it, it would just be back automatically, instantly. At least, that's what would seem to happen - I haven't asked the copyright office to verify that.

And yes, believe it or not, a regular here in the Pianist Corner, me, has actually bought more than one thing by more than one living classical composer (well, they were living at the time of purchase - some have died since, but some are still living). And after I win a lottery jackpot, I may buy more...


Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  Brendan, Kreisler 

(ad)
Pianoteq
PianoTeq Petrof
(ad)
Sweetwater - Keyboards
Sweetwater
ad
Jazz Piano Online
Jazz Piano Lessons Online

New Topics - Multiple Forums
Kawai vpc1 and ipad
by Bachus. 01/16/19 01:27 PM
Just for fun - Liszt Sonata in B minor
by Rich Galassini. 01/16/19 11:00 AM
Fix our CLP-150 or buy new?
by jlhopes. 01/16/19 08:46 AM
What would you have done.....Hammer problem
by Duaner. 01/16/19 06:39 AM
For Pianoteq devotees: new instrument introduced
by QuasiUnaFantasia. 01/16/19 06:37 AM
Forum Statistics
Forums40
Topics189,603
Posts2,782,387
Members92,121
Most Online15,252
Mar 21st, 2010
(ad)
Accu-Tuner
Sanderson Accu-Tuner
Please Support Our Advertisers
Dampp Chaser Piano Life Saver

Sweetwater

PianoTeq Petrof
Piano Buyer Spring 2018
Visit our online store for gifts for music lovers


 
Help keep the forums up and running with a donation, any amount is appreciated!
Or by becoming a Subscribing member! Thank-you.
Donate   Subscribe
 
Our Piano Related Classified Ads
| Dealers | Tuners | Lessons | Movers | Restorations | Pianos For Sale | Sell Your Piano |

Advertise on Piano World
| Subscribe | Piano World | PianoSupplies.com | Advertise on Piano World |
| |Contact | Privacy | Legal | About Us | Site Map | Free Newsletter |


copyright 1997 - 2018 Piano World ® all rights reserved
No part of this site may be reproduced without prior written permission
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.2