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!!
Mr. PianoWorld - the full interview
-------------------
European Tour for Piano Lovers
JOIN US FOR THE TOUR!
--------------------
Posting Pictures on the Forums
-------------------
Forums RULES & HELP
-------------------
ADVERTISE on Piano World
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

(ad)
Piano Buyer Guide
Piano Buyer Spring 2018
ad
Pierce Piano Atlas


Who's Online Now
149 registered members (ajames, AlphaBravoCharlie, AssociateX, anotherscott, Balezin Dmitry, accordeur, 32 invisible), 1,833 guests, and 10 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 2 of 3 1 2 3
Re: Copyrights discussed! [Re: Nikolas] #2204152
12/28/13 05:40 PM
12/28/13 05:40 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 370
Toronto
S
stumbler Offline
Full Member
stumbler  Offline
Full Member
S

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 370
Toronto
I think it would drive publishers away from older living composers if copyright didn't extend past the death of the composer.

One might argue that shorter copyright periods would speed the acceptance of more modern works by the concert going public. But that public is allegedly conservative, and not open to programs consisting of a high percentage of modern works---hence the emphasis on the three Bs.

To me, life plus 50 seems on the generous side. Acceptable but generous, especially when compared to copyright duration when copyright was first introduced (something like 10 or 12 years). Does a composer actually benefit from the longer term, or is it only corporations?

Piano & Music Gifts & Accessories (570)
Piano accessories and music gift items
Re: Copyrights discussed! [Re: Nikolas] #2204177
12/28/13 06:51 PM
12/28/13 06:51 PM
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 11
Ohio
P
piano39 Offline
Junior Member
piano39  Offline
Junior Member
P

Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 11
Ohio
It is hard for me to restrain myself on this response.
If the law was changed from 70 years to 25, the publisher will still enjoy the "death benefit" from the composer. heck, there's a 50/50 chance that the publisher won't outlive the composer anyway. Why do they need to be guaranteed a monopoly on the work for 70 years after the composer's death???

As far as family members are concerned- it is one thing for a descendant to inherit past earnings from a work. Why should they be entitled to all future earnings for the work? One of the reasons America broke away from Britain was to break free from the monarchy, where there is a birthright to riches. We then turned around and created the same system, for descendants of creative people.

Again, the parallels for patents are reasonable. Patents expire after a reasonable time, upon which they enter the public domain for everyone to benefit. This is regardless of the financial investment that the company (or individual)made to bring the product to market. Expenses for creative works pale in comparison to the expenses related for patents.

Re: Copyrights discussed! [Re: hreichgott] #2204212
12/28/13 08:08 PM
12/28/13 08:08 PM
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 565
Vermont
toyboy Offline
500 Post Club Member
toyboy  Offline
500 Post Club Member

Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 565
Vermont
Originally Posted by hreichgott
Originally Posted by AZNpiano
Originally Posted by JohnSprung
Anything first published in the U.S. in 1922 or earlier is Public Domain.

I know of this factoid, but how does this law apply to unique situations like Leo Ornstein? Ornstein's "Wild Men's Dance" was published in 1914, but he went on to live until 2002.

It is public domain in the US, not in all countries.


And another reason just might be that on the website created by his son, most of his work is available for free. laugh
Due to public domain or the graciousness of son of Ornstein?

http://poonhill.com/list_of_works.htm



"Everybody gets so much information all day long that they lose their common sense."
- Gertrude Stein
Re: Copyrights discussed! [Re: toyboy] #2204256
12/28/13 09:57 PM
12/28/13 09:57 PM
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 3,382
western MA, USA
H
hreichgott Offline
3000 Post Club Member
hreichgott  Offline
3000 Post Club Member
H

Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 3,382
western MA, USA
Originally Posted by toyboy
Due to public domain or the graciousness of son of Ornstein?

The latter. From Orstein's IMSLP page:
Miscellaneous information

Mr. Severo Ornstein, the composer's son and copyright owner, has graciously granted permission for Leo Ornstein's works to be posted at IMSLP.


Heather W. Reichgott, piano http://heatherwreichgott.blogspot.com

Working on:
Cabaret (whole show)
12+ variations from classical ballets
Verdi: Stabat Mater
Copland: Appalachian Spring
Tangos and other fun music for piano duo

I love Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and new music
Re: Copyrights discussed! [Re: piano39] #2204273
12/28/13 10:37 PM
12/28/13 10:37 PM
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,535
UK
Nikolas Offline OP
6000 Post Club Member
Nikolas  Offline OP
6000 Post Club Member

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,535
UK
Originally Posted by piano39
It is hard for me to restrain myself on this response.
Oh please... Don't restrain yourself. Why feel restrained? Say what you will.

It doesn't concern me and my position in this matter is very clear. It is unfortunate that you don't seem to have noticed, but...

BTW, the publisher is a corporation and a legal entity, not a living person! wink

But as I said earlier and you didn't notice, I agree that it is ridiculous to have copyrights lasting THAT long!

Oh well...

Re: Copyrights discussed! [Re: Nikolas] #2204428
12/29/13 11:08 AM
12/29/13 11:08 AM
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 11
Ohio
P
piano39 Offline
Junior Member
piano39  Offline
Junior Member
P

Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 11
Ohio
Nikolas,
My comments were not directed at you. It was part of the general dialog that you internet forums are made for.

Thanks for the scolding, though.


Re: Copyrights discussed! [Re: Nikolas] #2204453
12/29/13 11:48 AM
12/29/13 11:48 AM
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,535
UK
Nikolas Offline OP
6000 Post Club Member
Nikolas  Offline OP
6000 Post Club Member

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,535
UK
Piano39: In this forum, there's a re: someone above the post, and it seemed that you were directing your comments to me. It didn't seem general.

In any case sorry, though I don't think my post was overly aggressive or scolding... :-/

Re: Copyrights discussed! [Re: Nikolas] #2204548
12/29/13 02:44 PM
12/29/13 02:44 PM
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 244
Calgary
wower Offline
Full Member
wower  Offline
Full Member

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 244
Calgary
I saw the title of this thread and thought it would make a great topic. But very early on when you laid out the terms of "copyright" I thought I noticed a sharp reduction in the scope of the topic - leaving aside all notions and effects of copyright securing a process or commercialization - this made me suspicious the writer might further reduce the scope as the question progressed. And indeed that is what is born out when I returned to type a reply. You seem to be focused on copyright as it relates to the composer and I answered in that spirit but with some gaps in knowledge.

Though were pretty similar in our views of open source (you mention above using open source software) by the time we get to the end of your long essay I find we've diverged quite a bit. You reveal me to be quite a radical open source believer for one. Not so much in software, but I'm a big believer and user of creative commons licences. I've just come to accept we live in a digital remix culture and I'm not going to fight it. And this makes me a big believer in one more thing: myself. That I'm up for the challenge.

I think for the next little while one will see both systems co-exist (commercial walled gardens versus YT) and also hybrid systems (such as itunes selling DRM-free mp3s). Working from the premise music wants to be free I argue the creative commons model in many ways can capture some of that momentum. The personal advantages I appreciate most from the creative commons model is the corresponding reduction in overhead because of the lack of middlemen. This leaves me with enough energy and creative spark to tackle projects which do pay the bills. The negatives for the moment I am mostly happy to work through. I'm working from the premise people need to play it, hear it, etc., before they buy it.


Bad spellers of the world untie!
Re: Copyrights discussed! [Re: wower] #2204556
12/29/13 02:57 PM
12/29/13 02:57 PM
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,535
UK
Nikolas Offline OP
6000 Post Club Member
Nikolas  Offline OP
6000 Post Club Member

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,535
UK
Originally Posted by wower
I saw the title of this thread and thought it would make a great topic. But very early on when you laid out the terms of "copyright" I thought I noticed a sharp reduction in the scope of the topic - leaving aside all notions and effects of copyright securing a process or commercialization - this made me suspicious the writer might further reduce the scope as the question progressed. And indeed that is what is born out when I returned to type a reply. You seem to be focused on copyright as it relates to the composer and I answered in that spirit but with some gaps in knowledge.
I will agree that this thread started out exactly because of a disagreement I have with another composer (and I did mention his name, though it doesn't really matter and I DO understand what he's doing). So, yes, my point of view, is certainly that of the composer, and I think that in pianoworld it's not a widely known position... :-/ I think.

I do hope, however, that I did present both cases equally and I also hope that I'm very clear that I'm not happy with the current copyright laws, and even more unhappy with any DRM product!

Quote
Though were pretty similar in our views of open source (you mention above using open source software) by the time we get to the end of your long essay I find we've diverged quite a bit. You reveal me to be quite a radical open source believer for one. Not so much in software, but I'm a big believer and user of creative commons licences. I've just come to accept we live in a digital remix culture and I'm not going to fight it. And this makes me a big believer in one more thing: myself. That I'm up for the challenge.
I'm certainly up for a challenge myself and I'm pretty sure that most here who notice my posts will confirm that I offer recordings, some times scores, videos, etc just like that.

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.

Quote
I think for the next little while one will see both systems co-exist (commercial walled gardens versus YT) and also hybrid systems (such as itunes selling DRM-free mp3s). Working from the premise music wants to be free I argue the creative commons model in many ways can capture some of that momentum. The personal advantages I appreciate most from the creative commons model is the corresponding reduction in overhead because of the lack of middlemen. This leaves me with enough energy and creative spark to tackle projects which do pay the bills. The negatives for the moment I am mostly happy to work through. I'm working from the premise people need to play it, hear it, etc., before they buy it.
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.

Finally, just in case, I'm assuming your post was referring to me, otherwise I'm really sorry! smile

Re: Copyrights discussed! [Re: Nikolas] #2204578
12/29/13 03:53 PM
12/29/13 03:53 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,242
Cape Cod
H
hv Offline
1000 Post Club Member
hv  Offline
1000 Post Club Member
H

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,242
Cape Cod
For those that suggest copyright law is static and not evolving, I don't think that is the case. Current copyright law is the result of substantial changes, most of them in relatively recent history. Indeed, I think most of the recent "reforms", like extending copyright beyond the life of the author, are the most problematical. Because the stated purpose of creating this unreal property right is to reward the creators and hopefully allow them to afford to keep up the good work for the benefit of all. The problem is that the reforms extending copyright beyond the limited terms of years that used to be the practice, were never intended to do that.

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. Perhaps in Gershwin descendants. If that's at all the case, I'm sure its the exception, not the rule. In any event, the biggest benefit was to music publishers who previously bought the copyrights and reaped a windfall without having to share anything with the original creators or their descendants anywhere.

Its curious that patents did not experience similar extensions. Well, not extensions in time, anyway. They seem to have gotten an expansion in what can be patented instead. You can probably patent scratching your head (or any other body part) if you claim it to be part of a new process. Consider doing that while composing. Just don't forget to mail me my check.

Howard

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!
Re: Copyrights discussed! [Re: Nikolas] #2204693
12/29/13 07:34 PM
12/29/13 07:34 PM
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 6,073
G
Grandalf Offline
6000 Post Club Member
Grandalf  Offline
6000 Post Club Member
G

Joined: May 2012
Posts: 6,073
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: 6,535
UK
Nikolas Offline OP
6000 Post Club Member
Nikolas  Offline OP
6000 Post Club Member

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,535
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: 9,043
W
wr Offline
9000 Post Club Member
wr  Offline
9000 Post Club Member
W

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 9,043
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: 9,043
W
wr Offline
9000 Post Club Member
wr  Offline
9000 Post Club Member
W

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 9,043
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: 9,043
W
wr Offline
9000 Post Club Member
wr  Offline
9000 Post Club Member
W

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 9,043
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: 6,535
UK
Nikolas Offline OP
6000 Post Club Member
Nikolas  Offline OP
6000 Post Club Member

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,535
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: 9,043
W
wr Offline
9000 Post Club Member
wr  Offline
9000 Post Club Member
W

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 9,043
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: 6,073
G
Grandalf Offline
6000 Post Club Member
Grandalf  Offline
6000 Post Club Member
G

Joined: May 2012
Posts: 6,073
Originally Posted by wr
When I uploaded something to IMSLP...


How does one do that?

Re: Copyrights discussed! [Re: Grandalf] #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: 9,321
New York City
P
Polyphonist Offline
9000 Post Club Member
Polyphonist  Offline
9000 Post Club Member
P

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,321
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: 6,535
UK
Nikolas Offline OP
6000 Post Club Member
Nikolas  Offline OP
6000 Post Club Member

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,535
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: 9,043
W
wr Offline
9000 Post Club Member
wr  Offline
9000 Post Club Member
W

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 9,043
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: 9,321
New York City
P
Polyphonist Offline
9000 Post Club Member
Polyphonist  Offline
9000 Post Club Member
P

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,321
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: 6,535
UK
Nikolas Offline OP
6000 Post Club Member
Nikolas  Offline OP
6000 Post Club Member

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,535
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: 9,043
W
wr Offline
9000 Post Club Member
wr  Offline
9000 Post Club Member
W

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 9,043
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 2 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  Brendan, Kreisler 

(ad)
Sweetwater - Keyboards
Sweetwater
New Topics - Multiple Forums
New old guy here; just starting piano journey at 58!
by PianoWVBob. 11/15/18 03:38 PM
One vs. Two-Hnaded Sight Reading
by BbAltered. 11/15/18 01:08 PM
Casio PX-160 or Yamaha P-125 for Beginner
by jediknight. 11/15/18 11:42 AM
Late 19th - early 20th century Pleyel pianos.
by Wckoek. 11/15/18 08:36 AM
(ad)
Pianoteq
PianoTeq Petrof
Forum Statistics
Forums40
Topics188,343
Posts2,761,397
Members91,493
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