Do we live in a world without copyright law?

[neb]

As a publisher we wonder why the owner of this website did not ask for a cooperation instead of acting as living in a world without copyright law by giving away for free things that he simply does not own.

...

Universal Edition AG Vienna

The answer to your question is simple if you look at the threatening tone of the letter your lawyers sent.

I wonder why you as a publisher, rather than sending a letter from a lawyer, didn't merely send a list of composers whose works you would like removed? I'm sure that you could even have arranged together to replace the "offending" scores with links to "legitimate" places to purchase the music either in electronic or printed form.

As things stand, the upshot is that rather than losing POTENTIAL sales due to (arguable) copyright infringement, you're likely to lose ACTUAL sales due to the incredible bad feeling that your company has now attracted.

It's easy to lose focus due to emotion, but form a purely business perspective I urge you to play an active role in seeking to resolve this amicably if you want to sell more music rather than less.

Alec.

Actually they just lost two such sales. This evening's committee meeting decided to boycott UE works and not include two works in forthcoming orchestral concerts being planned for 2009. we're also considering removal of another work in 2008.

Answer Yes we live in a world of copyright law, and that cuts both ways. UE have no rights of enforcement where copyrights have expired and should not seek such through bullying and intimidation.

When an ultimatum such as that is delivered in such a way by a stronger force to a weaker one, the weaker has no choice but to capitulate irrespective of the merits of their case. Whether IMSLP are right or wrong I do not know, equally whether U-E are right or wrong I do not know since I do not know the full facts of the case.

To act in such a confrontational manner is hardly likely to illicit sympatheic or cooperative diaglogue.

U-E - you should perhaps consider more carefully how you set about dealing with YOUR customers since after all, that's who you're dealing with here. We chose to vote with our pockets and deprive you of PRS/MCPS hire fees etc.

[WJM]

We only asked to remove our copyright protected scores from this site.

Which scores, under Canadian law, would those have been?

[ablabmsz]

We only asked to remove our copyright protected scores from this site.

Which scores, under Canadian law, would those have been?

That was my thought as well, which prompted a question to legal-minds (discussed in another thread): If UE wanted to bring suit, wouldn't they have to list those scores rather than claim an abstract copyright violation?

And if so...why didn't they do so in, or in lieu of, the C&D? My opinion is 1) if they had this could have been resolved already; 2) they shouldn't expect IMSLP to do their legal homework for them; and 3) the lack of specifics is what engenders the opinion of ill-will on their part.

[johnsonfromwisconsin]

As a publisher we wonder why the owner of this website did not ask for a cooperation instead of acting as living in a world without copyright law by giving away for free things that he simply does not own.

This is simply an outrageous, and factually incorrect, assertion - sadly typical of the type of arrogance that has been in full display from UE for this entire episode. The heart of UE's complaint is that IMSLP is not enforcing EU copyright laws in Canada. As for those works (like the later Bartok titles) still under copyright in the US, UE has no standing because those Bartok titles are controlled by Boosey and Hawkes in the US. Last time I checked, Bossey and Hawkes was not a subsidiary of UE.

UE demanded 50,000 Euros from IMSLP to "license" works which are unambiguously public domain in Canada. This is basically a form of extortion. Of all the sites offering downloadable music scores, IMSLP was practically alone in both enforcing copyright (by rapidly deleting copyrighted scores that were posted) and making clear what the copyright obligations of end users were (by including numerous warnings, and detailed information about the copyright statutes of different countries).

Very well worded! This reflects my thoughts on this as well.

[Richard Black]

It seems to me it is the attacks on Universal Edition which are outrageous. The letter from UE's lawyers, reproduced on the imslp website, seems perfectly reasonable. Many publishers, UE certainly included in my experience, provide excellent support for composers living _and dead_ and have a perfectly legitimate right to expect some recompense for it from those who wish to avail themselves of the scores.

Whether you think the copyright laws are correct is another matter. Obviously the 70 years rule is to an extent arbitrary and that's a completely separate discussion.

The IMSLP intention, to make available out-of-copyright scores, is also perfectly reasonable and indeed admirable, but it was obviously cheeky (at best) to rely on Canadian copyright laws and hope no one noticed. I have some sympathy for Feldmahler but think he was probably a bit naive.

I will expect all those musicians who take issue with UE's stance on this subject to do all the following:

Perform for minimal fee and no question of broadcast or recording royalties;

Steal their instruments from suppliers;

Contact UE's living composers and explain why they think said composers have no right to earn a living.

[WJM]

It seems to me it is the attacks on Universal Edition which are outrageous. The letter from UE's lawyers, reproduced on the imslp website, seems perfectly reasonable. Many publishers, UE certainly included in my experience, provide excellent support for composers living _and dead_ and have a perfectly legitimate right to expect some recompense for it from those who wish to avail themselves of the scores.

Whether you think the copyright laws are correct is another matter. Obviously the 70 years rule is to an extent arbitrary and that's a completely separate discussion.

Especially considering that it doesn't apply in life+50 Canada, a sovereign country, which makes UE's letter entirely unreasonable.

The IMSLP intention, to make available out-of-copyright scores, is also perfectly reasonable and indeed admirable, but it was obviously cheeky (at best) to rely on Canadian copyright laws and hope no one noticed.

A Canadian relying on Canadian law! the gall! the cheek!

[WJM]

Contact UE's living composers and explain why they think said composers have no right to earn a living.

Name a living UE composer whose work was being reproduced in violation of Canadian law.

[johnsonfromwisconsin]

It seems to me it is the attacks on Universal Edition which are outrageous. The letter from UE's lawyers, reproduced on the imslp website, seems perfectly reasonable. Many publishers, UE certainly included in my experience, provide excellent support for composers living _and dead_ and have a perfectly legitimate right to expect some recompense for it from those who wish to avail themselves of the scores.

Ever consider that it's the life+70 countries that are out of line?

[WJM]

If persons or corporations in life+70 countries can insist that other, non-life+70 countries follow their laws, and not their own...

is the same true in reverse?

If YOU have to follow MY country's laws, then I insist, I DEMAND, that the EU and the U.S. act as if Canadian life+50 obtains within their sovereign borders as well.

And if you don't, I'll hire a lawyer to write you some letters!

[Melodia]

It really doesn't matter which is the "right" law, or the "fair" law. The site did its best to follow the laws of the country it was hosted in. Until there is some sort of universal mandate on exactly WHAT law online sites have to follow, the only way at the moment is to go with where the material is stored. Which it did.

-Lala-

[Buxtehude]

I will expect all those musicians who take issue with UE's stance on this subject to do all the following:

Perform for minimal fee and no question of broadcast or recording royalties;

Steal their instruments from suppliers;

Contact UE's living composers and explain why they think said composers have no right to earn a living.

Dear Black,
you are obviously not a musician, because otherwise you should know that also a professional musician performs for minimal fee in the 90% of the case (but that's another story).
As we have discussed in another post, a serious musician will not use those scores for performance. He will use a serious critical edition.
Third, and last, we are not dealing with living composers: the only composers who earn a living by getting royalties are probably writers for advertisement jingles, and this does not seem to be the case. Then, if you want to climb Monteverdi's or Caccini's family tree to find out their pro-pro-pro-nephews because you feel they should live on their grand-grand-grand-parents royalties, maybe we would have half Italy which should legally live with that money...
Royalties on living composers are one thing (but do they really get all that money?), royalties on dead composers are another one. As are royalties on editors, arrangers, etc, which is a third thing again.
It is logical that there is a timeout for it. The guys have been lucky to be born in Canada, we in Europe are not so lucky, we will wait.

If UE complains about Mahler, why not complaining about Bach?

Regards.

Dietrich

[audsie81]

I have a really stupid question, but are the copyright laws in the US stricter or more lenient than Canada's?

[emeraldimp]

I have a really stupid question, but are the copyright laws in the US stricter or more lenient than Canada's?

Yes.



The short answer is that they're different, at least for works published before 1978.

[Pit-Trout]

As a long-time user of the site but newcomer to the forums, I would like to thanks both the admins of IMSLP for the wonderful resource they have given us all, and UE for entering a public discussion on the subject.

As I have said in an email to UE's copyright department, I appreciate what UE and other music publishers do, in supporting living composers, providing new critical editions of older music, producing high-quality printed scores, and so on.

However, I fail to see how IMSLP was threatening any of these. IMSLP was not trying to live in a "world without copyright": it was making a great and active effort to comply with copyright laws, and while a few works slipped through the net, UE's response seems disproportionate. I realise that UE was not attempting to shut down IMSLP, but the manner of the response - a cease-and-desist letter, with an ultimatum for co-operation - didn't seem to be intended to make it easy for IMSLP to co-operate.

Again: I fail to see how IMSLP threatened the legitimate interests of publishers such as UE. In making P-D music more easily available to a worldwide public, I feel it complemented the activities of commercial publishers, and helped nourish and encourage the musical community on which such publishers ultimately depend. It fulfilled the function not of a competing publisher, but - as intended - an excellent and universal library.

I hope very much that the IMSLP will be resurrected, and that if again there are ambiguities or occasional errors in determining the copyright status of works, publishers will be more sympathetic in their responses.

[WJM]

I have a really stupid question, but are the copyright laws in the US stricter or more lenient than Canada's?

Yes.



The short answer is that they're different, at least for works published before 1978.

The slightly longer answer is that while the US has a longer baseline term for copyright (life+70 being the general rule; life+50 in Canada), the pre-1923 rule means that there are works that are PD in the US, but not in Canada, while the life+50 rule means there are works that are PD in Canada, but not in the US.

Then there are other complications, such as the treatment of foreign works, government works, unpublished ones, etc.

But the short answer is, indeed "yes"!