IMSLP Forums

I do not know how many users we really are - but I guess we're not a too unimportant part of those people in the world who are interested in classical music at all - so let's use all our power to react to UE.

If we tell all musicians, performers, concert managers (and other people involved in music performances) to drop music published by UE from their programs (maybe even saying in public why we do that) until UE draws back its unfair attack to lovers of the freedom of thought and music - and if this idea spreads around the world, I'm sure we could reach something.

And IMSLP contributors: we should maybe follow a new goal to produce (legal) GNU-licence editions of ALL (every single!) out-of-copyright music that has been published by Universal Edition so that they shouldn't make any cent any more from this music. I would be happy to provide webspace to share them with the world.

If we are many who do so, they would hope never to have been acting as they did...

kalli wrote: (quote from a different thread!) I think, if we "rumble" too much, the UE will check the IPs of the users and the one or other will get some trouble. Therefor we should be cool and think about other possibilities, which save the copyright.

As far as we stick to legal possiblities (no one can be forced to play music from a publisher he doesn't like [anymore]) I don't fear any trouble.

And IMSLP contributors: we should maybe follow a new goal to produce (legal) GNU-licence editions of ALL (every single!) out-of-copyright music that has been published by Universal Edition so that they shouldn't make any cent any more from this music. I would be happy to provide webspace to share them with the world.

I'm not sure I understand the purpose of this. If an edition of a piece of music is in the public domain it's legal to copy it already. Re-typesetting a piece under a GPL license would place more restrictions on the new typeset than are already on the original. Secondly, in order for it to make a difference it will have to be high enough quality to convince people to use it. Or they would at least need to be convinced of the moral reason to use it. Not very easy IMO.

That said I'm all for doing work on an effort like this because it does add value (higher quality printing, parts+score, midi, transpositions, etc.). No need to start your own site also. Mutopia would be a fine place to submit it. If you want to work on a UE piece the best choice I can think of would be the Mahler Symphonies. I'd be willing to help because I'm somewhat handy with lilypond and I'd love to see a good free set of parts available. (I started on Beethoven's Third a while back, but I only got through the first movement. It's a lot of work for one person.)

I'm not sure this would affect UE much at all really because I'd wager that most orchestras either have Mahler (or others) in their library already or aren't renting the parts from UE. They're probably getting it from Kalmus or some other reprint company. (Maybe I'm wrong. I don't have much experience there.)

Revenge shouldn't be the point however. If you want to do it, your purpose should be similar to the goals of IMSLP: free access to public domain music for everyone.

horndude77, extracting parts for a Mahler symphony would be a lot of work to do for a single person, and even for two or three persons. Also:

- not all performance materials for Mahler symphonies are published by Universal; notably, 5th symphony is published by Peters;
- there are serious textual problems with Mahler symphonies as Mahler changed so many times instrumentation details. In several cases, the older version published by Kalmus are very different from the critical edition published by UE (that are quite expensive to rent). I know a few conductors (one of them is a top one) who occasionally prefer the Kalmus versions, but almost all conductors prefer the UE critical edition that is quite recent and should be copyrighted. This is a case in which different editions of the same music are really different.

The only problem with boycotting is that it won't work most of the time. Orchestras around the world would rather want a recent copyrighted edition that is more accurate rather than and old edition of the same work. The may think that the glamour word "recent", "updated", "corrected" and "new edition" may automatically mean that edition is better than the old one. Also, most orchestras in the world are so well off that they probably won't blink at the prices UE are offering for the sale or rental of the score and parts.

[quote="monteverdi"][quote="kalli"] [i](quote from a different thread!)[/i] I think, if we "rumble" too much, the UE will check the IPs of the users and the one or other will get some trouble. Therefor we should be cool and think about other possibilities, which save the copyright.[/quote]

As far as we stick to legal possiblities (no one can be forced to play music from a publisher he doesn't like [anymore]) I don't fear any trouble.[/quote]

With "rumble" I don't mean the boycott. I mean that we should not enrage the UE more than they are in this moment. If somebody proposes to run the IMSLP in the same way without any clearing of the named files or proposes some illegal activities, this can't be the solution. In fact, the UE is in right. The only way for us is, to find a solution, which is in the range of the legal framework. And this solution is, to clear all files, which are not legal (< 70 years). Another solution could be, to contact all publishers. Perhaps will some of them work together with the IMSLP. That could be possible, cause it's a great marketing strategy for them. In the past, I bought some sheetmusic, because the quality of the pdf was too bad for my necessities.

he only way for us is, to find a solution, which is in the range of the legal framework.

Technically, we are within it. But the cost of a case and the chance (Due to the ambiguous wording of copyright laws, which basically, lets the judge decide) is not worth it.

And this solution is, to clear all files, which are not legal (< 70 years).

That is not a solution, that is a last resort. More countries in the world are 50+ than 70+, and these countries would miss out on a world of wonderful music, because of Europe. IP blocking is what has been suggested by UE, if that is implemented (and since they suggested it, that alone would make it difficult for them to prosecute since we complied) it is the best way to avoid any legal issues, but still grant Australia, Canada and scores ('scuse the pun) of other countries all the music.

The only problem I see is that when UE gets what it wanted, which is IP banning, it will start to get greedy and start to implement other kinds of restrictions, one by one, failing of which would cause another letter to be sent to IMSLP. This is as blatant a blackmail as you're going to get.

Obviously we'd need written approval by UE and their lawyers, if approved, I don't believe they can really do anything.

Why don't we publish what is "certainly" Dublic Domain with a note that "critical" or "revised" version exists but that version is under copyright until such date?

Because it is dishonest to countries such as Australia (to an extent) Canada and other countries with 50+ or there abouts.

May I suggest retaliation, such as a boycott of U-E, is not in anyone's best interests?

For the time being, I would be happy to see the vast majority of IMSLP's pre-1900, unimpeachably public domain repertoire, be moved to being hosted at a University or other site.

The remainder of the IMSLP corpus can gradually be added to a secondary site where the technical means that the European publishers seem to want enforced, can be implemented.

This isn't a defeat or a failure on Feldmahler's part: at most it's just a temporary setback. We should ignore U-E completely, and work to create the IMSLP mark 2 that will surely rise phoenix-like from the ashes of the old IMSLP.

Best, Philip

so, uh, maybe we'd need to raise some funds for Feldmahler to at least support his site.
also, we'd need some way to find a loophole in the law, which would require a bunch of lawyers... and a bundle of cash.

you know, money gets to be a big issue when it comes to politics. -__- *sigh*

i'm pretty sure UE is mostly doing this for the money, not for the actual copyright infringement issues or whatever.

Boris Crépeau wrote: Why don't we publish what is "certainly" [P]ublic Domain with a note that "critical" or "revised" version exists but that version is under copyright until such date?

ArcticWind7 wrote:Because it is dishonest to countries such as Australia (to an extent) Canada and other countries with 50+ or there abouts.

well, you could have an IP filter that allows the aforementioned countries to download the "critical/revised" versions but allow only the older versions to be downloaded by the copyright countries like the US and EU and whatever where the UE reigns with tyranny. (figurative tyrant, i mean.)

//

A bunch of us were so disappointed (to say the least) when we found out that IMSLP was killed. I was in the middle of searching for a composer when the site got cut off, and i thought it was just my internet being moody again until another of my friends complained to me of the shutdown.
with all hope, IMSLP will be reloaded and respawned and up for some more super music liberation action. <3

I can't say where U-E is coming from in all this, but they're not the first to be going after internet based portals. Publishers of all manner of materials have been worried for years about competition from the internet. Let's face it, it's cheap, fast, and you can't directly control it.

The likes of EMI and so forth have been through all this time and time again with recorded material, and the general story is not much different. Go after a few key individuals in a no-nonsense manner and make a very loud statement of "Stay off our turf".

In the long run, this is something that traditional music publishers will have to face up to and deal with, and the more progressive will find ways of doing deals and so forth that can satisfy everyone. But in the meantime, problems like this will occur.

For the traditional music publishers, their Single most valuable asset IS the catalogue and stable of composers. The fees from performance and mechanical rights are considerable, and go in part towards the production of scores and parts which in most cases is likely to be a cost rather than revenue producing of itself. Also, for many traditional publishers some of their biggest earning composers are at or close to the end of their copyright periods. It is natural that they would wish to protect their income streams as best as they can.

The waters become very muddied indeed due to the different copyright periods that exist even within the European Union, let alone the rest of the world. For example, technically you would be breaching the rules if you nipped over a border, purchased a PD Edition book, and then took it back into a non-PD country. Equally, the bookseller would be in dangerous territory if they knowlingly sold such a book for the purpose of export to a non-PD country.

What I can't help feeling though is that opportunity has been missed here.

Traditional publishers spend larger amounts of money on promotion and marketing. Technology exists for 'purchased' electronic download versions. The likes of UE could work with organisations such as IMSLP to produce the framework that would allow their catalogue to still be 'browsable' but only downloadable and printable upon payment of a fee to cover the cost of the transaction, the royalties and a small margin for profit. This would have enabled a low-overhead sales machine for the publisher, an income source for the portal (IMSLP), free browsing (as you would thumbing through the pages of a book in a shop) for the user with an instant purchase/download facility. PD would obviously remain PD and Free to all and the publishers would simply have to accept that. They're going to have to accept it eventually.

It strikes me that the traditional music publishers need to wake up to the inevitable and the wealth of possibilities that exist. Appologies to those traditional publishers that have!

Traditional publishers spend larger amounts of money on promotion and marketing. Technology exists for 'purchased' electronic download versions. The likes of UE could work with organisations such as IMSLP to produce the framework that would allow their catalogue to still be 'browsable' but only downloadable and printable upon payment of a fee to cover the cost of the transaction, the royalties and a small margin for profit. This would have enabled a low-overhead sales machine for the publisher, an income source for the portal (IMSLP), free browsing (as you would thumbing through the pages of a book in a shop) for the user with an instant purchase/download facility. PD would obviously remain PD and Free to all and the publishers would simply have to accept that. They're going to have to accept it eventually.

I believe IMSLP (and I personally) want/s to remain completely free for everything. I wouldn't want the clutter of scores that I have to pay for.

This is had it's day in the sun, and people have vented a little bit. IF you boycott EU, do it because of HOW have have blackmailed, bullied and ravaged IMSLP, not just because they have done it. The way they have gone about it reminds me personally of Monsanto, but do not hate done this.

Closed, sorry.