Sticking up for copyright?

[michael.mccartney]

Hello everyone,

I am in agreement with most of the opposition to the mindless extension and complication of copyright law, but I'd just like to point something out which always goes unnoticed.

Music publishers earn a great deal of their income from two things: (1) utter drivel which they hope will sell quickly and in great quantity before everyone loses interest, and (2) core repertoire works which are in copyright. I've worked in music publishing for some 20 years, and I can say that the sums lost to the publishers of Elgar and Holst when they came out of copyright were substantial. This loss means that they can no longer afford to publish and promote new, living, composers as much as they had before. Similarly, when Vaughan Williams comes out of copyright, the RVW Trust will no longer be able to fund living composers and the performers who play their music, because it will have no further income from Vaughan Williams' works.

As users of this site are all lovers of fine music, I would hope that they would regret the loss of support for living composers which is the one of the positive results of copyright law.

Food for thought...

[vinteuil]

Right, and thus we don't allow works of living or Non-PD composers without permission. I would hate to see Pierre Boulez, Elliot Carter, Salvatore Sciarrino, or Paul Moravec starving and penniless as much as I would the heirs of Stravinsky, Berio, Malipiero, Shostakovich, Britten, and Donatoni.
Then again, that's why publishers should be agressive and seek out good composers of new music to replace the old - unfortunately the demographic has seen a decrease in modern music's popularity...so they don't make as much money off each composer.

[Carolus]

Dear Michael,

Thanks for your post, which makes some fine and valid points. First of all, as perlnerd666 mentioned, we do observe copyright here and regularly delete things (nearly every day) that are under copyright which have been uploaded by contributors who are ignorant of the issue. I've also worked for some decades now in the music publishing field so I can certainly understand your point about the reduction in income over the past decades.

Perhaps what is needed in times such as these are some creative individuals who can think outside the box. Why should publishers see IMSLP as some sort of enemy? Adding some scores (only) of a new composer a publisher wishes to promote to this site would expose the composer to a huge number of people - nearly all of whom are the perfect target market. Yes, someone could (possibly) print out a score, which (might) abort a (very questionable) potential sale of that score. The potential flip side is that when one of the downloaders discovers a new composer they really like, they can go directly to an embedded link on the work-page to the publisher's site, to Amazon or Sheet Music Plus and purchase or rent the needed performance material. It is performances which generate the majority of income, whether live or via broadcast, of copyrighted works. Sales of printed scores are a distant second place at best.

There are a fair number of contemporary composers, arrangers and editors who are already taking advantage of the exposure offered by this site. Last time I checked, we didn't have a rule in place stating that publisher contributions are verboten. Food for thought, perhaps?

[vinteuil]

I can name (off the top of my head) about 20 scores which I would not have purchased if I hadn't found the works on IMSLP....
And what do you mean by "nearly every day", Carolus? Nearly??

[Carolus]

Well, I think there have been a few isolated days where nobody tried to upload something that was protected. We've not had one for a while, though.

[steltz]

I must say that I find the title of this thread slightly problematic in that it implies people (and IMSLP) are morally or ethically wrong for wanting free legal downloads.

This site does stick up for (and enforce) copyright, so, Mr. McCartney, you can't imply that you are the only one here doing so.

In the time I have been following the site, yes, there is the occasional poster who gets upset when they have to buy something (even when it's cheap), but inevitably, they don't post again when they realize this isn't Pirate Bay, or whatever that site is called. The people who stay here stick up for copyright and respect it.

We are all aware that companies use their profits to explore new options, but it doesn't matter what the term of copyright is, when it is finished, a company is no longer legally entitled to copyright protection.

Having said that, I just ordered 3 pieces of sheet music, only 1 of which is from a composer still alive. I just want to play from bound music because it's nicer. The nicest of the public domain stuff that I plan to play in concerts I will buy bound copies of. But I want to explore the rest of the public domain stuff for free.

That doesn't mean I don't stick up for copyright.

[Odin]

Hello

Hello everyone,

I am in agreement with most of the opposition to the mindless extension and complication of copyright law, but I'd just like to point something out which always goes unnoticed.

Music publishers earn a great deal of their income from two things: (1) utter drivel which they hope will sell quickly and in great quantity before everyone loses interest, and (2) core repertoire works which are in copyright. I've worked in music publishing for some 20 years, and I can say that the sums lost to the publishers of Elgar and Holst when they came out of copyright were substantial. This loss means that they can no longer afford to publish and promote new, living, composers as much as they had before. Similarly, when Vaughan Williams comes out of copyright, the RVW Trust will no longer be able to fund living composers and the performers who play their music, because it will have no further income from Vaughan Williams' works.

As users of this site are all lovers of fine music, I would hope that they would regret the loss of support for living composers which is the one of the positive results of copyright law.

Food for thought...

Excuse me but this is your (the publishers) problem, not ours.

We have lost - and still lack - a big portion of liberty around these
scores - liberty which wexisted in the early days of copyright, when
it was more similar to the patent laws than it is today.

And all your extensions were legislted only as a consequence of your
to a high degree undemocratic lobbying work.Actually - we who think
that the copyright of today is unrighteaous and caausing morde damage
than benefit - we are the great majority whose viewpoints should be
represented in the legislation i really democratic systems.

This is the simple reason for my personal membership in
the swedish Pirate Party.

Odin

[Odin]

Right, and thus we don't allow works of living or Non-PD composers without permission. I would hate to see Pierre Boulez, Elliot Carter, Salvatore Sciarrino, or Paul Moravec starving and penniless as much as I would the heirs of Stravinsky, Berio, Malipiero, Shostakovich, Britten, and Donatoni.
Then again, that's why publishers should be agressive and seek out good composers of new music to replace the old - unfortunately the demographic has seen a decrease in modern music's popularity...so they don't make as much money off each composer.

Heirs ? Which heirs ? Do the heirs after inventors get any kind of protection
of the work which these inventors made during their lifetime ?

We in the Pirate Party claim the same kind of protection for all creatorship.

The inequality in the protection of artistic and of scientific and technological
progress is unmotivated. There is no reason why artistic works are protected
during the whole liefetime of the artist + X years after their death, while
technical creators (inventors) have to do with around 20 years of protection
(which they in many cases have to pay fees for !).

Regards from

[Odin]

Hello

Let me be clear in one point:

I do not oppose copyright itself, only the copyright of today - which to my opinion
is a product not of real democracy but of lobbyism and corruption.

But I would like to get the copyright of its early days back. And the Pirate Party
(not at all the same as Pirate Bay !) has the same intention - to reform, not to
abolish, the copyright.

That is the reason for my personal political work - and one of the reasons of the
Party´s existence. We do not longer accept any legislation which has been based
upon non-democratic ways of law-giving procedures and upon lobbyism and upon
the personal corruption of the elected politicians.

But we would accept a copyright legistlation as it was when it was newly introduced
- with short protection terms in the same order of duration as in the patent laws.

Regards from

Odin
Member of the Pirate Party in Sweden

[daphnis]

Odin, please do not triple post. If necessary, edit your last with updated commentary.

[Lyle Neff]

The word "democratic" or "undemocratic" is problematic. If by "democratic" you mean "majority rule," then, if a majority of the population voted to keep ridiculously long copyright terms (long after the author's death), you'd have to accept that decision.

[Odin]

Hello

The word "democratic" or "undemocratic" is problematic. If by "democratic" you mean "majority rule," then, if a majority of the population voted to keep ridiculously long copyright terms (long after the author's death), you'd have to accept that decision.

I know this very well. But what I claim is that the copyright obtained its extension
of today by political decisions where this "rule of majority" brutally and frequently
was pushed aside, and where the "rule of lobbyists" was applied. These lobbyists
represented and represent the content industry´s interests, and the publishers of
books and of musical scores are parts of this content industry. I allow myself to
blame this kind of legislation as non-democratic and corrupted, since the interests
of the voters and of the big majority of the population have not been regarded as
the main principle of legislation. Therefore I blame the copyright of today as
undemocratic and illegitime, but I would agree if the early copyright would be
re-installed instead of the monster which we have now have to do with. This is
also the intention of the Pirate Party, perhaps not in detail but in principle.

Regards

[Odin]

Hello

I also would like to stress another point of criticism - the un-equal treatment of creators
of artistic content (writers, composers, painters, film-makers a.s.o.) and of technical
creators (inventors). I think that they should all get their legal protection from a similar
legislation. In reality, the artistic creators got all good sides of legislation, and the
inventors got all bad sides:

- Inventors have to apply for their protection (patent) in each country where they wish
protection for their invention. This is a procedure which consumes much time, money
(fees and wages for patent attorneys) and work.

- Artistic creators get their protection for free, without any application or registration,
and for all countries where copyright legislation exists.

- After all work, all applications and all costs, the inventors get a protection which
applies only in the counjtries where they obtained patent protection. The maximum
protection period is about 25 years - which are reckoned from the first (earliest)
registration of the invention. No protection for "lifetime + X years after it" !!
The inventors have to pay annual fees for prolonging the protection during this
short period.

- Without any work or costs for application the artistic creators get a global protection
for lifetime + X years (X bigger than 50). No fees at any time.

[daphnis]

Excuse me, but we just asked you not to duplicate post. Please edit your last post rather than create a new one.

[Odin]

Hello

Excuse me, but it is difficult enough for me to try to find the proper
words for my ideas in English.

Regards