DIAMM and IMSLP

[Notenschreiber]

For example the Cancionero de Juana I de Castilla can be found here too: http://patrimonio-ediciones.com/facsimi ... -siglo-xvi

[Olivier]

Perpetual copyright doesn't exist anymore in the UK law for 25 years. And the Constitution of the United States doesn't define the length of the copyright. So works copyrighted until 2039 are perfectly ok for the United States. And since the Berne conventions takes the length of the copyright from the country of the rights owner, this will be the length of the copyright in the US too...

[AndrewHankinson]

Because of that, I can't find a single element in Andrew's arguments that is supportable.

I'm curious, kosboot -- what part of my arguments can't you support?

My argument is that DIAMM needs physical access to these sources, and with out the ability to partner with libraries, there can be no more high quality images. That's a pretty easy thing to support, regardless of your views on copyright.

[NMTB]

Dear all,

I would just like to add my two cents as somebody who regularly uses both DIAMM and IMSLP for research, performance and educational purposes. As a performer I understand the need, and the eagerness for easily downloadable materials, to quickly survey a lot of repertoire, including repertoire which is hard to come by, print it or display it on your tablet and make music from/with it. IMSLP - do I need to tell anyone this - is really great for that. DIAMM is a bit of a different story. Like other digital projects set up by musicological academia, it doesn't (obviously perhaps) envisage performers as their user-base: Images cannot be downloaded (unless by using screenshots or finding a shady backdoor) digital editions cannot be converted to pdf or printed.

In other words I do understand why people might want to have their own copies of the DIAMM material, and to a degree I even understand why one would want to distribute them. On the other hand it should be said that from a purely Machiavellian perspective, aiming at most access to as much music by as much people as possible, putting these images on IMSLP hasn't work out so well, and I'm afraid it will go even worse: I can easily imagine DIAMM to start charging for accessing it's images and setting up a kind of screening of new members. That wouldn't be at all nice for users who aren't academically connected, like musicians, unaffiliated researchers or music students.

Finally it has to be said that being able to read music off a facsimile like that of the Eton choirbook is quite a rare skill. There are some specialized musicians who can do it, but most people performing such music have to rely on transcriptions into modern notation. I would argue that giving public access to the facsimile only marginally increases access to the work itself (the content). I'd say that if you really want to contribute to the public access of this music you'd do a much better job going on DIAMM, making a transcription of one or two pieces of the Eton choirbook, and posting them on IMSLP under a Creative Commons license, instead of quasi hacking the DIAMM site, 'harvesting' as much images as you can, and putting the whole lot online.

N. Berentsen (Early music performer and educator).

[daphnis]

Firstly, I understand the argument here and agree this is a tricky situation from, like you said, a purely morality standpoint. The issue here is, indeed, not one of law but of use etiquette.

I think the problem I have with the situation is that the libraries who are granting access to these rare materials are not being told (or don't care to listen) that the conditions by which they are granting said access are unenforceable and based strictly on the "honor system". They are surely aware the materials they posses are in the public domain, but has DIAMM ever told them that where those images will end up is actually the Internet? Do they fully realize the implications of this agreement? There are three: 1.) Once you put something on the Internet, it can never be completely taken back; 2.) DIAMM's usage provisions are not ones based on legality and as such are totally unmonitorable despite basic safeguards taken to lock down the material; and 3.) Should someone decide to violate this honor system and redistribute, copy, or reproduce the images DIAMM has scanned, there are no corrective measures that can be taken, and DIAMM cannot impose or enforce any regulations upon those users. If they are aware of this, then I don't understand why we are here in the first place. Did they/DIAMM not think this was possible, or that it wouldn't eventually happen? DIAMM's only recourse is to do as you have done here: To plead with users of their system to respect their wishes and not redistribute those images.

Lastly, I, too, am a musical scholar as well as performer and have secured access to some xenophobic libraries and some of their rare-as-hens-teeth scores. I understand how ridiculous some of these systems can be and the almost outrageous secret handshakes that have to be learned to acquire access. And I hope I speak for everyone here by saying that we wouldn't want to be single-handedly responsible for stymieing the access to the marvelous scans DIAMM has produced of some true musical treasures.

Ultimately, the provisional system by which DIAMM is able to gain access to these libraries and scan their materials is antiquated in the Internet age and totally unsustainable. I feel it is DIAMM's duty to inform libraries of this eventuality before agreeing to maintain terms that are unmaintainable.

[cypressdome]

Andrew, first of all I'd like to thank you for your contributions to this thread in arguing DIAMM's position on this issue. I have no idea what, if any, connection you have with DIAMM but you certainly make a good spokesman for them. It is rather a shame that no one else connected with DIAMM has stepped forward to offer their input. Having said that the following will be my last statement on this issue. The problem isn't that a user posted to IMSLP public domain images taken from DIAMM; the problem is that DIAMM in order to obtain those images made promises to the libraries that are impossible for it to keep. This is the main point of the "having let the genie out of the bottle" argument. Once those public domain images were posted to the internet both DIAMM and the libraries that owned the original documents lost control of those images. No one can enforce restrictions on the use of public domain images. Removing the public domain files from IMSLP will not solve this underlying problem for DIAMM. Maybe it will placate the Spanish libraries for now but what is DIAMM going to do when the next website begins hosting/using the images, and the one after that, and the one after that? There are plenty of people on the internet who won't be interested in entering a dialogue with DIAMM to try to reach some type of gentleman's agreement to stop hosting/using the images in order for DIAMM to protect its unenforceable agreements with the libraries. Moreover, removal of the files from IMSLP will introduce problems for IMSLP as it sets a precedent that IMSLP will remove public domain files, perhaps with the caveat that so long as the motivation for their removal is noble (by some subjective definition). The decision to remove or not remove the files isn't mine to make and I'm glad of that. Neither option is a comfortable one but I can only see one outcome--the public domain files stay on IMSLP.

[AndrewHankinson]

Thanks cypressdome. I'm not officially connected to them, but I have worked with them for a few years now. I imagine the reason you haven't heard from them is that they're trying to co-ordinate a response (they are an organization, so they don't really have the luxury of shooting off their mouth like I have done here.

I've had quite a bit of experience with IIP (the image server used by DIAMM) and have even written up methods on how to secure it against the type of downloading that produced these images in the first place. (See here: https://github.com/DDMAL/diva.js/wiki/Document-security)

It would be unfortunate if this became an arms race for document security reasons. This leads to DRM and paywalls. I'm sure DIAMM has made libraries well aware of their position, but (like I said) some of these libraries haven't changed in over 400 years, so why should they start changing now? For its part, DIAMM is caught between playing the game, and having no access. They chose the game, since ultimately that's what's most important -- granting users access to the intellectual materials.

So sure, the public domain images have EVERY RIGHT to be up on IMSLP. I'm not arguing that they're not supposed to be there from a legal perspective. HOWEVER, just being there is jeopardizing an even greater collection of images that haven't yet been placed online, or which have been taken offline due to the real threat of a breach of contract action between the libraries and DIAMM.

In other words, If you had to choose between completely liberating just 10 documents, and ensuring everyone in the world had access to 100 documents with the possibility of many more in the future for a minimal compromise, which would you choose?

[Olivier]

It is rather a shame that no one else connected with DIAMM has stepped forward to offer their input

Well... Julia Craig-McFeely, the principal member of the production team for DIAMM, has tried to but was banned for "harassment"... see http://imslp.org/index.php?title=User_t ... fringement

Which means all manuscripts owned by the old british universities are still under copyright until the end of 2039... this is thus the case for the Eton Choirbook and the Chansonnier, GB-Cmc MS 1760 for instance.

(answering to myself)... actually not... The 1775 Copyright Act which is the base for perpetual copyright starts like this (bold is mine):

Whereas Authors have heretofore bequeathed or given, and may hereafter bequeath or give the Copies of Books composed by them to or in Trust for one of the two Universities...
http://books.google.be/books?id=w6M3AAA ... #v=twopage
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/43945/43 ... nchor_1669

I doubt any renaissance manuscript has ever been given by its author(s) to a british university...

[Carolus]

Julia was banned from the wiki - not from this forum - for posting threats on a user's talk page and for vandalizing IMSLP workpages with spurious claims of copyright infringement. Anyone from DIAMM is perfectly free to state their case here. They are not free to threaten IMSLP contributors on their talk pages and vandalize IMSLP with naked assertions about copyright. Charles Koechlin's grandson - unhappy about his grandfather's music not being under copyright worldwide for perpetuity - decided to act this way a couple of years ago and I banned him too. As I understand the situation, DIAMM is really sort of caught in the middle here. The chief reason we opened this thread is to have a discussion about the issues. I seriously doubt anyone here wants to see DIAMM destroyed or shut down. It's an excellent site that we already link to and contains a depth of information about the items we simply would not have room for on IMSLP workpages. This is the place to have a conversation about the issue - not over at the wiki on users' personal talk pages. If Julia understands why I had to ban her and apologizes, she can be un-banned just as easily from the wiki also. She might have been panicked about this issue, which I can understand.

[AndrewHankinson]

If Julia understands why I had to ban her and apologizes, she can be un-banned just as easily from the wiki also. She might have been panicked about this issue, which I can understand.

Forgive me, but this comes off as bit patronizing. I don't want to derail the conversation into he said/she said, but the fact of the matter is that all evidence of what you consider to be "vandalism" outside of a very reasonable request has been removed, so we just have to take your word for it. As well, I don't see any reason for her to apologize for availing herself of any means necessary to contact and make the IMSLP folks aware of her complaint. Understanding copyright is a daunting enough task, but the process of actually reporting copyright violations to IMSLP is more than a bit convoluted to an outsider:

1) You need to file a DMCA complaint in writing and mail it to a domestic address somewhere in Illinois, even though the site states in many areas that it is governed under Canadian copyright law;
2) The DMCA request requires information that was not available to her, including the real name and e-mail address of the user that she had a complaint against;
3) The link on the front page points to the Public Domain page, but provides no information on how to report a violation outside of filing the DMCA request.

Julia feels that, according to her and to her legal advice worked up by (what I assume were) the DIAMM lawyers, she had a legitimate claim. Being housed in a university, especially one like Oxford, you can barely sneeze without needing to clear it with the legal department. I don't have any evidence, but I would be very surprised if some lawyer somewhere didn't look over this user agreement or the agreement between DIAMM and their libraries and sign off on it. Furthermore, she appealed to Feudol's sense of "doing what is right, but needing to understand the consequences" before actually bringing out an accusation of copyright violation. How is this unreasonable?

It took me a few days and several conversations to try and figure out which set of copyright laws were being applied. And, as you note, she may have been more than "a bit" panicked about the issue (wouldn't you be if two decades of your life's work were in jeopardy?)

A more suitable resolution might to be to call the whole thing a misunderstanding and not to demand a public apology from one of the most widely recognized and celebrated Medieval scholars in the world.

[Edit for expounding and clarifying]

[Further edit on contacting IMSLP, since I got my facts wrong].

[GregSkidmore]

It seems to me that there are two ways to look at this whole incident. One way is from the point of view of a musician and/or scholar and the other is from the point of view of someone interested in the law, how it works, how it applies to the definition of 'public domain', and more generally the levels to which free dissemination of information on the internet is changing the way we think about ownership, cultural property, and a shared heritage. Obviously, both points of view are interesting and people who see the world from both perspectives are capable of doing good. It is also obvious that in many cases these two points of view overlap and the priorities that come from both are in harmony. I assume that's what IMSLP was set up to do - allow the law and the internet to help musicians have access to scores and make music.

However, in some circumstances, these two points of view throw up inconsistencies. I believe this issue with DIAMM and IMSLP is precisely such a circumstance. Andrew Hankinson has, I think, stated very clearly where the conflict is and how it arises. Are we musicians and is having access to the material in and of itself the most important thing or are we lawyers and is claiming and protecting our rights the most important thing? There is a direct conflict here. We can't have both. DIAMM can, as others have said, just shut the door. Then the act of 'acquiring' the images WOULD become actually illegal.

DIAMM offers us access to lots of information we wouldn't otherwise have, through negotiating physical access to libraries and by taking high quality photographs or completely unique historical artefacts. IMSLP doesn't do this and as far as I know has no plans to start offering us this specialised, scholarly service. DIAMM, rightly or wrongly, negotiates with libraries an agreement to try to take as much care of the images as possible while allowing a maximum number of people to have access to them (the shortcomings of which have been explored in this forum) - and they do this *successfully*. The end result is that they have made available thousands of images and, I hope, will continue to do so. IMSLP doesn't do any of this, as far as I know. IMSLP is a great resource, but not for high quality images of medieval and renaissance music manuscripts. I don't think the IMSLP community is much interested in medieval and renaissance musicology.

It strikes me that the right way to treat someone who is giving you something you want is NOT to enter into an agreement with them, however legally binding and enforceable or not, and then go back on your word and take advantage of that person's security, which may or may not be ironclad. Does that sound like a good idea to you? It makes even less sense when this person can provide you with something you not only want but can't get yourself and has plans to continue to provide you with it, and with new stuff you want in the future.

For me, my personal choice is absolutely clear. If the agreements DIAMM enters into with the libraries aren't realistic (though I refuse to believe they is any actual duplicity going on and I'm pretty sure they do tell the libraries that the images will be served on the internet), fine. If the agreement DIAMM asks its users to sign isn't enforceable, fine. None of that really matters much to me. What does is that I can sit at home and look at stunning images of interesting manuscripts from all over the world. I can make editions. I can perform this music. I can do it all for free. Maybe that doesn't interest you guys very much. There are (I swear!) many people around the world like me, though, and you may be - again, rightly or wrongly, with legal basis or not - threatening my ability to do something I consider very valuable, something that hurts no one, and something that fills the world with more beautiful music. Doesn't that matter to you? DIAMM may be unable to explain to many of the libraries with which it negotiates the 'realities' of the modern world and the internet. If it could, many of those libraries might close their doors to it. Is that what you want? As others have said, a very real option DIAMM has, obviously, is to restrict access to the images and beef up its security. Then everybody loses, including the IMSLP community and musicians and scholars everywhere.

As there are many here who know a lot more about the law than I do, I know I am not fully qualified to make the following statement, but I'll say it anyway. Laws are agreements between people. Laws are *for* people and made *by* people. 'The law' is not objective, therefore. There's always a person involved, a point of view, an agreement between real individuals. Of course, the law can protect one individual from another and can *seem* objective, but there is no real objectivity there, as laws only ever exist in the minds of the people who uphold them, enforce them, think about them, benefit or suffer from them. Laws happen and function SO THAT OTHER THINGS CAN HAPPEN, other more important things.

We are all musicians here in one way or another. Personally, I am a professional performing musician. For me, being a musician is way more important than just about everything else. It's my life and my job. I would think that many of the people who use DIAMM regularly are either like me or could swap in 'scholar' for 'musician' pretty easily in the above sentences. While understanding and exercising my rights under the law might make me a better citizen, it doesn't make me a better musician and - frankly - the best way for me to be a good citizen is to be a good musician anyway. Music comes first. We all love music. We can all understand this. Music and scholarship aren't only just fun hobbies, though of course they can be. They are really very important things. I would hope that the law as it affects me as a musician appreciates my contribution to society and exists to strengthen my ability and freedom to make music, to do good by trying to make the world a better place by filling it with beauty through music. Surely that's the point of all this, isn't it? The world needs music. Let's make as much of it as we can and ask the lawyers to understand and help protect us from those who want us to stop. DIAMM doesn't want us to stop. Of course it doesn't.

The stakes here are pretty clear for me. Either IMSLP attempts to uphold its (perhaps 'justifiable') adherence to the letter of the law and continues to have conversations about jurisdiction and precedence and case law and those sorts of things, in which case DIAMM is in a very difficult position. Perhaps money will be spent - lots of it. Perhaps. I don't know. I'd be surprised if DIAMM would go down without a fight and I *wouldn't* be surprised if the legal landscape here is complicated and pretty difficult to navigate. No fun for anyone except lawyers. Whatever happens in this case, definitely misery will be spread. A lot of it already has been.

Or perhaps IMSLP will be able to see a bigger or different or wider picture relating to this issue and merely link to DIAMM instead of offering the PDFs for download. IMSLP might then investigate working *with* DIAMM on gaining *more* physical access to *more* libraries. I would hope that the arguments, legal or otherwise, *against* betraying lots of different networks of trust and goodwill that have developed over the last 15 years surrounding the DIAMM project just because it may be legal to do so, 'just because we can', might be heard by the members of this IMSLP community.

[Carolus]

As I mentioned before - threatening IMSLP contributors and vandalizing our pages is not acceptable behavior. Julia could have posted something here on the main forums, for example, without resorting to threatening people. Yes of course all of her vandalism has been undone - it wasn't really very extensive to begin with. At any rate, she's perfectly welcome to state her case here. If she was unable to understand the manner in which to address a complaint, she is quite free to make it here.

IMSLP works and cooperates with a number of libraries around the world. Some libraries understand that their primary purpose to to make things available for access to anyone interested. Others appear to be stuck in a previous century - conflating the notion of property ownership with content ownership. Are they libraries or publishers? One of IMSLP's core missions is to protect the public domain from constant encroachment - already under way worldwide thanks to the likes of Disney with their endless machinations and "campaign contributions" to extend copyright terms beyond their already absurd levels. It's a pretty sad state of affairs when libraries - many of whom are publicly funded, by the way - want to start enforcing perpetual copyright on the whole planet. As I mentioned, DIAMM seems to be caught in the middle of this issue, so let's see if we can come up with a way in which both DIAMM and IMSLP can work out a way to resolve it.

[AndrewHankinson]

Some libraries understand that their primary purpose to to make things available for access to anyone interested. Others appear to be stuck in a previous century - conflating the notion of property ownership with content ownership.

Assuming that all libraries are institutions of access is a modern notion, and not one that is universally shared. It's only in the "previous century" that libraries became institutions of access, and not institutions of conservation. Many, especially in Europe, still see it as their primary mandate to collect and conserve works, not to disseminate them. You may disagree with that, but that's been their mandate for centuries and they see no reason to change. You're not going to change that without actually investing time and energy in negotiating, bit by bit. And that's exactly what DIAMM is attempting to do. In one case it took 7 years to negotiate access to a collection. They may be moving a bit too slow for you, but trust me when I say that they've accomplished in 10 years what centuries of scholars could only have dreamed of, and done it with the libraries on board and actually paying for some of it. That's huge.

It's a bit "father knows best" to think that by your actions you're actually doing what's best for everyone in your mission of protecting music. Your "core mission" is a self-imposed one. The point of IMSLP is, as I understand it, to serve its users. When the users who care most about these materials ask that you stop helping, and that your actions are actually having a demonstrably negative effect on their ability to access the things they care about most, should you keep trying to "help"? To think that you're the only organization who really cares deeply about this issue is part hubris and part ignorance to the efforts of others. To think that you need to force the issue by doggedly sticking to principle in the light of evidence that in the present situation you're hurting, not helping, shows that you don't think that judgement and sensitivity to the situation is a useful tactic, and perhaps one that will produce a better result than forcing people's hand.

I get it. You get challenged on copyright issues every day. You have to sift through lots of stuff, and you have to understand the intricacies of it all. But IMSLP has no legal mandate to collect these scores (you may have a legal right, but that's different). It is not a copyright library, nor a depository library. When someone comes to you and makes an appeal that your activities and adherence to the letter of law is actually harming what you should be holding most dear (public access to the intellectual content of these items) what would you say is the appropriate response? Do you value the letter of the law over the ability to access? Are you a lawyer and love law, or a musician and love music? In some cases you can be both. In this particular case, you have to decide which role you'll take. GregSkidmore articulated that much more elegantly than I, but I just wanted to re-iterate it.

There is a way that IMSLP and DIAMM can resolve this. The images can be removed from IMSLP, and links to the pages in DIAMM can be created. You can link directly to the manuscripts, where people can find curated and authoritative information, with the best digital images of books you've ever seen. You're happy because I'm not pestering you anymore . DIAMM is satisfied since they can ensure their agreements with libraries are in place, and will continue to work with the libraries to open up more items, and perhaps even convince them that the Internet is not as bad as they think it is. Users can access them through IMSLP without cost and with the one-time need of creating a free account (I understand new user registration at the moment is disabled in light of this situation, but it will be restored once it is resolved).

Furthermore, as GregSkidmore pointed out, if you really care about this issue, you can start petitioning these libraries to change their terms of access so that some day this whole argument will seem quaint and you can host as many images as you like. You don't have to drag them kicking and screaming. You can actually work to convince them, through reasonable argumentation and building a rapport with them, that this is actually a good thing. I'm sure an organization like IMSLP would be welcome with open arms to the table. But you can't have it both ways. You can't spoil access for a lot of people out of principle, and then wash your hands of actual responsibility when it comes to the dirty task of negotiating physical access rights. You have to step up, or step away and let other people try other tactics.

[Feduol]

Dear all,

I've been following the thread since yesterday, but the speed of the conversation was so fast with a lot of topics that only now I have time to write. Like Cypresdone did, I'd like to thanks a lot Andrew, Olivier, NMTB and GregSkidmore for posting your opinion here. As we're in IMSLP forum, it seems to have more people on the side of IMSLP. I think that your participation contributes a lot about an issue that is new for both sides.

As stated before, I just thought that uploading the DIAMM files here I would help this musical resources more accessible to everyone. I never wanted to harm anyone and I do think the DIAMM reference on IMSLP will help to make this project better know.

I'd like to start making a difference that is so important in this debate for me: the ACT and the CONSEQUENCES. One think is completely different from other. I read some commentaries mixing both of them, rendering to me to ask myself what are we precisely talking about.

So, first the act: images produced by DIAMM have become available to download in IMSLP. Is it right or wrong? Doesn't matter it the public of IMSLP hate the medieval music or such repertoire won't be never useful for a non-specialized musician that frequents the site (I'll say more about it), if the digitalization was made in a library on Mars (I'm sorry about this, I just want to be clear), how millions of pounds it cost, if it took hundred of people and years to be made, if the images have 1x1 pixel or billions of them, if the DIAMM won the Nobel Prize of musicology for revolutionized the access to the sources, if was made an agreement with the Pope, etc. Only the law can make an assertive position about this question.

In the interpretation of DIAMM, this act violates the law and the scores mustn't be provided by IMSLP. On the other hand, IMSLP argues that there isn't legal obstacle to not provide itself the images from DIAMM. So for IMSLP there is no impediments to it be made.

Based on this, IMSLP assumes its position to provide the scores for download. If one can debate if the act is legal or not, let's talk only about the law. Talking about the DIAMM digitalization process or a lot of other things won't change the IMSLP's interpretation of the law, so the site won't change its position.

For me, the discussion can finish here. I agree with Feldmahler when he considers the IMSLP as a machine. I would further, IMSLP must be a simple binary machine, able to process each time only one 0 or 1. If it considers the score is public domain, it can be uploaded to the site, if not, it can't. This is the IMSLP mission: to be a idiot machine only able to the see black or the white. If we'd consider the efforts of a digitalization process, so a Canon, HP or Xerox engineer could claim his rights, the worker of the electricity company and so on...

Secondly, but not necessary, the consequences. Unique statement: the consequences don't change the law, neither the IMSLP mission to preserve the public doming heritage. Imagine how can IMSLP be able to forecast all the consequences of a public domain shared on the site? A piano teacher: "Please, could you remove the 1915 edition of Beethoven's Piano Sonata X because this edition have a different fingering I said to my pupil?". Another person: "That piece remember reminds me my grandfather, for charity may you remove it?". Etc, etc, etc... So IMSLP can't take responsibility itself for consequences of any public domain score available on the site. I'm sorry to be rude again, it is just to not take much time with unnecessary discussions.

So, as the consequences of DIAMM part are revealed, let's see the consequences to IMSLP if the scores are removed. Every single score available here could be removed, or because one library could claim the same rights as DIAMM or consequences of a score on IMSLP would harm anyone. It would be the chaos with scores being uploaded and removed.

I'd like to go further than Cypressdome's reference of a "genie released from the bottle". The DIAMM claims to IMSLP remove the files it's seeming the tentative to put toothpaste back to the tube with their own hands. Carolus asked in the IMSLP thread but it didn't received any answer: Removing the files will solve the problem with the libraries? As you stated, the librarians where DIAMM worked are people very difficult to negotiate. After the non-fulfilment by DIAMM of the previous agreement, will they accept to talk with DIAMM again? For me, the notice spread by Julia of this "DIAMMleaks" corroborates to the information arrive to these libraries. Also reveals who some musicologists have some prejudices about diffusion of knowledge, general public and, even the democracy.

If one can say in that on IMSLP can't be downloadable DIAMM files because its public don't have the capacity to interpret the scores, that only the (superior)specialized musician can do it, if I open a new site about medieval music and put the scores there, is it ok? If you really think that about IMSLP, why not to restrict the general public access to museums? Only one art specialist could enter on it. Why not to restrict the tourism in historical cities, churches, etc, to those who really are specialists? Why not to restrict the routes only for professional drivers? Why not to restrict the sports only for the professional athletes?

[AndrewHankinson]

Hey Feudol, thanks for joining the discussion!

Fortunately for all of us, the law is not a binary set of rules. That's why we have judges that listen to arguments instead of machines that declare guilt or innocence. I'm sure you would be glad of that too, when you're on the other side of the argument.

I'm sure everyone here has had an experience where someone was "well within their rights" to do something, but it was still a pretty awful thing to do. I would be very sad if IMSLP took the stance that "well, it was within our rights to do this" and screwed over DIAMM just because they had the right to do it. In talking with Carolus I don't think this is the case -- I believe they are considering their actions very carefully and encouraging this conversation in good faith of coming to a solution. But the proper functioning of a society depends on people making compromises all the time, and not a constant assertion of rights with no consideration of the real consequences to the other person.

I also have it on good authority that removing the images will smooth things over with the libraries, and that the collections that were taken offline will be made available again.

Again, I'm not appealing to copyright law to get IMSLP to remove the images. They may certainly be within their "rights" to keep them there. I'm just arguing that jeopardizing the incredible amount of things that DIAMM has worked for (and given the world for free!) in blind defense of "rights" would ultimately make for a pretty poor world to live in.