Status update of UE negotiations

[Yagan Kiely]

oth this and the tone of his email strike me as far from the unreasonable stance that has been alleged in some quarters.

He is the PR of UE. It would be pretty poor PR if they didn't appear reasonable, and understanding.

There were no lawyers involved and our letter was polite.

Accompanied with this "polite" letter was a demand of some 200,000 euros.

Apart from this, we have no idea why the website was taken down - and why it is still down, although everyone seems to think they were in the right. Can it really be true that a whole site has to close simply because UE complains about 70 works? Is it really not possible that there might be another reason? Is it not a happy coincidence to be able to point the finger of blame at a respected publishing house?

Another tactic of trying to start rumours that discredit and undermine IMSLP.

The idea of the IMSLP is applaudable. But please remember, for them to freely distribute public domain sheet music, someone has to publish that sheet music in the first place. Is it not ironic that the site includes sheet music by Mahler, who would be widely unknown today (as he was in the 1960's) if it were not for UE?

Mahler is PD, the only thing that they claim copyright for is an unknown editor. What UE did, for Mahler, is unimportant. They are just trying is avoid and change the subject.

So why is IMSLP still down?

To formalise all the legal implications that have been set forth through precedent by UE. This cannot be done by Feldmahler, (he could run the site, just not deal with legal issues) and it has to be done by Gutenberg or someone else. IMSLP is dealing with these issues and discussing transfer. UE didn't demand it's closure, but it's closure is a result of what UE have done.

When I replied, thanking him for taking the time to reply, he told me that everyone who has emailed UE has been replied to.

I also have responded to everyone. I have had also had extensive correspondences with Mr. Irons (16 emails in total), and his tone has been increasingly nasty, even degrading, demeaning and insulting to Feldmahler. He has often (here also) described Feldmahler as incompetent and neglectful.

[Theo Delight]

Are you all aware that there is a statement about the IMSLP case on UE's website? It's quite interesting to read, I think.
Maybe we all should send our opinion in written form to UE as they don't seem to take it serious what is obvious here in these forums.

You find it there:

http://www.uemusic.at/truman/en_templat ... f_id=14921

(The German title says: »The Rise and Fall of IMSLP«)

Indeed, I received a courteous and prompt reply from Mr Irons when I emailed him about my concerns. I quote it here in full, as it seems that UE is being demonised rather hastily. When I replied, thanking him for taking the time to reply, he told me that everyone who has emailed UE has been replied to. Both this and the tone of his email strike me as far from the unreasonable stance that has been alleged in some quarters.

Poor Mr Irons! Is he upset that some folk who have read his flim-flam have not been deceived by it and that some have even taken to making nasty comments about him?

Text of UE's reply
thanks for your e-mail. We are of course concerned that you should feel that Universal Edition has acted inappropriately. Whilst copyright protection exists for composers (and their families) after their death, we are entitled and indeed obliged to follow up on copyright violations.

We contacted the administrators of the IMSLP and voiced our concerns. There were no lawyers involved and our letter was polite. The IMSLP flatly refused to even discuss the issues concerned with us, simply stating that we were wrong. That is of course no basis for a cooperation

Perhaps it isn't a "basis for a [sic] cooperation", but it is correct under Canadian Law to say that copyright extends for 50 years after an author's or composer's death. Some of those composers listed by Herr Irons died more than 70 years ago. Indeed, that letter actually admitted "In Canada these composers are in public domain" and, hence, the best response would surely have been to refer UE to the retort in the (unreported) English case of Arkell v. Pressdram. (vide http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/arkell.htm)

Apart from this, we have no idea why the website was taken down - and why it is still down, although everyone seems to think they were in the right. Can it really be true that a whole site has to close simply because UE complains about 70 works? Is it really not possible that there might be another reason? Is it not a happy coincidence to be able to point the finger of blame at a respected publishing house?

Typical PR flim-flam. He knows perfectly well why the site was taken down: UE has money to spend on shysters, whereas the site owner hasn't.

The idea of the IMSLP is applaudable. But please remember, for them to freely distribute public domain sheet music, someone has to publish that sheet music in the first place. Is it not ironic that the site includes sheet music by Mahler, who would be widely unknown today (as he was in the 1960's) if it were not for UE?

More flim-flam - and patently incorrect, at that!

For one thing, UE was not involved in the production of the movie "Death in Venice", was it? You may recall that the soundtrack made extensive use of Mahler's music, which brought that music to a far wider audience than any publisher might have done.

UE is not the only present-day publisher of works by Mahler, so that self-congratulatory claptrap can be readily seen for what it is: more than a little imaginative! Indeed, it was Leonard Bernstein - and a host of other conductors and musicians - rather than UE who sought to champion Mahler's work.

For a PR man to seek to put a positive "spin" on unpleasant facts is neither new nor unexpected, as it is almost part of the job description. It is, however, somewhat unusual for a PR man to invent tales, especially when those tales can so easily be proven to be less than wholly accurate.

[Theo Delight]

Apart from this, we have no idea why the website was taken down - and why it is still down, although everyone seems to think they were in the right. Can it really be true that a whole site has to close simply because UE complains about 70 works? Is it really not possible that there might be another reason? Is it not a happy coincidence to be able to point the finger of blame at a respected publishing house?

Another tactic of trying to start rumours that discredit and undermine IMSLP.

One might wonder if those - and similar comments published elsewhere by Herr Irons - might be libellous, and if it would be worth Feldmahler's time and effort to find a lawyer to start a law suit against Irons and UE. It would probably be appropriate to sue them both, jointly and severally, as Irons was presumably writing on behalf of UE rather than acting "on a frolic of his own", as lawyers are wont to say.

The idea of the IMSLP is applaudable. But please remember, for them to freely distribute public domain sheet music, someone has to publish that sheet music in the first place. Is it not ironic that the site includes sheet music by Mahler, who would be widely unknown today (as he was in the 1960's) if it were not for UE?

Mahler is PD, the only thing that they claim copyright for is an unknown editor. What UE did, for Mahler, is unimportant. They are just trying is avoid and change the subject.

It is also patently, palpably and provably piffle, as any reading of the history of Mahler and his works would show.

If someone makes such silly claims as Herr Irons did, one might begin to believe they are truly desperate - to me, it's like a drowning man clutching at a sinking ship!

[Yagan Kiely]

Indeed, it was Leonard Bernstein - and a host of other conductors and musicians - rather than UE who sought to champion Mahler's work.

IMSLP is doing more to bring the public Mahler, with the (high) expense of buying a score compared to downloading it.

One might wonder if those - and similar comments published elsewhere by Herr Irons - might be libellous, and if it would be worth Feldmahler's time and effort to find a lawyer to start a law suit against Irons and UE.

Yes they are. And no it's not. Feldmahler hasn't the time or money. UE has ample of both. But it is libellous.

It is also patently, palpably and provably piffle, as any reading of the history of Mahler and his works would show.

If someone makes such silly claims as Herr Irons did, one might begin to believe they are truly desperate - to me, it's like a drowning man clutching at a sinking ship!

They were claiming copyright on the editor, not Mahler himself. Canada doesn't recognise minor edits as copyrightable, but EU does.

400th post. w00t.

[Vivaldi]

And with the issue of the editors, I think Canadian law looks at the nationality of the editors and publication + 25 year rule, which is used to determine which editions of the Neue Mozart Ausgabe are PD in Canada.

[gacl]

If an Austrian citizen travels to Canada and copies works that are still copyrighted in Austria, is that the fault of the person who loaned the book or of the Austrian citizen? As far as i know, if you travel to another country you still have to follow the laws of your own country. Wouldn't visiting a site based on another country constitute as "traveling" to that country?

[SeuLunga]

Since this may be the appropriate UE-bashing-thread, I think people might be interested in knowing Georg Tintner's view on UE in a lecture about Bruckner's 8th Symphony.

Let me say he wasn't very fond of them, here is a link (also in that page is his performance of that symphony. I recommend it). The lecture is very interesting, the comment about UE is quite brief, but poignant.

http://www.abruckner.com/Downloads/down ... h/january/

[Yagan Kiely]

Is there a transript? Or is it in the movements?

[smacnay]

This just rings of a typical large corporation feeling threatened by something. First response is to sick lawyers on the threat. (it worked in this case). If that doesn't work and the threat (in this case imslp) fires back the corporation decides whether they have or do not have a case. If their conviction is firm, they will fight. If they are bluffing, they might force a hand but the fight will die shortly thereafter and they will retreat.

In this case, the c & d letter worked only because imslp was not ready to deal with legal tactics. A few individuals with no budget nor income from the venture cannot even call the corporations bluff without becoming severely in dept. I am guessing that UE knew this and counted on the shutdown happening.

If imslp had a backer, I think this would be a dead issue by now (UE would have backed off).

IMSLP could always go back up and let UE come after them. Any legal action would soon fizzle out.

If the piratebay torrent site can remain open where there are 1000's of new copied movies be distributed, a site like imslp should sail along free and clear.

All this said, if I had been operating imslp and received a similar c&d letter, I would have shut down. Nothing is worth being in debt for 20 years fighting a corporation with money and lawyers. How about approaching the founder of Ubuntu. It might be the type of cause he believes in.

Anyhoo, good luck in progressing back to being up and on the web again.

[SeuLunga]

Is there a transript? Or is it in the movements?

there are 5 mp3 files there, one for each movement of the symphony (highly recommended) and the 5th is the lecture.

[horndude77]

there are 5 mp3 files there, one for each movement of the symphony (highly recommended) and the 5th is the lecture.

Hmm.. I don't see the lecture mp3.

[Yagan Kiely]

I've been listening to the recordings, but I don't see the lecture...

[SeuLunga]

I've been listening to the recordings, but I don't see the lecture...

Indeed... strange.
Well, I'm uploading it to mediafire, when it finishes, I'll post the link here.
In the mean time, let me transcript the part where he talks about UE:

"... and here Commerce raises its ugly head. Of course, the UE invested thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands in these wrong scores and they actually hired people to say the differences between the original and the so-called 'revised' versions are minimal, they are insignificant ,and one shouldn't worry about it. That was only because they wanted to sell their stuff, they didn't care about music! What does it matter to them? And may I tell you that in the ABC in Australia, that is the official broadcasting network, they still use these horrible travesties of what they should use, except for fools like me, who get their own material and play the proper thing. (...)"

[imslp]

Did he give this lecture before or after IMSLP's takedown? Just curious

[Yagan Kiely]

And may I tell you that in the ABC in Australia, that is the official broadcasting network, they still use these horrible travesties of what they should use, except for fools like me, who get their own material and play the proper thing.

Sorry, but what does this mean? (I think I need relative information).