Future & Perspectives of the IMSLP - [chart / draft]

[Lem]

Since there was rather limited response to my original post (viewtopic.php?p=3730#3730) due to technical hassle, i found a solution how to display the draft in a topic.

In my opinion this topic should be used to gather the essence of already discussed ideas, notions & agreements (maybe including forumlinks thereto), in order to include them in a following chart revision.





For viewing the draft in detail, please go here: http://www.lem.kilu.de/ismlp/future-of-imslp.png


.

[Yagan Kiely]

Interesting and detailed image.

Please clear one thing up, does your chart propose only have files legal worldwide?

[Lem]

well, it only proposes options:

one is to offer only legal files worldwide until the situation is resolved either on the legal or technical level, so an immediate relaunch could be made

[Yagan Kiely]

This is probably unlikely, because Feld is completing his Masters. But we'll see. It will probably be best for IMSLP if we wait for it's complete return than forcing it online with not enough personnel.

[Lem]

i agree. that's why i think taking tea & time for consideration is the best thing to do at the moment. in the meantime however, time could be used for founding a registered association (if it should get common agreement here). this is the idea i favor the most. any shifting imslp to other organisation (whatever legal or political colour) is to my mind the weaker decision.

[edit]
i just stumbled across some very profound looking information: http://www.legislationline.org/?tid=220 ... less=false with $215 and a few people being really serious about it, a ngo could be up in no time

[pierre.chepelov]

cleared content should only be defined by composer and copyright region. eg. +50, +70, +70-1923, 100, etc.
-not by piece
-not by state

I am not sure this will work so easily:
1. Because each New Year's Eve we would have to edit that field;
2. Because there are too many things under "etc." (A "+70-1923" in the USA may be a "+70-1921", or a +70between1921&1948" in France, and there the status is different; and so on everywhere. There also should be, only for the USA +70+1923butnoproofof©renewal, etc.
3. There should be the same filled for co-authors - think about vocal music. And rules for text authors may be different than for composers (e.g. in France, since a very recent case law).
4. There are also, on PD works, the editor and the edition protections, which may be different in each country, because of the delays, but also because of the various status of edition protection.

I think it is better to stay with the levels we used to have at ISMLP: composer or author, but also editor (that means a general © indication), AND piece (this is always particular). At each level, a field for each country (UNO doesn't have more than 192 members!) saying:

[© status] because [reason(s), from a country-specific pre-set list] ; PD there in [Year, but also month & day, because it's not always Jan. 1st]

I don't think this would be a so enormous work, because it can be automatized: if the death fields of both composer/author/editor are correctly filled AND if the edition date also, the system can sort which score is under +50, +70, +80 or whatever (+100 in France for very few composers 'Morts pour la France'), AND if it is USA:Pre-1923, France:Pre-1921 and/or France:Pre-1948, etc.
Then the only things to be really handmade are: if a Post-1923 score is PD in the US because of © non-renewal, or if it is PD in this and this country because of a governmental publisher (this does not work in the EU. Maybe this task could also be automatized if special reviewers let the system know that this publisher of this country is considered PD in these, when publication date is from that year to that one).

Don't forget that we have a system with "reverse exceptions":
At the composer level, the work is PD unless protected according to the delays; then
- if protected, it is protected unless Pre-1923, non-renewal, or governmental rules apply;
- if PD, it's PD unless edition protection apply.
And each level with different rules for each country!
This is why I think a one-level tag won't work.

The main thing to do is to set up the sorting system, with specialists helping implementing their country's laws.
Of course, for some countries (but, I hope, none of the Western world, where most owners, publishers, and users are) we won't have at first the very precise rules (like new Taleban ban of music etc...), and there'll be mistakes; but with help of contributors, and of © holders knowing how to report their concerns properly, they'll be corrected as quick as possible.



This task seems to me more important than wasting time and money thinking of IP filtering, which is both morally and legally not indispensable.

[Lem]

You seem to have a more detailed notion of some specific copyright regulations that I haven't been aware until now. But let me explain the part of the draft you quoted. With 'copyright region' I didn't mean its localisation than rather its conditional/temporal definition. If the composer's and the co-author's (you're right, I didn't take the latter into account) copyright is lapsed, then all of the pieces are generally public domain. Of course now all the second degree (let's call it like that) ©-holders enter the stage and claim their potential copyright. Though not on the piece but on the respective file/print/edition/score. This is the major difference!

I think, Imslp should be obliged to fulfil the first degree copyright-restrictions for each copyright region (if that has been the case is yet a subject under discussion), for second degree violations Ismlp cannot be held responsible, as it cannot, by all good will tell the copyright from the first page of a scorefile, if the relevant information aren't stated within, nor be expected to retrieve all relevant data about second degree copyright concerning worldwide existing jurisdictions. [/long sentence]

So (for me) the only obvious and logical consequence would be to shift the obligation of providing this data over to the second degree ©-holders. For this purpose the ©-holder-interface has to be established (see chart) where copyright claims can be made along with the data provisioning either in advance or after an ©-incident.

In conclusion to all that it would be most convenient for both parties, if the ©-holders provide the files themselfs, as by that, a file in question is undoubtfully attached to the relevant claims (see chart: 'settlement'). A written notification to the major publishers and on the website should give the ©-holders a reasonable period for declaring & amending their claims. Ok, my language deteriorated in the course of the last 3 breaks into some amateur-lawyer-slang. Sorry for that. It's fun though...
At least all the above is what I meant with sorting by composer & copyright region. With Imslp fulfilling only the 'first degree copyright', each country is assigned to a region with regard to a specific composer. When the current date minus the composer's obit is greater than one of the ©-region-values, he drops out (or in if you do it on positive terms).

If there are any crucial points lacking, it's likely having to start from scratch... Anyway, I hope I was able to connect some dots...

[jhellingman]

Building such a complicated system would actually be an implicit acknowledgment that you are liable for copyrights in other jurisdictions. Better not do it. The only reasonable thing to do is to stay strictly within Canadian (or any other) jurisdiction you are actually in.

For the database structures, I would suggest to include the relevant dates with works (date of publication, death dates of relevant contributors), and leave it up to the software (for Canada) or visitors (for outside Canada) to establish the copyright status based on algorithm.

Some rules are just too complex to implement in software. Take the French war-time extensions, which granted additional years for works that suffered in WWI and WWII, and even more for those authors that died for France in those wars. Now, combined with EU rules that prohibit positive discrimination of own nationals, this rule should also be extended to other EU authors that died fighting for their country, that is including German soldiers who died fighting against France... As you can see, the current implementation of copyright law is idiotic.

[pierre.chepelov]

Building such a complicated system would actually be an implicit acknowledgment that you are liable for copyrights in other jurisdictions. Better not do it. The only reasonable thing to do is to stay strictly within Canadian (or any other) jurisdiction you are actually in.

I agree it would be far easier, but then fell in what UE is (or others may be) complaining about: not even giving people information about infringements they possibly are about to do, according to their country's laws.

Some rules are just too complex to implement in software. Take the French war-time extensions, which granted additional years for works that suffered in WWI and WWII, and even more for those authors that died for France in those wars. Now, combined with EU rules that prohibit positive discrimination of own nationals, this rule should also be extended to other EU authors that died fighting for their country, that is including German soldiers who died fighting against France... As you can see, the current implementation of copyright law is idiotic.

Maybe it's idotic, but it is feasable.
French war-time extensions are linked to the publication date (like US "1923" rule): this is not a great work to implement.
'Died for France' compositors are a few, see the list I did here: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_ ... nce_%C2%BB; again it does not need so many work to implement.
I already heard what you said about the German soldier, etc. (and I think some people in France uses that argument to do some copyfraud.) But EU harmonization explicitly said that special national laws like wartime extentions were not applicable to other EU countries, nor to other nationals.
'Died for France' is nothing automatic; it had to be decided by a court. So no German soldier can claim for it!

We are many, willing to help: we can try to make our best efforts to improve the system; and if we do so, nobody will say ISMLP is deliberately letting users commit infrigements, etc.

[jhellingman]

I already heard what you said about the German soldier, etc. (and I think some people in France uses that argument to do some copyfraud.) But EU harmonization explicitly said that special national laws like wartime extentions were not applicable to other EU countries, nor to other nationals.
'Died for France' is nothing automatic; it had to be decided by a court. So no German soldier can claim for it!

We are many, willing to help: we can try to make our best efforts to improve the system; and if we do so, nobody will say ISMLP is deliberately letting users commit infrigements, etc.

The non-discrimination rules of EU nationals is an essential part of the EU treaties, and cannot be set aside by a French court, or even the commission. In this case, maybe we should look for that German soldier, and let his heirs apply for the "Died for France" status in this light, and fight it to the European Courts. Unfortunately, nobody is probably willing to take this up as the interests are too small.

It is rather unfortunate that the so-called harmonization only work to push through copyright extensions, but (with the sole exception of Spain), no excessive "rights" were culled, such as the insane French rules (combined with the French tendency to try to apply French law extra territorially).

However, this would be a good opportunity to call for true harmonization, to get those things finally thrown out of the door.

Anyway, I am against IMSLP trying to enforce any copyright law. IMSLP should stay within the law, but not restrict anything more.

Personally, I have no respect for current copyright law at all. I only comply with it as otherwise the greedy copyright maffia may unleash the full terror of state sanctioned violence on me.

[Blouis79]

[edit]
i just stumbled across some very profound looking information: http://www.legislationline.org/?tid=220 ... less=false with $215 and a few people being really serious about it, a ngo could be up in no time

I agree a legal body is important to protect individual members. But the more immediate priority is Feldmahler's individual liability for past activity not protected by any legal structure. (I think this has been suggested in the "Proposals..." thread.

[pierre.chepelov]

The non-discrimination rules of EU nationals is an essential part of the EU treaties, and cannot be set aside by a French court, or even the commission. In this case, maybe we should look for that German soldier, and let his heirs apply for the "Died for France" status in this light, and fight it to the European Courts. Unfortunately, nobody is probably willing to take this up as the interests are too small.

The non-discrimination principle is essential to the EU, but it has exceptions... In that case, see Directive 2006/116/EC (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/s ... =116&lg=en)

It is rather unfortunate that the so-called harmonization only work to push through copyright extensions, but (with the sole exception of Spain), no excessive "rights" were culled, such as the insane French rules (combined with the French tendency to try to apply French law extra territorially).

You're quite right!
But, please, don't ask French life+85 rule to be enforced to the whole EU! Let it stay contained to French works in France.

BTW, since a case court last February those wartime extensions were deleted in France (the Cour de cassation said that the spirit of the European 1993 directive was not to add 20 years tho the original 50 years + extensions, and so these extensions have now to be merged into the added 20 years); but this doesn't apply to musical works! (because for only these, the delay was extended to 70 years and wartime extensions by a national law in 1985, before the directive.)

Anyway, I am against IMSLP trying to enforce any copyright law. IMSLP should stay within the law, but not restrict anything more.

The question is: do we want to try to make more precise legal information available to the non-Canadian users, in order to prevent anybody to hurt IMSLP (and I don't think that's enforcing EU law in Canada, as long as it's only information); if we don't, we should even delete the information that was available (the Non-PD-US and Non-PD-EU templates).

Personally, I have no respect for current copyright law at all. I only comply with it as otherwise the greedy copyright maffia may unleash the full terror of state sanctioned violence on me.

I do have respect for copyright laws... while thinking in the EU it became too long. I fully understand your last sentence.

[jhellingman]

The question is: do we want to try to make more precise legal information available to the non-Canadian users, in order to prevent anybody to hurt IMSLP (and I don't think that's enforcing EU law in Canada, as long as it's only information); if we don't, we should even delete the information that was available (the Non-PD-US and Non-PD-EU templates).

I would say no. I would have a general page explaining the copyright issues, and even pages providing an overview of the rules in various countries, as well documented as possible, but I would refrain from saying that a particular work is restricted by copyright in the EU, or other countries. A general remark with each file that it is public domain in Canada, but that copyright rules in other countries may vary. It should be attempted to include all information that may help a visitor to establish the copyright status itself, such as death dates and publication dates.

I do have respect for copyright laws... while thinking in the EU it became too long. I fully understand your last sentence.

If you mean respect in the sense that you have respect for an aggressive bodybuilding type in a narrow alley late at night, yes, I have respect. However, I believe, and this is demonstrated once more in this debacle, that current copyright law works against the interests even of authors and composers. I would respect (in the sense of appreciate as valuable) a copyright law that does encourage creativity _and_ public availability of work. The exact details of such a law may differ, but I think there is a growing consensus that life+70 is way too much, and actually hurting creativity.

[johnoliver]

If you mean respect in the sense that you have respect for an aggressive bodybuilding type in a narrow alley late at night, yes, I have respect. However, I believe, and this is demonstrated once more in this debacle, that current copyright law works against the interests even of authors and composers. I would respect (in the sense of appreciate as valuable) a copyright law that does encourage creativity _and_ public availability of work. The exact details of such a law may differ, but I think there is a growing consensus that life+70 is way too much, and actually hurting creativity.

And the refusal of the big publishers to accept a new publishing paradigm and be part of the solution is also bothersome. When Gutenberg invented the printing press, people other than the priests could read the bible. This caused a revolution in thought and religion. People who printed books were rewarded for their labour. Now composers do all of the labour of making score and parts, yet the publishers still want the same compensation as before. The best part of this project was the possibility for contemporary composers to embrace this new paradigm and bypass these old-style middlemen.