Moderators: kcleung, Wiki Admins
No, it is to uphold the rights of the composers.But they do lose some money, that's why they sent the letter.
It has been adequate to date, and legal to date. Why assume because IMSLP is doing it, it is suddenly not good enough?To decide if a warning message without even the attempt to block an unauthorized user is adequate legal security is left to the judge and to the details of the legal system where the trial is taking place. It may not be enough.
A "please click here if you are older than 18" button at least makes an attempt to make sure that the user understands what is there. IMSLP did indicate if a certain piece is still under copyright in Europe, but did it only in English and did not implement any method to block an unauthorized user from downloading the score. English is not the official language of any country in question (I think British copyright law is different from the rest of the EU). Therefore IMSLP did not provide adequate barriers.It has been adequate to date, and legal to date. Why assume because IMSLP is doing it, it is suddenly not good enough?To decide if a warning message without even the attempt to block an unauthorized user is adequate legal security is left to the judge and to the details of the legal system where the trial is taking place. It may not be enough.
The copyright legislation of today has not been created by Godfather on the mountain Sinai. It has been implemented by normal plain people sitting in national governments and parliaments or in corresponding institutions of legislation in the EU. In the same way the copyright legislation can be changed again by political processes. The Pirate Parties claim that the next changes will have to make the copyright not even harder and more restrictive than today but softer and more generous to the public. The rule which protects copyrighted works during 50 or even 70 years after the creator´s death is simply a fraud of the public, let be it is a part of the valid legislation. But it is an unacceptable part of this legislation and needs to be changed as soon as possible. During waiting for this change, the executives in the European countries should declare some type of a "cease fire" or "armistice" instead of filing and prosecuting all the plain common people who are no longer willing to accept this mad rule.Kalli wrote:My English isn't very good, too. But I think it is just fair to translate the meaning of the message by Odin:
Odin says, that the copyright is too strong. He thinks, that it should be distinguished between commercial use and non-commercial use of the protected pieces.
I agree with him, but the copyright can't be changed by us.
The right of the composer dies with the composer. How can you reward a dead man ?ArcticWind7 wrote:No, it is to uphold the rights of the composers.But they do lose some money, that's why they sent the letter.
It has been adequate to date, and legal to date. Why assume because IMSLP is doing it, it is suddenly not good enough?To decide if a warning message without even the attempt to block an unauthorized user is adequate legal security is left to the judge and to the details of the legal system where the trial is taking place. It may not be enough.
Bravo bravissimo ! Ancora !!neb wrote:Actually they just lost two such sales. This evening's committee meeting decided to boycott UE works and not include two works in forthcoming orchestral concerts being planned for 2009. we're also considering removal of another work in 2008.djtoast wrote:The answer to your question is simple if you look at the threatening tone of the letter your lawyers sent.Universal Edition Vienna wrote: As a publisher we wonder why the owner of this website did not ask for a cooperation instead of acting as living in a world without copyright law by giving away for free things that he simply does not own.
...
Universal Edition AG Vienna
I wonder why you as a publisher, rather than sending a letter from a lawyer, didn't merely send a list of composers whose works you would like removed? I'm sure that you could even have arranged together to replace the "offending" scores with links to "legitimate" places to purchase the music either in electronic or printed form.
As things stand, the upshot is that rather than losing POTENTIAL sales due to (arguable) copyright infringement, you're likely to lose ACTUAL sales due to the incredible bad feeling that your company has now attracted.
It's easy to lose focus due to emotion, but form a purely business perspective I urge you to play an active role in seeking to resolve this amicably if you want to sell more music rather than less.
Alec.
Answer Yes we live in a world of copyright law, and that cuts both ways. UE have no rights of enforcement where copyrights have expired and should not seek such through bullying and intimidation.
When an ultimatum such as that is delivered in such a way by a stronger force to a weaker one, the weaker has no choice but to capitulate irrespective of the merits of their case. Whether IMSLP are right or wrong I do not know, equally whether U-E are right or wrong I do not know since I do not know the full facts of the case.
To act in such a confrontational manner is hardly likely to illicit sympatheic or cooperative diaglogue.
U-E - you should perhaps consider more carefully how you set about dealing with YOUR customers since after all, that's who you're dealing with here. We chose to vote with our pockets and deprive you of PRS/MCPS hire fees etc.
Nobody - not even the Pirate movement - is questioning the copyright for composers who are still alive and need an income from their work. The trouble is about the works of composers who are already "late and lamented". So the living composers have no reason to worry about their income.Richard Black wrote:It seems to me it is the attacks on Universal Edition which are outrageous. The letter from UE's lawyers, reproduced on the imslp website, seems perfectly reasonable. Many publishers, UE certainly included in my experience, provide excellent support for composers living _and dead_ and have a perfectly legitimate right to expect some recompense for it from those who wish to avail themselves of the scores.
Whether you think the copyright laws are correct is another matter. Obviously the 70 years rule is to an extent arbitrary and that's a completely separate discussion.
The IMSLP intention, to make available out-of-copyright scores, is also perfectly reasonable and indeed admirable, but it was obviously cheeky (at best) to rely on Canadian copyright laws and hope no one noticed. I have some sympathy for Feldmahler but think he was probably a bit naive.
I will expect all those musicians who take issue with UE's stance on this subject to do all the following:
Perform for minimal fee and no question of broadcast or recording royalties;
Steal their instruments from suppliers;
Contact UE's living composers and explain why they think said composers have no right to earn a living.
Let us all help together to change these silly rules to "lifetime+0" worldwide, and all trouble will cease by itself.WJM wrote:The slightly longer answer is that while the US has a longer baseline term for copyright (life+70 being the general rule; life+50 in Canada), the pre-1923 rule means that there are works that are PD in the US, but not in Canada, while the life+50 rule means there are works that are PD in Canada, but not in the US.emeraldimp wrote:Yes.audsie81 wrote:I have a really stupid question, but are the copyright laws in the US stricter or more lenient than Canada's?
The short answer is that they're different, at least for works published before 1978.
Then there are other complications, such as the treatment of foreign works, government works, unpublished ones, etc.
But the short answer is, indeed "yes"!
IMSLP IS multilingual, and English is the international language. Pornography studies provide no methods either.A "please click here if you are older than 18" button at least makes an attempt to make sure that the user understands what is there. IMSLP did indicate if a certain piece is still under copyright in Europe, but did it only in English and did not implement any method to block an unauthorized user from downloading the score. English is not the official language of any country in question (I think British copyright law is different from the rest of the EU). Therefore IMSLP did not provide adequate barriers.
We did. See Gutenberg or libravox aswell.Moreover, the fact that IMSLP did know the copyright status but did nothing to prevent unauthorized downloading could be turned against them at a lawsuit.
I assume you are not the judge in question? You have no reason to believe that what you are saying is the only option a judge can pursue, it is a very limited understanding.It would be a pretty strong case for UE in Austria. IMSLP has its points, but as soon as a judge rules that copyrighted works were distributed in the EU, it's over.
On the contrary, they most certainly have. Part of the point of extended copyright is that it recognises that publishers will use it to subsidise the publication of material by new authors/composers, who in turn, decades down the line, will subsidise..... So Boosey and Hawkes (the publisher whose catalogue I know best) subsidises young composers writing now out of the proceeds of selling Richard Strauss (d.1954) and Benjamin Britten (d.1976).The trouble is about the works of composers who are already "late and lamented". So the living composers have no reason to worry about their income.
My headline is a quotation of the japanese coronel in the old movie about the bridge over River Kwai.Richard Black wrote:On the contrary, they most certainly have. Part of the point of extended copyright is that it recognises that publishers will use it to subsidise the publication of material by new authors/composers, who in turn, decades down the line, will subsidise..... So Boosey and Hawkes (the publisher whose catalogue I know best) subsidises young composers writing now out of the proceeds of selling Richard Strauss (d.1954) and Benjamin Britten (d.1976).The trouble is about the works of composers who are already "late and lamented". So the living composers have no reason to worry about their income.
As for the country business, UE's lawyers are absolutely correct to state that it is possible to check the country of origin of an internet request for download. A site from which I was trying to puchase an MP3 download yesterday blocked my request because was not in the USA. I'm sure dedicated hackers can get round this but the block is basically in place. A decade or so ago, before the USA introduced the 70-year rule just like Europe, people brought back Dover scores of Strauss and Bartok into the UK and this was also illegal.
