A matter of concern

[ronde_des_sylphes]

"Hyperion faces a crippling costs bill following its appeal court defeat against academic Dr Lionel Sawkins (who claimed his work producing "performing editions" of several 18th century pieces gave him copyright in the works). In a move that shocked the classical music industry, their lorships agreed. Dr Sawkins took home £5,500 and his lawyers are demanding their crazy £758,500, of which half is "uplift" under a conditional fee arrangement ... At Hyperion a number of planned recordings have now been put on hold because of the cash flow crisis, including works by Edmund Rubbra, Ronald Stevenson and Malcolm Williamson."

From Private Eye magazine (UK), Nov 25.

[pianistimo]

what a strange precedent!  might it be overturned at some point?  i'm not really up on all the legal stuff that one has to to get copyright, but i thought that in the past - usually the rights are passed on like some kind of inheritance.  but, if the statute of limitations is a certain number of years - that means any one of us can now do the same thing (no matter how good or bad the edition is deemed?).  this is mass music at it's worst and best.  lots of creativity - but no one to oversee quality or have a distinction of some historical context of the pieces.

[thalbergmad]

I read about this on the Hyperion website.

I am no lawyer, but I think it is a horseshit decision that could cripple a particularly interesting label.

Perhaps the Judge was not a composer.

[rc]

In Canada we have this neat little organization called SOCAN which collects royalties for every little thing. Don't get caught listening to music with your window open, someone might accidentally steal a listen to music they never payed for! *gasp*

https://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/07/23/dentist_music040723.html

That's not so bad as this Sawkins prick. How do people become so selfish?

 

...Disgusting.

[g_s_223]

I think this all really spiralled out of control once the lawyers got involved. Hyperion could have paid Dr.Sawkins off early on, but they held to a very rigid view of what could or could not be liable for royalties, and now we have a binding precedent in the UK which is quite unfortunate. 

[ahinton]

I think this all really spiralled out of control once the lawyers got involved. Hyperion could have paid Dr.Sawkins off early on, but they held to a very rigid view of what could or could not be liable for royalties, and now we have a binding precedent in the UK which is quite unfortunate. 

Much of this is indeed true. The decision has surely surprosed so many because of its utter absurdity. Hyperion had already paid Dr Sawkins fees for his work in any case. The "rigid view" was in fact adhered to by Sawkins rather than by Hyperion, as demonstrated by the small amount of money with which he chose to walk away from the case (he could have claimed far more with the support of the eventual court decision). The decision has indeed been unfortunate, not only for Hyperion but for the profession in general. The phrase "the law is an ass" has never been so well illustrated as in the outcome of this case. I certainly believe that the final judgement was made without any understanding of the principles involved. As a composer myself, I am as much in need of royalties as anyone and accordingly have firm views on the importance of copyright protection, without the benefit of which many composers would simply go out of business; that said, I do not expect to establish a copyright and receive royalites from its use in respect of original work that someone else has done.

If Private Eye is to be believed - and since, as you and many others have observed, this case has been more about ways in which skilful lawyers can play merry Hell with the law than about copyrights and wrongs - it might not be a bad idea for the Estates of Williamson and Rubbra and the representatives of Stevenson to instigate a lawsuit against Sawkins for his part in their loss of anticipated earnings - and, as a colleague in the recording industry who shares this view has wryly observed - given the extent to which it is possible for certain lawyers to pervert the course of English justice, they might even have a fighting chance of success!

Best,

Alistair

[jas]

In Canada we have this neat little organization called SOCAN which collects royalties for every little thing. Don't get caught listening to music with your window open, someone might accidentally steal a listen to music they never payed for! *gasp*

https://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/07/23/dentist_music040723.html

That's not so bad as this Sawkins prick. How do people become so selfish?

 

...Disgusting.

I just read the article about the dentists' waiting rooms. It's repulsive. I've said this before several times: the world is going mad. These money-grabbing, tight-arsed tossers are trying to turn the world around them into a business. They're trying to turn everything we do, everything we say, into nothing more than another way to make money, as though a piece of music isn't worth more than that money that can be screwed out of it. I find it truly upsetting that something so innocent and simple as listening to music in a waiting room could be wrung for all it's worth by these indescribably selfish and misguided people. No wonder the arts are disappearing. I'm becoming so disillusioned with life. And it's because of people like them. Scumbags.

Jas

[ted]

I think it is part of a general situation permeating all of society wherein many people are not content with a reasonable monetary reward for work done. In this case, a figure of a few thousand seems reasonable but one of hundreds of thousands does not.  You see the same phenomenon regularly in the newspapers, with selfish individuals demanding and receiving colossal salaries and rewards for contributing very little while those who contribute a great deal receive much less.

I do not think this will change in my lifetime, but I have complete freedom to choose not to be greedy myself, with respect to my music or anything else.

   

[bearzinthehood]

Some people have no moral boundaries.  They call it getting ahead, I call it not having any class.  Either way it seems to be particularly endemic to copyright holders as of late, but whether the fault lies with human nature or with incredibly asinine copyright laws is another issue altogether.  Or perhaps both are responsible since laws are made by people who, as it turns out, seem to be particularly fond of self indulgence.

[ahinton]

There is no shortage of good common sense in the most recent additions to this thread. That said, it is surely worth bearing in mind at all times that, in this case, the vast (indeed very vast) majority of the payout from this unseemly case has gone to lawyers and, whilst I have less than no desire to seek to "defend" the (in my view) indefensible Dr Sawkins, it must be remembered also that his claims that he did not seek to get lawyers to make him a fourtune out of this exercise are the one piece of truth in this entire charade; Dr Sawkins could have practically seen Hyperion into the gutter had he berated his lawyers to bay for blood and screw the biggest possible financial settlement for him and, had he done so, not only would that have upped the ante very considerably, the lawyers' fees would have skyrocketed even farther - a total sum well in excess of £1.5M would have been a liely outcome in such circumstances.

My only response to the dentist's waiting room argument is that I wouldn't want too see music forced to play an unwitting part in the dentist's commercial exercise, for this is far from what the music used would have been intended for - but then i would say that, wouldn't I. sionce I am a composer myself and accordingly warm to the (possibly apocryphal) story of Elliott Carter who, having complained about the obsessive use of music in public places (shops, hotels, etc.), was asked what he would do if something of his confronted him while in an elevator and he is supposed to have responded that he'd push the red emergency button immediately.

I realise, however, that this was not the point that the contributor was making. The problem with the Sawkins case is that one of its negative outcomes is that it puts genuine composers in a bad light with some people. Composers, like all other lunatics and other sane working people, need to be paid for what they do but, as I opined previously, they should not expect to derive benefit from a copyright unless they have had unquestionably good cause to establish one by means of having accomplished original work - something which it is generally accepted that, in this case, Dr Sawkins did not do (and, after all, Dr Sawkins was, as I have also previously observed, paid a fee under contract for the work he did in any case).

The only thing to be disillusioned about is the fact that Britain - a country with a long legal history of which it ought to be able to be proud - has let itself, its citizens and genuine creative artists in all other countries down appallingly in allowing this case to conclude in the way that it has. The British justice system should be thoroughly ashamed of itself - but, of course, that system was not, in making its ill-considered judgement, even cognisant of, let alone concerned for, the plight of most composers and the possible consequences of its decision upon them. I cannot imagine, for example,  that the judge concerned would have known - or, for that matter, given two cents for - the fact, as publicised some time ago by the British Performing Right Society, that almost all of its writer members (i.e. composers) dervie less than £5,000 per year from royalties on their work.

People would be well advised to be wary in this context of whom they rush to accuse of greed...

Best,

Alistair

[rc]

There is no shortage of good common sense in the most recent additions to this thread. That said, it is surely worth bearing in mind at all times that, in this case, the vast (indeed very vast) majority of the payout from this unseemly case has gone to lawyers and, whilst I have less than no desire to seek to "defend" the (in my view) indefensible Dr Sawkins, it must be remembered also that his claims that he did not seek to get lawyers to make him a fourtune out of this exercise are the one piece of truth in this entire charade; Dr Sawkins could have practically seen Hyperion into the gutter had he berated his lawyers to bay for blood and screw the biggest possible financial settlement for him and, had he done so, not only would that have upped the ante very considerably, the lawyers' fees would have skyrocketed even farther - a total sum well in excess of £1.5M would have been a liely outcome in such circumstances.

That's a pointless point. I remember one fellow I used to work with would always do these dickhead things, and everytime I called him on it, his defense was to cite a case of someone who's done worse. It doesn't change what happened because it could've been worse.

My only response to the dentist's waiting room argument is that I wouldn't want too see music forced to play an unwitting part in the dentist's commercial exercise, for this is far from what the music used would have been intended for - but then i would say that, wouldn't I. sionce I am a composer myself and accordingly warm to the (possibly apocryphal) story of Elliott Carter who, having complained about the obsessive use of music in public places (shops, hotels, etc.), was asked what he would do if something of his confronted him while in an elevator and he is supposed to have responded that he'd push the red emergency button immediately.

hahah, yeah I would say that the intent of music is more often lost than appreciated. Most people I know see music only as a background for something else (and some is, music meant to be danced to for example), and it irks me when someone speaks of classical as this relaxing stuff to help them go to sleep. Another fellow I was at the record store with recently recommended me some 'easy listening', to get chicks in the sack. hahah, thanks but I'll be alright.

...and the latest irritation; cellphone ringtones.

I realise, however, that this was not the point that the contributor was making. The problem with the Sawkins case is that one of its negative outcomes is that it puts genuine composers in a bad light with some people. Composers, like all other lunatics and other sane working people, need to be paid for what they do but, as I opined previously, they should not expect to derive benefit from a copyright unless they have had unquestionably good cause to establish one by means of having accomplished original work - something which it is generally accepted that, in this case, Dr Sawkins did not do (and, after all, Dr Sawkins was, as I have also previously observed, paid a fee under contract for the work he did in any case).

The only thing to be disillusioned about is the fact that Britain - a country with a long legal history of which it ought to be able to be proud - has let itself, its citizens and genuine creative artists in all other countries down appallingly in allowing this case to conclude in the way that it has. The British justice system should be thoroughly ashamed of itself - but, of course, that system was not, in making its ill-considered judgement, even cognisant of, let alone concerned for, the plight of most composers and the possible consequences of its decision upon them. I cannot imagine, for example,  that the judge concerned would have known - or, for that matter, given two cents for - the fact, as publicised some time ago by the British Performing Right Society, that almost all of its writer members (i.e. composers) dervie less than £5,000 per year from royalties on their work.

People would be well advised to be wary in this context of whom they rush to accuse of greed...

Best,

Alistair

I don't think anyone here is disagreeing on the cases of Sawkins and the waitingroom music. I know that composers don't typically make a lot of money for what they do, but so should the composers.

Greed is greed, no rush about it.

sincerely,
- contributor

[ahinton]

That's a pointless point. I remember one fellow I used to work with would always do these dickhead things, and everytime I called him on it, his defense was to cite a case of someone who's done worse. It doesn't change what happened because it could've been worse.

No, of course it doesn't - but then I never suggested that it did! For the sake of clarity, I emphasise that this judgement should never have occurred.

hahah, yeah I would say that the intent of music is more often lost than appreciated. Most people I know see music only as a background for something else (and some is, music meant to be danced to for example), and it irks me when someone speaks of classical as this relaxing stuff to help them go to sleep. Another fellow I was at the record store with recently recommended me some 'easy listening', to get chicks in the sack. hahah, thanks but I'll be alright.

I'm entirely with you here; the extent to which music and its purpose and use is debased is immense.

I don't think anyone here is disagreeing on the cases of Sawkins and the waitingroom music. I know that composers don't typically make a lot of money for what they do, but so should the composers.

I don't understand the meaning of this sentence; "so should the composers" what?

Best,

Alistair

[dmk]

The Hyperion case is an absolute tragedy and Dr Sawkins should be ashamed of himself, aside from the legal aspects of the case, for initiating such an arrangement with his lawyers which would clearly send Hyperion under.  What other few companies in Britain other than Hyperion have the resources and desire to record music such as that which Dr Sawkins is interested in.

His work became far more public by virtue of Hyperion's recording.

There is no point in arguing the legal merits, if we read the case notes it merely comes down to where the bar is set defining the term "original" and what needs to be done to constitute something original.  This bar has traditionally been low for copyright as there is no legal mechanism for registering copyright (well there isn't in Australia and I am pretty sure that there would not be in Britain).  By virtue of this case I think this bar has been set at an unreasonably low level for music, particularly in reference to a figured bass.

Maybe the pianoforum should undertake the Hyperion challenge.  Many people come on to this forum praising the virtues of Hamelin, Hough, Demidenko, Hewitt etc.  We also complain when we quite find quality recordings of works. So.....instead of trying to bootleg everything maybe we could donate some $$ to Hyperion...

Follow this link to donate:

https://www.hyperion-records.co.uk/

In fact....I might start a new thread for it...

Cheers

dmk

[ahinton]

The Hyperion case is an absolute tragedy and Dr Sawkins should be ashamed of himself, aside from the legal aspects of the case, for initiating such an arrangement with his lawyers which would clearly send Hyperion under.  What other few companies in Britain other than Hyperion have the resources and desire to record music such as that which Dr Sawkins is interested in.

His work became far more public by virtue of Hyperion's recording.

There is no point in arguing the legal merits, if we read the case notes it merely comes down to where the bar is set defining the term "original" and what needs to be done to constitute something original.  This bar has traditionally been low for copyright as there is no legal mechanism for registering copyright (well there isn't in Australia and I am pretty sure that there would not be in Britain).  By virtue of this case I think this bar has been set at an unreasonably low level for music, particularly in reference to a figured bass.

Maybe the pianoforum should undertake the Hyperion challenge.  Many people come on to this forum praising the virtues of Hamelin, Hough, Demidenko, Hewitt etc.  We also complain when we quite find quality recordings of works. So.....instead of trying to bootleg everything maybe we could donate some $$ to Hyperion...

Follow this link to donate:

https://www.hyperion-records.co.uk/

In fact....I might start a new thread for it...

Cheers

dmk

Applause from me!

Best,

Alistair

[dmk]

Applause from me!

Best,

Alistair

Thanks Alistair!!!!

We will see how it goes

dmk

[rc]

No, of course it doesn't - but then I never suggested that it did! For the sake of clarity, I emphasise that this judgement should never have occurred.

I see, you were simply saying it could have been worse. True enough. It even seems strange that he did such damage for such a comparatively small amount.

Sort of reminds me of when someone smashed out the window of my van overnight, but stole nothing. I almost would have felt better to know they smashed the window in order to take something, rather than just for the sake of it.

I don't understand the meaning of this sentence; "so should the composers" what?

Best,

Alistair

I meant that a composer should know that it isn't the most profitable job (and shouldn't be trying to squeeze royalty money out of labels, dental offices or wherever). I imagine that most composers would suppliment their income with other work.

[ahinton]

I see, you were simply saying it could have been worse. True enough. It even seems strange that he did such damage for such a comparatively small amount.

Sort of reminds me of when someone smashed out the window of my van overnight, but stole nothing. I almost would have felt better to know they smashed the window in order to take something, rather than just for the sake of it.

I meant that a composer should know that it isn't the most profitable job (and shouldn't be trying to squeeze royalty money out of labels, dental offices or wherever). I imagine that most composers would suppliment their income with other work.

OK - now you make yourself clear and I understand what you meant.

The motor vehicle vandalism instance that you suffered reminded me of another such - albeit with a kind of wry amusement content - that I read about in a newspaper over here some years ago. For the receord, a "crooklock" was a device (now no longer used, I imagine) with which a driver could lock his steering wheel to the steering column in order to discourage anyone from trying to steal the vehicle. The newspaper report was of someone who had broken into a parked car and stolen the crooklock - nothing else - and no more damage done...

To return to composers, howeve - one thing that most especially bothes me about the Sawkins business is that it could easliy be interepreted as having sought to undermine the genuine composer who rightly seeks the royalties due to him/her for work that can reasonably be described as "original". Of course most composers realise that it is not a profitable job - and no composer in his/her right mind goes into it for the money - but this does not of itself lessen the importance of a composer's income from composition. Of course copmposition is a vocation, not a job done for financial reward - but even lunatics like composers (and I am one) need to live in order to remain able to compose. Not only that, why should others (apart from publishers who have invested in a composer's work) seek to profit from what the composer has done, at the composer's expense? Furthermore, if a composer finds that his work has been muzak-ed into a dentist's waiting room where he would not want it to be, I can well imagine that he/she'd want to ensure that at least he/she got due payment for such misuse!

Best,

Alistair

[leahcim]

The Hyperion case is an absolute tragedy and Dr Sawkins should be ashamed of himself, aside from the legal aspects of the case, for initiating such an arrangement with his lawyers which would clearly send Hyperion under.

Why? Hyperion's business model was / is to take something that has no (c) on it [or at least, so they thought] and put one on it and then sell at a profit.

So this guy is a $#% for doing the same thing?

Either / or I say. Let's all grow our hair again run naked across the grass shouting "No to Copyrights" and burn each other Hyperion CDs, which I'm sure they'll love. Or let's scratch our beards and say "Well, you wanted your copyright on Chopin guys. Take it on the chin or get a better lawyer"

Business is tough.

If someone of an altruistic nature wants to do the legwork and produce "free" editions for all to use [and "free" recordings] they still can afaict.

But stuff like their webpage asking to paying off their legal debt is patronising.

I say, spare a fiver or so for the ordinary employees if they lose their job perhaps,, and consider the numerous worthwhile charities this Xmas. But why pass the onion for failed business folk? They wouldn't be sending you cash if they'd made millions from flogging CDs.

[ahinton]

Why? Hyperion's business model was / is to take something that has no (c) on it [or at least, so they thought] and put one on it and then sell at a profit.

So this guy is a $#% for doing the same thing?

Either / or I say. Let's all grow our hair again run naked across the grass shouting "No to Copyrights" and burn each other Hyperion CDs, which I'm sure they'll love. Or let's scratch our beards and say "Well, you wanted your copyright on Chopin guys. Take it on the chin or get a better lawyer"

Business is tough.

If someone of an altruistic nature wants to do the legwork and produce "free" editions for all to use [and "free" recordings] they still can afaict.

But stuff like their webpage asking to paying off their legal debt is patronising.

I say, spare a fiver or so for the ordinary employees if they lose their job perhaps,, and consider the numerous worthwhile charities this Xmas. But why pass the onion for failed business folk? They wouldn't be sending you cash if they'd made millions from flogging CDs.

Much of the above in nonsense.

Hyperion did not try to make any more profit out of the CD containing Sawkins' work than it did out of those that don't, any more than it (or indeed any other record company) expects to charge more for CDs containing copyright works than for those that don't.

Hyperion, like any other record company, does indeed establish a copyright when issuing a recording, but this copyright is in the recording per se, not in the recorded content. To the extent that they, like any other record company, endeavour to make a profit from a copyright, it is only the copyright in their recordings with which they seek to do that. Copyright in the material recorded is a differrent matter altogether.

Hyperion is not a "failed business" in any case; the Sawkins affair has certainly damaged them financially, but that is by no means the same thing and it would take an awful lot of Sawkinses to see them off the face of the earth completely. Hyperion is in no different a position from any other record company in regard to the activities of those who think as Sawkins does, except to the extent that they have been seen in the courtrooms of England to have fallen foul of it. If every record company were persistently beseiged with Sawkinses, they'd all go under in the end - but then so would concert giving organisations, for copyright extends just as much to live public performance as it does to recorded performance.

"Free" editions of copyright material remain illegal unless they are made and distributed with the prior written permission of the copyright owner and, when Sawkins's lawyers contrived to persuade the English courts that their client had established one, they pronounced against Hyperion for infringement and won. The only problem here is that the courts appear to have upheld a copyright that had no business to exist.

I see no reason why Hyperion should not seek donations from the public following the successful legal action against them. Furthrmore, they are receiving them, fortunately - and they only reason that they are doing so is that most people who care about recorded and live music believe that the outcome of the Sawkins case is a classic example of the English phrase "the law is an ass". Donations were, after all, being received by Hyperion even before they thought to ask for them.

As for making "millions" from selling CDs - well, tell me who does that in the field of "classical" music. It's a virtual impossibility. A handful of CD products that contain the work of those perceived as performing superstars may do quite well by comparison with most others, but the net profit available from most "classical" CDs is inevitably small. Why otherwise do you suppose that so many "classical" record companies go to the wall? Let's take one example of which I am aware. I'm not about to cite any specific figures, as these are both confidential and not known to me, but the example will still be clear enough without them. A record company made a recording of my string quintet. It's not a small piece - it plays for 2 hours 50 minutes and is spread across 3 CDs which are presented in a box with a substantial book of 40+ pages. By definition, five players were involved - and also a soprano soloist who has a part which amounts to some 50 minutes in total. The performers had to be paid sessions fees for the recording and the rehearsals. A church had to be hired for five days' recording and another venue for four days' rehearsal. Factor in the equipment and consumables costs, transportation charges and other peripheral factors such as assistance at the recording, the time then spent in editing and producing the final result, the manufacturing and production costs and the booklet costs and then make allowances for the record distributors' cuts and the retailers' cuts out of the eventual sale price. Now try to imagine just how many sets would have to be sold in order just to break even, never mind make "millions" - and I've not even mentioned copyright costs! Even if we ignore those, my rough estimate is that break-even point would be reached at around 3,500 sales. I rest my case (except, of course, that it isn't strictly MY case to rest)...

Best,

Alistair

[leahcim]

Much of the above in nonsense.

It kept you busy for a while though

Hyperion did not try to make any more profit out of the CD containing Sawkins' work than it did out of those that don't

That wasn't a premise of my argument. I've no idea of their pricing structure to know if that is true or not.

Hyperion is not a "failed business" in any case; the Sawkins affair has certainly damaged them financially, but that is by no means the same thing and it would take an awful lot of Sawkinses to see them off the face of the earth completely.

According to them "This leaves Hyperion in a very precarious position. The company is small and operates independently of any financial support and survives solely on the sales of classical recordings in an extremely competitive marketplace flooded by cheap product. It is certain that the future return from sales alone is not enough to cover its legal settlements and continue its mammoth recording schedule."

"The collateral damage caused by this decision not only will affect the prosperity of the company..."

Which begs to differ afaict and was the source of my description.

However, if you have first hand information to the contrary [and your information on their CD pricing / profitability and knowledge of their accounts suggests you perhaps do. Unless you are just making stuff up ]

Speak up, especially, if, as you say, some have paid money. Those who donate or have donated probably thought the company was in financial difficulty, contrary to what you seem to be saying here.

Hyperion is in no different a position from any other record company in regard to the activities of those who think as Sawkins does, except to the extent that they have been seen in the courtrooms of England to have fallen foul of it. If every record company were persistently beseiged with Sawkinses, they'd all go under in the end

This is not true. Most recorded work has, pretty much unquestionably, the copyright that Hyperion believed to be expired on the genre they sell. So any other record company is likely to pay up front for the rights. Occasionally you see record companies coughing up for a piece of obscure music they've pinched [I believe Robbie Williams has had this happen]

I see no reason why Hyperion should not seek donations from the public following the successful legal action against them.

I see no reason why anyone should not seek donations either. That doesn't change or alter my opinion that folk shouldn't donate in this case for the reasons given.

As for making "millions" from selling CDs - well, tell me who does that in the field of "classical" music.

I've no idea. I suspect that some do however, let us know what you find out.

For someone who likes big words why did you have so much difficulty with the word "if"? Unless your premise is that they run a not-for-profit enterprise, the point remains. IF they had made millions they wouldn't be sending us cash. Remove the "millions" and put "profit" until you've finished the research.

If it sounds completely off the wall, consider they started the business in 1980. i.e consider classical music sales over that period. Globally ~$2billion in the early 1990s for example. Consider, whether, from those figures, you believe they thought the business would be a successful venture tapping into that market. Or, more like your anecdote hopes to show that classical music labels are set up as an onion passing favour to classical musicians and fans.

Besides, worldwide sales of music are around $36 billion or so today [not just classical of course] - you'll get the same onion passing story if you go and record for them too. No one in the music industry makes any money 

"Free" editions of copyright material remain illegal unless they are made and distributed with the prior written permission of the copyright owner and, when Sawkins's lawyers contrived to persuade the English courts that their client had established one, they pronounced against Hyperion for infringement and won.

Absolutely. If this referred to my comment that people could create "Free" versions.

What I meant was that if someone did the work that the Dr did, they could issue it with some public domain license, so long as they don't start from (c) work of course, but that isn't an issue. This Dr. hasn't establised a (c) on anything other than his work.

Similarly, any other "editions" that are now potentially (c) by the author / editor of the edition, because of any precedence in the ruling, does not stop altruistic individuals from creating their own public domain editions. The sky isn't falling in that respect.

Although I can't see that necessarily helping Hyperion because they are selling for a profit which may be less likely to encourage the author to not do the same if they can.

That said, businesses get to use linux. So don't send them money, send them your edited manuscripts so they can record and sell them

[ahinton]

It kept you busy for a while though

Quite so; this is because there is little useful purpose to be served simoply by describingh something as nonsense without attempting to justify such a statement.

I've no idea of their pricing structure

No - that much is failryu obvious, but I do not seek to criticise you for that lack of knowledge.

According to them "This leaves Hyperion in a very precarious position. The company is small and operates independently of any financial support and survives solely on the sales of classical recordings in an extremely competitive marketplace flooded by cheap product. It is certain that the future return from sales alone is not enough to cover its legal settlements and continue its mammoth recording schedule."

"The collateral damage caused by this decision not only will affect the prosperity of the company..."

Which begs to differ afaict and was the source of my description.

What I have said is that, whilst it has indeed affected Hyperion adversely (indeed, how could it possible have done otherwise), it has not put them out of business; as I also implied, however, were there to be widespread repetitions of Sawkins cases, Hyperion and other record companies might well go out of business.

However, if you have first hand information to the contrary [and your information on their CD pricing / profitability and knowledge of their accounts suggests you perhaps do. Unless you are just making stuff up ]

I have no interest in "making stuff up" here, but at the same time I do not claim to have first hand knowledge of Hyperion's accounting; what I do know is shown in the example I gave (which is from a different record company) which demonstrates that, even without the copyright cost issue, the making of "classical" CDs is for the most part a pursuit that is likely to generate very little net profit in many cases - or certainly not more such profit than can reasonably be ploughed back into the business to help to fund future recording projects.

Speak up, especially, if, as you say, some have paid money. Those who donate or have donated probably thought the company was in financial difficulty, contrary to what you seem to be saying here.

I applaud the donors of money here, because whilst their donations will not have been necessary to save Hyperion from going out of business, they will have been vital in injecting the kinds of money that may help to ensure that Hyperion does not have to shelve or postpone specific future projects.

Most recorded work has, pretty much unquestionably, the copyright that Hyperion believed to be expired on the genre they sell. So any other record company is likely to pay up front for the rights. Occasionally you see record companies coughing up for a piece of obscure music they've pinched

This is not true. Copyright laws and periods have admittedly been a thorny issue over the years, especially to the extent that different countries have operated different laws and periods. Nowadays, many countries have settled on a period of 70 years following the originator's death. It therefore follows that, when Hyperion or other companies record music written by composers who died before 1935, the only established copyrights that may pertain will be in the hands of publishers (if any) rather than the composers' Estates - in every other respect, such works will be in the public domain. As I stated, a separate copyright is established when a recording of copyuright or public domain material is issued, but that is the record companies' copyright in the recording itself, as distinct from the material so recorded.

I see no reason why anyone should not seek donations either. That doesn't change or alter my opinion that folk shouldn't donate in this case for the reasons given.

You are, of course, as entitled to your opinion in this case as are all those who have donated to this cause entitled to the contrary opinion.

Unless your premise is that they run a not-for-profit enterprise, the point remains. IF they had made millions they wouldn't be sending us cash. Remove the "millions" and put "profit" until you've finished the research.

I've not suggested that Hyperion runs any such enterprise; they don't, either. I must add here that the word "millions" in the present context is not my choice but lifted from your text.

If it sounds completely off the wall, consider they started the business in 1980. i.e consider classical music sales over that period. Globally ~$2billion in the early 1990s for example. Consider, whether, from those figures, you believe they thought the business would be a successful venture tapping into that market. Or, more like your anecdote hopes to show that classical music labels are set up as an onion passing favour to classical musicians and fans.

What I wrote did not seek to - and does not - do either of these things. To begin with, the figure you quote for global sales takes no account of the amount of profit generated by such a turnover; neither Hyperion nor any other record company with any sense of the realities of the market place and of accountancy would make any such assumption based purely upon global turnover alone. Some of the surviving "classical" record companies make sufficient profit to keep going and they help to provide a platform for performers and composers, but one would no more go into the "classical" record company business for the principal purpose of making megabucks than one would go into a career composing concert works for the same motive (and I should know, having gone into the latter).

What I meant was that if someone did the work that the Dr did, they could issue it with some public domain license, so long as they don't start from (c) work of course, but that isn't an issue. This Dr. hasn't establised a (c) on anything other than his work.

He has only even done that with the endorsement of the English courts - and he was paid a fee by Hyperion for his work in any case.

Similarly, any other "editions" that are now potentially (c) by the author / editor of the edition, because of any precedence in the ruling, does not stop altruistic individuals from creating their own public domain editions. The sky isn't falling in that respect.

In the case of The Sorabji Archive, whose founder and curator I am, the new editions of Sorabji's scores (all of which remain in copyright until 2058) are each invdividual editor's copyright; this is as it should be, but it does not affect the copyright in the material they have edited, which reamins intact.

So don't send them money, send them your edited manuscripts so they can record and sell them

Hyperion won't do anything of the sort; they will, as they and other such companies have always done, decide which works, copyright or otherwise, that they wish to record and then plan recording and release schedules accordingly.


Whilst there has clearly been much with which I take issue in what you have written, I do appreciate that you are at least taking this vitally important topic seriously.

Best,

Alistair

[leahcim]

You've messed up the quoting a bit, but...

as I also implied, however, were there to be widespread repetitions of Sawkins cases, Hyperion and other record companies might well go out of business.

I think this is fallacious for 3 reasons

(a) Copyright disputes aren't a new thing for courts or record companies. The latter sometimes lose and / or settle. They don't all litigate themselves into financial difficulty. Even for those companies in markets that are tough today they should be aware of that and should make their business and legal decisions accordingly.. Why should that change? This might alter the legal advice they get.

(b) "any other record company" was what you said before. Since most recorded music isn't over 70 years old and, we're not disputing that Classical is anything but a small %age of global music sales. Clearly, any other record company is likely to be recording music in (c) that they pay for as a matter of course.

(c) The Dr's renumeration isn't the significant sum in the case. [You wouldn't expect it to be, since your premise is that they don't sell many copies] They are in financial difficulty because they disputed his case and went to court and thus face a big legal bill, not because the Dr's (c) is worth a lot.

So any other record company who believes that the legal situation has changed would only have to pay for a specific case viz "the royalties on stuff that's out of copyright where the edition they used to record has had enough work done for the editor to get his own copyright". For most recorded music that's simply not the situation because the composer has a pulse.

To begin with, the figure you quote for global sales takes no account of the amount of profit generated by such a turnover

True. But, the point was that there was a global market for classical music, over the 25 year period that they have been in business. Whether they could get a %age of that and make that profitable is up to their business savvy.

If the situation has changed today [irrespective of this case] and the market isn't there, that's tough - but I'm not that convinced that the doom + gloom you hear around CD sales is always as doom + gloom as record companies would have you believe. Especially when you hear it said about all music.

The only point for me, w.r.t business issues, is whether hyperion went into business as a viable business or as a charity and whether they would  bail me and others who like classical music out if they had made lots of money.

If the former then, however sad the turn of the market, it's the risk they took when they didn't get a salary like the rest of us and went into business. If they've made more money over the years than burger flippers I don't see their problem.

But this is business stuff. If we care about discussing the current global market for classical music and the situation for recording labels we'd need all the facts and figures undisputed. Who the players are, how much money they are making or not. However I don't see the point in going down that route because it seems orthoganal to the discussion.

Hyperion aren't asking for money because the market is tough.

It could explain why they are skint though. OTOH, it could be that some folk are selling classical music and making money despite the market. The thing to note is that they knew before they went to court that they were skint.

But w.r.t the court case, there seems to be 3 arguments (a) Effect on others and (b) their legal bill (c) a few insults and / or critics thrown at the Dr.

I'm not convinced by (a) as discussed above.

The arguments for (b) seem to be focussing more on the market issues "how tough it is for a classical label today" than the actual legal bill itself. But they made the decision to go to court based upon legal advice and their business knowledge of the current market.

Losing might have been a surprise, but their current sales figures and the potential to lose in court and the consequences of losing should have been known and considered. Despite our disagreement about exactly what position they are in at the moment - I think you'll agree that they bet their business on the outcome of the case and lost.

If they were a bunch of music-loving, but naive buffoons who have survived in business, against the odds, despite having no clue about running a business and assessing the risk of all outcomes of this trial etc for the last 25 years, you might say "Hmm, bad luck", but that seems very unlikely.

I can't see any logic for donating. If you want classical music labels around, buy CDs from them - perhaps spread the money if the business acumen is common. If you don't want lawyers to get the money, don't give it them.

One reason perhaps - if they are appealing in the case and someone other than their website [or folk reporting on their press releases] does an indepth factual paper on exactly what the consequences could be for joe public. If it is in the public interest to appeal..

Or perhaps if they said "We've learnt our lesson and it won't happen again" some might think they are more viable than any other group of people who make recordings and sell them that exist or could be created. But I've seen no evidence of that on their site.

(c) The rights and wrongs of the Dr I covered before.

[rob47]

hahaha lawyers are so cool

[ahinton]

You've messed up the quoting a bit, but...

So it seems; apologies for that. Let's hope it works OK this time.

(a) Copyright disputes aren't a new thing for courts or record companies. The latter sometimes lose and / or settle. They don't all litigate themselves into financial difficulty. Even for those companies in markets that are tough today they should be aware of that and should make their business and legal decisions accordingly.. Why should that change? This might alter the legal advice they get.

I can't see this working out in practice. Don't forget that Hyperion won their case originally and that the original court decision was finally overturned in Dr S's favour. Furthermore, if members of the "classical" CD buying public didn't disagree so widely with the final decision, they'd not likely be moved to contribute as they are doing. I do agree with you, nevertheless, that buying more Hyperion CDs is a good way of helping this firm out (and it has already been mooted by previous contributors). But as to the legal advice, the difficulty that people have with the decision is that copyright is deemed in most people's minds to be established in respect of original work but that this is not what Dr S has actually done; the final court decision was so widely unexpected that it might even persuade lawyers to back off from such disputes in future. The decision seems to have been made without due understanding of the nature of the work that was done (for which, as I've already stated, Dr S was paid a fee in any case). Some years ago, I challenged a 50% share of copyright in Sorabji's Pastiche on Chopin's "Minute" Waltz and Sorabji's copyright share was increased considerably as a consequence; this, however, came about as a result of professional assessment of the original work done by both composers in order to arrive at an equitable share - something which unfortunately appears not to have been undertaken in the Sawkins case. Were the final court decision in that case to be widely accepted as valid, the way would likely be left open to every Tom, Dick and Harry to claim copyright on all manner of work that it is unreasonable to deem to be original.

(b) "any other record company" was what you said before. Since most recorded music isn't over 70 years old and, we're not disputing that Classical is anything but a small %age of global music sales. Clearly, any other record company is likely to be recording music in (c) that they pay for as a matter of course.

I find it hard to believe your suggestion that most recorded music isn't over 70 years old but I do agree what you write about the "classical" share of global market sales. Hyperion itself issues plenty of public domain music as well as copyright music (however many CDs is their Liszt piano music series, for starters?!), but it doesn't charge more for copyright music recordings than it does for public domain ones (any more than other record companies do).

(c) The Dr's renumeration isn't the significant sum in the case. [You wouldn't expect it to be, since your premise is that they don't sell many copies] They are in financial difficulty because they disputed his case and went to court and thus face a big legal bill, not because the Dr's (c) is worth a lot.

Indeed, Dr S's settlement is minuscule compared to the lawyers' bill which, frankly, represents very poor value for oney given the lack of proper professional expertise brought on board to pronounce in this case. I'm not even suggesting that Dr S sought to make a fortune out of this, either. Had I been Dr S, however, I would have thought twice about trying to establish any kind of copyright in my work if it was not original, especially if I did not have a clear idea in advance as to what specific kind of copyright I was trying to establish and why.

So any other record company who believes that the legal situation has changed would only have to pay for a specific case viz "the royalties on stuff that's out of copyright where the edition they used to record has had enough work done for the editor to get his own copyright". For most recorded music that's simply not the situation because the composer has a pulse.

Again, I can't agree the last bit (much as I appreciate your optimism!). The point at issue here is that, if a record company contracts an editor / musicologist to undertake specific editorial / musicological work for a predetermined fee, then the proper assessment of that fee should either take account of any purely editorial copyright value in the work to be undertaken or ignore it altogether and treat the editorial copyright as a separate issue; however, in the latter case, it should be the responsibility of the copyright owner of the edition to state beforehand his/her intention to establish a copyright in his/her editorial work and come to a sensible agreement in advance as to its value. Announcing an intent to try to establish a copyright value after the event and after entering into an agreement to be paid a fee for work to be done is, frankly, unrealistic and it must therefore be assumed that Dr S has nevertheless managed to get away with doing so. Even though, as a composer myself, I am all too acutely conscious of the need to derive as much as I can from copyright in my work, my conscience (yes, even though I'm a composer, I do have one!) would never have permitted me to try to pull off an after-the-event stunt such as Dr S has done.

there was a global market for classical music, over the 25 year period that they have been in business. Whether they could get a %age of that and make that profitable is up to their business savvy.

Had Hyperion insufficient business savvy to stay in business over that period (as many "classical" labels have failed to do), they'd have gone belly up long ago. The company has never before been beset by any challenge to its financial stability as has occurred as a direct result of the Sawkins case. Now that this case has gone the way it has, many people in the music industry (not just record companies) may well become far more wary of commissioning certain work in case a "copyright value" might be established in repsect of it, regardless of whether such copyright is genuinely valid.

If the situation has changed today [irrespective of this case] and the market isn't there, that's tough - but I'm not that convinced that the doom + gloom you hear around CD sales is always as doom + gloom as record companies would have you believe. Especially when you hear it said about all music.

It's not just the record companies that promote the doom and gloom scenario; it's others in the industry and the facts as I presented before. The company that recorded my string quintet isn't going around complaining about the industry doom and gloom, yet it doesn't take much effort to recognise that even recovery of costs would be a major achievement, let alone a healthy profit. One of the problems with the Thatcherite proselytising in the early 1980s was that, much as it was a good thing that businesses should be enterprising and be allowed and encouraged to take risks and derive healthy profits thereform, not everything in the world of commerce is by nature necessarily capable of such profit. How, for example, does one really put a true value - still less estimate a reasonable profit expectancy - on large-scale works such as the English composer Nicholas Maw's orchestral piece "Odyssey" or his opera "Sophie's Choice" to the extent of being able to predict the kind of overall net "profit" that they might reasonably generate? What the composer "makes" out of it in commission fees and subsequent royalties is one thing, but he'd certainly make exactly nothing out of the latter if someone didn't throw immense sums at public performances and productions (last Friday's BBCSO performance of the former work, broadcast last night, was allotted 8 full 3-hour rehearsal sessions but was given before a non-paying audience, so any "profit" thereon would be dependent upon the BBC claiming a due share of the licence fee - it doesn't take too much imagination to figure out what the now Lady Thatcher would have thought about that!). To return to the doom and gloom argument, I certainly don't agree that the "classical" record market is as bad as is often claimed by, for example, Norman Lebrecht, who's now been publicly signing its death warrant for a rather embarrassingly long time but, by definition, the vast majority of it is never likely to be a big profit spinner.

Hyperion aren't asking for money because the market is tough.

No, indeed they are not; they are doing so because they consider the decision to have been wholly unreasonable and are expecting to receive (and indeed are receiving) the donations that they are because most people who care about the matter happen to agree with Hyperion.

It could explain why they are skint though. OTOH, it could be that some folk are selling classical music and making money despite the market. The thing to note is that they knew before they went to court that they were skint.

That's nonsense, to the extent that Hyperion were not, nor were they claiming to be, skint before this issue occurred. That said, a three-quarter-million-pund legal bill as a consequence of an unreasonable court judgement would have been more than enough to put most "classical" record companies out of business immediately yet, for all that this one has undoubtedly damaged Hyperion, it is self-evident that it has not, thankfully, put it out of business.

But w.r.t the court case, there seems to be 3 arguments (a) Effect on others and (b) their legal bill (c) a few insults and / or critics thrown at the Dr.

I'm not convinced by (a) as discussed above.

The arguments for (b) seem to be focussing more on the market issues "how tough it is for a classical label today" than the actual legal bill itself. But they made the decision to go to court based upon legal advice and their business knowledge of the current market.

Losing might have been a surprise, but their current sales figures and the potential to lose in court and the consequences of losing should have been known and considered. Despite our disagreement about exactly what position they are in at the moment - I think you'll agree that they bet their business on the outcome of the case and lost.

With (a), the effect on others has yet to be determined; only time will tell. In any case, application of the law has been shown to be so unreliable in this case that it is not entirely unreasonable to posit the idea that the precedent that it might be seen to have set may also turn out to be unreliable - after all, the final court decision in the Dr S case was an overturn of another court decision. I don't agree with your statement on (b), for the extent to which the "classical" record market is, or is perceived to be, "tough" in itself is a separate issue from the one we are considering here which, fortunately, has so far proved to be quite exceptional. Fear of the succesful outcome of copyright litigation has fortunately not yet become an intrinsic factor in any independent and sanguine assessment of the toughtness or otherwise of that industry. As to the facts of the case, Hyperion could easily have lost the case far less expensively, but the litigant in the case chose to employ some of the most expensive lawyers in England to win his case. That said, it is worth bearing in mind that there's no use even getting the world's most skilful lawyers to force a court anywhere to pronounce in your favour if the person or organisation you are suing hasn't any money; perhaps this is just as well in the case of The Sorabji Archive, all of whose editors choose to undertake their editorial work voluntarily without any expectation either of fees for work done or of payment in respect of their just editorial copyright and all of whom have witnessed the outcome of the Hyperion case - I await the first lawsuit but, finnily enough, am not expecting one. Am I being too complacent here, or is my stance based purely on a lack of fear of the costs of losing any similar legal action because The Sorabji Archive has virtually no financial assets?

One reason perhaps - if they are appealing in the case and someone other than their website [or folk reporting on their press releases] does an indepth factual paper on exactly what the consequences could be for joe public. If it is in the public interest to appeal..

As best I understand it, Hyperion has not appealed the decision because, regardless of the public interest factor that the "classical" record buying public may see the issue as having, the British judicial system would not and does not see it as warrantable because it does not regard such a minority interest issue as worthy of the "public interest" card; it is hardly unlikely that Dr S's lawyers would have overlooked this likely aspect when advising their client...

Or perhaps if they said "We've learnt our lesson and it won't happen again" some might think they are more viable than any other group of people who make recordings and sell them..

If they said that, other might be tempted to learn the same lesson in advance of such dire and expensive consequences and decide to do something other - and less potentially risky - than recording certain "classical" music instead.

Best,

Alistair

[leahcim]

I find it hard to believe your suggestion that most recorded music isn't over 70 years old

Really? You accept it's not classical. But you think most CDs recorded today feature music from before 1930?

Have you heard of Elvis Presley or the Beatles perchance? Pink Floyd? No? Err, Val Doonican?

it is self-evident that it has not, thankfully, put it out of business.

I meant skint in the sense that they couldn't afford the legal bill.

They clearly cannot afford to not pay whoever turns up next time, unless they win, as every potential litigant and his lawyer now knows they've got to say yes. In that sense they've lost credibility on top of all the points they've made about their business problems that you don't accept.

How many times are you planning on bailing them out? Especially since, as your posts make clear, you don't believe the business of recording and selling classical music is viable, let alone if they didn't have a debt they can't pay.

You're wrong in that respect, but nevertheless when it suited your argument to claim "millions" wasn't possible you talk the whole business down at great length. Yet in another paragraph, when a business has clearly failed, you talk it up. I'd get someone else to write your business proposals if you ever need one

[ahinton]

Really? You accept it's not classical. But you think most CDs recorded today feature music from before 1930?

Have you heard of Elvis Presley or the Beatles perchance? Pink Floyd? No? Err, Val Doonican?

Of couse I have heard of all of them and, obviously, I agree that the industry as a whole produces mainly music written since 1935, but I have nowhere in this thread referred to accepting anything as "not classical" and have accordingly confined all my remarks specifically to the "classical" record industry, not the record industry as a whole - a fact that you conveniently choose not to notice.

I meant skint in the sense that they couldn't afford the legal bill.

You may have done, but since you wrote "they knew before they went to court that they were skint", I took you to mean that you believe that they knew they were skint before they had any idea what legal bill they might end up facing - in other words, that they knew that they were skint whether or not they would have to face such a legal bill. If that was not your intended meaning, then your lack of clarity led me to misunderstand you.

They clearly cannot afford to not pay whoever turns up next time, unless they win, as every potential litigant and his lawyer now knows they've got to say yes. In that sense they've lost credibility on top of all the points they've made about their business problems that you don't accept.

If "they win" such a subsequent action, they would by definition not have to pay any future litigant in any case (unless costs were awarded in whole or in part against them irrespecitve of their success in court) - but this is hardly the point, which is that, whilst it is indeed likely that Hyperion would be unable to sustain another such bill, it is difficult to imagine what might prompt you to think that there would even be a "next time". If Hyperion have truly lost credibility in their handling of this issue, why are people who disagree with the judgement continuing to make contributions to their cause? - it would seem that, whilst they may indeed have lost credibility with you and certain other like-minded people, there are self-evidently plenty more folk out there with whom they have not.

How many times are you planning on bailing them out? Especially since, as your posts make clear, you don't believe the business of recording and selling classical music is viable, let alone if they didn't have a debt they can't pay.

I didn't write that I was planning to bail them out and am unprepared to divulge whether or not I have made, or will make, a contribution or contributions to their cause by way of donation. Furthermore, I didn't write that the business of recording and selling classical music
is "unviable" - what I did instead was to clarify my belief that it is by no means an easy route to financial salvation and, by so saying, implied that there were therefore many other easier ways to generate profits from businesses. If everyone going into business chose only to start up the most profitable type of business (assuming that this were even possible to do with any degree of reliability), every business owner would likely be in the same business - and, as I have already indicated, that would not be the "classical" record business.

when it suited your argument to claim "millions" wasn't possible you talk the whole business down at great length. Yet in another paragraph, when a business has clearly failed, you talk it up. I'd get someone else to write your business proposals if you ever need one

The "millions" "argument" - if indeed argument it was - was instigated by you and not by me, as I indicated before when reminding readers that the word "millions" as introduced into this discussion was yours and not mine; that said, I adhere to the contention that few if any people with any business acumen would consider starting up a "classical" record business with the primary expectation of making "millions". Furthermore, I have not "talked up" any failed business either; you do not specify the business to which you refer when using the term "failed", but since the only specific one under discussion here has been Hyperion, I take the liberty to assume that you meant that company - in which case it is clear both from what I have written and from the facts of Hyperion's continued existence that this particular business has not "failed". I do not need anyone to write a business proposal for me, thank you all the same, but were I ever to do so, the litany of anomalies and misunderstandings that you have contributed to this thread would certainly not encourage me to solicit one from you...

I rather think that this one has now reached its natural conclusion (nadir, or whatever) - but of course I could be wrong...

Best,

Alistair

[leahcim]

Of couse I have heard of all of them and, obviously, I agree that the industry as a whole produces mainly music written since 1935

I think we're talking about different things then.

I note that you are saying when I said skint you took it to mean something else, but you didn't actually have the data to argue that particular something else. I thought you said you didn't want to make stuff up any more? Have you got their accounts? Bank details?

If I was trying to get donations, you'd be a great help with your "Their business isn't failing, they aren't skint!" stuff So I think it fair to say that you've already divulged you're not trying to help them at all

Your anecdote read to me as an unviable business. Don't get tied in semantics. You said what you said about your recording. My opinion is that described an unviable business. Have you seen dragon's den? If I were sat there and you told me that recording tale I'd say "You don't have a viable business" You seem to think what you said was representative, in fact you typed many many paragraphs supporting that. Ergo, without having to argue that you are obviously wrong, I see what you are saying meaning, [using my opinion about what is viable and not, and your opinion about selling classical music] as saying that Hyperion were unlikely to have a viable business before the debt.

Since the debt they clearly haven't.

Similary when you said "any recording company" and if someone says "most recorded music" I take it to mean, err, any recording company and most recorded music, not "classical recording companies" and "recordings over 70 years old"

Read the thread again with that in mind if you like, but I think it was clear. Now you know what I thought "any recording company" means, you'll see how your responses looked when I said it won't affect most recordings because they have (c) to deal with in most cases anyway.

Once again you've got confused by me saying you agreed most recorded music is "not classical" - which afaict you did agree, to mean I'm saying you butcher dogs or something?

You're getting tied in knots too I see worrying about your audience of "readers" That's probably one person, and I already know <drum roll> the millions argument is something you argued _against_  It was that simple to solve, again, relax,, I wasn't saying you left your cat out in the snow.

Interesting, but I thought there'd be more behind the prose, but it's back and there wasn't. So as you say perhaps natural conclusion is the best course

[ahinton]

I think we're talking about different things then.

I note that you are saying when I said skint you took it to mean something else that you don't actually have the data to argue once again [If I was trying to get donations, you'd be a great help with your "Their business isn't failing, they aren't skint!" stuff I think it fair to say that you've already divulged you're not trying to help them at all ]

It seems that you are quite determined to avoid clear meanings. Let's try once more. When you wrote of Hyperion being allegedly "skint" before going into action, I assumed quite reasonably that you meant that you thought that they were so whether or not the cost of subsequent legal action might further adversely affect the company. I have never professed to "have the data" to the extent of being privy to Hyperion's company accounts, but then my argument here was not based upon the possession of any such detailed knowledge. The fact remains that the Sawkins judgement has affected Hyperion's financial position seriosuly but at the same time has not put them out of business. The fact also remains that people who sympathise with Hyperion's position rather than with the judgement have chosen to make contributions to that company - whether as a matter of principle or otherwise is up to anyone to decide. You may think it "fair to say that (I)'ve already divulged (I'm) not trying to help them at all, but that is merely your opinion which is not founded either on fact or upon anything which I have divuulged. You are, of course, welcome to your own opinion, as long as you present it as such rather than as fact.

Similary when you said "any recording company" was in the same position as them much earlier, I took it to mean, err, any recording company.

Any recording company could have gotten themsleves into a position analoguous to that in which Hyperion found itself; furthermore, the judgement in the case under discussion could just as easily have gone against another record company in a similar position. To that extent, you are correct in your apparent understanding that when I said "any recording company" I meant just that. That said, some record companies less financially successful than Hyperion might well have gone to the wall as a consequence of such an action going against them; had this actually occurred, the lawyers would have come away less happy, would they not, were the means of paying their bill not so conveniently available? You should bear in mind that it is likely that some if not all of the contributors to Hyperion's fund have done so as a matter of principle in order to offer moral as well as financial support, but you should not take this from me - you should, if you're interested, seek out some of those contiributors and ask them why they've done it.

now you know what I thought "any recording company" meant you'll see how silly your replies looked when I said it won't affect most recordings,which, as you did agree, despite your protest that you haven't agreed to "not classical" are "not classical"

Your meaning is not entirely clear here (now there's news). I have already stated that the long-term outcome of this judgement for the "classical" music industry as a whole is as yet unclear, as it is too early to be certain what may happen, although it will be worth observing as time goes by. Do bear in mind, however, that i was referring here - as I have at all times done - to the "classical" sector of the indutry and not the music industry in its entirety. I have never suggested or sought to suggest that "it will affect most recordings" - i.e. regardless of whether they are "classical" or otherwise.

Sheesh you're getting tied in knots tooI see. The millions argument is something you argued _against_

I think not, though I cannot of course speak for you. The "millions" "argument" was a part of something about which you wrote and Iresponded - not the other way around. My only "argument" in respect of it is, as I have made clear previously, that most "classical" record companies do not expect to make "millions" from the sale of their produce; for the avoidance of doubt, I stress that I did not write this as any kind of value judgement, nor does it form any part of any opinion that I may have on the subject - I present it merely as a simple matter of historical fact.

If I were you, I'd have a think about starting another thread on a quite different subject - but then I'm not you, so you must do as you see fit.

Best,

Alistair

[leahcim]

It seems that you are quite determined to avoid clear meanings.

Apologies, but I've edited the message you just replied to while you were replying.

Let's try once more.

Nah let's not. It's just prose.

For example I just wrote "The millions argument is something you argued _against_"

But you've decided that was still wrong and replied "The "millions" argument was a part of something about which you wrote and I responded - not the other way around."

I agree with both statements. I can't see where I have said anything different? Your response as you describe with "I responsed" was the argument against where I had used "millions" - It's patently obvious to any halfwit that your argument against what I said came after I'd said it and not before

I never said you made the millions comment, You did use the word to say "who makes millions from classical music?" Which, despite your protest, is an argument you made about millions isn't it? It was a complete tangent to what I'd said. My argument was that "if they made millions we wouldn't get cash"  Your response was to argue that  no one makes millions from classical music. Different arguments, as my response suggesting you learn what "if" meant showed.

So when I said "when it suits your argument that no one makes millions" it's that I was referring to.

Nevertheless what you said was still a response to me originally using "millions" and I am aware of who said what and in what order - almost as though the entire conversation is still here

"If I were you, I'd have a think about starting another thread on a quite different subject - but then I'm not you

Heh be honest. What you want me to think is "He can have one more reply, say what he likes and I won't respond to it" and not only that, I'm supposed to believe that this thought is "If I were you"

That's what you're basically asking me to give you in your last 2 posts which ended by suggesting it should now end - after your response - what good timing Why hide it behind guff about starting threads though?

I'd say, "if I were you" then the evidence shows that I'd keep making replies as you have, no?

[ahinton]

I wrote "The millions argument is something you argued _against_" [I never said you made the millions argument, I know who said it, however you did disagree with me saying if they'd made millions they wouldn't send us cash, by a tangent asking who makes millions]

Again, the notion that record companies who make "millions" (assuming that some do) might or moght not "send us cash" is one which I have neither posited nor agreed with; it also seems not merely absurdly untenable but - rahter more iomportantly, not of any relevance to the Hyperion / Sawkins case.

You decided that was wrong and replied "The "millions" argument was a part of something about which you wrote and I responded - not the other way around."

I agree with both statements. I can't see where I have said anything different? Your response as you describe with "I responsed" was the argument against where I had used "millions" - It's patently obvious to any halfwit that your argument against what I said came after I'd said it and not before ]

I'm not denying the last statement you make here; after all, one cannot argue with a stance until one has heard or read it. I cannot see that this makes any difference whatsoever to the matter in hand, about which you and certain other like-minded people may take one view and i and other like-minded folk take the opposite view.

Heh be honest. What you want me to think is "He can have one more reply, say what he likes and I won't respond to it" and not only that, I'm supposed to believe that this thought is "If I were you"

That's what you're basically asking me to give you in your last 2 posts which ended by suggesting it should now end - after your response - what good timing Why hide it behind guff about starting threads though?

I would not be so presumptuous as to seek to tell you what to do or what not to do - nor could I be bothered to do so; there is now little if any purpose in my adding further responses to what you write if these will achieve only mere repetition of what has been said previously. When I wrote "if I were you", I meant just that, in terms of what followed those words; for the sake of clarity, however, I did add that I am not, so you must go ahead and do or write what you like. In suggesting that you might like to start a new thread rather than flogging the now rather dead horse that this one has become, I am once again not telling you what to do - a suggstion is a suggestion, no more, no less. Nothing is therefore being "hidden" behind the idea of your starting a new thread.

I'd say, "if I were you" then the evidence shows that I'd keep making replies as you have, no?

Since you mention it, the answer is indeed, as you suggest here, "no"  - or at least "not any longer" - unless you have something truly fresh to add to the discussion which it might be worth reminding you and other readers was of the Hyperion / Sawkins judgement and its possible long-term consequences for certain areas of the "classical" record industry.

Best,

Alistair

[leahcim]

Again, the notion that record companies who make "millions" (assuming that some do) might or moght not "send us cash" is one which I have neither posited nor agreed with;

I know. I'm neither saying you have posited it or posted it nor that you agree with it.

However, you did make a different argument about millions in response to that. See earlier in the thread. It was that I was referring to.

Since you mention it, the answer is indeed, as you suggest here, "no"

I was referring to the evidence of your actions, which appear to have disagreed with you at least 3 times

[ahinton]

I was referring to the evidence of your actions, which appear to have disagreed with you at least 3 times

I suspect that this is far too non-specific a remark to make sense to anyone other than yourself; whether you choose to elucidate is, of course, up to you.

Why start a new thread indeed - when you could have even more fum starting a new "Classical" record company...

Best,

Alistair

[leahcim]

I suspect that this is far too non-specific a remark

Indeed, it should say 4 now

[It's the number of times you've made replies [i,e your action has been to make a reply] contrary to the answer you claimed when I asked "If I were you the evidence shows I would keep replying, no?"  i.e the evidence of your actions tells the truth and has disagreed with you, to avoid being non-specific given the incremental nature, a number of times now. 4 at last count.]

In short, what you do and what you say are clearly 2 different things, at least with respect to replying in this thread

Why start a new thread indeed - when you could have even more fum starting a new "Classical" record company...

I couldn't see the point in specialising. Perhaps it made sense in 1980. There's one company ripe for taking over that we know of though if that's your ambition.

Depending whether you think their back catalogue will be worth something if / when the formats change from CD and taking into account any further liability w.r.t the ruling. Clearly "going to CD" made a lot of money, even for classical, but I'm not so sure the buying public are keen to repeat that exercise though. Now they've seen they can copy it themselves onto new media. But downloads of music and DVD formats are growing, so there's probably money in what they've already got if it's used wisely.

It's got to be worth more than their debt even if the current revenues it generates aren't.. A new company with that catalogue, might not have the potential problem that the old one, with it's widely published financial problems could have getting folk to record "new" stuff. [e.g "Will you record this for us?" "Err, will you still be in business and have the money to pay me if I do? Will you be encouraging customers to buy my CD or asking them for donations? Will the lawyers get the money? Have you any money to promote it? Hmm.I think I might take up your competitor's offer and record for them...thanks all the same" etc etc]

[rc]

These arguements can be funny.

Well, I'm a little slow, but I think Leachim's original point has just dawned on me: Why donate to a business that can make its own revenue? It makes more sense to save your charity dollars for an organization that can't make any money on its own.

Still, after checking out the site, I've got visions of WTC and Haydn Symphonies dancing 'round in my head. In some odd way, they've got enough business savvy to have made a customer of me.

[ahinton]

There's one company ripe for taking over that we know of though if that's your ambition.

Your penchant for non-specific statements is at least displayed consistently. In the absence forthe time being of more precise details of the company to which you refer, I will confine myself to confirming that I have no idea of that company's identity and, to your reference to "my ambition", I can respond only that I similarly have no idea what that personal ambition might be, since I neither own, nor have shares in, nor am an employee of, any record company, so it is hard to see how I could have any real "ambition" in respect of something with which I have no connection and whose identity has yet to be revealed to me by you!

Depending whether you think their back catalogue will be worth something if / when the formats change from CD and taking into account any further liability w.r.t the ruling. Clearly "going to CD" made a lot of money, even for classical, but I'm not so sure the buying public are keen to repeat that exercise though. Now they've seen they can copy it themselves onto new media. But downloads of music and DVD formats are growing, so there's probably money in what they've already got if it's used wisely.

It's got to be worth more than their debt even if the current revenues it generates aren't.. A new company with that catalogue, might not have the potential problem that the old one, with it's widely published financial problems could have getting folk to record "new" stuff. [e.g "Will you record this for us?" "Err, will you still be in business and have the money to pay me if I do? Will you be encouraging customers to buy my CD or asking them for donations? Will the lawyers get the money? Have you any money to promote it? Hmm.I think I might take up your competitor's offer and record for them...thanks all the same" etc etc]

See the above remarks; as already indicated, I cannot involve myself in further comment at this stage, as I do not know what I am supposed to comment about.

Best,

Alistair

[prometheus]

It's no real use discussing with Leachim. He will twist the words of every argument so to be able to construct, or rather fabricate, a counter-agrument. And he is quite good at it. But it will lead nowhere.

[ahinton]

It's no real use discussing with Leachim. He will twist the words of every argument so to be able to construct, or rather fabricate, a counter-agrument. And he is quite good at it. But it will lead nowhere.

Yes, this is indeed sadly true, on the basis of the fairly substantial amount (albeit less than substantial in any other detectable sense) of supporting evidence in the form of his frequent endeavours to present what is presumably intended to be construed as some kind of legitimate, joined-up argument. He seems to me to be rather less "good at it" than you take him to be, so perhaps I am missing some kind of subtly esoteric nuances here, as I usually come away from reading his posts thinking that, whilst he appears on the surface to be taking the subject matter seriously (for which I have indeed credited him), the conclusions he appears to form are generally at best obtuse and inconclusive. You will doubtless have noticed that I have sought to draw this particular part of the current thread to a close on the basis that nothing fresh appears to be emanating from this source, but apparently to little avail, the most recent post about the alleged ripeness for takeover of an unidentified record company being perhaps the most puzzling of all.

To return (mercifully!) to the subject matter, I do consider it presumptuous of Leachim or anyone else to seek to deprecate the efforts of those people whose disagreement with the entire principle (or lack thereof) of the final court judgement in the case concerned has prompted them to make donations to the company concerned; for the avoidance of doubt, what I mean here is that, even had Hyperion had the financial strength of a company the size of Microsoft, the principles in the case would have been no different, therefore those who disagree the final court judgement would have thought no differently about the outcome and might therefore still have felt inclined, as a matter of principle, to make contributions to the company in honour of those principles.

Best,

Alistair

[leahcim]

Your penchant for non-specific statements is at least displayed consistently. In the absence forthe time being of more precise details of the company to which you refer, I will confine myself to confirming that I have no idea of that company's identity and, to your reference to "my ambition",

"you" and "your" are often used in a generic sense. The company in question is the one you reminded "readers" we were talking about a few posts earlier.

[leahcim]

It's no real use discussing with Leachim.

But here you are anyway

[ahinton]

"you" and "your" are often used in a generica sense. The company in question is the one you reminded "readers" we were talking about a few posts earlier.

Whilst I will ignore the first part of what you write here as, once more, your meaning is unclear, I must state that, if you are referring to Hyperion, it still puzzles me why you or anyone else might assume that I have - or indeed could even lay legitimate claim to - anything remotely resembling a personal "ambition" about its takeover - even assuming that it was ripe for such takeover and that someone might be interested in so doing (neither of which is apparent to me)...

Best,

Alistair

[leahcim]

Yes, this is indeed sadly true, on the basis of the fairly substantial amount (albeit less than substantial in any other detectable sense) of supporting evidence in the form of his frequent endeavours to present what is presumably intended to be construed as some kind of legitimate, joined-up argument. He seems to me to be rather less "good at it" than you take him to be.

I think the fact that you chose to reply to his post rather than others that have appeared on the subject you've been begging "readers" to return to speaks volumes.

I think there's some evidence prior to this thread to show that if there's anything in an argument you are having with someone else, you'll quickly reach the point where you are typing more and more like a ponce and littering your posts with fake "I don't understand what $anyword meant, I don't know what that referred to" in response

AFAICT in that respect I've got your vote of confidence.

I do feel more flattered that you put that defensive verbal diarrhea mit feigned ignorance trait aside for a few posts and wrote some good responses instead, at least once you'd figured out how to use the quote feature. Thanks. We have Shakespeare, Dickens, Coleridge et al, where I come from, so I've seen the real thing

The constant "let's end it" but continued posting. The worry about your "readers" and playing to the audience in that respect and the ad hominen asides with Prom whose issue is with some other thread that he's taken personally. Though he once said IIRC, that comments I made about the materials and method of piano manufacture were "personal". So caveat emptor, you've probably insulted him without knowing it just by clicking reply Not the least because you found something to disagree with in what he said. Which is his main bone of contention with everyone else that has argued with him on the board 

So I realise now at this point if I said your surname is Hinton you'd type anything rather than acknowledge that it was true Perhaps with something like "Surname? Whilst it behooves me to administer a response in that regard, one cannot recall what a surname is at all so I shall ignore that. A surname? What is a surname? I never said I wanted a surname. I don't want readers to think that I have a surname."

[leahcim]

Whilst I will ignore the first part of what you write here as, once more, your meaning is unclear,

The word "you" or "your" in a post doesn't necessarily mean "Alistair Hinton"

If the Queen had said it, she'd have probably said "If that is one's ambition" however in informal English "your" is often used.

i.e, the person whose ambition it might have been, was anybody at all, but nobody in particular. A generic person.

I'm sure that you've understood that concept perfectly for many years up until today though and no doubt will remember it once again very soon, now this thread is finished  Just as I'm sure you were perfectly aware from the content in that post and the thread it is in which company was being referred to.

[ahinton]

I think the fact that you chose to reply to his post rather than others that have appeared on the subject you've been begging "readers" to return to speaks volumes.

A quick check of the thread will show to anyone prepared to accept what he/she sees there that I have responded to a number of others' posts in this thread and in the one which it generated.

I think there's some evidence prior to this thread to show that if there's anything in an argument you are having with someone else, you'll quickly reach the point where you are typing more and more like a ponce and littering your posts with fake "I don't understand what $anyword meant, I don't know what that referred to" in response

I take it that it is the "generic" "you" to whom you refer here; I do so in this instance because when I write that I do not understand something it is purely and simply because I don't understand it.

I do feel more flattered that you put that defensive verbal diarrhea mit feigned ignorance trait aside for a few posts and wrote some good responses instead, at least once you'd figured out how to use the quote feature. Thanks. We have Shakespeare, Dickens, Coleridge et al, where I come from, so I've seen the real thing

Now this paragraph might be taken to include both "generic" and "actual" "you", but rather than succumb to the temptation to be selective as to which might be which, all I will say here is that I appreciate your remarks about my "good responses" just as I expressed appreciation earlier in this thread for your having taken its subject seriously. I apologised appropriately for my misuse of the quote facility at around that time. As to the great men of letters, we (that's to say neither the "Royal" we of English cliché nor "you and I" but "my countryfolk") have Scott, Burns, MacDiarmid et al (from which you will deduce that I originate from the land next door).

The constant "let's end it" but continued posting. The worry about your "readers" and playing to the audience in that respect and the ad hominen asides with Prom whose issue is with some other thread that he's taken personally. Though he once said IIRC, that comments I made about the materials and method of piano manufacture were "personal". So caveat emptor, you've probably insulted him without knowing it just by clicking reply

Since I have not sought to "insult" anyone here, I can comment only that the matter of whether or not I may inadvertently insulted "Prom" is surely for Prom alone to decide.

So I realise now at this point if I said your surname is Hinton you'd type anything rather than acknowledge that it was true Perhaps with something like "Surname? Whilst it behooves me to administer a response in that regard, one cannot recall what a surname is at all so I shall ignore that. A surname? What is a surname? I never said I wanted a surname. I don't want readers to think that I have a surname."

Is this an argument? A statement of fact? An opinion? A fantasy? Whatever it may or may not be, if indeed it is anything at all, I will confirm to you and to anyone else that might care a fig that my surname - which is indeed Hinton, irrespective of what anyone may call me or think it to be - is not one that I am about to deny as such to anyone - least of all to you! The point, if any, that you may be trying to make, is on this occasion even more obscure than usual...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

The word "you" or "your" in a post doesn't necessarily mean "Alistair Hinton"

You will note from my response to your previous post that I had read this one from you before so doing; I am replying to your two posts separately because I have not yet developed the expertise to combine quotes from two posts into one response. Sad, isn't it?!

If the Queen had said it, she'd have probably said "If that is one's ambition" however in informal English "your" is often used.

You are almost certainly correct here - although I doubt that Her Majesty would have said it to me personally...

i.e, the person whose ambition it might have been, was anybody at all, but nobody in particular. A generic person.

Yes, I do now understand your use of English in this regard and it is indeed one which I recognise; that said, however, I still do not understand why you chose to adopt this form of English usage in this context since, as far as I can tell, the only people who could realistically harbour any kind of "ambition" in regard to a takeover of Hyperion would be the company wishing to take it over and possible Hyperion itself, rather than the "anybody at all, but nobody in particular" that you mention above and, since I am unaware that any such takeover has even been mooted, it seems oddly premature - or off-topic - even to mention it, it seems to me...

now this thread is finished 

Are we (by which in this instance I mean readers of this thread) to assume that you have forum moderator status and have used it to end a thread, or do you mean that you have finished your contirbutions thereto?

Just as I'm sure you were perfectly aware from the content in that post and the thread it is in which company was being referred to.

I did at first think that you might indeed have intended to refer to Hyperion (since it is the company that is the main subject of the thread), but the remainder of what you wrote in this context made that far from clear, so "perfectly aware" hardly covers my understanding of it.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

This thread reminds me of the 2 famous lawyers in the "Monkey Trial"

[ahinton]

This thread reminds me of the 2 famous lawyers in the "Monkey Trial"

Aha! And well it may do (sadly). Your point is well taken and accepted (by me, at least). The point (of the thread itself, that is) is surely to discuss the consequences of the outcome of the court case which finally went against Hyperion (quite wrongly, in my view) and it would restore a good deal of sense to the thread if other contributors reverted to contributions to that potentially valuable discussion, especially since the outcome of the case may have other possibly widespread repercussions in the industry. I welcome your input, especially if it achieves the object of getting readers and contributors back to the proper subject matter referred to by its originator.

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Okay, in an attempt to return the thread to some semblance of order, I'd like to make a few comments.

As I see it, the decision has two consequences. Firstly, that a company with a history of releasing "interesting", non-standard material has been placed in an unnecessarily precarious financial position; and secondly, that a strange precedent has been set for copyright on edited scores. Is it now the case (at least in the UK), that if someone is hired to edit a musical score for whatever purpose, they gain copyright control of it? X edits the fingering of the Chopin Etudes and acquires copyright? I may be missing something through being not fully cognizant of the minutiae pertaining to the case, but it seems to me that the implications of the decision could be far-reaching.

[leahcim]

Sad, isn't it?!

No.

I can do it though...

Is this an argument? A statement of fact? An opinion? A fantasy?

It was parody.

or do you mean that you have finished your contirbutions thereto?

How can I answer that without making a contribution? Since I can't I may as well, although yes, my intention was to stop posting [Not the least because Michael Lake CBE rang and said he was already busy doing it so I can stop ]

Yes, I do now understand your use of English in this regard and it is indeed one which I recognise

I'm impressed, but I'm not that convinced yet. See below.

I still do not understand why you chose to adopt this form of English usage in this context since, as far as I can tell, the only people who could realistically harbour any kind of "ambition" in regard to a takeover of Hyperion would be the company wishing to take it over and possible Hyperion itself

Originally you said, the off topic [which is why the reply to it was off topic] "Why start a new thread indeed - when you could have even more fum starting a new "Classical" record company"

My response was "I couldn't see the point in specialising. Perhaps it made sense in 1980. There's one company ripe for taking over that we know of though if that's your ambition."

i.e if someone's ambition is to "have even more fum starting a new classical recording company" rather than start threads, I gave my opinion that I couldn't see the point in specialising today and that there is a company, that records classical, ripe for takeover as an alternative to starting a new one from scratch.

So the ambition in question isn't really for taking over anything at all, it's the ambition to have more fun by your suggested method.

Thus the "your ambition" matches the "you" in your comment and as such, even if it were ambiguous, if you understood the English usage as you claim above, you would know that you couldn't possibly have been referred to by it. The only way it could have been you is if you had said "I could have more fum starting a "classical" recording company"

But in any case, it was hypothetical discussion, entertaining your hypothetical / jokey suggestion "to start a company instead of a new thread". I originally took the requests for new threads to mean that you didn't want to discuss the original topic anymore [at least with me] so I discussed something else that you wrote instead.

However, I've since considered [both because you kept posting despite saying you were stopping and because of what you said above about the sadness of cut and pasting between posts] that the actual appeal of a new thread was probably the opportunity it would provide for you to post a message without having to use quote, rather than an offhand way of trying to end the discussion. Had I realised that possibility before I would have ignored the line completely.

I did at first think that you might indeed have intended to refer to Hyperion

Yes I know.

"perfectly aware" hardly covers my understanding of it.

I'd have said "Perfectly aware" would not only cover it, but would probably wrap around it 4 or more times But we agree at least that "perfectly aware" isn't an apt description in relation to your understanding. Mea culpa, apologies if I suggested you understood something, moreso if I gave the impression that the understanding of it was at all perfect.

[leahcim]

Is it now the case (at least in the UK), that if someone is hired to edit a musical score for whatever purpose, they gain copyright control of it?

That would depend on the contract they have. Most employees, for example, have contracts that explicitly give any IP they create at work to their employer [some try to go further as well]

So, if you hire someone to create you something [a website, a edition of chopin, a wedding video or whatever] and you want the copyright, if any, then you'd probably have no issue at all with this ruling if you add a paragraph or three to the contract, either giving you the rights you want [if they want to retain copyright] or giving you the copyright.

But, in general, if there is no contract then the law is the same with respect to what you need to do to establish a copyright violation as it was before. What might have changed is the ruling you get if you can present a case similar to this one [i.e the precedent].

But there are no hard and fast rules as such. The next editor might get a ruling from the court that the work he has done isn't substantial enough to count as an original work [or whatever other reasons there might be] ...and then, perhaps, he will bleat that the evil corporate record company with its fancy expensive team of lawyers beat the poor likkle  editor guy on his website and ask for money

For anything newly recorded, you'd get the author's consent, pay him royalties [or take the risk]. That might mean upping your selling price, cutting your profit or saying "sod it" and risking that the editor will lose if he decides to sue. So there's not really a great threat there. [Except perhaps for the argument that classical music isn't profitable enough for someone else to get a cut]

The real issue is probably - how much work there is that was distributed under the assumption that an edition isn't a new original work and thus the editor can't get a copyright. An assumption which this ruling appears to have negated. In other words, if you've been in business for 25 years with stacks of CDs, the potential liability if more editors decide the ruling means it's pay day, could be big.

[ahinton]

That would depend on the contract they have. Most employees, for example, have contracts that explicitly give any IP they create at work to their employer [some try to go further as well]

So, if you hire someone to create you something [a website, a edition of chopin, a wedding video or whatever] and you want the copyright, if any, then you'd probably have no issue at all with this ruling if you add a paragraph or three to the contract, either giving you the rights you want [if they want to retain copyright] or giving you the copyright.

But, in general, if there is no contract then the law is the same with respect to what you need to do to establish a copyright violation as it was before. What might have changed is the ruling you get if you can present a case similar to this one [i.e the precedent].

But there are no hard and fast rules as such. The next editor might get a ruling from the court that the work he has done isn't substantial enough to count as an original work [or whatever other reasons there might be] ...and then, perhaps, he will bleat that the evil corporate record company with its fancy expensive team of lawyers beat the poor likkle  editor guy on his website and ask for money

For anything newly recorded, you'd get the author's consent, pay him royalties [or take the risk]. That might mean upping your selling price, cutting your profit or saying "sod it" and risking that the editor will lose if he decides to sue. So there's not really a great threat there. [Except perhaps for the argument that classical music isn't profitable enough for someone else to get a cut]

The real issue is probably - how much work there is that was distributed under the assumption that an edition isn't a new original work and thus the editor can't get a copyright. An assumption which this ruling appears to have negated. In other words, if you've been in business for 25 years with stacks of CDs, the potential liability if more editors decide the ruling means it's pay day, could be big.

A welcome return to good sense here! Indeed, in UK, many people wanting to hire others to undertake work which might in itself entitle those doing the work to establish copyrights in all or part of it will offer them contracts as employees rather than contract them as self-employed individuals; this way, the employer is deemed to "own", in every sense, the work so done. Naturally, in cases where it might become possible in principle to establish a copyright after the event, it would be wise of the employer to specify in such employed contracts that the employer shall own all rights to the work done at all times, in order to lessen the risk that those who do the work try to establish copyrights in it afterwards. Had Hyperion done this, it is far less likely that the Sawkins case would even have gotten off the ground in the first place - a fact of which Hyperion is now no doubt aware. This procedure works not only for edited music but for software writing and all other kinds of work that entails the potential creation of "intellectual property". The only circumstance of which I am aware in which this can prove problematic is where the terms of the employer's contract would obligate the contractee to include in his work material which he/she had done previously, independently of any such contract and in which a copyright might already have been established or establishable; in such circumstances, successful agreement without the risk of subsequent legislation can only be reliably achieved if this factor is understood by both parties before the contract is prepared and signed and that the contract is accordingly worded in such a way as to suit both parties' desires and interests - and, if such agreement cannot be reached, then the contract doesn't get signed. The situation in countries other than UK may well, of course, be quite different.

There are indeed "no hard and fast rules as such" - and the recent Hyperion case demonstrats that those rules which do exist may be open not only to misunderstanding and misinterpretation but also to convenient adaptation in the hope that no professional expert assessment gets brought into the arena of any subsequent lawsuit; as Leahcim implies, judgements can thus be far less than clear-cut in advance than ought to be the case, since they can literally go one way or the other rather unpredictably. The expectation of getting them right (or as right as realistically can be) without the aid of expert independent assessors in such cases is not unakin to the kind of thing that leads some to believe that jury trial is just not good enough in, for example, complex and esoteric fraud cases.

Leahcim's final paragraph deals with precisely what I was writing about earlier when I referred to the potential consequences - i.e. the possible "knock-on" effect - for the "classical" music industry. At this relatively short remove, there does not appear to have been a sudden avalanche of past editors clamouring for cash on the back of this ruling, but it may be early days yet.

Another aspect of this (although admittedly not one that is directly applicable in the Hyperion case) is where a publisher, record company, etc. sells pre-existing edited material (as distinct from material that they commission from an editor in advance of making the product) in cases where the editor, whether or not he/she has actually established his/her copyright, has given permission for its use without demanding payment in respect of its actual or potential copyright status; in such cases, asking for payment after the event would involve a change of mind by the editor and would therefore in general be very difficult to achieve.

The only part of Leahcim's posting here with which I am not entirely in agreement (although I see this as a difference of emphasis rather than disagreement per se) is that I do not believe that it is customary practice for record companies deliberately to set higher prices for recordings of copyright material than for those of public domain material

Best,

Alistair