Youtube and Copyright

[ahinton]

So, if someone plays publicly from memory and they are sued, it is a valid defence to say "I listened to X's recording and learnt it that way - I've never seen the score"?

If this kind of thing happened, there would be no need for the performer to be sued. As I have said more times than I care to remember, it is in most cases the responsibility of the performance venue licensee to make appropriate returns in respect of the music performed at that venue and then to settle any invoices in respect of copyright royalties; under such circumstances, why would the performer risk being sued personally? OK, if the licensee of the performance venue did not make the proper returns and someone provided sufficiently watertight evidence to the licensor that the licensee had failed to do so, the licensee might be sued and or lose the license. Likewise, if the performer failed to notify the licensee that he/she had performed a work in copyright and the licensee was sued despite having acted in good faith in making the appropriate returns, that licensee could then sue the performer for failing fully to notify the licensee of his/her programme details - this wholly exceptional situation is the only conceivable circumstance in which one could imagine that a performer could be sued - and in this instance it really would be the performer's own fault.

Similarly, with such things as the written-out versions of Horowitz and Volodos pieces that are floating around the web, if you play from them, the only breach of copyright committed is the copyright of the person who wrote the score out?

Absolutely not. Anyone who simply copies out a Horowitz or Volodos piece HAS no copyright in their work, for the intellectual property (in other words that property in which copyright rests) is not that of the copyist but that of Horowitz or Volodos; the copyist will simply have made a copy. No breach of copyright will have occurred simply as a consequence of making such copies, but if they are then publicly distributed and/or if performers then publicly perform, broadcast or record the music so copied, a copyright violation will then have occurred for which the Estate of Horowitz or Volodos or his agents could - i.e. would be entitled to - sue.

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Tbis is a little off the original track, but the Horowitz and Volodos transcriptions don't exist in any formal sense. So if someone has written them out by hand, and then they are performed from this score, I don't really understand why that is a breach of copyright whilst it is acceptable for someone to have learnt the music by ear and to play it back.

[pianowolfi]

I found it

If you believe that we have removed a video that you uploaded in error and that you are the copyright owner or have permission, you can file a counter notice and let us know.

[ahinton]

Tbis is a little off the original track, but the Horowitz and Volodos transcriptions don't exist in any formal sense. So if someone has written them out by hand, and then they are performed from this score, I don't really understand why that is a breach of copyright whilst it is acceptable for someone to have learnt the music by ear and to play it back.

They do indeed exist; what you mean here is that they do not exist in the sense of having been written down, but there is a recorded document from each pianist that testifies to their existence - ergo (etc., etc.)...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

All of this will kill 20th/21st century music.

If i was a composer and somebody wanted to play my music in public, i would pay them not sue them.

Thal

[ahinton]

I found it
Quote

If you believe that we have removed a video that you uploaded in error and that you are the copyright owner or have permission, you can file a counter notice and let us know.

And it makes much more sense now! Thanks for sharing this info.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

They do indeed exist; what you mean here is that they do not exist in the sense of having been written down, but there is a recorded document from each pianist that testifies to their existence - ergo (etc., etc.)...

Best,

Alistair

Yeh, but if it was never written down, how can a copyright exist.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Actually, what I mean is that the scores have not been written out by the pianists in question - but that people have listened to them and have written out a score of the music, by listening, presumably repeatedly, to a recorded performance by the pianist who created the piece.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Eg: Horowitz is known to have never written out his Carmen Fantasy: that doesn't stop Volodos or others from playing it. I have a pdf of Horowitz's Carmen. Does that make the situation clear?

[ahinton]

All of this will kill 20th/21st century music.

No, it won't - and, indeed, no, it hasn't - for "all of this" has been around for a good many years and yet you have only to look very briefly at the sheer amount of new music that there is around to realise that it's doing nothing of the sort.

If i was a composer and somebody wanted to play my music in public, i would pay them not sue them.

But, my dear Thal, you are NOT a composer (or at least not as far as I know) and, if you were, why would you expect to pay people to play your work when no one else expects to "pay" anyone else for the privilege of working? Just imagine a civil servant (what a quaint term that is!) being expected to pay for the privilege of going to work! If you'd read what I'd written about licensing arrangements for performance venues, you'd realise that, in many cases, you'd not even have to find yourself in a position where you'd have any reason to sue anyone! And, fopr another thing, supposing that you could not afford to pay someone to perform your work? Which of us could afford to hire, for example, the BBC Symphony Orchestra  and a decent conductor to perform one of our works? Not I, that's for sure!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Yeh, but if it was never written down, how can a copyright exist.

It exists all right, simply on the basis that the material itself exists; it would just be harder to prove copyright ownership in court if it's not written down.

Best,

Alistair

[imbetter]

pianowolfi is going to get to 1000 posts off this thread..

[ahinton]

Actually, what I mean is that the scores have not been written out by the pianists in question - but that people have listened to them and have written out a score of the music, by listening, presumably repeatedly, to a recorded performance by the pianist who created the piece.

I know exactly what you mean - and it is correct - but it doesn't alter the situation beyond what I have written in my reply to Thal's remarks on this.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Eg: Horowitz is known to have never written out his Carmen Fantasy: that doesn't stop Volodos or others from playing it. I have a pdf of Horowitz's Carmen. Does that make the situation clear?

It doesn't need to; I think that the situation was already clear in realtion to this and other pieces that are not - or are not known to have been - written down. The other factor which I have not mentioned (and which ought to be self-explanatory but which may nevertheless not be so to everyone here) is that just because there has been a copyright infringement does not automatically mean that someone will sue as a consequence; this, however, is no different to any other infringement of the law, for if no one prosecutes, there's no case to answer.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

But, my dear Thal, you are NOT a composer (or at least not as far as I know)

I have written a transcription of Tchaikovsky's 1812 overture for orchestra and 6 arses.

The video evidence will be forthcoming.

If anybody is capable of reproducing it, they have my permission. I hereby waive all rights.

Thal

[ahinton]

I have written a transcription of Tchaikovsky's 1812 overture for orchestra and 6 arses.

The video evidence will be forthcoming.

If anybody is capable of reproducing it, they have my permission. I hereby waive all rights.

Thal

You don't need to waive anything, old chap; Pete's been dead for 103 years, so he's been out of copyright for quite a while.

But why only six arses? And are they pitched in E fart or B fart? Just curious...

Whatever the answers to that, I look forward to that video evidence almost as much as I look forward to similar evidence that "pianistimo" has taken her shoes off for you for 10 bucks (see the "Limericks" thread"...)

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Lol.

Alistair, sorry to take up your time on this (I must be having a slow night) but:

If someone plays a Horowitz or other transcription that the pianist never wrote out, are they potentially vulnerable to breach of copyright action? (If so, I struggle to see why.)

Edit: I should have added that the hypothetical pianist died within the last 70 years.

[thalbergmad]

Lol.

Alistair, sorry to take up your time on this (I must be having a slow night) but:

If someone plays a Horowitz or other transcription that the pianist never wrote out, are they potentially vulnerable to breach of copyright action? (If so, I struggle to see why).

Yes, it is hintolectual property.

Thal

[ahinton]

If someone plays a Horowitz or other transcription that the pianist never wrote out, are they potentially vulnerable to breach of copyright action? (If so, I struggle to see why.)

Edit: I should have added that the hypothetical pianist died within the last 70 years.

As I have already indicated, almost certainly not. If the public performance takes place in a venue licensed for public performances, it is usually the responsibility of the venue licensee, not the performer, to make the appropriate performing rights returns and then pay what has to be paid when invoiced.

Best,

Alistair

[elspeth]

Maybe that's the real crux of the problem. If youtube were to be defined as providing a 'virtual concert hall', it would therefore be responsible for the performing rights issues and that would be a nightmare given how little control the site administrators have over what gets posted. People posting videos would have to be charged and made to register what editions of music etc so that all the licensing could be sorted out. Maybe it's time for a fresh look at how licensing is managed for the internet - or for what content can and can't be posted on sites like youtube.

[ahinton]

Yes, it is hintolectual property.

Thal

No - nice one, but - as our Susan might say - "render unto Horowitz's Estate the things that were Horowitz's and render unto Hinton the things that are Hinton's"...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Maybe that's the real crux of the problem. If youtube were to be defined as providing a 'virtual concert hall', it would therefore be responsible for the performing rights issues and that would be a nightmare given how little control the site administrators have over what gets posted. People posting videos would have to be charged and made to register what editions of music etc so that all the licensing could be sorted out. Maybe it's time for a fresh look at how licensing is managed for the internet - or for what content can and can't be posted on sites like youtube.

This is a most sensible suggestion, for it should be perfectly obvious that, when any new means of public accessibility to music are created, the means whereby they fall into place with conditions affecting pre-existing media should properly be addressed. In other words, the kinds of situation that affect public concerts, broadcasts and recordings need similarly to affect posting of copyright material on the internet.

Best,

Alistair

[counterpoint]

It's so simple:

when it's not possible, to play new music without getting trouble with the lawyers,

the music will not be played. Fullstop.

All people are happy - great 

[ahinton]

It's so simple:

when it's not possible, to play new music without getting trouble with the lawyers,

the music will not be played. Fullstop.

Almost certainly true in almost all cases; the only problem here is that your construct is an irrelevant invention of your own; just look at the sheer amount of new music that IS being played, broadcast and recorded and you will surely realise this. If what you suggest is - or risks becoming - true, why is so much new music played?

Best,

Alistair

[counterpoint]

just look at the sheer amount of new music that IS being played, broadcast and recorded and you will surely realise this.

Do you speak about pop music?

[ahinton]

Do you speak about pop music?

I wasn't referring to pop music, but there's no real need not to include it in what I was writing about; my point is that there is a vast amount of new music being performed, recorded and broadcast and so the notion that new music is in its death throes because one cannot perform it without inviting lawsuits is simply too fatuous for words, disproved as it so signally is by the wealth of evidence of such new performances, recordings and broadcasts.

Best,

Alistair

[opus10no2]

Yes and Bach would have been sued for copying and transcribing Vivaldi over and over

Btw yesterday i did an improv on Rihanna's "Unfaithful".

hahaha randomly wkd song.

This is allowed apparently.

[pianowolfi]

hahaha randomly wkd song.

This is allowed apparently.

Lol yeah. I love this song

[ronde_des_sylphes]

*bump*

In light of recent events, I thought I would check who had demanded the removal of wolfi's video.

Surprise surprise

Universal.

[thalbergmad]

hahahahahahahaha

Morons

[quasimodo]

For a law to be meaningful, it takes the following conditions:
-   There is a large consensus in society about the moral legitimacy of its motives and stipulations,
-   The law effectively serves society’s interests,
-   The law has a reasonable degree of enforceability.

It appears that Intellectual property laws - and particularly the copyright part - do not meet any of those conditions.

1)   In terms of moral grounds, the concept of intellectual property is far from having unanimous support. Thomas Jefferson, for example questioned its validity in the process of writing the Constitution of the USA, stating that allowing such thing as copyrights and patents accounted to allowing the Government to grant monopoly privileges (albeit for a limited time) to private entities. Let’s look at what he wrote:

“If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.”

https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html

From this perspective, we can see how specious is the rhetorical ploy used by Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) proponents of equating IP infringement to theft: if someone steals my car, he deprives me of the use of that car, as well as the object car (as a tangible asset bearing a financial value); but if someone posts a digital copy of my work available for download on the web or a torrent website, it doesn’t prevent me from selling further legit copies on the market, (at most will it diminish the demand for such paid-for legit copies); nor does it, obviously, strip me of the revenue I have already obtained from said work. In other words, “piracy” may hurt my opportunities but not my assets. This is how the theft-analogy is fallacious.

Intuitively the public understands that, hence our reluctance to buy into the copyright lobbies’ propaganda: Indeed we wouldn’t steal a car but we download copyright content for free because those are two totally different things. Pro-copyright lobbies wanting to equate them are disingenuously oversimplifying a complex matter (not mentioning that trying to convince the masses by telling them in the first place that they are criminals is a curious concept of communication…)

Another moral issue with IPR regulation is the duration of said rights, leading to the kind of absurd occurrence that this thread is all about.

2) As far as society’s interests are concerned, proponents of IPR argue that this institution promotes science, literature and artistic creation by allowing researchers, authors, artists and creators to receive a financial compensation for their work, therefore an incentive to creation. Notwithstanding the corporate hypocrisy that it entails (considering that actually the portion of copyright royalties that actually goes to creators is ridiculously small compared to what the publishing or production company racks in!); the argument is based on two assumptions that are clearly unevidenced:
-   that financial incentive is what drives intellectual creation;
-   and that there is no alternative model other than IPR to financially compensate the creators.

Those two implied claims are obviously refuted by the simple fact that the concept of Copyright has been present for only over two centuries and this didn’t prevent genius creators to do their thing and make a living off it before.

Actually one could argue that, it’s precisely during the period since copyright was invented that in music, notably, we haven’t seen anymore of these geniuses. It’s a slippery slope to say that the two facts are correlated but it wouldn’t take a far-fetched argumentation to try to explain such correlation.

3)   Regarding enforceability, the recent progress of information technology is such that any attempt to detect and track down IP infringement requires regulation that is going against other legal fundamental principles such as privacy, freedom of speech and freedom of information and even the presumption of innocence.

The American Entertainment industry, through the US Government is pushing a piece of global regulation named ACTA that, ironically contains provisions inviting states to resort to the same kind of eavesdropping and censorship practices that the Chinese regime uses to restrict internet freedom. The “free world” supports Google, with reason, in its struggle against Chinese authorities but in the mean time emulates the same Chinese to promote special interests’ agenda. Sounds inconsistent.

Insisting on carrying on a model that fails at making sense for most of the people, that at times creates injustice and that anyway is not even reasonably enforceable, seems not to be a very smart attitude.

When printing appeared, storytellers had to change jobs. Science and technology are fundamental game-changers and failing at acknowledging that is suicide. You can’t change things back, you have to move forward even though it’s not easy and forces you to fundamentally modify your way of thinking.

[ahinton]

Thank you for bumping this thread with a most interesting and detailed consideration of its topic.

Whilst, as I have never tired of saying, copyright law remains for the time being a minefield of confusion and inconsistency that itself does it no favours in the eyes of the public, its total abolition would nevertheless mean (for composers) a loss of all royalty income that would not obviously be replaced by income from any other source so, whilst most composers clearly do not (for the most part) compose in order to be paid for doing so, they still need to be paid - so who would then pay them? Commissions would still be paid, of course but, since by no means all new works are commissioned, the uncommissioned ones would attract no payments whatsoever. It is accordingly ironical to read those who suggest that the creation of new music is compromised by the consequences of its current copyright status when in fact the opposite would be true in that, if composers were to receive no income from their work unless it were commissioned, how would most of them be able to afford to compose?

Best,

Alistair

[m19834]

(...)if composers were to receive no income from their work unless it were commissioned, how would most of them be able to afford to compose?

Best,

Alistair

Who cares ?  I thought musicians live musical lives because they love it so much, just like teachers ...

[ahinton]

Who cares ?

Well, I do, for starters! Of course I don't compose "for the money" (as I'm sure you already know!) but none of us who do not already have sufficient private income can live on air! I for one need to receive royalties on performances, broadcasts and recordings of my work and from sales of my scores.

Best,

Alistair

[m19834]

{...) none of us who do not already have sufficient private income can live on air!

Best,

Alistair

Perhaps.  However, is it even possible for an artist to be an artist without being starving ?  I thought that art was only -- or at least mostly -- created under adverse circumstance.  Isn't it a law of some sort ?  Heaven forbid there be some kind of consistency in an artist's life ... that could just create boredom and sub-par creativity.  There is nothing like a full belly and a heated room to utterly ruin an artist's genius and ability to create !!  As a matter of fact, we are doing you a great favor should you be deprived of those things, we are creating the perfect environment for you to create !!  You should be more grateful, really.

[ahinton]

Perhaps.

No "perhaps" about it!

However, is it even possible for an artist to be an artist without being starving?

Of course!

I thought that art was only -- or at least mostly -- created under adverse circumstance.

Then you are misinformed! Of course there has been no small amount of art created in adverse circumstances of some kind, but it is a complete myth that such circumstances are in some sense necessary in enabling artistic creation.

Isn't it a law of some sort?

I am mightily relieved that it is a law of no sort at all! - and, if it were, it would be vastly inferior to even the most exasperatingly inconsistent aspects of copyright law!

Heaven forbid there be some kind of consistency in an artist's life ... that could just create boredom and sub-par creativity.

Why should it? Where's the scientific evidence?

There is nothing like a full belly and a heated room to utterly ruin an artist's genius and ability to create!!

Again, on what evidence do you make so rash a claim? You wouldn't make similar ones for performers, now would you? Performers need to look after themselves to be in optimum condition to be able to perform, so what makes you think composers are, or even should be, any different? Furthermore, life would be rather difficult, would it not, for a performer/composer in such circumstances; after all, you can't be starving and penniless one minute and well-fed and confortable the next!

As a matter of fact, we are doing you a great favor should you be deprived of those things, we are creating the perfect environment for you to create !!  You should be more grateful, really.

Where's the smiley, then? I rather think that you don't mean any of this!

Best,

Alistair

[m19834]

I rather think that you don't mean any of this!

Best,

Alistair

Well, if you or I were TRUE artists, we would be having this conversation through music, not words, or at least we would save it for the music.  TRUE artists shouldn't be articulate and communicative through words as it definitely steals from the musical inspiration and intention; that is scientific fact.

[jeroen991]

nowadays you can't put anything at youtube anymore or it will be removed 

[scottmcc]

this whole intellectual property debate is quite intriguing, and of course the internets creates a whole IP fracas with the international aspects of things. 

with music there are of course certain unique bits of intellectual property.  how faithful to a score must a performance be in order to qualify as a performance of that work, vs a new work?  for instance, if I play something that is clearly very strongly influenced by another artist, but is "just enough" different, is that truly my own work?  the copywright wonks would say so, but the argument to the contrary can certainly be made, especially by the original artist.  or what if I were to follow the example of a great number of classical composers and write a set of variations off of someone else's theme?  how should I compensate the composer of that theme, without whom my composition couldn't exist? 

and where does fair use begin and end?  If I buy a score for something, I can play it privately, but how private must I be?  what if my neighbors happen to hear, or what if I happen to play that piece in a public setting, even if not with the intent of receiving compensation?  is it only unfair use if I profit?  and what about copyrighted editions of works that are in the public domain?  sure, distribution of that particular edition is limited, but the notes are the notes, and the music is free, right?

I don't really have an answer to any of these questions, and I'm not sure if anyone really does.  if there were a way to compensate the composers fairly for their works, the publishers for the time and expense of distributing things, and the performers for their efforts at making music, and have the public enjoy the fruits of everyone's labors at a reasonable price, then we'd not be having this discussion.

[ahinton]

Well, if you or I were TRUE artists, we would be having this conversation through music, not words, or at least we would save it for the music.  TRUE artists shouldn't be articulate and communicative through words as it definitely steals from the musical inspiration and intention; that is scientific fact.

Now - since I am speaking (or at least writing) to "the Kountess" - should I perhaps now introduce the matter of the conflict (that ends up more or less unresolved) betwen words and music in Richard Strauss's final stage work Capriccio? That said, I do not think that it is necesarily the case that composers cannot or shouldn't be able to communicate verbally, either in speech or in writing; plenty of them have, although in many ways what they wrote in words and what they wrote in music are to be considered separately.

When I write music, I am aware that I am trying to set down something that could not be expressed in words (except to the extent of the involvement of word setting where applicable, as, for example, in the one work of mine that I know you to have heard); that does not of itself meant that I should refrain from using words on other occasions when my thoughts can indeed be expressed therewith.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

if there were a way to compensate the composers fairly for their works, the publishers for the time and expense of distributing things, and the performers for their efforts at making music, and have the public enjoy the fruits of everyone's labors at a reasonable price, then we'd not be having this discussion.

OK, but nowadays many composers self-publish (as I do) so the composer in such cases profits (when he/she can) from selling his/her scores - but this is unlikely to produce much if any revenue nless there are performances, broadcasts and recordings. There seems to be no obvious way to "compensate" composers in the way that you speculate about other than the way things currently stand, or some close-ish variation thereon.

Best,

Alistair

[richard black]

(...)if composers were to receive no income from their work unless it were commissioned, how would most of them be able to afford to compose?

.....

Who cares ?  I thought musicians live musical lives because they love it so much, just like teachers ...

Tell that to the landlord when he comes asking for rent.

[ahinton]

Tell that to the landlord when he comes asking for rent.

I daresay some composers might have tried that one in the past, thought with quite what degrees of success is another matter altogether...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

and what about copyrighted editions of works that are in the public domain? 

It has long been a mystery to me how some publishers can claim copyright on a Mozart Sonata. It would appear that all one needs to do is remove one trill, write half a page of notes and staple it all together with a shitty cover and there you have your own copyrighted Edition.

Might try it myself.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

nowadays you can't put anything at youtube anymore or it will be removed 

Indeed, my mate Mental Martin once posted the 1812 Overture with the canon fire replaced with a series of loud farts.

Genius, but it was removed.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

When I write music, I am aware that I am trying to set down something that could not be expressed in words

I am sure this is true, since i cannot think of the words to describe your music.

Thal

[pianowolfi]

Ha ha. "My most successful ever" thread on ps (I think) Two pages. Wow.

Yes composers should be able to live. If "from" their work or "for" or whatever.

There is a whole bunch of things that wouldn't be in the world without them. And mankind has managed to actually bury most of them "in a hole" (as some people use to say). Maybe composers are very dangerous? Yeah that's how it must be...

No no. A composer is just doing his work. That's all. If not him, this specific unique person, then nobody will do his job.

[ahinton]

I am sure this is true, since i cannot think of the words to describe your music.

Well, that's probably just as well, since that saves anyone having to read them (not that I have any idea which of my works you have heard in any case).

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

It has long been a mystery to me how some publishers can claim copyright on a Mozart Sonata. It would appear that all one needs to do is remove one trill, write half a page of notes and staple it all together with a shitty cover and there you have your own copyrighted Edition.

Might try it myself.

I should try it with some Schumann...

Best,

Alistair

[nanabush]

I would laugh if every person covering a pop vocal song gets sued by the big music companies because they are singing someone else's material.  I can just imagine a little 8 year old girl getting a notice in the mail saying she has to show up in court haha.

Youtube is really weird with some videos.  People put up episodes of shows, and they stay up for a year or so before getting deleted.  Also, if you've checked out 'Hexameron', most of his videos are of obscure music WITH the sheet music in the background.  I love the channel, but how in the hell did his account not get removed?

(maybe it did, I haven't checked in a while)