Ethics of Online PDFs n' stuff

[calculus]

   
    This is kind of a quirky question, but I guess it fits here in regards to piano works in general.

    What is the general opinion here on 'discovering' PDFs on the interwebs that just so happen to contain that piece you were listening to five minutes ago? 

    Only bringing this up because I was just pondering about first, how accessible Kapustin scores are right now (i.e. his Op. 40 Etudes and Op.53 Preludes), and how many times they have probably been downloaded and how much revenue those downloads are worth.

    He is a living composer, so his livelyhood depends on his revenue from scores...but on the other hand they are really expensive, and downloading one or two scores never hurt anybody!

...Right?

[chopinlover01]

If the composer is living, I'd support the artist, even if that's expensive as hell.
There was a picture I saw, and it was something like,
"People are willing to pay 4.99 for a drink ((coffee)) that costs a penny to make, and is used once and is gone.
The same people can't pay .99 cents for a song that costs thousands to record and lasts a lifetime."
Granted, the numbers don't exactly apply to your case here, as Kapustin's scores can be spendy, but  I'd still stick to that principle.
Unless they're dead, of course, cause then the only people benefiting from their art are their descendants or whoever owns the copyright.
That also being said, Kapustin really should make his stuff cheaper..

[calculus]

   
 Yeah, I've spent a fortune (in terms of a poor college student) on his scores.  It doesn't help that he only publishes for Japanese and Russian publishing houses either...

Nice quote as well, sums up a lot of stuff, sadly.

[visitor]

It's a shame really.  Especially as I know am knowledgeable in some of the back story regarding a few of the initial score leaks and those that acted in the manner they did are jerks
At least there is a decent team of lawyers that try to pursue the issue w regard to the illegal posting of his scores online
Expense  and value are relative and I firmly believe in the quality of the music and the current marketplace supporting a fair price.  Simple supply and demand economics not so much a him setting a higher price per say.
I've cetainly and gladly paid much more for lesser quality scores in the past.
I have purchased scores of his that are already available for illegal download and also some that are not online ( and I have made personal use hi res  pdf files for my own study away from keyboard of some hard to find ones but I would never ever be a pooh head and post or leak them on the Web like some other pooh heads have because it us wrong- especially given how scummy some people have treated him in the past)

If people like and want the music , they should buy the score . Period.  Doesn't matter if alive or not or if in public domain  or not.  I have bought thousands of scores that some version can be dl online for free but I may need a particular edition or hard copy for study or performance or simply because I collect the anthology that contains s it or because I do my part to support a publisher or music retailer or book shop I like.

[chopinlover01]

Well said.
For some students, however, it's often not economically viable to buy something in a hard copy all the time - music is an expensive hobby, after all - and have to save up for the few volumes they can afford. But why do that when you can simply print a pdf off the internet that is in public domain? The only people you'd be helping are the book companies (people are usually buying Schirmer these days), and they didn't write the music. They put effort in, but if the music is reaching more people I think that's more important than the book company making more money. They'll get plenty off of people like visitor and I who much prefer books, but I can see why for many it's more practical to download it.
Funny that we should talk about this here, seeing as one of the main ways this site stays up is through gold membership fees (I would imagine, anyways).

[j_menz]

For some students, however, it's often not economically viable to buy something in a hard copy all the time - music is an expensive hobby, after all - and have to save up for the few volumes they can afford.

Diddums. There was a time before pdfs, and even before photocopiers and people survived.

And God knows, it's not like anyone plays anything written in the last 200 years anyway. 

[visitor]

that is not to say downloading what is legitimately available free and legally online is bad per se. the op posed a question on N. Kapustin, but I expanded my opinion to include a broader net.

if a student does not have the economic means to purchase a score that is not legally available for free download, it can almost certainly be borrowed from a library, or purchased used, etc. If a copy must be made, at least do it via ILL or music library borrow and copy what is needed until the funds can be saved,etc. 

But  yes, if studying old Public domain works, no big I suppose. I also have much more latitude when it comes to rare works. As an archiver , there are times when an original doesn't exist and cannot be purchased or procured by any other means. It's a necessary grey area and I would just roll w/ it on a case by case basis.

But yeah, to Jmenz point, very seldom are peeps seeking music outside Chopin, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, Bach, Schubert. So that falls outside the realm of discussion here.

Online PDFs are not 'unethical' in their own right. All about context.  But almost without exception is copyright works that can be obtained legally (in print and paid download).  And if one must work from a copy or PDF, for pete's sake (or 'fred's sake' :-) ), at least obtain the works from someone that purchased ie library, and make the copy for personal study, then try to buy it later if possible, but don't freakin' post it online.

[j_menz]

Pdfs online fall into a few different categories:

1) Out of copyright material

Basically a free for all, though you should keep in mind that copyright exists in editorial input, so a new edition ( not just a reprint of an old one) is copyright.

Whether in book form or in paid pdf, I would encourage people to support, insofar as they are able, new editions of material that has been long out of print, particularly where the existing editions are of poor quality. This does not extend to those publishers who hoard and copy old editions and pass them off as new in expensive (sometimes hideously so) poor quality editions. Cheap editions, however, if of OK quality are fine.

2) Copyrighted material

(a) Composer still alive, edition in print.

Buy it.

(b) Composer still alive, out of print.

Contact composer. You may be surprised how helpful they can be.

(c) Composer dead, in print.

Buy it or take the library route.

(d) Composer dead, out of print.

Tricky area. Use your conscience. And your discretion.

[visitor]

Pdfs online fall into a few different categories:

1) Out of copyright material

Basically a free for all, though you should keep in mind that copyright exists in editorial input, so a new edition ( not just a reprint of an old one) is copyright.

Whether in book form or in paid pdf, I would encourage people to support, insofar as they are able, new editions of material that has been long out of print, particularly where the existing editions are of poor quality. This does not extend to those publishers who hoard and copy old editions and pass them off as new in expensive (sometimes hideously so) poor quality editions. Cheap editions, however, if of OK quality are fine.

2) Copyrighted material

(a) Composer still alive, edition in print.

Buy it.

(b) Composer still alive, out of print.

Contact composer. You may be surprised how helpful they can be.

(c) Composer dead, in print.

Buy it or take the library route.

(d) Composer dead, out of print.

Tricky area. Use your conscience. And your discretion.

[ahinton]

Pdfs online fall into a few different categories:

1) Out of copyright material

Basically a free for all, though you should keep in mind that copyright exists in editorial input, so a new edition ( not just a reprint of an old one) is copyright.

Whether in book form or in paid pdf, I would encourage people to support, insofar as they are able, new editions of material that has been long out of print, particularly where the existing editions are of poor quality. This does not extend to those publishers who hoard and copy old editions and pass them off as new in expensive (sometimes hideously so) poor quality editions. Cheap editions, however, if of OK quality are fine.

2) Copyrighted material

(a) Composer still alive, edition in print.

Buy it.

(b) Composer still alive, out of print.

Contact composer. You may be surprised how helpful they can be.

(c) Composer dead, in print.

Buy it or take the library route.

(d) Composer dead, out of print.

Tricky area. Use your conscience. And your discretion.

All good advice except that exercise of the conscience and discretion that you recommend in 2)(d) above might not alone be sufficient to ensure avoidance of breaches of copyright law.

Should it be assumed that, by "out of print", you refer not only to works once published but no longer in print but also to works that have never actually been published but which are still in copyright? Admittedly, for the latter, anyone wishing to obtain copies would have to know their mss.' location and be able to secure the permission of their owners to make copies, but...

Best,

Alistair

[j_menz]

All good advice except that exercise of the conscience and discretion that you recommend in 2)(d) above might not alone be sufficient to ensure avoidance of breaches of copyright law.

Perfectly true, it doesn't. Part of the discretion is to gauge whether or not the copyright holder has any interest beyond the theoretical. If they do, purchase or obtaining permission is the better part of discretion. There are instances, however, where copyright has passed through several corporate takeovers and where the current holder is either unascertainable or unaware that they hold it.

Should it be assumed that, by "out of print", you refer not only to works once published but no longer in print but also to works that have never actually been published but which are still in copyright? Admittedly, for the latter, anyone wishing to obtain copies would have to know their mss.' location and be able to secure the permission of their owners to make copies, but...

Works that have never been published have copyright, so what I said applies. There is an additional complication, though, in that even out of copyright manuscripts are owned as physical property, and the permission of the owner to access and copy is required (though once copied could be distributed freely). There are quite a few works denied us by obstinate heirs.

[ahinton]

Perfectly true, it doesn't. Part of the discretion is to gauge whether or not the copyright holder has any interest beyond the theoretical. If they do, purchase or obtaining permission is the better part of discretion. There are instances, however, where copyright has passed through several corporate takeovers and where the current holder is either unascertainable or unaware that they hold it.

There are certainly instances where this kind of thing pertains, but the simplest thing to do regardless is ascertain the specific copyright term for the territory in which the work was or would have been originally registered (end of 70th year following composer's death being the most widely applied) and not take chances with works that remain under copyright jut in case - or try to obtain the copyright holder's permission ir said owner can be identified and contacted.

Works that have never been published have copyright, so what I said applies. There is an additional complication, though, in that even out of copyright manuscripts are owned as physical property, and the permission of the owner to access and copy is required (though once copied could be distributed freely). There are quite a few works denied us by obstinate heirs.

All true - some of it very sadly so!

All that said, it does not necessarily follow that all works that are within their copyright term are still copyrighted; two important examples are (a) much music composed during the Soviet régime in Russia where what is and is not in copyright is so confused and confusing an issue that the truth is often well-nigh unobtainable and (b) the works of Leo Ornstein (1983-2002) in which copyright that passed to his son Severo following the composer's death and he placed them in the public domain.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I find the situation regarding manuscripts rather strange.

I recall applying to the British Library for a piece by Baines who died in 1922. They refused me a copy as it was still under copyright and told me i would need to get permission from the owner. I enquired who held the copyright and they said they would get back to me.

About a month later, i received an e mail advising me that the British Library held the rights and they then promptly sent me a copy.

Funny buggers.

Thal

[ahinton]

I find the situation regarding manuscripts rather strange.

I recall applying to the British Library for a piece by Baines who died in 1922. They refused me a copy as it was still under copyright and told me i would need to get permission from the owner. I enquired who held the copyright and they said they would get back to me.

About a month later, i received an e mail advising me that the British Library held the rights and they then promptly sent me a copy.

Funny buggers.

An unusual experience but perhaps not quite so unusual as one might expect it to be and it illustrates j_menz's case of people who don't know what they own. I don;t know when you applied to BL but unless it was a very long time ago the Baines piece would already have been in the public domian in any case, even allowing for when the change fom the 50-year rule to the 70-year one in UK occurred.

Best,

Alistair

[ashtonm]

My opinion: Majority of the individuals downloading them likely would have never purchased them in the first place, therefore it doesn't hurt their revenue.

[ahinton]

My opinion: Majority of the individuals downloading them likely would have never purchased them in the first place, therefore it doesn't hurt their revenue.

That is a specious argument that I've heard more times thn I can remember; the very fact that it is possible to download all manner of music scores, be they in the public domain or in copyright, has created a convenient climate in which very little has any longer to be purchased at all by those wishing to obtain the material so, for some people, purchasing a score is a rare and inconvenient choice to make only when that score cannot be downloaded because no one appears to have uploaded it to make that possible.

Ask any publisher if their revenues have been dented by widespread illicit downloading activity and you'll likely hear the same affirmative answer. You have no need to ask how I know that...

Best,

Alistair

[hardy_practice]

I find it appalling relatives benefit from copyright after a composer has died.  Make your own way in life!

[ahinton]

I find it appalling relatives benefit from copyright after a composer has died.  Make your own way in life!

It's not necessarily relatives; it's whomsoever the composer decides in his/her will should benefit from it following his/her death.

That said, would you likewise assert that it is "appalling" that anyone benefits from anything else bequeathed by a composer upon his/her death?

In considering this, please also bear in mind that composers benefit less from their last works than from their first ones (provided that they're performed/ broadcast/recorded and thus generate royalties) for the simple reason that they've been around for less time (worth thinking about especially in the case of those who wrote over long periods of time - Elliott Carter, for example, whose first known work dates from 1928 and his last from 2012).

Would you also think that it is "appalling" that, for example, a musicians' charity benefits from all or part of a deceased composer's estate?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

It's not necessarily relatives; it's whomsoever the composer decides in his/her will should benefit from it following his/her death.

That said, would you likewise assert that it is "appalling" that anyone benefits from anything else bequeathed by a composer, author or anyone else, for that matter, following his/her death?

Would you also think it "appalling" that, for example, a musicians' charity might benefit from all or part of a deceased composer's estate? This is far from unknown.

In considering this, please also bear in mind that composers themselves benefit less from their last works than from their first ones (provided that they're performed/ broadcast/recorded and thus generate royalties) for the simple reason that the last works have been around for less time (worth thinking about especially in the case of those who wrote over long periods of time - Elliott Carter, for example, whose first known work dates from 1928 and his last from 2012).

The only thing that's still not as it should be about copyright is the variations in its terms and certain other particular conditions that continue to pertain between some countries; as these continue to create minefields of understanding and confusion, it would be far better for all concerned if all countries could agree on broadly identical terms and conditions in respect of intellectual property which, after all, by definition knows no boundaries. Considerable steps have been taken in that direction over recent decades, with the consequence that the 70-year rule now applies in many countries, but there's a way to go yet.

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

... the very fact that it is possible to download all manner of music scores, be they in the public domain or in copyright, has created a convenient climate in which very little has any longer to be purchased at all by those wishing to obtain the material so, for some people, purchasing a score is a rare and inconvenient choice to make only when that score cannot be downloaded because no one appears to have uploaded it to make that possible.

Ask any publisher if their revenues have been dented by widespread illicit downloading activity and you'll likely hear the same affirmative answer. You have no need to ask how I know that...

This is an issue which has interested me for some time. I have no reason to doubt the revenue claim, but I would like to pose the question - is it better for a living composer to have his work comparatively widely propagated and seen via PDFs, but receive nugatory publishing revenue, or have it seen and purchased by a few select but clearly interested individuals and receive some publishing revenue? I note that in the parallel world of recordings, Naxos America (and some other organisations) make albums available for (free) play on Youtube, presumably viewing it as free advertising and in the hope that people will go on and purchase the tracks in superior audio format via download or CD.

[ahinton]

This is an issue which has interested me for some time. I have no reason to doubt the revenue claim, but I would like to pose the question - is it better for a living composer to have his work comparatively widely propagated and seen via PDFs, but receive nugatory publishing revenue, or have it seen and purchased by a few select but clearly interested individuals and receive some publishing revenue? I note that in the parallel world of recordings, Naxos America (and some other organisations) make albums available for (free) play on Youtube, presumably viewing it as free advertising and in the hope that people will go on and purchase the tracks in superior audio format via download or CD.

The advertising argument has often been put forward by many but, in my experience, it rarely works; most people who can get stuff for free will do so in preference to purchasing it. Naxos might review its policy, subject to due consideration of its experience but, again, as you point out, in such instances there are differences in audio format to be considered, whereas no such differences apply in the case of composers who sell their scores in .pdf format as distinct from making them available for free - the quality of the product received by the person downloading them is identical, regardless of whether or not they've been paid for by the recipient.

For example, I supply all of Sorabji's scores and my own in both hard copy and .pdf format, the latter usually costing between 25% and 33% of the former and also incurring no shipping costs; whether or not the hard copy format be deemed "superior" to .pdf format by the purchaser is largely down to the print quality to which the purchaser has access when he/she prints the product, so the decision as to whether to have hard copy or .pdf is usually one of either cost or convenience or both.

All that is, of course, a quite different consideration to that of whether or not it should be regarded as "appalling" that a composer is able to bequeath rights in his/her work to whomsoever he/she pleases for the relevant copyright term, in consideraton of which logic provides that there's no obvious reason why bequests of intellectual property should be treated any differently to any other kinds of bequest.

Best,

Alistair

[hardy_practice]

It's not necessarily relatives; it's whomsoever the composer decides in his/her will should benefit from it following his/her death.

I also don't believe the dead have any influence.  Be honest, they don't do they?  They're dead! 

[ahinton]

I also don't believe the dead have any influence.  Be honest, they don't do they?  They're dead!

Wrong thread, methinks! In this one, what has "influence" to do with the topic? Composers make wills and leave rights in their work to whomsoever they choose, yet you seem to find this "appalling" without having provided either reasoned evidence for your stance or indeed why you would appear to single out intellectual property bequests as "appalling" when you have not declared your like opposition to any other kind.

Best,

Alistair

[hardy_practice]

An act of parliament could quite easily wipe out both inheritance and copyright in this country.  Evidence of those who do nothing profiting from those who did (which I find appalling)?  All around you mate!

[dcstudio]

An act of parliament could quite easily wipe out both inheritance and copyright in this country.  Evidence of those who do nothing profiting from those who did (which I find appalling)?  All around you mate!

Oh you Brits...lol...  just love listening to you guys talk.

  It's like watching Monty Python...   "help I'm being oppressed"

I mean no harm, love.      lol.

[hardy_practice]

You mean the violence inherent in the system?  I agree.

[dcstudio]

You mean the violence inherent in the system?  I agree.

yes you folks got it rough these days... but things are no better on this side of the pond...  we have Obama...  and they are worried about a Rebel flag from 150 years ago...because a crazy guy carried it when he went in and shot 9 people...    we have violence too.

anyway...  I just like limeys... your dry sense of humor--your incredible gift for understatement...

we Americans think your accent is a sign of intelligence...  even if you're from Manchester...

I like how you say Vitamins.. and paracetamol...    and it's ok to have a drink in the morning there...

[chopinlover01]

yes you folks got it rough these days... but things are no better on this side of the pond...  we have Obama...  and they are worried about a Rebel flag from 150 years ago...because a crazy guy carried it when he went in and shot 9 people...    we have violence too.

anyway...  I just like limeys... your dry sense of humor--your incredible gift for understatement...

we Americans think your accent is a sign of intelligence...  even if you're from Manchester...

I like how you say Vitamins.. and paracetamol...    and it's ok to have a drink in the morning there...

We also are the only country where college debts are as high as they are.
We also are the only country without universal healthcare, good infrastructure, etc..

[dcstudio]

We also are the only country where college debts are as high as they are.
We also are the only country without universal healthcare, good infrastructure, etc..

you mean you didn't sign up for Obamacare?   

[chopinlover01]

The Affordable Care act didn't make it free, just cheap if you signed up for it under the gov't.
Also, I'm 14.

[dcstudio]

lol... 14?    my daughter is 14... 

are you seriously complaining about college debt and infrastructure?   oh you kids... go outside and have a good time...  why are you inside?  It's a beautiful day!!!  (actually its 96 where I am so that's not exactly true..)

you have the rest of your life to worry about healthcare and the eventual demise of western civilization...

it's summertime!!! 

[ahinton]

An act of parliament could quite easily wipe out both inheritance and copyright in this country.  Evidence of those who do nothing profiting from those who did (which I find appalling)?  All around you mate!

Which country? It would in any case first have to be passed - and even if it were (which it woulodn;'t be becuase far too many Parliamentarians would be doing that against their own interests) who's going to police it?

I am one of those of whom you write. The difference is that I don't do it without work. You still haven't said what's so different about bequeathing inellectual property as distinct from anything else from which legatees can extract advantage.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

An act of parliament could quite easily wipe out both inheritance and copyright in this country.  Evidence of those who do nothing profiting from those who did (which I find appalling)?  All around you mate!

Oh and, by the way, for "inheritance" don't forget to include lifetime gifts; had you thought about that?

Best,

Alistair

[j_menz]

An act of parliament could quite easily wipe out both inheritance and copyright in this country.  

Not as easily as you imagine.

Copyright is subject to international law and various trade agreements and could only be removed by withdrawing from those. It would ineviytably have flow on effects as countries are generally reluctant to supply intellectual property protected goods to countries that do not respect that intellectual property.

In terms on abolishing inheritance, I can already think of a few ways around it's abolition and no doubt lawyers with experience in the field could come up with more without batting an eyelid. And that says nothing of the political difficulties - any government that tried would be turfed out on it's ear.

[chopinlover01]

lol... 14?    my daughter is 14... 

are you seriously complaining about college debt and infrastructure?   oh you kids... go outside and have a good time...  why are you inside?  It's a beautiful day!!!  (actually its 96 where I am so that's not exactly true..)

you have the rest of your life to worry about healthcare and the eventual demise of western civilization...

it's summertime!!! 

It's also hotter than hell where I'm at. 103, loving the heat wave.
I'm complaining about it (more or less) because it's going to affect me in about 4 years, lol. I'd love to go to music school, but going 100 grand in debt doesn't seem like a viable option.
If we fix that, I can dream all day long about Julliard!

[dcstudio]

going 100 grand in debt doesn't seem like a viable option.
If we fix that, I can dream all day long about Julliard!

my daughter dreams of Julliard as well...    I sure hope we "fix it" before both of you get there! 

or I am going to be 100k in debt too...

[chopinlover01]

You have no need to ask how I know that...

Just in case anyone was wondering

[ahinton]

Just in case anyone was wondering

There's more to it than that, though; copyright breaches are as likely to occur in respect of the work of a living composer as it is to that of a deceased one still under copyright...

Best,

Alistair

[hardy_practice]

Which country? It would in any case first have to be passed - and even if it were (which it woulodn;'t be becuase far too many Parliamentarians would be doing that against their own interests) who's going to police it?

I am one of those of whom you write. The difference is that I don't do it without work. You still haven't said what's so different about bequeathing inellectual property as distinct from anything else from which legatees can extract advantage.

Best,

Alistair

And that's it in a nutshell - interested parties - the haves will do make sure they keep having whether they've earned  it or not.  No, I see no difference between 'bequeathing intellectual property as distinct from anything else from which legatees can extract advantage'.

[pianoplunker]

Diddums. There was a time before pdfs, and even before photocopiers and people survived.

LOL, That is correct. Some of us even had to walk all the way to a public library to find sheet music.
Then walk all the way home carrying a bunch of books. 

[hardy_practice]

Yeh but for those who study music having a pretty complete corpus under you finger tips is a boon beyond believe!

[ahinton]

And that's it in a nutshell - interested parties - the haves will do make sure they keep having whether they've earned  it or not.  No, I see no difference between 'bequeathing intellectual property as distinct from anything else from which legatees can extract advantage'.

Well at least that's clear; you appear to believe tht bequeathing anything to anone is somehow appalling"; however, your reference to "the haves" is deeply flawed, since many people are able to leave only very small amounts. In my own case, with the music of Sorabji, I happen to have had to work very hard to make it all available to anyone anywhere and, had I not done this, it would not be so - but then that would be against my own interests in any case. I have to say that I did not do that work with a view to making a fat profit but to ensure that his legacy would not die but expand; that said the number of composers who make fat profits from their work is hardly large..

You have not, however, responded to my question about music charities and whether you see it as equally "appalling" that intellectual property rights may be bequeathed to them.

Either way, as j_menz correctly notes, a single national government could not act autonomously on intellectual property issues and would be foolhardy in the extreme to outlaw all bequests of all kinds; apart from any other considerations, what would you advocate should happen either to such intellectual proprty that is the outcome of much hard work or to any other kind of property upon its owner's death? It can't must disappear as though it had never been there in the first place!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Yeh but for those who study music having a pretty complete corpus under you finger tips is a boon beyond believe!

Belief, actually - but whilst that is, of course, true, it's so much easier to achieve that today when music scores can be made available in .pdf format than it was in the days when it could only be made available on paper and people would either have to buy it or borrow it from libraries, as pianoplunker says.

What we supply (for example) as .pdf files is usually from around 25% - 30% of the cost of supplying it on paper and no additional shipping charges apply; this is subject to a minimum of £12 for bound paper copies inclusive of shipping within UK and a minimum of £5 for .pdf ones so, for instance, the score of my piano quintet ms. (333 pages) is £75 on paper and £25 as a .pdf and Sorabji's Opus clavicembalisticum (260 pages) is £60 on paper and £15 as .pdf. From this is is surely clear that .pdf format is more attractive from a pricing standpoint and there is the added advantage that they take up almost no physical space.

Best,

Alistair

[hardy_practice]

When will there be .pdf libraries?  Public libraries where you can download copyright stuff? For free?

[chopinlover01]

It's illegal under all national (and a lot of international) law.
That said, they probably already exist. For all the stuff that is legal to download, I don't think I even need to say where one can get it.

[ahinton]

When will there be .pdf libraries?  Public libraries where you can download copyright stuff? For free?

There won't - at least while national and international intellectual property laws are as they are - because free downloading of copyright material is the same in principle and effect as free photocopying of such material, in libraries or anywhere else.

Public libraries can lend hard copy copyright material and have no power to prevent borrowers from making photocopies or scans of it at their own expense and without permission but clearly they would be failing in their public duty were they to do this themselves or permit it to be done on their premises by "borrowers".

What you and others of like mind seem wilfully to forget, however, is that the copyright material to which you want free unfettered access in public libraries never gets there for free. Composers, publishers, distributors and the rest all have their costs and, in addition, royalty income is usually generated when it's performed, broadcast or recorded; all of these have to be funded by someone - in the case of royalties, it's funded principally by license fees and, in the case of publications, it's funded mostly by purchasers.

What you appear to be advocating is "something for nothing"; you wouldn't expect to obtain a car on that basis, so why a piano score?

You've also omitted so far to answer what you think would happen to property, intellectual or otherwise, were inheritance, including lifetime gifts, to be abolished by legislation (which of course it won't be, not least because it would run counter to provisions in national and international human rights laws/covenents/conventions for citizens' rights to peaceful enjoyment of their lawful possessions; also, if you consider the lifetime gift part of this (which comes under inheritance laws), your idea would effectively mean that it would become illegal to give anyone anything! I do not imagine that you would advocate this, so I can only assume that you've simply not thought it all through.

Best,

Alistair

[dogperson]

[quote author=ahinton link=topic=58840.msg631584#msg631584 date=1437038, in addition, royalty income is usually generated when it's performed, broadcast or recorded; all of these have to be funded by someone - in the case of royalties, it's funded principally by license fees and, in the case of publications, it's funded mostly by purchasers.

What you appear to be advocating is "something for nothing"; you wouldn't expect to obtain a car on that basis, so why a piano of their lawful possessi

Best,

Alistair
[/quote]

Totally agree with the concept of always paying for copyrighted music.  And no, I am not wealthy nor a composer but really feel that someone with the training, gift and determination to compose and  publish deserves to be paid.  I would not be willing to work for free, why should anyone else?  If you invented a widget that was globally used, would you not want yourself and your heirs to be paid?  I think you would. I can control my free work by saying 'no', but a composer can only control it through copyright. Heirs? Yes, they suffered through years of school and financial struggles to start finally being paid.  Or the composer has the right to bequeath this to his favorite school, charity, or maybe even scholarship fund. Do I personally wish the terms were not as many years?  Of course.....  but if I were a composer, I would like to think my bequest lives long after me.  To give a trust that was income-producing for many years would be wonderful' indeed.  Just my nickel's worth.

Now a dumb question out of purely curiosity not upcoming plans...
"Do competitions meet the same licensing and fee requirements of 'performance'?   

[calculus]

  
   Here's another issue with scores being illegally available - I've seen multiple 'score' videos available for viewing on YouTube (i.e. user 'StockhausenIsMyCat's "Great Pianist's Technique" series:
 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCB39CFD7A036FC38), and there are multiple scored Kapustin videos out there.

    These videos could technically supply people with the scores under copyright if they cared enough to screenshot each page. It is also hard to enforce, since the original creator or his/her affiliates would usually need to flag to video down to get it removed. But is this type of distribution really such an overlying issue in comparison? I quite like these videos personally and would like them to stay up; the user StockhausenIsMyCat synchronized score to audio for a 1.5 hour video!

[ahinton]

Totally agree with the concept of always paying for copyrighted music.  And no, I am not wealthy nor a composer but really feel that someone with the training, gift and determination to compose and  publish deserves to be paid.  I would not be willing to work for free, why should anyone else?  If you invented a widget that was globally used, would you not want yourself and your heirs to be paid?  I think you would. I can control my free work by saying 'no', but a composer can only control it through copyright. Heirs? Yes, they suffered through years of school and financial struggles to start finally being paid.  Or the composer has the right to bequeath this to his favorite school, charity, or maybe even scholarship fund. Do I personally wish the terms were not as many years?  Of course.....  but if I were a composer, I would like to think my bequest lives long after me.  To give a trust that was income-producing for many years would be wonderful' indeed.  Just my nickel's worth.

Agreed. In UK, for example, there is the Holst Foundation, the Vaughan Williams and Britten-Pears Trusts and various other such organisations which are funded largely from royalties from those composers' works (although Holst no longer as he's now out of coyright).

Now a dumb question out of purely curiosity not upcoming plans...
"Do competitions meet the same licensing and fee requirements of 'performance'?

As a rule, much repends upon the venue's license terms and whether the paying public, broadcasters or others are admitted to them.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

 
   Here's another issue with scores being illegally available - I've seen multiple 'score' videos available for viewing on YouTube (i.e. user 'StockhausenIsMyCat's "Great Pianist's Technique" series:
 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCB39CFD7A036FC38), and there are multiple scored Kapustin videos out there.

    These videos could technically supply people with the scores under copyright if they cared enough to screenshot each page. It is also hard to enforce, since the original creator or his/her affiliates would usually need to flag to video down to get it removed. But is this type of distribution really such an overlying issue in comparison? I quite like these videos personally and would like them to stay up; the user StockhausenIsMyCat synchronized score to audio for a 1.5 hour video!

There are many recordings of copyright material on YouTube, of which some are accompanied by their scores; however, screen-shotting those scores is a very cumbersome business and most illicit copying/scanning of copyright scores is done from copies of their publications (or, in the case of unpublished works, their mss.), so I imagine that few people would go to the trouble of making illegal copies from YouTube screen shots one page at a time when they can so much more easily do it in the usual way.

That said, copyright owners are entitled to submit DCMA requests to YouTube, with evidence of the copyright and their ownership thereof, to have such videos taken down and YouTube is obliged by law to comply; I have done this to many such videos myself. I have no objection to short extracts from such performances/recordings being posted to YouTube on a "fair use" basis - indeed, I'm all in favour of it in principle - and, in most such cases, YouTube would not agree to remove such small extracts under DCMA requests.

In the case of most such videos posted to YouTube, permission to upload them has not been sought either from the composer or other copyright owner, or the performer/s, or the broacasters or record companies in the case of broadcast or recorded items, so the breach of rights affects not only the composers and their heirs but also everyone else with an interest and rights in what's been uploaded.

Best,

Alistair