Tim, what you did with my letter, is like forging a letter using the letter of another person. You could have replied & corrected a wrong word, off course, and I would be thankful. But not this way.
Replying to a letter & commenting it needs a clear separation of the comments from the given text, by different fonts or other or a new letter, so even the most foolish can recognize it. I come more & more to the result, that a lot of (special) younger folks lack proper education, education much needed for a peaceful & fruitful live-together. We call folks using other people´s intellectual property without permission "Trittbrettfahrer". Not a nice term at all. ##################################################################### Am 13.01.2011 um 18:41 schrieb Tim Kerwin: > > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Hans Pizka <[email protected]> > To: The Horn List <[email protected]> > Sent: Thu, January 13, 2011 9:17:00 AM > Subject: Re: [Hornlist] Mozart Horn Concerti > > Jay, your arguments are like from a fairy´s tale or arguments of sophistery, > nothing else. You seem claiming rights, if they will benefit you. All the > other > people do have no rights on their propriety. (See Google) This is mere > nonsense. > > It is not a matter of being sued or not, it is a matter of fairness each other > not to use other peoples propriety without proper permission. > > PROPERTY, NOT PROPRIETY, IS THE ISSUE HERE. Being sued has certainly been a > matter of proprietary ownership, e.g., copy written material. Courts and > lawyers > have hammered out the regulations governing these matters. Owning an > auto-graph > score or painting engenders rights of property owners but not to reproduction > of > a likeness even if it is a digital copy. Entering a private residence or > restricted space without permission is an obvious violation. > > It is unfair absolutely, just to copy from another persons propriety & > load it up or use it for ones own publications without permission. > > If public domain (in this case Mozartian manuscripts) is used for a > publication > the permission of the owners granted, it is to be seen as a part of this > actual > new publication, which is copyright protected. > > I doubt, if included pictures (reproductions) of the the originals can be > reproduced > by a third party & used for the third party´s own publication. They may be > used, > in fact. Access, however, to privately owned material in public domain may > be > denied > > This is a misunderstanding of "public domain". Public domain does not say, > that > the > pieces or creations or art belong to the public. The use of the content is > generally > permitted, if things are public domain, but within the limitations given by > the > real owners. This would be access to the original > > Well, using the content of a public domain piece as a source for a new > publication, > this is according to the law, no question. Using a van Gogh painting as > inspiration > & example for ones own painting or just paint a copy using ones own brush & > paints, > > well, agreed, as this would be another creation similar to a new edition of a > piece > of music, where editing must be recognizable. > > But just going the easiest way to digital-copy what´s available on the market > including > internet source, that´s not what lawmakers had in mind. [?]Personal opinion, > not > relevant > > Fairness seems to be a strange word within the younger generation and only > valid, if it > affects ones own rights. Very funny and absurd. > > If you visit an exhibition of art or else, where photographing is prohibited, > you better obey this rule, > as you might be in big trouble in certain countries even being arrested. At > minimum > your camera might be confiscated. Why ? Because of many people with a similar > view as > yours ! You will have no legal tool to get your camera back ever. It might > even > be that > you become imprisoned for (say) four to six weeks because of espionage and > released > > finally & expelled from that country. But the four or six weeks in prison > will > be a severe > > lesson for you, not worth the few pictures taken without permission, just > because you > thought you had the right to make them. > > ################################################################### > > Am 13.01.2011 um 06:55 schrieb Jay Anderson: > >> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 8:49 PM, David A. Jewell <[email protected]> wrote: >>> No but if they are owned by a private individual or even a corporate entity >>> such >>> as a library they own the mechanical and electronic reproduction rights. > Just >>> the same as they own the right to tell people no photographs of the inside >>> of >>> their home it that's how they want it. >> >> If the material is not under copyright then the only way an owner >> cannot prevent someone from copying the source is to not provide >> access to it. An owner does not have any sort of reproduction rights >> to public domain material. Often individuals, libraries and other >> institutions make people sign agreements stating that they will not >> reproduce the material, but if you do the most they can do is revoke >> your access to any other materials that they own. (I guess they could >> also come after you for breach of contract, but I'm not sure what the >> result would be of that. What damages did they incur?) >> >>> Your are correct - it isn't copyright, but ownership rights. Say you >>> owned >> a >>> VanGogh. I visit you and take a photo of it, and then disseminate it on the >>> internet without your permission or knowledge. Same thing as what people do >>> with music autographs - I own it, I get to say who sees it. I agree that >>> it >> is >>> mostly a healthy thing to be able to study these great resources in the ways >>> that the internet enables us to, but to take what belongs to a private >>> individual and disseminate without their permission is electronic theft. >> >> I've never heard of 'ownership rights' with regard to copying. That >> why we have copyright laws. If I owned a van Gogh and you took a >> picture and disseminated it without my permission you would be well >> within your rights to do so since the work is in the public domain. >> >> Also we need to be careful with the word theft. Copying a copyrighted >> work is copyright infringement. In law copyright infringement is not >> theft as it does not deprive the original from the owner. >> >> -----Jay >> _______________________________________________ >> post: [email protected] >> unsubscribe or set options at >> https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/hpizka%40me.com > > _______________________________________________ > post: [email protected] > unsubscribe or set options at > https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/t.kerwin%40att.net > _______________________________________________ > post: [email protected] > unsubscribe or set options at > https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/hpizka%40me.com _______________________________________________ post: [email protected] unsubscribe or set options at https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org
