I think the same was true of the Quarto editions of Shakespeare. Where do Broude Performers' facsimiles fit in to this? I have their Lachrimae table book (price in ink on the inside cover). Neither the publisher's name nor a copyright mark appear anywhere in the book. I do not have any intention of publishing any part of it on Internet - (it's mine 'cos I paid for it), but if I had, and wanted to ask their permission, I would find it very difficult as I can't imagine a letter to 'Performers' Facsimiles, New York' would get there easily.
Is this a question of US law, or is there a fundamental difference in policy? Tony ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stewart McCoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lute Net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 12:49 AM Subject: Re: Facsimeles etc. > Dear Herbert, > > Our medium of computers may be new, but the matter under discussion > most certainly is not. > > There were various pirate editions of music in the 16th century, > with characters like Pierre Phalese dipping into other people's > books for inspiration. For example, music by Valderrabano was > "borrowed" by Phalese, and presumably Valderrabano didn't get a bean > for it. > > Funny that you should mention John Dowland. He was furious that > people published his music without his permission, introducing > mistakes in the process. This is what he had to say in the > introduction to _The First Booke of Songes_ (London, 1597): > > "There have bin divers Lute lessons of mine printed without my > knowledge, falce and unperfect ..." > > He was certainly not impressed by people stealing his music for > publication. It is thought that Dowland might have had William > Barley in mind, who had published a version of Dowland's Lachrimae > Pavan in 1596. > > We know about improper practices with regard to the printing and > selling of Dowland's _Second Booke of Songs or Ayres_ (London, > 1600), because it resulted in a court case. Information on all of > this may be found in Diana Poulton's _John Dowland_ (London: Faber > and Faber Limited, 1972). > > Maybe William Barley thought Lachrimae was in the public domain. > Maybe the printers who sold extra copies of Dowland's _Second Booke_ > on the sly thought they were helping the lute-playing world by > spreading Dowland's music to a wider audience. Who knows? The fact > remains that the plague of plagiarism is not new. If there be any > crassness, it belongs to those who underestimate the significance of > it all. > > Best wishes, > > Stewart McCoy. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herbert Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 10:11 PM > Subject: Re: Facsimeles etc. > > > > > > Would, say, Dowland have been surprised at 21st century culture, > where 99% > > of music is commercial and a ready source of litigation? > > > > Has there always been music of such aggressive crassness as is > heard (in > > abundant volume) on any city street corner? > > > > I'm not anti-Tree, but I do wonder whether this is related. > > >
