Re: [Finale] Clients Requesting Finale Files

[Noel Stoutenburg]

David W. Fenton wrote:
Well, a Finale file is a database file, not a computer program, like a 
VB file (or VBA in the case of Word). Data is not copyrightable, soI 
think that it would be a gray area.
In Adobe v. SSI, Adobe succeeded in persuading the court that the 
definitions of the glyphs in a type face met the definition of "computer 
program", and as such were eligible for copyright protection.  If glyphs 
in a typeface constitute a "computer program", then by the same 
reasoning, the output from a Finale program would also be a "computer 
program".


ns
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Copyright Issue

[Mark D Lew]

On Nov 16, 2006, at 4:38 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:


Haydn's operas, on the other hand, were completely obscure until the
20th century, and I doubt that there is any edition pre-dating the
current complete works for more than a handful of Haydn operas.


Thanks.  Sounds like I'm probably out of luck on that one aria.

mdl

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Copyright length / Public Domain -- U.S. law

[Mark D Lew]

On Nov 16, 2006, at 4:35 AM, dhbailey wrote:


Here is the quote -- particularly note the final sentence:
How long does a copyright last?
Copyrights in works created since 1978 will last for 70 years after 
the death of the work's author. If the work is what the copyright law 
calls a "work made for hire," created by employees within the scope of 
their employment, the work will last for 95 years from the work's 
first publication or 120 years from its creation, whichever is 
shorter. The provisions on copyrights in works created and published 
before 1978 are complicated, but, as a general rule, the copyright in 
those works will last 95 years. Anything first published in 1923 or 
earlier, though, is in the public domain.


They may know their law, but they sure do need an editor.  I'm sure 
they meant to say "before 1923", not "in 1923 or earlier".


Works published in 1923 are still covered.

mdl

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Clients Requesting Finale Files

[David W. Fenton]

On 16 Nov 2006 at 21:16, John Howell wrote:

> At 7:26 PM -0500 11/16/06, David W. Fenton wrote:
> >
> >It's not as simple as you make it out to be, seems to me.
> 
> That's entirely possible!  I can make one definite statement:  in the
> case of an arrangement of a copyrighted musical work, unless a written
> agreement to the contrary exists, that arrangement is assumed BY
> DEFAULT to be a derivative work and therefore to be the property, with
> a new copyright, of the copyright owner of the original work.

I never disagreed with that.

But it still doesn't follow that the *Finale* file becomes property 
of the copyright owner. That's the key point here, that different 
representations of the music can be the copyrighted property of 
different individuals.

> As I write that and look at it carefully, I guess it doesn't matter
> whether it is an arrangement "for hire" or an arrangement made without
> the permission of the copyright owner, or for that matter WITH the
> permission of the copyright owner.  The arranger does not own
> copyright in the arrangement unless it is specified in writing.

I never claimed that they did, and don't think it has any relevance 
to the question of who has the right to control the Finale file.

> You say that in other situations the opposite applies.  You may very
> well be right.  That's the problem with arguing from analogy.

The other situations are the same in some ways and different in 
others. It's not quite the same since there is no content conveyed by 
most of the other examples in the same way that a score can be but 
one representation of a musical work that exists with its own rights 
independent of the particular instance of it in a printed score.

I think the photography example is pretty similar, in that a 
photographer owns the copyright on the negative, but still can't sell 
the photo to anyone he or she wants to without a release from the 
people depicted in the photos. That's a case of divided rights that's 
pretty close to the one with a Finale file and the work of music 
represented by the Finale file.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] Egad!!!

[Carl Dershem]

A friend just forwarded a file to me that shows that some notation could 
not (and probably should not) be duplicated in Finale.  Or at least I 
hope not.


For those not familiar with the "Faeries aire and death waltz" you'll 
know what I mean.  For those not, holler off-list, and I'll send you a 
copy by e-mail.  It's very funny in its own perverse way. :)


cd
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/dershem/#

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Clients Requesting Finale Files

[John Howell]

At 7:26 PM -0500 11/16/06, David W. Fenton wrote:


It's not as simple as you make it out to be, seems to me.


That's entirely possible!  I can make one definite statement:  in the 
case of an arrangement of a copyrighted musical work, unless a 
written agreement to the contrary exists, that arrangement is assumed 
BY DEFAULT to be a derivative work and therefore to be the property, 
with a new copyright, of the copyright owner of the original work.


As I write that and look at it carefully, I guess it doesn't matter 
whether it is an arrangement "for hire" or an arrangement made 
without the permission of the copyright owner, or for that matter 
WITH the permission of the copyright owner.  The arranger does not 
own copyright in the arrangement unless it is specified in writing.


You say that in other situations the opposite applies.  You may very 
well be right.  That's the problem with arguing from analogy.


John


--
John & Susie Howell
Virginia Tech Department of Music
Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240
Vox (540) 231-8411  Fax (540) 231-5034
(mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Video files - VERY off topic

[Aaron Sherber]

Here's more on CDA files, from 
:


>A real audio CD does not have the notion of files.  How the CD is
>presented to you by a computer operating system is simply a convenience.
>  It sounds like Win32 shows it as a folder full of CDA files.  A Mac
>would show a volume full of AIFF files.  In fact a "redbook" audio CD
>contains neither of these things.


Aaron.

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Video files - VERY off topic

[Aaron Sherber]

At 08:39 PM 11/16/2006, David W. Fenton wrote:
>On 16 Nov 2006 at 19:54, Aaron Sherber wrote:
>> You are correct that they are *presented* as files, but I don't think
>> they are files in any commonly understood sense of the term. I think
>> they are just represented that way by Windows.
>
>They are data, 1s and 0s. They can be read and copied directly, with
>no conversion involved.
>
>The fact that they are presented as files shows that Windows has
>software in it that can read the file system of an audio CD 

Please see my other response. I'm entirely open to being proved wrong 
by someone who really knows about this stuff, but I strongly believe 
that these "files" are created on the fly by Windows as pointers to 
the CD audio data. There are no files or file system as such on an audio CD.


Aaron.

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Video files - VERY off topic

[Aaron Sherber]

At 08:15 PM 11/16/2006, dhbailey wrote:
>No, those .cda files are files.  They're 1KB in size, all of them (which
>should be a clear indicator that they don't contain the audio data) and
>they are copyable. 

Yes, but I believe they are created on the fly by Windows when you 
look at an audio CD -- they don't really exist on the CD, and there 
is no FAT or NTFS file system on an audio CD.


From  :

>First of all, music CD's does NOT contain CDA-files, they contain raw
>sound data which isn't organised into files at all. It's just a
>continuous stream of sound data that could be compared to what you
>have on a normal audio casette or vinyl record. The only difference is
>that it's digitally encoded and that you have some information in the
>beginning telling the CD player the number of tracks and where they
>start and end. If you try to view the contents of a music CD in
>Windows you will be shown a number of files called Track01.cda,
>Track02.cda etc. This is just Windows way of telling you that its a
>music CD with a certain number of tracks. The CDA-files isn't on the
>CD, they're just an illusion, provided by Windows.


Aaron.

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Video files - VERY off topic

[David W. Fenton]

On 16 Nov 2006 at 19:54, Aaron Sherber wrote:

> At 07:05 PM 11/16/2006, David W. Fenton wrote:
>  >Er, what? If I look at an audio CD with Windows Explorer it shows
>  >files. They aren't files of a type any audio program can read, but
>  >they are presented as files, nonetheless, with the track name and a
>  >CDA extension. 
> 
> You are correct that they are *presented* as files, but I don't think
> they are files in any commonly understood sense of the term. I think
> they are just represented that way by Windows.

They are data, 1s and 0s. They can be read and copied directly, with 
no conversion involved.

The fact that they are presented as files shows that Windows has 
software in it that can read the file system of an audio CD (whether 
it's original software or an add-on -- I suspect the former, since 
Windows was always able to *play* audio CDs). This is no different 
than use the Finale FILE OPEN dialog and displaying ALL FILES. You'll 
see non-Finale files that Finale can't do anything with, but Finale 
can still read the file listing.

It's all 1s and 0s.

All of it.

And nothing needs to be converted to copy those 1s and 0s.

However, all file systems use some form of error correction, and non-
lossy error correction will produce a result identical to the file 
that produced the read error. So, there's no loss of fidelity except 
if the error correction *fails*. If it does, then there will be 
audible artifacts, like skips, dropouts or pops and clicks. If you 
don't hear those, then the error correction worked.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Video files - VERY off topic

[Dennis Bathory-Kitsz]

Here's more on those standards & correction:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Book_%28audio_CD_standard%29
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-Interleaved_Reed-Solomon_Coding

Dennis


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Video files - VERY off topic

[Dennis Bathory-Kitsz]

At 07:05 PM 11/16/06 -0500, David W. Fenton wrote:
>I believe this is completely incorrect. The only exceptions would be 
>if the CD's data were not written cleanly or if the CD drive reading 
>the disk were misaligned or something.
>It's digital data. Data is data, a sieries of 0s and 1s. The only 
>difference is what software is used to interpret the data (i.e., 
>Finale files are 0s and 1s, but Microsoft Word doesn't know what to 
>do with them).

Not quite. Data may be written correctly, but the means of recovery are not
quite so simple as with computer data. Errors have to be recovered. A CD is
written as a stream, without the level of sync or file-correction
information that data files have. It has enough error correction to make
partial audio reconstruction possible even if it's incomplete. Errors are
covered or muted.

>Do you know about EAC, Exact Audio Copy?

The problem is explained on the EAC website in some detail.
http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/eac3.html

Dennis


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Video files - VERY off topic

[dhbailey]

Aaron Sherber wrote:

At 07:05 PM 11/16/2006, David W. Fenton wrote:
 >Er, what? If I look at an audio CD with Windows Explorer it shows
 >files. They aren't files of a type any audio program can read, but
 >they are presented as files, nonetheless, with the track name and a
 >CDA extension.

You are correct that they are *presented* as files, but I don't think 
they are files in any commonly understood sense of the term. I think 
they are just represented that way by Windows.


Aaron.



No, those .cda files are files.  They're 1KB in size, all of them (which 
should be a clear indicator that they don't contain the audio data) and 
they are copyable.  Looking at them in a hex editor shows that they're 
some sort of pointer file and trying to play one on my computer's 
hard-drive (copied from the audio CD in my CD drive) turns up nothing. 
The bulk of the data on an audio drive isn't viewable in Windows Explorer.


--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Playback

[Noel Stoutenburg]

Bruce:

WRT your question


How would I (WinFin06) create an expression to simultaneously rall. and dim. in 
playback?
  


I'm not sure you can create a single expression to do both, but even if 
it were possible, my inclination is to create the single expression " /e/ "
which I use as a expression with no defined playback which links two 
other expressions "rall" and "dim", each of which do have playback 
defined.  If I want the rall and dim playback effects to begin at the 
same point, I stack them, so that in the score it appears as


rall  e 
dim

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Video files - VERY off topic

[Aaron Sherber]

At 07:05 PM 11/16/2006, David W. Fenton wrote:
>Er, what? If I look at an audio CD with Windows Explorer it shows
>files. They aren't files of a type any audio program can read, but
>they are presented as files, nonetheless, with the track name and a
>CDA extension.

You are correct that they are *presented* as files, but I don't think 
they are files in any commonly understood sense of the term. I think 
they are just represented that way by Windows.


Aaron.

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Copyright Issue

[David W. Fenton]

On 16 Nov 2006 at 19:19, Kim Patrick Clow wrote:

> On 11/16/06, David W. Fenton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I don't know of a Haydn complete works other than the one started in
> > 1958.
> 
> Yes, and the editors have quite a few vols to issue before this series
> is finished. What an massive undertaking.

That said, there were a large number of previous editions of certain 
repertories, including string quartets and symphonies, that date from 
long before the 1950s.

Haydn's operas, on the other hand, were completely obscure until the 
20th century, and I doubt that there is any edition pre-dating the 
current complete works for more than a handful of Haydn operas.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Copyright Issue

[dhbailey]

Kim Patrick Clow wrote:

On 11/16/06, David W. Fenton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


I don't know of a Haydn complete works other than the one started in
1958.



Yes, and the editors have quite a few vols to issue before this series is
finished.
What an massive undertaking.

Kim


Well, it took him a lifetime to compose all of it, so it's no wonder 
that it's taking a lifetime to come up with a complete edition of his 
works.  :-)


--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Clients Requesting Finale Files

[David W. Fenton]

On 16 Nov 2006 at 15:07, Johannes Gebauer wrote:

> On 15.11.2006 Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
> > Yes, well it's more complex than that, more on the order of
> > "character 82 1024 evpu's from the beginning of frame 2348, with
> > character 236 located above character 82 and syllable 463 from the
> > lyrics table located .4376 inches below the bottom of the staff".
> > Some elements, like the characters in the fonts used are
> > incorporated by reference, other items, like the distance of the
> > character from the frame, are directly in the file, and I am of the
> > opinion that the Supreme court having decided that the description 
> > of a single character is a "computer program", that lower courts
> > would likely rule by extension, that a Finale file is a "computer
> > program" too.
> 
> Well, they are. I honestly cannot see the basic difference between a
> data file like a Finale file and a Visual Basic data file. In fact,
> Word files may even contain Visual Basic data.

Well, a Finale file is a database file, not a computer program, like 
a VB file (or VBA in the case of Word). Data is not copyrightable, so 
I think that it would be a gray area.

But I don't think it really matters.

A photographer's negative (or in the age of digital photography, the 
raw digital photo) is not a computer program, but it is required to 
produce the final printed photo, and the photograph retains copyright 
in the negative.

A Finale file seems much more like the negative than anything else, 
seems to me, whether it counts as a computer program or a data file. 

The court in the Sawkins case found that the expertise required to 
make the edition was sufficient to give Sawkins his own copyright in 
the edition, even though there was nothing whatsoever in what Sawkins 
did that any other musicologist would not have done exactly the same 
(he was constrained by the evidence in the sources and the harmony 
and structure in the music itself). There's far more "creativity" in 
engraving with Finale than there is in what Sawkins did, in my 
opinion, though both require significant amounts of expertise.

I don't agree with the Sawkins decision, personally, but it is the 
law in certain domains. As an analogy, it seems to me to be pretty 
close based on the reasoning used by the judge in the case.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Clients Requesting Finale Files

[David W. Fenton]

On 15 Nov 2006 at 21:44, John Howell wrote:

> At 8:29 PM -0500 11/14/06, David W. Fenton wrote:
> >On 14 Nov 2006 at 10:13, Mark D Lew wrote:
> >
> >>  By
> >>  default, under American law, the copyright of any work for hire
> >>  falls to the one who is hiring.  If a client hires you to write
> >>  something, the resulting product belongs to him unless both
> >>  parties agree otherwise.
> >
> >Er, no, I think that's wrong. Work for hire is only work for hire if
> >the contract explicitly specifies that it is. Otherwise, the creator
> >owns the copyright. The exception is if you're an employee of a
> >company and create the content as part of your daily work. Then it's
> >work for hire without there being a contract, because it was created
> >on time paid by the employer.
> 
> David, I think the slip in logic here is that in a computer program
> (or literature or poetry), the programmer (or writer) is the creator.

Creator of what? If a client spends a great deal of time designing a 
workflow and user interface, and all the programmer does is implement 
it, that doesn't really make the programmer the creator. But the 
programmer still retains copyright, unless the contract explicitly 
specified that it was "work for hire."

> In the case of music the "original work" and the copyright that
> accompanies it belong similarly to the creator, but someone who
> arranges that work is making a derivative work, no matter how creative
> the arrangement may actually be.

I don't think it's as big of a difference as you seem to believe.

> As an arranger I am much more familiar with the copyright 
> implications of arranging than of engraving, but it seems as if you
> are arguing that a derivative work (i.e. a Finale file of a
> copyrighted work) is a new creation, while Mark is arguing that it is
> not. 

I'm making no such argument. All I'm saying is that it's not "work 
for hire" unless explicitly identified as such in the contract 
governing the work (if the work is done by an employee, "work for 
hire" is assumed, because the relevant "contract" is the agreement to 
work for the employer full-time).

> Back in the good ol' days of hand copying and hand copyists,
> there was never any question of the copyist claiming copyright in his
> work, or claiming to own his "work product."  It seems to me that a
> Finale engraver does nothing more and nothing less than what a good
> hand copyist used to do, but does it using modern technology.

But there was nothing produced except the final product in that case.

That's why I think the photographer analogy, imperfect as it may be, 
is relevant.

> The problem is that analogies are never 100% identical, and arguing
> from analogy is the kind of thing that could get thrown out of court.

All I know is that you can't assume "work for hire" in any context. I 
don't know why music copying would be treated legally differently 
from all the other examples in that regard.

> >The important thing is that the paying party specify what they think
> >they are buying and that the creating party then price the product
> >accordingly.
> 
> Well of course!  Otherwise, caveat emptor!!
> 
> >But the default is that the creator owns the copyright, not the other
> >way around.
> 
> Yes, and neither an arranger nor an engraver is the creator of a
> previously existing copyrighted work.  Problem is, the only way to
> settle the question is through court cases, in which someone is always
> bound to be hurt.

It's not as simple as you make it out to be, seems to me.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Copyright Issue

[Kim Patrick Clow]

On 11/16/06, David W. Fenton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


I don't know of a Haydn complete works other than the one started in
1958.



Yes, and the editors have quite a few vols to issue before this series is
finished.
What an massive undertaking.

Kim





--
Kim Patrick Clow
"There's really only two types of music: good and bad." ~ Rossini
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Video files - VERY off topic

[David W. Fenton]

On 15 Nov 2006 at 13:39, A-NO-NE Music wrote:

> Johannes Gebauer / 2006/11/15 / 02:34 AM wrote:
> 
> >Audio CDs have a special format, which doesn't use 
> >files at all.
> 
> Exactly.  

Er, what? If I look at an audio CD with Windows Explorer it shows 
files. They aren't files of a type any audio program can read, but 
they are presented as files, nonetheless, with the track name and a 
CDA extension.

> And because of this, the file copy of audio CD you make on
> your computer is not loss-free. 

I believe this is completely incorrect. The only exceptions would be 
if the CD's data were not written cleanly or if the CD drive reading 
the disk were misaligned or something.

> Before modern OSes became capable of
> converting audio data object on audio CD to computer-readable file
> object, we needed special tool to extract audio from CD.

It's digital data. Data is data, a sieries of 0s and 1s. The only 
difference is what software is used to interpret the data (i.e., 
Finale files are 0s and 1s, but Microsoft Word doesn't know what to 
do with them).

> When you put your audio CD in your CD player, its error correction
> engine alters the sound quality depending on the disk condition and
> the player.  The problem is that the result isn't consistent.  If you
> extract the same track 10 times with your computer, and put on a phase
> testing, you will see errors between each files.

This depends entirely on what software you use to read the CD audio 
files.

> Last time I checked, there is still no way to do bit-copy, and it is a
> little surprising, or is this because of the copyright issue?

Do you know about EAC, Exact Audio Copy?

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Copyright Issue

[David W. Fenton]

On 15 Nov 2006 at 17:06, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:

> I've seen a Complete works edition of Haydn, and from the bindings, I
> suspect that it is old enough to be in the public domain, though I
> haven't checked to verify this.

I don't know of a Haydn complete works other than the one started in 
1958. I just did a bit of library searching and don't turn up any 
19th-century Gesamtausgabe, like those of Bach and Mozart, but I 
didn't search very hard.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] Playback

[Bruce E. Clausen]

How would I (WinFin06) create an expression to simultaneously rall. and dim. in 
playback?

Thanks in advance for any help!
Bruce Clausen
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Playback problems (wrong instruments) on OSX

[dhbailey]

Roy Underhill wrote:

My daughter is using Finale 2005 (latest version) on a MacBook Pro
running OSX.  She is a composition major away at college so it is
difficult for me to diagnose her problem and I'm sure I won't give
the best description.  She's coming home for Thanksgiving which will
give me four days to try and figure it out and since I assume the
list will be less active during that time I thought I'd try to get
some tips before she gets here.

Her setup is a Keystation 49e hooked to the computer by USB and also
running, through MIDI, a Roland GM sound module.  The problem is that
sometimes Finale will mess up which sounds are assigned to staves.
Last time we talked, for example, the piece she was working on
suddenly started playing horn sounds for all the string parts, even
though apparently the correct assignment appeared in the instrument
list and the channel assignments had not changed (other sounds were
messed up as well).  She could load in an older piece and it would
play back with the correct sounds, but the piece she was working on
obstinately kept playing the mismatched sounds.

I don't expect anyone to have a fix for this and I know I need to
have her computer here to tinker with it.  But my experience with
Finale is all on the PC side, so if someone has suggestions for
things I need to check out - particularly things unique to a Mac -
I'd very much appreciate it.



My first guess is that she put in a patch change expression unwittingly 
-- perhaps she edited an existing expression which had playback assigned 
as a patch change.  I've done that and then wondered what the heck happened.


Then I've also edited the instrument list and mistakenly assigned a 
previously assigned channel to a new instrument, so that Violin and Horn 
may both end up assigned to channel 1, and whichever edit I did last, 
such as creating a Horn instrument and thus assigning the Horn patch to 
that channel, worked on all staves which were assigned to either horn or 
violin.


Another possibility might be to run the DataCheck / File Maintenance on 
the file -- perhaps it can repair some damaged entry which might be 
causing the problem.




--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Copyright length / Public Domain -- U.S. law

[dhbailey]

Aaron Sherber wrote:

At 09:20 AM 11/16/2006, dhbailey wrote:
 >The new law went into effect on Jan. 1, 1999.  The previous rewrite had
 >extended the length of copyrights to be total of 75 years, if it had
 >been renewed and so was still protected by copyright when the 1978 law
 >went into effect.  So a work copyrighted in 1923, and properly extended
 >would have copyright extension until Dec.31, 1998 at 12:00midnight.  The
 >new law went into effect a second later, at 12:01:01 Jan 1, 1999, so
 >those 1923 copyrights would have expired just before the new law went
 >into effect.

Sorry David, this is not correct. The effective date of the Sonny Bono 
act was 10/27/1998. (See 
.) So any work 
copyrighted in 1923 and properly extended would have expired at the end 
of 1998, as you note, but has since been extended again by Sonny Bono, 
which took effect two months earlier.


To quote from the actual law: "Any copyright still in its renewal term 
at the time that the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act becomes 
effective shall have a copyright term of 95 years from the date 
copyright was originally secured."




Cool -- now it's clear to me (thanks for that citation, I had been 
misinformed as to the effective date of that bill., it'll be interesting 
to see how the Copyright Society of the USA responds to my message 
questioning them on their statement about works published in 1923 being 
in the public domain.


I did question them as soon as you gave me those other web-sites, all of 
which agree with each other.


Good thing I'm not a lawyer!  ;-)

--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] Playback problems (wrong instruments) on OSX

[Roy Underhill]

My daughter is using Finale 2005 (latest version) on a MacBook Pro running OSX. 
 She is a composition major away at college so it is difficult for me to 
diagnose her problem and I'm sure I won't give the best description.  She's 
coming home for Thanksgiving which will give me four days to try and figure it 
out and since I assume the list will be less active during that time I thought 
I'd try to get some tips before she gets here.

Her setup is a Keystation 49e hooked to the computer by USB and also running, 
through MIDI, a Roland GM sound module.  The problem is that sometimes Finale 
will mess up which sounds are assigned to staves.  Last time we talked, for 
example, the piece she was working on suddenly started playing horn sounds for 
all the string parts, even though apparently the correct assignment appeared in 
the instrument list and the channel assignments had not changed (other sounds 
were messed up as well).  She could load in an older piece and it would play 
back with the correct sounds, but the piece she was working on obstinately kept 
playing the mismatched sounds.

I don't expect anyone to have a fix for this and I know I need to have her 
computer here to tinker with it.  But my experience with Finale is all on the 
PC side, so if someone has suggestions for things I need to check out - 
particularly things unique to a Mac - I'd very much appreciate it.

Roy Underhill
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Copyright length / Public Domain -- U.S. law

[Aaron Sherber]

At 09:20 AM 11/16/2006, dhbailey wrote:
>The new law went into effect on Jan. 1, 1999.  The previous rewrite had
>extended the length of copyrights to be total of 75 years, if it had
>been renewed and so was still protected by copyright when the 1978 law
>went into effect.  So a work copyrighted in 1923, and properly extended
>would have copyright extension until Dec.31, 1998 at 12:00midnight.  The
>new law went into effect a second later, at 12:01:01 Jan 1, 1999, so
>those 1923 copyrights would have expired just before the new law went
>into effect.

Sorry David, this is not correct. The effective date of the Sonny 
Bono act was 10/27/1998. (See 
.) So any work 
copyrighted in 1923 and properly extended would have expired at the 
end of 1998, as you note, but has since been extended again by Sonny 
Bono, which took effect two months earlier.


To quote from the actual law: "Any copyright still in its renewal 
term at the time that the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act 
becomes effective shall have a copyright term of 95 years from the 
date copyright was originally secured."


Aaron.

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Copyright length / Public Domain -- U.S. law

[dhbailey]

Aaron Sherber wrote:

At 07:35 AM 11/16/2006, dhbailey wrote:
 >mentioned that works published in 1923 were in the public domain and I
 >was corrected that works published BEFORE 1923 were the ones in the
 >public domain.  I did the math and felt I had initially been correct,
 >but admitted that I might have been wrong since I couldn't cite a source
 >to support my contention.
...
[quoting csusa.org]
 >provisions on copyrights in works created and published before 1978 are
 >complicated, but, as a general rule, the copyright in those works will
 >last 95 years. Anything first published in 1923 or earlier, though, is
 >in the public domain.

David, the sources I usually consult explicitly disagree with this. See:

 





Oh, and see also the following, beginning of the 7th paragraph:



I would call that rather definitive. 



I'm not so certain of that -- our beloved government has been known to 
be wrong before. ;-)


The new law went into effect on Jan. 1, 1999.  The previous rewrite had 
extended the length of copyrights to be total of 75 years, if it had 
been renewed and so was still protected by copyright when the 1978 law 
went into effect.  So a work copyrighted in 1923, and properly extended 
would have copyright extension until Dec.31, 1998 at 12:00midnight.  The 
new law went into effect a second later, at 12:01:01 Jan 1, 1999, so 
those 1923 copyrights would have expired just before the new law went 
into effect.


I guess this is why there are lawyers.  :-)

--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Clients Requesting Finale Files

[Johannes Gebauer]

On 15.11.2006 Noel Stoutenburg wrote:

Yes, well it's more complex than that, more on the order of "character 82 1024 evpu's from the beginning 
of frame 2348, with character 236 located above character 82 and syllable 463 from the lyrics table located 
.4376 inches below the bottom of the staff". Some elements, like the characters in the fonts used are 
incorporated by reference, other items, like the distance of the character from the frame, are directly in 
the file, and I am of the opinion that the Supreme court having decided that the description of a single 
character is a "computer program", that lower courts would likely rule by extension, that a Finale 
file is a "computer program" too.


Well, they are. I honestly cannot see the basic difference between a 
data file like a Finale file and a Visual Basic data file. In fact, Word 
files may even contain Visual Basic data.


Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Copyright length / Public Domain -- U.S. law

[Noel Stoutenburg]

Ooops:  When I wrote, in part

There is, however, a significant exception to the general rule that 
copyrights in works after 1923 and before 1978 will have a duration of 
95 years.  The term of copyright on items published during that period 
was 28 years. Those copyrights were eligible for a single renewal, 
whose term was successively lengthened by acts of congress, so that 
the effective period of copyright protection on works which were 
copyright, and where the copyright was correctly renewed is 95 years.
I failed to take to account that in 1992 Congress provided for automatic 
renewal of copyrights secured between January 1, 1964, and December 31, 
1977.


ns
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Copyright length / Public Domain -- U.S. law

[Noel Stoutenburg]

With respect to part of what Dave Bailey wrote:
The provisions on copyrights in works created and published before 
1978 are complicated, but, as a general rule, the copyright in those 
works will last 95 years. Anything first published in 1923 or earlier, 
though, is in the public domain.
The second sentence quoted is generally true, though I think there are a 
handful of exceptions even to that.  There is, however, a significant 
exception to the general rule that copyrights in works after 1923 and 
before 1978 will have a duration of 95 years.  The term of copyright on 
items published during that period was 28 years. Those copyrights were 
eligible for a single renewal, whose term was successively lengthened by 
acts of congress, so that the effective period of copyright protection 
on works which were copyright, and where the copyright was correctly 
renewed is 95 years.  However, the U.S. copyright office has reported 
that half of all copyrights issued, which would have required renewal to 
remain in force, were never renewed, so that those works are now in the 
public domain. 

There is another exception, whose significance is less clear.  Copyright 
in the U.S. is a civil matter; infringement can be pursued only by the 
owner of the copyright.  There is a group of copyrights where, even 
though the copyright was properly renewed, the owner of the copyright 
can no longer be located, or no longer exists.  Only the holder of a 
copyright can transfer it, so this becomes a question of the class of 
the one, "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, 
does it make a sound?"  More directly, if an item is copyrighted, but 
there is no longer anyone who has the authority to assert copyright, or 
pursue infringement, is the item still copyright?


ns
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Copyright length / Public Domain -- U.S. law

[Aaron Sherber]

At 07:35 AM 11/16/2006, dhbailey wrote:
>mentioned that works published in 1923 were in the public domain and I
>was corrected that works published BEFORE 1923 were the ones in the
>public domain.  I did the math and felt I had initially been correct,
>but admitted that I might have been wrong since I couldn't cite a source
>to support my contention.
...
[quoting csusa.org]
>provisions on copyrights in works created and published before 1978 are
>complicated, but, as a general rule, the copyright in those works will
>last 95 years. Anything first published in 1923 or earlier, though, is
>in the public domain.

David, the sources I usually consult explicitly disagree with this. See:





Oh, and see also the following, beginning of the 7th paragraph:



I would call that rather definitive. 

Aaron.

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] Copyright length / Public Domain -- U.S. law

[dhbailey]

This applies only to United States copyright law.

I can't recall which group/list it was on (so those of you who are on 
all four of these lists, please forgive the cross-posting), but recently 
we were discussing works which are in the public domain, and I had 
mentioned that works published in 1923 were in the public domain and I 
was corrected that works published BEFORE 1923 were the ones in the 
public domain.  I did the math and felt I had initially been correct, 
but admitted that I might have been wrong since I couldn't cite a source 
to support my contention.


I just found this FAQ on the Copyright Society of the USA web-site, 
which confirms that I was indeed initially correct.  This is a society 
formed for copyright lawyers, law students and others with vested 
interest in copyrights, so I feel quite certain they would be correct 
since their About Us page states:


"The Copyright Society of the U.S.A. is a center of the U.S. copyright 
community for business people, lawyers in private practice and in-house, 
law professors and law students who share a common interest in copyright 
and related intellectual property rights. A not-for-profit corporation 
founded in 1953, the Society works to advance the study and 
understanding of copyright law and related rights, the scope of rights 
in literature, music, art, theater, motion picture, television, computer 
software, architecture, and other works of authorship, and their 
distribution via both traditional and new media."


Here is the link:
http://www.csusa.org/info_faq.htm

Here is the quote -- particularly note the final sentence:
How long does a copyright last?
Copyrights in works created since 1978 will last for 70 years after the 
death of the work's author. If the work is what the copyright law calls 
a "work made for hire," created by employees within the scope of their 
employment, the work will last for 95 years from the work's first 
publication or 120 years from its creation, whichever is shorter. The 
provisions on copyrights in works created and published before 1978 are 
complicated, but, as a general rule, the copyright in those works will 
last 95 years. Anything first published in 1923 or earlier, though, is 
in the public domain.


There is also a terrific on-line book on the history of copyright at the 
following link (This is a link at the bottom of the series of articles 
that Jamin Hoffman on orchestralist has been sending us):


http://www.edwardsamuels.com/illustratedstory/index.htm

--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale