At 11:03 AM -0800 12/9/06, Mark D Lew wrote:
On Dec 7, 2006, at 8:59 AM, John Howell wrote:
I don't believe anyone has stated this explicitly, so I'll go out
on a limb. Copyright in the U.S. is treated as a property right,
and a copyrighted work is treated as property. In fact, property
and
Mark D Lew wrote:
On Dec 7, 2006, at 8:59 AM, John Howell wrote:
Lots of opinions being thrown around here, and NONE of us has seen the
inside of a law school, but this brings up a concrete question.
Do you know that?
I realize you're speaking metaphorically, and for the sake of clarity I
On 12/9/06, Mark D Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm sorry to have to tell you that you can't get far
discussing "intellectual property" without it becoming political. It
is an inherently political term, like "death tax" or "woman's right to
choose".
Intellectual property is a new term btw:
On Dec 7, 2006, at 8:59 AM, John Howell wrote:
Lots of opinions being thrown around here, and NONE of us has seen the
inside of a law school, but this brings up a concrete question.
Do you know that?
I realize you're speaking metaphorically, and for the sake of clarity I
confirm that I am ne
At 7:55 AM -0500 12/6/06, dhbailey wrote:
Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
[snip]
By abandoned copyrights, I do not mean the situation where the
copyright owner explicitly placed a work in the public domain. I
use the term in your second sense: there is a copyright, but there
is no owner to be found
On 6 Dec 2006 at 10:56, dhbailey wrote:
> As to whether the absolutist nature of current copyright law is more
> beneficial to society or not, that is clearly a debatable issue --
> stronger copyright protections give more individuals the incentive to
> create, making the culture richer, yet weake
On 6 Dec 2006 at 6:14, dhbailey wrote:
> Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
> [snip]>
> > The "abandoned copyrights" are already transferred, to the public
> > domain, and I would argue that a provision by which abandoned
> > copyrights could be acquired by parties who have previously no
> > interest sets a
dhbailey wrote:
It would be curious to do a study on how the literary copyright world
has managed such a different course, whereby the author retains the
copyright and the publisher merely licenses a specific right,
I spent some time in the book section of a store, and examined at
random, abou
At 01:35 PM 12/6/06 -0500, you wrote:
>If you'll allow me a moment's more self-promotion, this is actually
>my second mention in the NYT in the past week. They also reviewed one
>of my gigs in Saturday's paper:
>http://tinyurl.com/y99skl
Missed that one -- fantastic! "he wants his music to mak
Nice review. Break a leg on the 14th!
BC
- Original Message -
From: "Darcy James Argue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Finale] O.T. Self publishing issues
Thanks Dennis,
If you'll allow me a moment's mo
Thanks Dennis,
If you'll allow me a moment's more self-promotion, this is actually
my second mention in the NYT in the past week. They also reviewed one
of my gigs in Saturday's paper:
http://tinyurl.com/y99skl
If I had a press agent, he'd probably want a raise.
Cheers,
- Darcy
-
[EM
On Dec 6, 2006, at 6:14 AM, dhbailey wrote:
the publisher doesn't feel like putting any more money into printing
that work. The P.O.P. category of works.
I would argue that those sorts of abandoned copyrights should revert
back to the composer, including all ancillary rights such as
synchr
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 06.12.2006 dhbailey wrote:
Just out of curiosity, why do you think that patents are for the
benefits of society while arts are for the benefits of the creator only?
Sorry, but this really isn't what I said. There is some logic missing
here. You cannot even compare p
At 05:49 AM 12/6/06 -0500, Darcy James Argue wrote:
>Lobbying for more effective union leadership and lobbying for
>rational copyright reform aren't mutually exclusive activities.
Talk about mutual exclusivity, neither are commenting on the Finale list
and getting a mention in the Times. Good on
On 06.12.2006 dhbailey wrote:
Just out of curiosity, why do you think that patents are for the benefits of
society while arts are for the benefits of the creator only?
Sorry, but this really isn't what I said. There is some logic missing
here. You cannot even compare patents with arts, all yo
Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
Mark D Lew wrote:
On Dec 5, 2006, at 5:43 PM, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
I would also be inclined to restrict copyright to natural persons, so
that Walt Disney could hold a copyright, but the Disney Company could
not.
OK, but I assume you realize that is essentially a
Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
[snip]
By abandoned copyrights, I do not mean the situation where the copyright
owner explicitly placed a work in the public domain. I use the term in
your second sense: there is a copyright, but there is no owner to be
found to enforce it. And in my opinion (Note: I
Mark D Lew wrote:
On Dec 5, 2006, at 5:43 PM, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
I would also be inclined to restrict copyright to natural persons, so
that Walt Disney could hold a copyright, but the Disney Company could
not.
OK, but I assume you realize that is essentially a restriction on the
indiv
Dave Bailey quoted a bit of what I wrote:
The "abandoned copyrights" are already transferred, to the public
domain, and I would argue that a provision by which abandoned
copyrights could be acquired by parties who have previously no
interest sets a dangerous precedent; that could conceivably l
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 06.12.2006 Darcy James Argue wrote:
Local 802 just had its election today. It's possible that if there's
going to be new leadership, we might actually get some progress on
some of these issues. But I'm not terribly optimistic.
Being a little cynical here: You can't
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 05.12.2006 Andrew Stiller wrote:
Copyright is the provision of a monopoly for a limited time, for the
benefit of *society*, not the creator.
Ok, it may be that in the US, in which case I think it is wrong.
However, copyright, or "Urheberrecht" is not for the benefi
Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
[snip]>
The "abandoned copyrights" are already transferred, to the public
domain, and I would argue that a provision by which abandoned copyrights
could be acquired by parties who have previously no interest sets a
dangerous precedent; that could conceivably lead to auct
Lobbying for more effective union leadership and lobbying for
rational copyright reform aren't mutually exclusive activities.
Cheers,
- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
On 06 Dec 2006, at 4:27 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 06.12.2006 Darcy James Argue wrote:
Local 802 just had
On 06.12.2006 Christopher Smith wrote:
To put it in the terms of the current discussion: it may very well be
advantageous to a composer or leader to put out a recording (or any work for
that matter) that loses money because of the other benefits he gets. The
musicians would not share these oth
On Dec 6, 2006, at 3:29 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
However, the problem we have in Germany is that freelance musicians
are completely unprotected by anyone. Even though our secondary
recording rights are somewhat secured by GVL, this does not deal
with direct royalties nor does it have
On 06.12.2006 Darcy James Argue wrote:
Local 802 just had its election today. It's possible that if there's going to
be new leadership, we might actually get some progress on some of these issues.
But I'm not terribly optimistic.
Being a little cynical here: You can't even get your union orga
On 06 Dec 2006, at 3:29 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
But I must say that I am surprised that in the US the union has not
been able to solve the dilemma you are talking about.
If you say the state of the AFM firsthand (especially the New York
local, Local 802), you would not be surprised, tru
On 05.12.2006 David W. Fenton wrote:
Johannes, I'm having a great deal of difficulty parsing what you're
saying here. There weren't any copyright laws in place, except in
England, and composers kept their works to themselves until they sold
them to a first publisher. After that, the publication
On 05.12.2006 Darcy James Argue wrote:
Is this fair? You can say that artists shouldn't sign these contracts, but
artists (especially new artists) have virtually no negotiating power.
No, I am not saying this is fair. In fact I am as much a victim of such
contracts as you are. All I am sayin
On 05.12.2006 Andrew Stiller wrote:
Copyright is the provision of a monopoly for a limited time, for the benefit of
*society*, not the creator.
Ok, it may be that in the US, in which case I think it is wrong.
However, copyright, or "Urheberrecht" is not for the benefit of society
where I co
On 05.12.2006 Mark D Lew wrote:
I notice that the reason you give is precisely the "American" reason (the whole world
benefits when artists are given incentive to publish) as opposed to the "European" reason
(anything he writes belongs to him and therefore he has a natural right to tell others
On 05 Dec 2006, at 9:43 PM, Mark D Lew wrote:
On Dec 5, 2006, at 5:43 PM, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
I would also be inclined to restrict copyright to natural persons,
so that Walt Disney could hold a copyright, but the Disney Company
could not.
OK, but I assume you realize that is essentia
On Dec 5, 2006, at 5:43 PM, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
I would also be inclined to restrict copyright to natural persons, so
that Walt Disney could hold a copyright, but the Disney Company could
not.
OK, but I assume you realize that is essentially a restriction on the
individual. If I hold a
David W. Fenton wrote:
I do think, thought, that there might be room for a concept of
"abandonment of copyright," where there is no entity in existence that
can claim and enforce the copyright.
I don't know how it is in the UK, but in the U.S., there is a de facto
provision of the concept of ab
On 5 Dec 2006 at 20:01, John Howell wrote:
> At 7:23 PM -0500 12/5/06, David W. Fenton wrote:
> >
> >I'm not sure that was what Johannes was doing. I think he was making
> >a point about a specific genre and a specific composer. I believe he
> >rather overstated his case, but I think he's right th
Darcy wrote:
On 05 Dec 2006, at 3:09 PM, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
anyone (including the original artists, engineers, &c) can simply
create a new recording of the exact same material and reissue it,
whether the owner of the original CD copyright wishes it or not.
The words "simply" and "exact
At 7:23 PM -0500 12/5/06, David W. Fenton wrote:
I'm not sure that was what Johannes was doing. I think he was making
a point about a specific genre and a specific composer. I believe he
rather overstated his case, but I think he's right that a lot of
string quartets were written for publication
At 6:55 PM -0500 12/5/06, John Howell wrote:
The closer comparison would be with popular songwriters. And in the
absence of copyright, ALL music was public domain as soon as it
became available "in fixed form"!!
A further thought: ... or in the case of Allegri's "secret"
Miserere, as soon a
On 5 Dec 2006 at 18:55, John Howell wrote:
> At 5:02 PM -0500 12/5/06, David W. Fenton wrote:
> >On 5 Dec 2006 at 10:47, Mark D Lew wrote:
> >
> >> What I want to know is whether Haydn would have written his pieces
> >> if he had a secure copyright for, say, 28 years from publication,
> >> as o
At 5:02 PM -0500 12/5/06, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 5 Dec 2006 at 10:47, Mark D Lew wrote:
What I want to know is whether Haydn would have written his pieces if
he had a secure copyright for, say, 28 years from publication, as
opposed to 70 years after his death. I think he would. If that'
On 5 Dec 2006 at 16:19, John Howell wrote:
> I've been told that
> music did have copyright in England in the late 18th century, but
> don't know the details.
The Statute of Anne of 1710 was the first copyright law to include
music. Whenever you see a piece of music published in England that
s
On 5 Dec 2006 at 15:18, Andrew Stiller wrote:
> On Dec 5, 2006, at 3:18 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
>
> > On 04.12.2006 Andrew Stiller wrote:
> >> By the same reasoning, I would argue that there should be a cap
> >> (say $1M) on the amount a work may earn for its creator under
> >> copyright. Any
On 5 Dec 2006 at 14:55, John Howell wrote:
> At 6:23 PM +0100 12/4/06, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
> >On 04.12.2006 dhbailey wrote:
> >>Can you think of a way around the totally financial decisions
> >>whereby a company which has aggressively marketed and published
> >>copyrighted materials for which
On 5 Dec 2006 at 10:47, Mark D Lew wrote:
> What I want to know is whether Haydn would have written his pieces if
> he had a secure copyright for, say, 28 years from publication, as
> opposed to 70 years after his death. I think he would. If that's
> sufficient to persuade him to write and publi
On 5 Dec 2006 at 13:58, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
> On 05.12.2006 Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
> > When you read H.C. Robbins-Landon's multi volume biography, you get
> > a sense Haydn was obsessed by a fear of poverty. Of course, Haydn
> > could be quite petty about money.
>
> This is precisely the rea
At 12:34 PM +0100 12/5/06, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
I haven't got my books right here, but in the case of Haydn we know
he even fought for compensation of copyright infringement,
particularly on the second set of Tost quartets (op.64). I cannot
remember what the final outcome was, but certainl
At 6:18 AM -0500 12/5/06, dhbailey wrote:
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
[snip]>
Just for the record: Music history would have been quite different
without Urheberrecht. I am pretty sure we would not have seen some
of the greatest masterworks without it. I am pretty sure 90% of
classical and romantic
Friends,
It occurs to me that Johannes' views are informed by a system somewhat
different than most of the other participants in this thread. Johannes
views are colored by the German law, and the others of us are writing
from perspectives informed by U.S. law.
Johannes Gebauer posed the que
On 05 Dec 2006, at 3:09 PM, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
anyone (including the original artists, engineers, &c) can simply
create a new recording of the exact same material and reissue it,
whether the owner of the original CD copyright wishes it or not.
The words "simply" and "exact same" are do
At 12:07 AM +0100 12/5/06, Barbara Touburg wrote:
One million???
How much money does one need to live out his life without any other income??
One million U.S.$ invested at a conservative 6% would yield $60,000
per year, which today is a middle class income and probably not a
living family in
On Dec 5, 2006, at 3:18 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 04.12.2006 Andrew Stiller wrote:
By the same reasoning, I would argue that there should be a cap (say
$1M) on the amount a work may earn for its creator under copyright.
Anything above that, and the item goes PD. I would also argue that n
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
I own a little CD label (well, I own half of it) and I certainly would
not want any law in place where when I, for whatever reason, let a CD
go out of print (whether temporarily or permanently) anyone else can
come along and reissue it. Yet this is precisely what you are
Johannes,
Here's how the situation normally works with an independent jazz-
based label:
1) You organize and pay for the recording yourself, including mixing
and mastering. The record company pays for none of this.
2) The record company takes 50% of the publishing rights for every
compos
At 6:23 PM +0100 12/4/06, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 04.12.2006 dhbailey wrote:
Can you think of a way around the totally financial decisions
whereby a company which has aggressively marketed and published
copyrighted materials for which they either own the copyright or
have licensed it from t
On Dec 5, 2006, at 4:58 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
This is precisely the reason I said I don't think that Haydn would
have composed quartets were it not for his own profit. Had there not
been some basic copyright law in place there simply wouldn't have been
an incentive to compose them in the
On 05.12.2006 Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
When you read H.C. Robbins-Landon's multi volume biography, you get a
sense Haydn was obsessed by a fear of poverty. Of course, Haydn could
be quite petty about money.
This is precisely the reason I said I don't think that Haydn would have
composed quarte
Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
[snip]>
But despite all of these shady dealings in the 18th and early 19th
centuries, we are the winners, since we have this beautiful music to
enjoy today!
And all of it copyright free! Unless, that is, you want a scholarly
edition, in which case you need to pay roya
On 12/5/06, Johannes Gebauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I haven't got my books right here, but in the case of Haydn we know he
even fought for compensation of copyright infringement, particularly on
the second set of Tost quartets (op.64). I cannot remember what the
final outcome was, but certain
On 05.12.2006 dhbailey wrote:
That would be a great study -- what sort of copyright laws were in place when
Beethoven wrote his last string quartets? When he wrote his first symphony?
What sort of copyright protection did he (or anybody) receive to get
compensation for others performing his m
Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
[snip]>
One of the battles on this issue I see on the horizon is an effort to
lengthen the copyrights of newer materials, since publication plus 95
means, in some cases, a longer copyright under the old term than under
the new one, since a copyright owned by a composer w
On Dec 4, 2006, at 11:27 PM, Daniel Wolf wrote:
Don't hold your breath expecting any significant reform. It is highly
unlikely that the granted extensions of the protected period (i.e.
those in the disastrous Sony Bono Millenium Copyright Act) can be
changed; that would put Congress in the po
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
[snip]>
Just for the record: Music history would have been quite different
without Urheberrecht. I am pretty sure we would not have seen some of
the greatest masterworks without it. I am pretty sure 90% of classical
and romantic string quartets would not have been writte
On 05.12.2006 Darcy James Argue wrote:
Not just "anyone" -- the artist who created the work. If I recorded an album of
my own compositions with my own ensemble, and you decide to release it on your label, but
then after six months (or a year, or even ten years), you decide you want to take it o
On 05 Dec 2006, at 2:50 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 05.12.2006 Darcy James Argue wrote:
Wow. I can't agree with this at all, especially with regard to
sound recordings, where most often it's the record company, not
the artist, that owns the copyright on the recording.
That's a problem w
Mark D Lew wrote:
I, for one, believe that America's constitutional principle of public
interest is sound, and superior to the idea of intellectual property.
If and when America finally gives its copyright law the major overhaul
that it needs, I hope that principle is used as the primary guidel
On 04.12.2006 Andrew Stiller wrote:
By the same reasoning, I would argue that there should be a cap (say $1M) on
the amount a work may earn for its creator under copyright. Anything above
that, and the item goes PD. I would also argue that no copyright should be
ownable by an institution, but
On 05.12.2006 Darcy James Argue wrote:
Wow. I can't agree with this at all, especially with regard to sound
recordings, where most often it's the record company, not the artist, that owns
the copyright on the recording.
That's a problem with the contract between the artist and the company,
n
Mark D Lew wrote:
This contradiction is one of the two big reasons why American
copyright law is in need of major reform.
Don't hold your breath expecting any significant reform. It is highly
unlikely that the granted extensions of the protected period (i.e. those
in the disastrous Sony
At 9:24 AM -0500 12/4/06, dhbailey wrote:
Sure, they have the same protections right now, at least under U.S.
copyright law. Educational fair use doesn't include school concerts
held outside the normal school day (8-3 or whatever the school day
is scheduled for),
Actually that isn't what t
On Dec 4, 2006, at 4:49 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Anyone who invests work into something for which he can claim
copyright, should have any right to withdraw the copyrighted material
from the market, and not be forced to make it public. Anything else
would defeat the object of copyright legis
On Dec 4, 2006, at 6:07 PM, Barbara Touburg wrote:
One million???
How much money does one need to live out his life without any other
income??
Or am I from "Holland"?
Andrew Stiller wrote:
I would argue that there should be a cap (say $1M) on the amount a
work may earn for its creator un
Wow. I can't agree with this at all, especially with regard to sound
recordings, where most often it's the record company, not the artist,
that owns the copyright on the recording.
If a record company decides to remove a recording from the market (or
goes under, or whatever), then I think c
One million???
How much money does one need to live out his life without any other income??
Or am I from "Holland"?
Andrew Stiller wrote:
On Dec 4, 2006, at 10:48 AM, dhbailey wrote:
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
US Constitution, Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall
have power [...] T
On Dec 4, 2006, at 10:48 AM, dhbailey wrote:
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
US Constitution, Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall
have power [...] To promote the progress of science and useful arts,
by
securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive
right to
their respe
I dealt with one small publishing house and asked if a score were available
for one particular work. The person I was dealing with said that normally
there wasn't, but then nipped into the back room, photocopied the handwritten
manuscript score and sold me that!
POD at its most literal eh?
On Dec 4, 2006, at 3:09 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
I have seen both Peters and Bärenreiter editions which were nothing
else than photocopies. Very often the score is still printed
traditionally, while the parts are photocopies. It seems that the
publishers do this when the EOF of an edition
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
> It might be on the Wayback Machine:
> http://www.archive.org/web/web.php
> They archive pages unless denied by robots.txt or asked to remove a page.
That's quite interesting. I just did a search on my web page:
Search Results for Jan 01, 1996 - Dec 04, 2006
1996
On 4 Dec 2006 at 12:16, John Howell wrote:
> At 11:17 AM +0100 12/4/06, Eric Fiedler wrote:
> >Exactly! Petrucci's print runs were of the of the order of magnitude
> >of a couple of hundred copies maximum, and Telemann's (two hundred
> >plus years later) were quite certainly no larger. EFF
>
> On
On 4 Dec 2006 at 10:56, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
> At 10:38 AM 12/4/06 -0500, dhbailey wrote:
> >That's the problem with all this copyright stuff -- it's definitely
> >not a black and white issue. Where would someone find a copy of your
> >old web-page, if you've taken it down? If it's archiv
On 4 Dec 2006 at 10:48, dhbailey wrote:
> Maybe if there were a "property tax" on copyrights, just as there is
> on physical property: "Any works which aren't available for sale to
> the public but which are protected by copyright shall pay an annual
> tax of $xx to maintain that copyright." So
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
At 10:38 AM 12/4/06 -0500, dhbailey wrote:
That's the problem with all this copyright stuff -- it's definitely not
a black and white issue. Where would someone find a copy of your old
web-page, if you've taken it down? If it's archived somewhere, I do
hope you've
Indeed! But of course a similar system is also in place today, at
least with regard to publications in a series. Libraries and other
musicological institutes usually subscribe to a series (if you're
lucky), thus allowing the distributor to know roughly how many copies
of a particular number
On 04.12.2006 dhbailey wrote:
> Can you think of a way around the totally financial decisions whereby a
company which has aggressively marketed and published copyrighted materials for
which they either own the copyright or have licensed it from the copyright owner,
most likely without time limi
On 04.12.2006 dhbailey wrote:
But it doesn't remain suppressed forever -- when copyright law runs out, it is
no longer suppressable unless all copies of it everywhere are destroyed.
So all my proposal does is to shorten the time frame within which that entry
into the public domain occurs.
T
On 04.12.2006 dhbailey wrote:
Can you think of a way around the totally financial decisions whereby a company
which has aggressively marketed and published copyrighted materials for which
they either own the copyright or have licensed it from the copyright owner,
most likely without time limit
On 04.12.2006 dhbailey wrote:
That's the problem with all this copyright stuff -- it's definitely not a black
and white issue. Where would someone find a copy of your old web-page, if
you've taken it down? If it's archived somewhere, I do hope you've sued that
place for infringing your copyr
At 11:17 AM +0100 12/4/06, Eric Fiedler wrote:
Exactly! Petrucci's print runs were of the of the order of magnitude
of a couple of hundred copies maximum, and Telemann's (two hundred
plus years later) were quite certainly no larger.
EFF
One thing to keep in mind is that a good many publicatio
At 10:41 AM 12/4/06 -0500, Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
>Siva Vaidhyanathan has written a wonderful book on copyright issues
>"Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How
>It Threatens Creativity" (New York University Press, 2001)
Yes, this is an excellent book -- though a litt
On 12/4/06, Daniel Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Two of the three publishers listed above don't go through distributors,
and they have had orders from Columbia. Just shows you that the
important issue is the content, not the manner of distribution. I know
that in the case of Material Press, wh
At 10:38 AM 12/4/06 -0500, dhbailey wrote:
>That's the problem with all this copyright stuff -- it's definitely not
>a black and white issue. Where would someone find a copy of your old
>web-page, if you've taken it down? If it's archived somewhere, I do
>hope you've sued that place for infrin
On 12/4/06, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 03:28 PM 12/4/06 +0100, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
>That's what copyright is about. It has very little to do with benefit to
>society, it is something the copyright owner _owns_ and that's what it
>is there for.
Oh, not here. US Constit
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
At 03:28 PM 12/4/06 +0100, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
That's what copyright is about. It has very little to do with benefit to
society, it is something the copyright owner _owns_ and that's what it
is there for.
Oh, not here. US Constitution, Article I, Section 8: "Th
Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
On 12/4/06, Daniel Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is simply not true. If a library wants a Stockhausen score, they
order from Stockhausen's website. Two publishing ventures with which I
have some association, Frog Peak Music and Material Press, both do
extensive l
dc wrote:
dhbailey écrit:
So all my proposal does is to shorten the time frame within which that
entry into the public domain occurs.
Well, doing away entirely with copyright would only shorten the time
frame also. And bring us back a few centuries, as Johannes said.
True, but I'm not su
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 04.12.2006 Christopher Smith wrote:
How about this; works that are not currently in print but are still in
copyright are subject to "fair use", meaning you could make a
photocopy if you can't find a copy for sale? At least this way the
composers and publishers wouldn
On 12/4/06, Daniel Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is simply not true. If a library wants a Stockhausen score, they
order from Stockhausen's website. Two publishing ventures with which I
have some association, Frog Peak Music and Material Press, both do
extensive library sales, and orders
Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
. But
the bottom line she said, libraries will NEVER order material from a
publisher's website.
This is simply not true. If a library wants a Stockhausen score, they
order from Stockhausen's website. Two publishing ventures with which I
have some association, Frog
At 03:28 PM 12/4/06 +0100, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
>That's what copyright is about. It has very little to do with benefit to
>society, it is something the copyright owner _owns_ and that's what it
>is there for.
Oh, not here. US Constitution, Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall
have power
On 12/4/06, Johannes Gebauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Printing on demand means that every ordered copy is printed separately.
That is a completely different way of publishing which is only possible
with modern technology.
I'm not the one making these definitions, it's just what I've been
tol
dc wrote:
Johannes Gebauer écrit:
Anyone who invests work into something for which he can claim
copyright, should have any right to withdraw the copyrighted material
from the market, and not be forced to make it public. Anything else
would defeat the object of copyright legislation and bring u
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
