PipeChat Digest #4176 - Saturday, December 27, 2003
 
Re: copyright laws
  by "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk>
Re: copyright laws
  by "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au>
Re: copyright laws
  by "Andrew Barss" <andrew.barss@ns.sympatico.ca>
X POSTED - Musicom vs. Walker
  by "Jeff White" <reedstop@charter.net>
 

(back) Subject: Re: copyright laws From: "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 03:53:10 -0800 (PST)   Hello,   That's the trouble with Bach.   Even if you reverse the whole thing or turn the notes upside down, some smart lawyer with an understanding of musical theory, will claim that it remains substantially the same!!   Now the way to get around this is simple.   You re-write the whole thing in a modern genre, using serial technique, and then ask people to sing or play it using a coded numbering system, where they snatch each section from the score at the appropriate pre-determined number. It goes without saying that any canonic sequences are to be avoided at all costs, as this will return the work to the copyright version.   It is, of course, important to change the title of the work also, so as to obscure the origins.   Try something like "Leipzig Follies"   Should someone suggest that it sounds like Bach, then you must tell them that it is an early student work by Pfitzner; hence the sound of escaping wind from the organ.   As a last resort, you could actually BUY the Barenreiter edition, and keep a publisher in business!!   On a serious note, I wonder how copyright applies to a master work or works, re-discovered centuries later, in a foreign country and then authenticated as genuine.   Surely, the intellectual property remains with Bach, and must therefore be in the public domain? If the Yale documents are copies, then the copyright belongs with Bach amd the copyist (as an edition), but still resides in the public domain. Baraenreiter are surely only claiming copyright on the "edition"?   Furthermore, if Yale "own" the original manuscripts, from whatever source, do they have rights concerning the release of the material under license?   Of course, if the original remains in the public domain, then one might reasonably claim that one had "heard the work" and merely transcribed it from memory after the event. Unfortunately, in such circumstances, the copyright may well rest with the conductor, the performers and anyone else involved, such as the broadcasting company or host venue.   It would seem, dear friends, that there are those who create, those who re-create and those who know a fast buck when they see it!!   Regards,   Colin Mitchell UK     --- quilisma@cox.net wrote: > American copyright laws are insufferably complex; > > Hypothetically, if I scan one of the Bach Yale > chorale preludes into > Sibelius, and make an edition of it for brass > quintet, at what point > does it cease to belong to Barenreiter and become my > intellectual > property?   __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/  
(back) Subject: Re: copyright laws From: "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au> Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 20:28:59 +0800   It seems that the copyright laws in Australia are much more liberal than in the US and the UK. Copyright here exists for 50 years after the death of the composer. The composition then is public domain. Publishers' arrangements of music lasts for 25 years and is not renewable.   I believe that some publishers play fast and loose with the laws. There is one big firm in the US that takes music from the public domain and copyrights it in their own name with no alteration at all. If they took someone to court for breaching their copyright on this music I believe they would find it difficult to sustain their action in this country.   There are other letouts for musicians. When I was conducting a concert band in a school 20 odd years ago, we found extra copies of parts impossible to obtain. The band sets allowed four or five copies for each instrument and I had up to 12 instruments in each group. The publisher (again in the US) quoted a $1 per sheet for photcopies of the part (single sheet). The price when bought in a band set was about 30c. I was able to photocopy sufficient parts for my band under the fair trading rule, because the company could not supply extra printed parts and was asking an inflated price for photocopies.   These provisions may not apply to other countries. Bob Elms. ---- Original Message ---- From: cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk To: pipechat@pipechat.org Subject: Re: copyright laws Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 03:53:10 -0800 (PST)   >Hello, > >That's the trouble with Bach. > >Even if you reverse the whole thing or turn the notes >upside down, some smart lawyer with an understanding >of musical theory, will claim that it remains >substantially the same!! > >Now the way to get around this is simple. > >You re-write the whole thing in a modern genre, using >serial technique, and then ask people to sing or play >it using a coded numbering system, where they snatch >each section from the score at the appropriate >pre-determined number. It goes without saying that any >canonic sequences are to be avoided at all costs, as >this will return the work to the copyright version. > >It is, of course, important to change the title of the >work also, so as to obscure the origins. > >Try something like "Leipzig Follies" > >Should someone suggest that it sounds like Bach, then >you must tell them that it is an early student work by >Pfitzner; hence the sound of escaping wind from the >organ. > >As a last resort, you could actually BUY the >Barenreiter edition, and keep a publisher in >business!! > >On a serious note, I wonder how copyright applies to a >master work or works, re-discovered centuries later, >in a foreign country and then authenticated as >genuine. > >Surely, the intellectual property remains with Bach, >and must therefore be in the public domain? If the >Yale documents are copies, then the copyright belongs >with Bach amd the copyist (as an edition), but still >resides in the public domain. Baraenreiter are surely >only claiming copyright on the "edition"? > >Furthermore, if Yale "own" the original manuscripts, >from whatever source, do they have rights concerning >the release of the material under license? > >Of course, if the original remains in the public >domain, then one might reasonably claim that one had >"heard the work" and merely transcribed it from memory >after the event. Unfortunately, in such circumstances, >the copyright may well rest with the conductor, the >performers and anyone else involved, such as the >broadcasting company or host venue. > >It would seem, dear friends, that there are those who >create, those who re-create and those who know a fast >buck when they see it!! > >Regards, > >Colin Mitchell UK >      
(back) Subject: Re: copyright laws From: "Andrew Barss" <andrew.barss@ns.sympatico.ca> Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 10:37:27 -0400   Canadian copyright law has lots of twists and turns also ...   So far as I know copyright exists, here in Canada, for 50 years after the death of the copyright-holder (usually the composer). However, if the composer has transferred copyright to a publishing company, then the publishing company becomes the copyright-holder (obviously) and as publishers are bought and sold -- along with rights to music -- who really knows what is a valid copyright?   The next part of the trick becomes, as someone suggested, if I were to take a piece of music and create my own arrangement. Copyright law suggests that if I put my own effort into creating the copy (e.g., write it out myself vs using a photocopier) then that version is my own -- not the original composer's. However, I have still used someone else's (the original composer's) intellectual property (the tune, if you will) to create my version. If I try to publish my version of the piece, therefore, I'd better have the composer's permission and pay them a royalty.   The third part of this copyright debacle comes with pre-recorded music (and videos). The government, at the insistence of record companies, has levied a surcharge (i.e., a tax) on every blank CD-R/RW, DVD-R/RW, cassette tape, etc. This surcharge is allegedly being given back to the artists to compensate them for the fact that people will, regardless of copyright laws, make copies of music. My understanding (and I have NOT read the laws on this) is that, here in Canada and because of this surcharge, I am allowed to make a copy of a recorded work (CD, DVD, video or cassette tape) for my own use. I cannot, however, make a copy and give it to a friend.   An article I read about the surcharge on recordable media referred back to the turn of the 20th century. Apparently during the early 1900s the government, at the insistence of carriage makers, placed a heavy surcharge on automobiles because the carriage makers were concerned that automobiles would put them out of business.   This article (and, unfortunately, I forget the source) went on to point out the analogy between the carriage makers of the early 1900s and the record companies of the early 2000s -- neither is willing to adjust their business to a changing world and changing consumer interests/demands.   There's an extra two or three cents worth. :-)   Andrew Barss Halifax, Nova Scotia   On Saturday, December 27, 2003, at 08:28 AM, bobelms wrote:   > It seems that the copyright laws in Australia are much more liberal > than in the US and the UK. Copyright here exists for 50 years after > the death of the composer. The composition then is public domain. > Publishers' arrangements of music lasts for 25 years and is not > renewable. > > I believe that some publishers play fast and loose with the laws. > There is one big firm in the US that takes music from the public > domain and copyrights it in their own name with no alteration at all. > If they took someone to court for breaching their copyright on this > music I believe they would find it difficult to sustain their action > in this country. > > There are other letouts for musicians. When I was conducting a > concert band in a school 20 odd years ago, we found extra copies of > parts impossible to obtain. The band sets allowed four or five copies > for each instrument and I had up to 12 instruments in each group. The > publisher (again in the US) quoted a $1 per sheet for photcopies of > the part (single sheet). The price when bought in a band set was > about 30c. I was able to photocopy sufficient parts for my band under > the fair trading rule, because the company could not supply extra > printed parts and was asking an inflated price for photocopies. > > These provisions may not apply to other countries. > Bob Elms. > ---- Original Message ---- > From: cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk > To: pipechat@pipechat.org > Subject: Re: copyright laws > Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 03:53:10 -0800 (PST) > >> Hello, >> >> That's the trouble with Bach. >> >> Even if you reverse the whole thing or turn the notes >> upside down, some smart lawyer with an understanding >> of musical theory, will claim that it remains >> substantially the same!! >> >> Now the way to get around this is simple. >> >> You re-write the whole thing in a modern genre, using >> serial technique, and then ask people to sing or play >> it using a coded numbering system, where they snatch >> each section from the score at the appropriate >> pre-determined number. It goes without saying that any >> canonic sequences are to be avoided at all costs, as >> this will return the work to the copyright version. >> >> It is, of course, important to change the title of the >> work also, so as to obscure the origins. >> >> Try something like "Leipzig Follies" >> >> Should someone suggest that it sounds like Bach, then >> you must tell them that it is an early student work by >> Pfitzner; hence the sound of escaping wind from the >> organ. >> >> As a last resort, you could actually BUY the >> Barenreiter edition, and keep a publisher in >> business!! >> >> On a serious note, I wonder how copyright applies to a >> master work or works, re-discovered centuries later, >> in a foreign country and then authenticated as >> genuine. >> >> Surely, the intellectual property remains with Bach, >> and must therefore be in the public domain? If the >> Yale documents are copies, then the copyright belongs >> with Bach amd the copyist (as an edition), but still >> resides in the public domain. Baraenreiter are surely >> only claiming copyright on the "edition"? >> >> Furthermore, if Yale "own" the original manuscripts, >> from whatever source, do they have rights concerning >> the release of the material under license? >> >> Of course, if the original remains in the public >> domain, then one might reasonably claim that one had >> "heard the work" and merely transcribed it from memory >> after the event. Unfortunately, in such circumstances, >> the copyright may well rest with the conductor, the >> performers and anyone else involved, such as the >> broadcasting company or host venue. >> >> It would seem, dear friends, that there are those who >> create, those who re-create and those who know a fast >> buck when they see it!! >> >> Regards, >> >> Colin Mitchell UK >> > > > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org > Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org > >    
(back) Subject: X POSTED - Musicom vs. Walker From: "Jeff White" <reedstop@charter.net> Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 12:23:13 -0600   All,   Can someone please compare/contrast these two digital providers under the following items:   - Cost - Quality - Service - Flexibility (Integration, expansion)   Thanks! Jeff