No Easy Answers in the Copyright Debate (David Pogue in the NYT)

[Ilja]

Hi all, I would ask you to read David Pogue's column in the New York Times:

From http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/no-easy-answers-in-the-copyright-debate/?scp=1&sq=pogue%20copyright&st=cse (registration necessary)

The last part of the column is of particular interest to us. Pogue quotes from a letter he received:
"[...] But copyright, like the people who originate the material and the industries that promulgate it, has a lifespan. I think the classical piano sheet music world gives a glimpse of the end state — out of the ashes of the music business, comes the rebirth of the musician business (as John Perry Barlow once said). It also, more importantly, shows what happens when a society does a poor, random job of preserving their cultural heritage to nurture future generations."

The comments have some interesting insights, as well (and a lot of not-so-relevant or insightful ones, of course).

[eschiss1]

Though I gather http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement this among other efforts may be attempting to make nuance moot.
Eric (please please link links)

[Ilja]

Admittedly, there are a lot of sides to this issue. But I can get really, really upset when music isn't accesible just because of 'corporate policy' of this or that company and out of sheer disinterest.

[Amphissa]

 
The details of copyright protection, including the length of time copyright protection lasts, varies by country. However, in the U.S., it is a total mess.

The U.S. Constitution simply says "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." The problem is (1) the definition of "limited Times" and (2) "Authors."

In the first issue, the courts have ruled that, although "limited Times" cannot be interpreted as "forever", copyright can be renewed. As a result, in practice, "limited Time" can become forever.

In the second issue, authors now commonly transfer their rights to publishers. So the publisher becomes the copyright owner. This is (in my opinion) completely contrary to the INTENT of the writers of the constitution. They would have never wanted business organizations to hold control over writings and inventions forever. The whole point of the constitutional clause was to allow an inventor (a person) or a writer/composer (a person) to enjoy an initial profit from their work. Once they had made their profit, it would go into the public domain and all people would then benefit from it, thus promoting *progress* of science and the arts.

The U.S. copyright laws are now so restrictive that the period of copyright extends 70 years after death of the author, or even 120 years from the time the work was created. This has no connection with the original intent of the constitution. It is idiocy.

The Broadway composer made his profit from his music. He had hit shows on Broadway, he sold his music at that time. Legally, the way the copyright laws are now interpreted, he can still profit from selling the scores. But in constitutional terms (my opinion only) he has derived his profit and that is the end of it.

Unfortunately, there is a secret trade agreement being hammered out worldwide -- ACTA. The U.S. is trying to force all other countries to conform to highly restrictive regulations drafted by the U.S. music and film uindustry associations (RIAA and MPAA). They are trying to keep these negotiations secret, because since it is a *treaty*, it would override any local laws. It is a very volatile issue, and most of the world public do not want these kinds of restrictions. As one example, in the U.S., this treaty would basically eliminate the entire concept of "fair use" of published information in education and for personal use.

ACTA here -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement

There are many problems for authors and composers in the digital age. I think we all want composers, musicians, orchestras and record labels to survive.  And most of us here buy a lot of CDs and a lot of downloads. It is important that composers and authors do profit from their work. But it is obvious that the old days of paper publishing are long gone, and that the industries of music and publishing will need to change in order to remain solvent in this digital era.

iTunes and Rhapsody are examples of one fact. If music is easily available at a reasonable cost from one, easy to use internet provider, customers will pay for music. The same can be said for electronic publications. However, simply ranting about "illegal file sharing" will solve nothing. Give people an opportunity to buy, don't treat your customers like criminals.

Of course, that is all just my opinion, and it is based on our situation here in the U.S. Things are likely different in other countries.

Sorry -- rant now over. 

[thalbergmad]

But I can get really, really upset when music isn't accesible just because of 'corporate policy' of this or that company and out of sheer disinterest.

I won't mention any names, but it took me 17 e mails over a period of 2 years to get a response from a music publisher, when i simply wanted their permission to obtain a copy of a particular score from the BL. When they did respond, i was advised that it would cost me £20 for an e mail giving their permission.

Some Publishers are beyond helpful, but others only seem intersted in selling their umpteenth Beethoven Sonata at an inflated price.

Thal

[mbhaub]

The arrogance of some publishers is deeply annoying, like Disney going to the US Congress whining about their "treasures" going into PD. And alas, the bozos in Washington change the rules. I get it that a composer and publisher have a right to make a profit and pay off the costs, but when is it enough?

This hits home right now because of a summer-time orchestra I play with. We meet each week and just sight-read music. No rehearsing, no concerts. In past six years we have played a lot of repertoire in our three hour sessions, but most of it has been PD. But recently we took on the Copland 3rd symphony. So we called Boosey and told them what we wanted to do: one read-thru, no concert, no recordings, no copying parts. All we wanted to do was read it and return it. The cost: $750. Incredible! And check the prices of Bolero! One of the things that keeps music alive is the accessibility by the public amateurs. But too many publishers do everything they can to get in the way.

[eschiss1]

Hrm. Actually, as to the 70 years after the death of the author thing, that needs some amendment. Even IMSLP.org, which very rightly has a once-bitten thrice shy attitude ever since shutting down after a cease-and-desist letter from Universal Edition, states that if the _work_ was first published before 1923, then the work of music is out of copyright in the United States. (Copland 3 and Ravel are both from after 1923 and don't contradict that, not to say I mightn't be mistaken.)
Eric

[giles.enders]

What realy angers me is when someone takes a piece of out of copyright music drastically alters it, amends it, adds parts and claims copyright but insists on publicising it under the name of the original composer.

[eschiss1]

What realy angers me is when someone takes a piece of out of copyright music drastically alters it, amends it, adds parts and claims copyright but insists on publicising it under the name of the original composer.

Reminds me of what Fellegi did to Medtner's sonata tragica on his recording for Marco Polo, or what I'm told Aleksandr Toradze did to Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition on his (one of his?) recording(s) of that work...

(The Fellegi I've heard- to summarize- in a one movement free sonata form from which the composer replaced the recapitulation of the 2nd group with a Cadenza, more or less, Fellegi basically reinstates the 2nd group and omits the Cadenza. And from Fellegi's recording I basically learned the piece until I acquired the score- therefore I was confused by a comment in a book The Sonata Since Beethoven that the 2nd group was omitted..., so I'm maybe a bit extra peeved. I have no problem with his playing really though not a patch on eg Hamelin, but really...)

[John H White]

I would suggest that the new 70 year rule is there only for the benefit of greedy publishers. I can see that the author or composer needs some sort of protection for his or her work during his or her lifetime. Maybe  the copyright could extend for up to 30 years after their death in order to provide some sort of income for widows and/or dependents, but I reckon 70 years is far too much.

[ahinton]

I would suggest that the new 70 year rule is there only for the benefit of greedy publishers. I can see that the author or composer needs some sort of protection for his or her work during his or her lifetime. Maybe  the copyright could extend for up to 30 years after their death in order to provide some sort of income for widows and/or dependents, but I reckon 70 years is far too much.

You may do, but perhaps you have not given sufficient thought to the situation that arises in respect of music that does not even receive its first performance until after the composer's death.

Best,

Alistair

[giles.enders]

All composers want their music to be performed, therefore if there are pieces which they have written that receive their first performance after their death it can only be a good thing.  This is far more likely to happen if there are no strings  about copyright.  I would amend the copyright law so that those who deviated from the composers score, had to indicate the fact and they would only be paid for those performances.  Likewise where a score needs to be tidied up or completed a one off payment would be made.