Fritz Brun - copyright issues

[Alan Howe]

As far as this thread's title correct spelling of "Brilliant" Classic is concerned: this was an innocent typing mistake of mine - which Alan will surely correct (with my thanks). I am deeply sorry for this, but nobody is perfect...

I hadn't even noticed. Tippfehler ausgebessert. Besser ein perfekter Dirigent als eine perfekte Schreibkraft!

As friends will have spotted, we now have two separate threads. Eric: please take note 

[TerraEpon]

"Over here" is Switzerland, Brun's native country. Sorry, but I can't understand your sentence, TerraEpon. What do you exactly mean? Also some of eschiss1's sentences are quite difficult to understand. But I speak and read English very well.

Basically, while you need to follow the laws of the country you live in, they don't have bearing on the laws of the country others are in. Those in Canada are free to distribute any Brun music published over 25 years ago (I believe that's the way it works) because his music, in general, is in the public domain there. Those in the US are free to distribute any Brun music published in 1923 or before.

[Ilja]

Still, there are weird exceptions. A friend just published a thesis that contained unpublished work by Arthur Conan Doyle – still under copyright apparently. And museums and archives still exert copyright on work in their collection. However, in the EU this is going to be heavily curtailed beginning on January 1st, 2020.

[eschiss1]

Well, _yes_. In fact, I posted a link (Public domain) just recently, that separated the matter into, among other things, published and unpublished works... so I'll just repost it here in case anyone might want to pay attention to it this time.

[adriano]

... and I still wait for an answer from that SUISA responsible I have written to...
(thanks, Alan, for tranferring this to a new thread)

[adriano]

Just recently a certain "Johann Rufinatscha" has posted my recording of the complete Cello Concerto by Fritz Brun on YouTube. Eventhough he writes that he is not taking any commercial advantage by doing this, he does not seem to realize that he has illegally copied a recording with music of a still copyrighted composer. This music can now be downloaded free of charge by anyone.
It's also an infringement against artists' copyright (my own) and label copyrights (Brilliant Classics).
I am just asking myself what goes on in the heads of certain people as far respecting artistic achievements are concerned. Why eaxctly they copy and make a commercially protected recording available for free to anyone? Is it a revenge against the artists who are still in right to be paid for their playing? Does the uploader get a personal satisfaction to ruin the music busines that way? I see no real sense of doing this just for the joy music love, since it's an illicit joy.
Uploading a short excerpt for commercial purposes would be understandeable - but only if this is done by the sound carrier owners.
Two weeks ago there was also a complete upload of Bruns 1st Symphony...
And this very morning I discover an upload of the very complete set of 10 CDs conducted by myself on Youtube (by a certain "Kontor Media")!

[TerraEpon]

Most of the time what goes through people's head is "I like this, I want others to hear it". They certainly aren't thinking "I want to ruin someone else's business".

As for "Kantor Media" are you saying they aren't doing this legitly?
https://kontornewmedia.com/en/about-us/
https://kontornewmedia.com/en/digital-distribution/music/

[Double-A]

I am afraid you are excessively charitable in this case, TerraEpon.  "Johann Rufinatscha" routinely posts protected recordings and the very fact that he adds his sort-of-excuse shows that he knows what he is doing.

I think Google ought to be forced to enforce copyright laws on its "property" by the government.  As it is--as far as I know--they will take down postings that violate the law--if it pointed out to them.  Which unfairly puts people like Hadrianus in the position of having to check up on this stuff.  To police this seems to me a great application of so called artificial intelligence.

[Gareth Vaughan]

You are 100% right. It is disgraceful that copyright recordings are allowed to be posted on YouTube with apparent impunity. It takes money from musicians who mostly get paid very little anyway for recording the sort of music we enjoy on this forum.

[eschiss1]

Recordings are, however, an entirely separate issue from -published scores and parts- and their specific US copyright status, so never mind from here.

[adriano]

Brilliant just writes me that "Kontor Media is our sister company, taking care of our digital distribution worldwide. YouTube started a pay streaming channel last year like Spotify. It's not really successful but they are paying for it."

To me this is not a "pay streaming channel" at all!
What then makes it sense of producing CDs and offcial downloads one has to pay for if they allow free of charge "digital distribution worldwide" on YouTube??

[Gareth Vaughan]

I couldn't agree more.

[adriano]

When I was in Moscow I visited a outside-town shop with tons of illegal goods, mainly fashion products. In an adjoining room of about 80-100m lenght, they were selling pirate CDs, pop and classic. And, of course, world's cinema history on video. As far as classical music is concerned, you could get everything: Cecilia Bartoli, Maria Callas, Fischer-Dieskau, Karajan, Bernstein etc. Mostly with newly set primitive artwork. Some are also being sold by poor people in city street underground passages.
A friend of mine told me once that all my Moscow Symphony Orchestra recordings can be downloaded in the Darknet for free.
In other words, if Brilliant allows this, anyboy can just plug in a wire to the audio output of a computer and record this on a private device - and make copies. Of course, for private use it's ok, but I doubt this is being respected in all over the world.

[Alan Howe]

This "Johann Rufinatscha" chappie needs taking down. Not only is he infringing copyright on multiple occasions - he is also besmirching the name and reputation of one of the foremost unsungs.

A certain member of this forum should also take down from his YouTube channel all those recordings which similarly infringe copyright. He knows who he is...

Interestingly, both individuals display an image of Rufinatscha himself. Could these two uploaders be one and the same person, I wonder?

Act now, sir, before we take action against you!

[TerraEpon]

Oh boy, lot's of stuff here...

I think Google ought to be forced to enforce copyright laws on its "property" by the government.  As it is--as far as I know--they will take down postings that violate the law--if it pointed out to them.  Which unfairly puts people like Hadrianus in the position of having to check up on this stuff.  To police this seems to me a great application of so called artificial intelligence.

Yeah about that. It's already an ABSURDLY huge problem with YT's automatic algorithms as it is. There are people who's /wholly original music/ is claimed by other companies, sometimes automatically. Not to mention the whole fair use thing which is pretty much often just destroyed because "they said something bad, take it down" among many many other problems that have happened. The absolute sheer VOLUME of videos YT gets means they either have to be reactive or they wouldn't exist -- plus I believe it may actually be a legal thing that if they actively start policing some things anything they miss THEY could be liable for, but if they are just the host then they aren't liable

To me this is not a "pay streaming channel" at all!
What then makes it sense of producing CDs and offcial downloads one has to pay for if they allow free of charge "digital distribution worldwide" on YouTube??

And what about Spotify? You can listen for free there too. It boggles me that you're complaining about a company releasing music on a platform on their choice. Unless your contract when them specifically doesn't allow for it, I suppose, but that's between you and them.