Klarinet Archive - Posting 000965.txt from 1999/03

From: "Brent Eresman" <Beresman@-----.com>
Subj: [kl] More copyright...
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 11:59:23 -0500

Lelia originally wrote (in part):

>Delightful parody. Are you the author?

<snip>

>However, if you're not the author, this is worse than a violation
>of the author's copyright, since the only name on this message is
>yours: It's outright plagiarism, even if leaving off the author's
>byline (or information that the author is unknown) is only an
>innocent typo. The fact that the author is unknown (not necessarily
>because the author wants to be unknown, but more likely because
>people have been passing the piece around without crediting the
>author properly) *does not* mean that the verses have fallen into
>the public domain.

Then Steve Goldman wrote (also in part):
>
> I never demanded that you apologize, I suggested you do it, as I felt your
> post was very impolite, mean hearted, and insulting to a member of the list
> who, while I do not know personally (Cindy), have gotten to know and respect
> on both this and the earlyclarinet list. While I have no doubt that a
> copyright attorney could make a legal case for your point of view, I prefer
> to live under the delusion that people are less selfish, egotistical, and
> self serving, posting parodies and sharing their wit for the simple fun of
> it (as did the authors of the Broadside Ballads I referred to earlier)
> rather than for self promotion. Implying that Cindy was a plagiarist and
> questioning her morals tells me much more about your personality then hers.
>

I know neither Steve nor Lelia nor Cindy except from reading your
posts on this list. What i have read in your respective postings has
led me to a respect for each of you. That's why i'd like to suggest
the following:

I don't believe that Lelia implied that Cindy is a plagiarist. I
certainly don't have reason to think Cindy is a plagiarist. What
Lelia did is to state (truly) that the posting of the G&S parody is
an act of plagiarism. She did not call Cindy's motives into
question, only stating a fact about the act itself. Quite frankly, i
think that this kind of thing could have been done by any of us,
mostly because we don't think about the copyright implications very
much. Perhaps that's why some of the reactions against Lelia's post
have been so strong. But Lelia has expressed a very real concern
about a person's rights to their own intellectual property. It's
something we should know about as musicians and as 'net citizens.

Lelia's words may seem harsh, but they are the truth. My question
is, which is more mean-spirited, to allow someone to go on wronging
others (even if they aren't aware of the wrong) or to bring the
offense to that person's attention? Lelia might have chosen a
different way to say what she did, but the truth of the matter
doesn't change (nor does the law, regardless of what we may think
about it).

And as an aside, i certainly have enjoyed the great variety of topics
the list has been exploring recently. Seeing what people have to say
about these gives me a better appreciation for them when we talk
about "clarinet stuff".

Brent Eresman
beresman@-----.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org