Klarinet Archive - Posting 000383.txt from 2000/06
From: LeliaLoban@-----.com
Subj: [kl] Kenny G boycott?
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 21:00:54 -0400
Roger Garrett wrote,
>But a question to you - if you in fact took this from Metheny's website,
>which I visited and appears the same, aren't you violating what you said
>was copyright?
>
>Hmmmm........
Roger, I also valued your participation on this list previously, and I'm glad
you're back. I'm sorry if I keep sounding like a broken record permanently
stuck on "nag, scold" re. the copyright issue. The difference is that I
quoted 142 words, while you quoted more than 1,900 words, according to my
word processor's built-in pedant. (Now, that is one of the finer uses for
computers, IMHO -- how I used to hate counting words!) To make sure there's
no infringement, the magazine and newspaper editors I've worked with prefer
for writers to quote no more than 300 words from one source unless we get
permission. (Editor Richard Valley spelled out the 300-word standard to me
for my _Scarlet Street_ articles, for instance.) Quotations used in a longer
work of criticism, such as a book about the author of the primary sources,
often total considerably more than 300 words. However, allowable quotation
of poetry and song lyrics is far more limited. That number 300 isn't an
absolute rule of law (context counts), but I think, and the editors I deal
with think, that it's a reasonable rule of thumb for short nonfiction,
including magazine and newspaper articles and forums such as this list. To
keep the list on the right side of the copyright law, I would rather see a
paraphrase, or a quotation of under 300 words. Just give us the idea, then
send us to the site to read the rest. As I said in my previous message, the
142 words I quoted consisted of my excerpts from Metheny's lengthy *response*
to the way his Kenny G "rant" (as he called it) has been passed around, that
he posted himself on the same website.
http://www.patmethenygroup.com/af/index-qna.html
Roger Garrett wrote,
>My original posting stated that the information came from the web. It did
>not give any web email addresses as Lelia states I clearly indecated!
I beg your pardon, but yes, your message (near the beginning) did give the
web address, as follows. I've added the > marks (which you didn't use) to
indicate who apparently wrote what, as best I can sort it out. The >
indicates Roger Garrett's writing, while >> indicates his source.
>>>indicates the beginning of the material from the website, continuing with
>>>> to indicate Metheny's own words. Hope I've got everything sorted out
correctly!
Roger Garrett wrote,
>Sorry for any language that Metheny lays out, but this was sent to me, and
>knowning the interest that has taken place several times on this list
>regarding Kenny G......I thought it might be interesting.
>
>RG
>
>>Subject: Don't sugar coat it, Pat[long]
>>check this out from patmethenygroup.com.
>> Date:
>>Jun 05 2000
>>
>>> Subject:
>>> Controversy and Kenny G
>>> Question to Pat Metheny:
>>> Pat, could you tell us your opinion about
>>> Kenny G - it appears you were quoted as
>>> being less than enthusiastic about him and
>>> his music.
[snip the rest of the question]
>>> Pat's Answer:
>>>> kenny g is not a musician i really had much
>>>> of an opinion about at all until recently.
[snip the rest of the article]
I think it's fair to say your message "clearly indicated" the material came
from the Metheny website, since the address is spelled right out. I
mentioned that in my previous message because I was trying to soften my
criticism about the copyright issue by noting that you accurately credited
the source of Metheny's article.
You wrote,
>I also stated in my original post that the interview was sent to me, and
>because of interest generated on Klarinet, I felt the public interview by
>such a nationally known professional musician such as Metheny was very
>interesting. Even if it is identical to that which is on Metheny's
>personal website, I can assure you I didn't get it there!
I have no independent knowledge of where anybody first found Metheny's
"rant", or where else these words have appeared, or in what format, or how
many hands they passed through, before they appeared here. I take Metheny's
word for it that those words originated on his own site, and I accept what
*he said* about why he wrote what he did, and for whom, and in what context.
The point is that, as the author of something he published on a publicly
available web site, he should expect people to paraphrase him or briefly
quote him, but IMHO he has the right not to be *re-published* without his
permission. The fact that the article evidently passed through other hands
before it turned up here makes no difference. Just because someone else
already violated his rights doesn't mean we can go ahead and do it to him,
too. If we see something re-published (as opposed to briefly quoted) with no
permission statement, we should not compound the error by further
distributing that material. Under U.S. copyright law, the original author
does not have to *assert* the copyright to own it. The right is his by
common law unless or until he explicitly *sells or otherwise relinquishes*
it. See the Copyright Office site:
<A HREF@-----. Copyright Office Home Page</A>
FWIW, the reason I'm not addressing the substance of Metheny's remarks is
that I've already said the little I have to say about Kenny G on the
alt.music.saxophone newsgroup. The latest saxophony over Kenny G began there
a few days ago, when someone posted, >Pat Metheny blasts Kenny G !!!!>. The
thread has mutated to, >Re: Pat Metheny on Kenny G (LONG)> and several other
thread names with >Kenny G> in them.
Sorry for going on and on about this. Ugh.
Lelia
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
