Klarinet Archive - Posting 000002.txt from 2008/06

From: "Karl Krelove" <karlkrelove@-----.net>
Subj: RE: [kl] Rant du jour
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 18:34:24 -0400

Obviously, there are two different debates going on at the same time: is
copying for (xyz) reasons legal (it almost certainly isn't for nearly any
version of x, y or z) and are you likely to be prosecuted if you make a copy
to facilitate use of the part when the printed version is in one way or
another inconvenient. That a copyright holder isn't likely to come after you
for fixing a page turn with a Xerox machine or even making a dangerous
transposition safer in performance doesn't make it legal. It's just
something publishers aren't likely to waste money and time about in court
(not to mention risking looking silly) if their potential loss is small.
I've never been pulled over and ticketed for doing 69 MPH in a 65 MPH zone,
but 69's not legal in Pennsylvania (unless I'm actively passing a
slow-moving vehicle). That the other traffic is mostly doing 70-75 MPH makes
it even less likely that I'll get ticketed, but none of us is driving
legally at those speeds.

By the way, set aside the situation in which teachers make "practice copies"
for students to use so they don't destroy the original parts. That's one
that *is* occasionally prosecuted with results that can be disastrous to the
teacher who gets nailed, even though a gazillion teachers do the same thing
every day.

Karl

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Potter [mailto:doug@-----.net]
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 6:01 PM
To: klarinet@-----.org
Subject: RE: [kl] Rant du jour

It is with some reluctance that I take on the task of arguing with a lawyer
- but it seems to me that copying a part for the purpose of marking it up or
repaging it is about as likely to get you into trouble as removing the tag
from your mattress. Does anyone know of anyone who's actually been
prosecuted for making a turn page? What if you need a transposed copy?
(before Dan howls, I remind him of his recent story about getting the bass
clarinet part in bass clef - when the composer meant for the publisher to
provide it in treble clef.) What if you have one of those fancy new
computer monitor/music stands where you have to scan the music in to read it
while playing? What if you need to make the staffs further apart to make
the mark up you need? It seems to me unlikely any copyright holder's going
to go after you for doing any of these things (they'd look pretty silly)
provided you held the original document.

Doug
http://ConicWave.net

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Fay [mailto:kevin.fay.home@-----.net]
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 12:24 PM
To: klarinet@-----.org
Subject: RE: [kl] Rant du jour

Fred Jacobowitz posted:

<<<WRONG!!!!!!! A performer can copy the whole part (as many times as he
wishes!) and perform off of it AS LONG AS the original part is present
during the performance (to prove that you didn't bypass the publisher) and
the xeroxes are destroyed after the performance.>>>

. . . to which Keith Bowen replied:

<<<This is a common belief amongst musicians, but I do not think that it is
correct. I am not a lawyer but have had to go into copyright law, and obtain
the advice of specialist US copyright lawyers, for the Kammermusik
organization that I head. . . .

No doubt, as reported, some publishers at some times give permission for
copying, or do not much care. This doesn't alter the law. Oh, and the onus
is on the alleged violator to prove that they did NOT infringe copyright.>>>

I *am* a lawyer, and deal frequently with copyright law. The stakes are a
higher if you are dealing with architectural plans or software, but the law
is the same. Keith has put it in a nutshell. If you don't have "fair use"
- and what Fred describes absolutely is not - you do not, not, not have the
right to photocopy music, ever. It is *entirely* up to the copyright owner
whether to grant permission to do so, or not.

Donna Higgins reports that Boosey is lenient for Pictures - and why wouldn't
they be, as they've been paid, and there are zillions of legally-owned parts
from when editions were available for sale.

OTOH, the P&B thing we're renting is much closer to renting musical theater
parts. I've posted in the past about how it's not a good idea to make
photocopies of rental music like this, as these folks are truly quite
protective of their rights. Photocopying a single page to assist w/ a bad
page turn can lead to trouble.

Matthew Lloyd is right on the mark when he notes that "If parts are ruined
though overuse, more need to be bought. If, in essence, they are used as
masters for rough copies, the masters will last longer but the publisher
will therefore sell fewer." Music publishers view sheet music as a
consumable. It is emphatically *not* OK, for example, for a junior high
school band director to buy a set of parts, hold them in an archive and give
photocopies to the students because "they'll just ruin them anyway."
Teachers have lost their jobs for doing this. It is the publishers'
expectation that sheet music (Of course, doing this with "borrowed" sheet
music is much worse).

Bottom line - music publishers are in the business of making copies of the
sheet music whose rights they own. If you make a photocopy, they're not
selling one.

kjf

------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------