Klarinet Archive - Posting 000271.txt from 2010/06

From: Joseph Wakeling <joseph.wakeling@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Sheet music copyright
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:56:14 -0400

On 06/30/2010 06:57 PM, Claudia Zornow wrote:
> We've had lots of discussions about copyright on this list. Here's an interesting exchange between a composer and a teenager who wants to download his sheet music for free:
>
> http://www.jasonrobertbrown.com/weblog/2010/06/fighting_with_teenagers_a_copy.php

Note that the kid has a point. There's a social benefit in being able
to freely copy music:

'Did you think about the aspiring actors and actresses who really need
some good sheet music? If you're really who you claim to be, then I
assume you know that Parade, Last Five Years, 13 The Musical, etc. are
all genius pieces of work and that a lot of people who would love to
have that sheet music can't afford it. Thus the term "starving artist."
Performers really need quick and easy ways to attain good sheet music
and you're stopping a lot of people from getting what they need. It
matters a great deal to them that they can get it for free.'

Is the private financial interest of the composer (and his publisher)
necessarily worth more than the ability of many, many young and upcoming
artists to expand their repertoire, hone their technique, and develop
into the great creators and performers of tomorrow?

It's worth repeating that copyright isn't some automatic right of
creators. It's deliberately designed as a tradeoff between the
interests of a private individual -- the creator -- in having a monopoly
on reproduction of the work, and the interests of society at large in
being able to freely access, use and copy works of art.

The aim is that by granting a short-term monopoly you increase the
amount of art that gets created and so have a net social gain. But it's
not obvious that the tradeoff works; and it's particularly not obvious
that the tradeoff is formulated correctly at present.

For example: at the time copyright law was formulated, the focus was
strongly on publishers producing pirate editions. Protecting the author
from ordinary members of the public making copies for private use just
wasn't on the cards and would probably have been considered immoral. Of
course, it helps in that equation that private capacity to reproduce
works was small, so not a threat to the author-sanctioned publisher's
monopoly on reproduction. But the idea that you could prevent a private
individual from making their own personal copy of something would
probably have been viewed with great suspicion.

Now, on the other hand, many of the principal targets of copyright
lawsuits _are_ private individuals. The largest volume of copyright
violation is carried out by private individuals exchanging electronic
files, taking advantage of the fact that this allows perfect
reproduction with virtually zero effort.

Is it by definition right to restrict the opportunity of all those
thousands of private individuals, the diverse creative ways in which
they may use artistic works to benefit society, for the private
financial gain of a few individuals and companies?

Jason Robert Brown obviously thinks that it is -- unsurprisingly; he's
grown up with this system, makes his living from it, and is naturally
scared of the consequences if it fails. But though he accuses the
teenager of "insist[ing] on her right to think [she knows] everything
and to do whatever [she wants]", he's surprisingly unwilling to engage
with the substantive points that she makes.

While she's willing to recognize that he needs an income, he's not
willing to acknowledge that there is a social good in people being able
to freely access, use and share his work, or that there _is_ a balance
to be struck here and that it may not be where it is now. He's not
willing to consider the point that free access to his sheet music may
actually benefit the box office take at his shows (something that may or
may not be true, but which certainly shouldn't be ignored as a
possibility). He's not willing to engage creatively with the
possibility that there could be a way to satisfy both their needs, his
for an income, the young actress' for free access to sheet music to
learn and perform.

George Bernard Shaw made a rather good point about the difference
between information and physical objects (a difference that vanishes at
the smallest scale, but isn't really noticeable in our day to day
existence:-):

"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an
idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of
us will have two ideas."

It's worth thinking about the benefits that can happen when we take
advantage of the ability to share information rather than constrain
access, in this age where significant quantities of information of
diverse kinds (text, music, pictures, video ...) can be shared and
remoulded with virtually the same ease as a casual idea.

Best wishes,

-- Joe
_______________________________________________
Klarinet mailing list
Klarinet@-----.com
To do darn near anything to your subscription, go to:
http://klarinet-list.serve-music.com

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org