Klarinet Archive - Posting 000285.txt from 2010/06

From: Joseph Wakeling <joseph.wakeling@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Sheet music copyright
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 19:44:17 -0400

On 07/01/2010 01:01 AM, Tim Roberts wrote:
> Joseph Wakeling wrote:
>> A pirate production is a rather different matter, don't you think?
>
> Is it? Why? The only difference is a matter of scale. The principle
> is exactly the same.

Do I need to repeat more times that I am not disputing WHAT THE LAW
ACTUALLY IS RIGHT NOW but disputing whether the current law is an
appropriate solution to the (necessary) issue of addressing the
interests of both creators and consumers of creative works?

The principle is _not_ the same, because you are comparing copying among
private individuals for personal, non-commercial purposes to
institutional (a theatre is an institution), profit-seeking activity.

Remember, copyright as originally conceived was substantially aimed at
preventing publishers from producing pirate editions -- protecting
private individuals (composers, authors) from predatory activity by
corporate bodies, not at restricting private activity by other private
individuals or at protecting corporate bodies from the actions of
private individuals.

>> Remember that copyright (like vibrato :-P ) is not a 'yes/no' issue --
>> it can be (and is) applied differently in different circumstances.
>
> That's a little too glib. The reality is not quite that fuzzy. I'll
> give you an example. Eleanor presented the scenario of a friend asking
> to get a copy of a piece for an audition. She argued that this was
> entirely OK, and indeed that it would be rude of her to refuse. This
> case is not fuzzy -- she is quite wrong. That is a violation of
> copyright. It is illegal. Now, is she likely to get sued? No, of
> course not. However, the fact that you're unlikely to get caught does
> NOT alter the illegality of an act. That's something that Eleanor has
> to weigh for herself. Would she pocket a package of gum from a
> convenience store if she knew the clerk couldn't see?

Would you care to re-address the point I made in light of the fact that
I wasn't talking about what the law says right now, but what the law
could or should be?

It's entirely legitimate for the law to be changed to constrain some
kinds of copying and enable others. In fact, it already _does_ enable
some forms of copying -- those 'fair use' exceptions. Is it necessarily
wrong to suggest that the boundaries of 'fair use' should be expanded to
permit non-commercial sharing among private individuals?

> Now, if she LOANED the music to her friend, that's an entirely different
> story. But when she makes a COPY, then she has broken the law.

Sure, bar the exceptions that Joseph Fasel noted. But one might
reasonably ask the question whether, in terms of overall public good
(which copyright is intended to support) the cost to composer and
publisher is outweighed by the collective social benefit of private
individuals being able to engage in such friendly and helpful private,
non-commercial copying?
_______________________________________________
Klarinet mailing list
Klarinet@-----.com
To do darn near anything to your subscription, go to:
http://klarinet-list.serve-music.com