Klarinet Archive - Posting 000042.txt from 2010/07
From: Oliver Seely <oseely@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Sheet music copyright
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 20:24:02 -0400
Erk! How about performance rights for Kathy's concert? 8-)
Sclater, Bernstein, Copland, et. al.
I wouldn't dream of putting up stuff on YouTube without all of my rights si=
gned, sealed and delivered.
I stick with original stuff, like at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DBj48AHvA2n0 =
Oliver
> Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 15:05:00 -0500
> From: sclater@-----.edu
> To: kevin.fay.home@-----.com
> Subject: Re: [kl] Sheet music copyright
> =
> Hooray for Kevin Fay. Copying is copying, no matter the technology. Steal=
ing is stealing. As a composer who makes a small portion of his income from=
writing, my bottom line is this; if there are 500 copies of one of my work=
s out in public use, I would like to be paid for all 500 of them. Persons u=
sing xeroxed copies have come to me for coaching on some of my works. They=
thought nothing of it. If I give it away, that's another matter, but it sh=
ould be my decision.
> =
> James Sclater
> =
> =
> =
> =
> =
> James S. Sclater
> Professor of Music
> Mississippi College
> 601-925-3445
> =
> =
> This communication may contain confidential information. If you are
> not the intended recipient or if you are not authorized to receive it,
> please notify and return the message to the sender. Unauthorized
> reviewing, forwarding, copying, distributing or using this information
> is strictly prohibited.
> =
> =
> >>> kevin.fay.home@-----.net 07/05/10 12:46 PM >>>
> Joseph Wakeling posted: =
> =
> <<<Let's be clear that I distinguish between commercial distribution of
> _printed_ sheet music and non-commercial, private distribution of electro=
nic
> files. There's no reason not to maintain publishers' and composers'
> exclusive right to control _commercial_, rather than private, distribution
> of their work.>>>
> =
> This is a false distinction, Joseph. "Private" distribution of sheet mus=
ic
> - and recordings - most definitely reduces demand for the commercially
> published stuff, hitting the composer square in the pocketbook. This is
> precisely why Jason Robert Brown took the time to search himself on the
> "share" sites.
> =
> Copying is copying is copying. It doesn't matter *how* the copying is do=
ne.
> Clicking the "send" button on a computer is no different than hitting the
> green "go" button on a Xerox(tm) machine. Modern computer technology has
> made stealing easier - doesn=92t make it right.
> =
> It's true that some artists chose to participate in public "sharing" of
> their work:
> =
> <<<One has to be careful about equating "copying" with "stealing" -- there
> are plenty of examples from history of composers finding other people usi=
ng
> their work one way or another without permission, and being delighted by =
it.
> Think of Mozart, after the premi=E8re of The Marriage of Figaro, writing =
to
> his father about how everywhere in town people were singing arias from
> Figaro, street musicians were performing tunes from Figaro -- "It is a gr=
eat
> triumph for me!">>>
> =
> This is no different from the Grateful Dead allowing/endorsing distributi=
on
> of bootleg recordings. It's a model they believed in. It's also one that
> they *chose* to participate in.
> =
> You prove my point in your discussion of Mozart:
> =
> <<<Mozart recognized that the publicity from all these "unauthorized" uses
> of his work was worth far, far more than any financial return he might ha=
ve
> been extract from these people . . . . If he'd been able to get a penny f=
rom
> everyone involved it might have added up to a bit, but it wouldn't have b=
een
> worth the effort, it would have reduced the amount of publicity and
> alienated people with a genuine love for his music, and in any case the
> amount of money involved was far less than that available to him through
> other means (new commissions, public performances...) which this kind of
> public activity helped him to secure.>>>
> =
> Jason Robert Brown *wants* that penny. Anyone who sings his song at an
> audition should most definitely pay $3.99 to purchase the sheet music for
> it. Whether or not it's the most effective or efficient way to maximize =
his
> income should be *his* decision, not the thieves'. =
> =
> Remember how the ASCAP was formed? Early on, founding member Victor Herb=
ert
> brought a lawsuit against Shanley's Restaurant for refusing to pay royalt=
ies
> for public performance. The fight took two years and went to the Supreme
> Court. ASCAP prevailed. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the decision =
of
> the Court: "If music did not pay, it would be given up. Whether it pays or
> not, the purpose of employing it is profit and that is enough."
> =
> If Oliver Wendell Holmes isn't enough of a legal authority, let's try
> someone higher up the food chain. Exodus 20:15 - "Thou shalt not steal."
> =
> kjf
> =
> _______________________________________________
> Klarinet mailing list
> Klarinet@-----.com
> To do darn near anything to your subscription, go to:
> http://klarinet-list.serve-music.com
> =
> _______________________________________________
> Klarinet mailing list
> Klarinet@-----.com
> To do darn near anything to your subscription, go to:
> http://klarinet-list.serve-music.com
=
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with H=
otmail. =
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=3Dmulticalendar&ocid=3D=
PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5
_______________________________________________
Klarinet mailing list
Klarinet@-----.com
To do darn near anything to your subscription, go to:
http://klarinet-list.serve-music.com
