Klarinet Archive - Posting 000064.txt from 2010/07

From: Bill Hausmann <bhausmann1@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Sheet music copyright
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 00:15:18 -0400

At 09:20 AM 7/6/2010, you wrote:
>On 07/06/2010 05:11 AM, Bill Hausmann wrote:
> > The difference is small and irrelevant. Your third example is
> > equivalent to stealing the FEE, and that is the point. It is really
> > not the intellectual property you are stealing, but the FEE to which
> > the creator is entitled, which clearly DOES deny him property that is his.
>
>The two are not equivalent. If I take money from your wallet, that's
>money that you had, directly taken away from you.
>
>If I copy a composition of yours without paying you, then the situation
>is different -- first, because you still have your copy of the
>composition; second, because perhaps I would never have obtained a copy
>had I been unable to do so freely, in which case we cannot practically
>speak of "lost income". You were never going to get that money anyway!
>
>Rightly, the law does not regard the second fact as an excuse for the
>failure to pay expected fees. However, it's reasonable to wonder if,
>given that a public good (access to a work) has been achieved in
>circumstances where it would not otherwise have happened, and given that
>no extra income would have resulted (the copier wasn't going to buy the
>music anyway), there should be scope in the law for this kind of copying.

It is not as different as you would like to believe. Sure, SOME
copying occurs in this manner, but certainly not all. Revenue IS lost.

>The answer to the question should depend on whether, overall, permitting
>such copying has a net positive or negative effect on two things --
>overall public welfare (represented by creation of and access to
>innovative works) and the income of creators.

Again, "overall public welfare" is not the issue and is impossible to measure.

>Contra to what you and Kevin have maintained, it's not clear that the
>effect will be negative in either case. Even if there _were_ a net
>negative effect for creators, it's not clear that the net negative
>effect to society of maintaining or reinforcing existing legal
>constraints on private copying won't be far, far greater.

The owner of the copyright (Let's face it, this literally means
"right to copy!") has the sole right to determine who may obtain a
copy of his work and how. Typically, this means by purchasing
legally authorized copies through a publisher or recordings through a
licensed distributor. The owner of the rights may certainly grant
the right to others (as long as it does not conflict with agreements
with these other guys) but it is HIS call and his call ALONE. By
producing the work he has EARNED that right, and the right to
financial compensation. If HE thinks it is better for "society" to
give it away free, he may do so, but YOU may not arbitrarily make the
decision for him.

>Bear in mind that a great deal of intellectual production is carried out
>under terms where the creator does not maintain copyright and does not
>receive royalties -- it's called "work for hire".

A different method of compensation, but the artist is duly paid for
his work and the rights are then owned by the company the person
worked for, and the company has exactly the same rights and
expectations of reward as an individual would.

>I don't thing there will be one single "different system", more likely
>several different ones that will address different creative areas.
>
>If we take musical theatre as an example, it's not clear that the costs
>of engraving and archiving (in electronic form) the scores cannot be
>factored into the costs of original production, that study scores and
>piano reductions of songs be distributed freely for private use, and
>that performance parts be made available under rental with parts of the
>rental fee (and charges for commercial performance) going to the
>originating theatre and the composer.
>
>Look at how that breaks down: the theatre needs the score, parts and
>piano reductions available anyway, so it _has_ to pay for their creation
>one way or another. It can place its own promotional material in the
>electronic copies (free publicity on every copy made!) and have hard
>copies sold in its in-house shop and through other distribution
>channels, from which royalties go to both theatre and composer, probably
>more equitably than is the case for existing publisher-composer deals.
>When a commercial use of the work kicks in (which is where the serious
>money is anyway) they are protected and can charge the usual performance
>fees alongside rental charges for parts (because they only made
>available piano reductions and study scores for free copying).
>
>The theatre has an incentive: every time it originates a new work, it
>will pick up future revenue from every future commercial production, and
>it has an incentive to distribute the study scores etc. in order to
>create publicity to encourage such productions. The composer's
>incentive is that the loss of revenue from sheet music sales is likely
>to be offset by the better share of total revenue received thanks to
>doing the deal with the theatre rather than the publisher. The public
>benefits because private study materials for the music are freely
>available and it's only when commercial performance kicks in that the
>question of fees arises.

Have you any experience with how musicals are done? Whether the
performers are commercial-for-profit or non-profit does not
matter. Copyright is guarded most jealously and vigorously. ALL
parts are rental only. There is no such thing as a "study
score." They have no incentive to produce such a thing and much
DIS-incentive, since some people would see no problem with
distributing copies of it for free.

>The only major loser in that scenario is the traditional publisher whose
>business model is centred around payment-per-copy. But that's the
>nature of business models -- they go out of date.
>
>I'm not certain the above model would work -- actually, I just made it
>up -- but I'm fairly sure that the main reason it isn't being tried out
>is that most of the composers out there have been locked into the
>traditional publishing and revenue model. Too many are not even
>thinking about issues of copyright or alternative revenue models, and in
>the present circumstances that's dangerous.
>
>Give it a generation change -- young people who have grown up seeing the
>personal benefits of private sharing and consider it immoral to
>constrain -- and you will likely have a different reaction.

In other words, "If it feels good, do it." Not the strongest moral statement.

Bill Hausmann

If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!

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