Klarinet Archive - Posting 000163.txt from 2010/07

From: Bill Hausmann <bhausmann1@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Sheet music copyright
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 01:31:47 -0400

At 08:17 AM 7/9/2010, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
>On 07/09/2010 05:16 AM, Bill Hausmann wrote:
> > At 12:43 PM 7/8/2010, you wrote:
> >> On 07/08/2010 05:34 AM, Bill Hausmann wrote:
> >>> Catchy, cute, and COMPLETELY wrong!!! But very soothing to those who
> >>> would like to justify their own actions.
> >>
> >> Oh, one other thing. It says "copying is not theft", not "copying is
> >> not copyright infringement". :-)
> >
> > But since "distributing unauthorized copies without permission" =
> > copyright infringement
>
>True, fair use exceptions aside.
>
> > and "copyright infringement" = theft,
>
>Not true: different offences under law, regardless of what moral
>equivalence you see.

Theft of the author/composer's fair remuneration for his work. And
morally you must consider that. The law certainly does.

> > therefore distributing unauthorized copies without permission = theft.
>
>Hence, not true. :-)

Hence, true.

> > But the nearest you can get to comparing "Fair Use" to any physical
> > property equivalent is "borrowing." The item is not used up or damaged,
> > and the owner retains his rights of ownership.
>
>I'm wondering how it is possible to "use up" or "damage" a piece of
>music by taking a copy of it ... ?

It lessens the value of the legitimate copies. If everyone is
getting free unauthorized copies, it becomes much more difficult, if
not impossible, to sell legitimate ones. You "use up" and "damage"
DEMAND for the product.

>And _that_'s why intellectual works are _not_ the same as property --
>because they're a resource you can draw from near infinite times without
>ever using them up.

You just use up the composers. It is not really about "using up" a
resource, it is about drying up the source.

>There is a concern that the _supply of new works_ may grow less if you
>don't apply short-term restrictions to copying, but -- in the internet
>age more than ever -- that isn't clear; and the question of what those
>restrictions should be is even less clear.

Making a single photocopy copy for a friend is technically a
violation of the copyright law, but not one they will
prosecute. Allowing essentially everyone in the world to make free
copies via the internet without the owner's expressed permission is
clearly illegal, immoral, and actionable under the law. It violates
the very essence of the copyright law and the protection it is
supposed to provide to the producers of works. Many things that are
"unclear" to you are abundantly clear to the rest of us.

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