 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2006-08-21 23:34
So what? They're already demanding royalties from musical instrument stores because their customers might play a copyrighted tune when they try out instruments...
http://tinyurl.com/mhaoa (sorry, only available on Google's cache...)
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Steve Epstein
Date: 2006-08-22 01:17
Well, that's in England, where (this may be unsubstantiated rumor) I've heard that there are folk dance groups have to pay even if they are using traditional music. Same in Canada.
Anyway, the article mentions that someone might play a riff. A lot of riffs are generic, or have been used over and over in many tunes. For example, the opening to the James Bond Theme: four chromatic notes: tell me that is uniquely copyrightable, that you can't find it in other tunes. And what about chord progressions? I KNOW that chord progressions are not copyrightable. At least I think I know...
Steve Epstein
Post Edited (2006-08-22 03:04)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Steve Epstein
Date: 2006-08-22 01:41
And anyway, I thought that copyright violations had to involve performance, not just playing something, or involve the unauthorized reproduction of a performance, such as downloading an mp3 from an unauthorized site.
If you're going to tell me that noodling in the store constitutes performance, then I want to charge any bystanders who may be listening. ![[rotate]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smiley25.gif)
Steve Epstein
Post Edited (2006-08-22 01:45)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette ★2017
Date: 2006-08-22 01:47
Steve Epstein wrote:
> And anyway, I thought that copyright violations had to involve
> performance, not just playing something,
Performance may be construed in different ways by different courts.
> or involve the
> unauthorized reproduction of a performance, such as downloading
> an mp3 from an unauthorized site.
Or the music itself, or a derivitave work (music or performace), or mechanical (recording) rights.
For instance, you can get performance rights without recording rights. Which is why the ICA concerts are not available as a commercial recording.
It gets very complicated very quickly.
But, I always love the old saw "I do it as a favor to the groups and recording industry ....". If the industry wanted the favor, they'd put their name on the music when they gave it away ...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2006-08-22 03:31
I always wondered why Disney got away with nicking stuff ... must have good attorneys or copyright execs.
Without music, the world would be grey, very grey.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Cuisleannach
Date: 2006-08-22 04:26
Now, look....if I can patent gene sequences that exist in your body (which would lead a reasonable person to believe that you "own" them) then I can do anything without having to worry about whether a normal person would find it reasonable or not. It's good with the lawyers, so all is right with the world!
(and if you quote me I'll sue you!!! ha-ha)
-Randy
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2006-08-22 04:30
As far as I know, there are no copyriughts on harmony, only melody and other things (for example arrangement, etc.) so they can't do anything to guitarists becuse they only know how to play chords anyway..... 
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2006-08-22 06:30
Randy ... yep. Hey, are you in Rochester NY (I think I'm one of the only Aussies to ever visited this little city on vacation).
Without music, the world would be grey, very grey.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: joannew
Date: 2006-08-22 06:33
I thought anything more than 100 years old became public domain - not the publisher's typeset score (which belongs to them), but the music itself. So anyone who cares to write out the Mozart concerto by hand, or on their music software, is free to do so. Isn't that why we have legal pdf sheet music download sites, and Project Gutenberg has free legal book downloads?
So for folk music, the music itself should be in the public domain, as long as it is >100 years old, so if you play by ear or from a personal transcription, there whould be no copyright infringement.
Correct me if I'm wrong...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2006-08-22 06:41
Joannew it is actually not 100 years. It is a certain number of years since the composer died. In most places 70 years, in some countries 50 (I think Canada), and maybe a different number of years in some other countries but I don't know.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mnhnhyouh
Date: 2006-08-22 06:59
Of course the laws differ amongst countries. In Canada it is legal (in a copyright sense) to download any material from a p2p network.
The RIAA from the U.S. is leaning on the Canadian government to reverse this, but the Canadian artists are supporting it.
h
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette ★2017
Date: 2006-08-22 11:04
mnhnhyouh wrote:
> Of course the laws differ amongst countries. In Canada it is
> legal (in a copyright sense) to download any material from a
> p2p network.
The Berne convention sets some minimums for all sorts of copyrights, and most countries are signatories to the Berne convention.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette ★2017
Date: 2006-08-22 11:09
joannew wrote:
> I thought anything more than 100 years old became public domain
> - not the publisher's typeset score (which belongs to them),
> but the music itself.
In the US the typesetting is probably not covered by the copyright, but editorial notes and editing are.
> So anyone who cares to write out the
> Mozart concerto by hand, or on their music software, is free to
> do so.
The Mozart is an interesting case. Since there's no manuscript, every edition is a guess at its reconstruction. That editon is can probably legally be copyrighted.
> Isn't that why we have legal pdf sheet music download
> sites, and Project Gutenberg has free legal book downloads?
>
> So for folk music, the music itself should be in the public
> domain, as long as it is >100 years old, so if you play by ear
> or from a personal transcription, there whould be no copyright
The other post noted the time limit. After an edition is past that point AND there are no other restrictions (there can be legally binding agreements whreby you're not allowed to reproduce a manuscript, for instance) then it reverts to the public domain.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Markael
Date: 2006-08-22 13:36
Woody Guthrie, Jimmie Rodgers, Robert Johnson, and others like them—
Would their voices even have been heard if they had been born years later?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ginny
Date: 2006-08-22 18:40
I took on ASCAP over playing non-copywritten classical guitar music in a restaurant. I had arranged that they come to my home and go through my repertoire and remove anything they owned. They never showed but told me not to play a single piece they probably had rights to to. Madronos by Torroba, a not very interesting piece anyway. They tried to say they owned the fingerings, I informed them I did my own and would send my own copies to the library on congress for all to use as PD. I won.
I have little respect for the second rate Mafia threats they used on me and their trying to collect for my playing Sor or Guiliani.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: christian_comeau
Date: 2006-08-23 17:00
A little bird told me there's no musician ruling this.(I mean, making the laws...I mostly speak French :P)
Only business men and producers etc.
Except those, normal people want to have free music, musicians want to arrange, modify, share pieces...Selling an hearing art is absurd...
Selling and copyrighting waves...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mike Clarinet
Date: 2006-08-24 08:14
// Begin Rant //
So the music industry wants to charge music shops royalties because their customers MIGHT play something when trying instruments? A private citizen can then sue the police because they MIGHT be are wrongfully arrested. A company can sack its employees because they MIGHT steal office supplies. That is outrageously stupid, and the only people who would win from such a situation are lawyers.
If performance is playing when anyone else can hear, then the only place to play is in a sound-proof room. I suspect that a lot of us practice at home where parents / partners / children / dog / cat / goldfish can hear you. What about the instrument teachers? Your students play so that you can hear them. Is that a performance? If you play with a window open and someone passing outside hears you, is that a preformance? If you play in your ensemble rehearsal so other people can hear you is that a performance? If someone in the street whistles a tune that they just heard on the radio, is that a performance???
I am all for protecting the rights of copyright holders where applicable - after all, for the professional composer (for example), (s)he relies on royalties to buy food, educate the kids, pay the mortgage etc. But charging people to try out instruments is pure greed on the part of the music industry and will only help suppress music of all kinds. For a music insider's view, I would recommend listening to Rush: Spirit of Radio. ( Yeah, I know Canadian Progressive Rock isn't to everyones' taste). I would quote the appropriate lyrics, but I might be infringing copyright...
// end rant//
...Just my thoughts / opinions.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
