The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: hans
Date: 2007-12-13 20:48
Alex,
Thank you for that. It was very interesting.
Regards,
Hans
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2007-12-13 21:41
Just remember that it's an agenda piece -- the way the author thinks things should be, and not the way they are. There's a LOT to be said on both sides. Whenever there's a big change in technology, the old balance changes, and there's a life-and-death struggle to establish a new and reasonable division of rights.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-12-13 23:38
You might want to read an article I've had up on the website for a long time:
http://www.woodwind.org/clarinet/Misc/46DLJ241.html, written by an acquaintence of mine for the Duke law journal. A number of lawyers have read the article and commented privately to me, and while there was far from a consensus on the specifics, all agreed that underlying rationale was valid.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GeorgeL ★2017
Date: 2007-12-14 16:35
I’ve just skimmed both the Copyfraud and the even more relevant to music Duke article and find myself in agreement with both articles. But a word of caution:
These articles attack the income of music publishers who have a definite interest in protecting that income. They have a stable of lawyers ready, willing, and able to file a lawsuit against an individual or group that copies ‘their’ music. They get away with their copyfraud because most prudent people and community bands will pay the license fee rather than face the possibility of paying at minimum their own legal fees in a successful defense of the copying, and at maximum the publisher’s royalties and legal fees if the lawsuit goes against the copier.
On the other hand, the articles certainly should give you a feeling of comfort when you make a copy of a part for “The Stars and Stripes Forever”, first published by Sousa in the late 1890’s, and copyrighted by The John Church Company in 1951.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
|