 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Ken Shaw
Date: 2002-10-16 22:50
Most of the material on the site is public domain. You can download anything written before 1900 without guilt. However, it also has things by, for example, Poulenc, who died only in 1963, so his music is definitely still under copyright.
Best regards.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2002-10-16 23:48
Yep,
I think a good rule for copyright is 100 years after the composer's death (unless it is renewed by their estate). Like all laws, there are bylaws and regulations.
Copyright is also quite different between different countries. Australian copyright is 75 years, although I understand this is being revised to 100.
Where you can come into difficulty is copying someones edition of Bach (for example), even though Bach is most certainly out of copyright - an Edition's publication certainly is not. In this case the only thing they have copyright on is their typesetting (i.e. the hardcopy).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2002-10-17 02:05
diz wrote:
> Where you can come into difficulty is copying someones edition
> of Bach (for example), even though Bach is most certainly out
> of copyright - an Edition's publication certainly is not. In
> this case the only thing they have copyright on is their
> typesetting (i.e. the hardcopy).
In the USA typesetting and layout is not copyrightable. Editorial comments are copyrightable; edits generally are not (unless they're reconstructions of missing parts or "original" cadenzas) since the only reason you edit is to make things closer to the original. Fingerings for piano may or may not be - if they're commonplace or "obvious" fingerings then not, but innovative fingerings might <b>possibly</b> be copyrightable - I've heard it argued both ways by prominent US IP lawyers in personal email (Mssrs. Ochoa and Lessig for those who follow that part of the law - both have generously assisted me in my private search for answers to IP questions).
In the USA anything printed before 1923 is fair game; there's a considerable amount of time after that where renewals were required, but proving a negative (that someone did not renew) is problematic since the publications of the US Copyright office are incomplete(!) in this matter.
Music recordings are even worse; there was no US federal copyright statute relatively recently, but each state was allowed to create their own copyright law to cover recordings!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2002-10-17 02:18
My personal view is that we (any musician) should be able to download and play ANY music whether it be licensed or not, however I don't think we should perform it, mass produce it, etc. I personally don't see anything wrong with downloading it and using it to practice and to become better at sight-reading or anything. Cause otherwise, in order to find new pieces to sight-read, that'd be a LOT of money, wouldn't it?
Is this type of thinking wrong? I mean, if I really love the music or wanna perform it, I'd of course buy a copy, at least just ot own a licensed copy, but just to practice it I don't see anything wrong.
Alexi
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2002-10-17 02:21
sfalexi wrote:
> Is this type of thinking wrong? I mean, if I really love the
> music or wanna perform it, I'd of course buy a copy, at least
> just ot own a licensed copy, but just to practice it I don't
> see anything wrong.
You may not see anything wrong but it <b>is</b> against the law to copy music under copyright. Of course, you can borrow music from places like large public libraries (the New York Public Library or Detroit Public Library, for instance) or the I.C.A. library. That way you stay legal and happy.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hiroshi
Date: 2002-10-17 20:16
>Copyright is also quite different between different countries. Australian copyright is 75 years, although I understand this is being revised to 100.
DizB
Some people may think every revision of American copywrite(sorry copyright) laws every -say- 25 years are made by the strong lobbyst activities of Disney. In fact I watched a CBS 60 minutes program on this matter. The old guy, the loggyst, said something like 'What's wrong with that?' (I admit old Disney movie qualities are far far far better than present ones.)
As to literature, there is a famous site called Project Gootenberg, where each literature is typed by collaboration of members. This is very educational site and lawful. You can search it easily although you may already know it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hiroshi
Date: 2002-10-17 22:09
Here:
http://promo.net/pg/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2002-10-17 22:47
Disney??? God, now there's a company that's a role model for ethics if ever there was one ...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2002-10-17 23:14
diz said: "...Disney??? God, now there's a company that's a role model for ethics if ever there was one ..."
Why? Michael Eisner doesn't see a problem having Thai, Chinese and Vietnamese children assemble his Disney products for pennies an hour. (by the way, Eisner has netted close to 700 million dollars during his last five years as CEO - including a nifty cash bonus of 11.5 million dollars in the year 2000)
Just don't try to editorialize about it on ABC television. Disney owns that as well...GBK (who no longer owns any Disney stock)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: beejay
Date: 2002-10-18 13:14
The Italian site, for anyone who hasn't been there, is mostly MIDIs, and some PDFs of the melody line only. No big deal. And not nearly as useful as Oliver Seeley's (non-copyright) offerings on this very site.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
