IMSLP closed undefinately :(

[nikolas]

http://imslp.org/

For those who didn't know. IMSLP was a FREE, non COMMERCIAL, non gathering money database (wiki based) of FREE, and COPYRIGHT FREE ONLY scores.

However they received a cease and disist (or however it's spelled) letter from Universal Editions (the whatever really and I'm not sorry to use this term), thus this amazing site is down, for who knows how long, or for ever.

And the letter: http://imslpforums.org/Second%20U-E%20Cease%20and%20Desist%20Letter.pdf

Notice that there is NOTHING WRONG yet, but in case that something DOES happen, they want imslp.org closed down.

A really awful thing! A really awful thing! :(

[sunbird]

A really awful thing! A really awful thing! :(

That would really be an awful thing!
I was trying to enter IMSLP the other day and was surprised to see it didn't come up... :(
I'm a regular there, so much wonderful material, and free as it should be!
I sure hope it won't get down to closing it... (praying)

Yudit

[nikolas]

It's already down, with no plans to battle this huge fight (financial issues really). I mean, how on earth do you battle EU? I know that they have 2 university departments researching on this (law departments, and teams and all), but still things, don't look really optimistic...

[Felixissimo]

I have just learned the same thing! We are all doomed! :wow:

[falcon1]

Like I have said before, this copyright nonesense is gone way too far!

On IMSLP was only music which were in public domain and therefor I don't see any reason that Universal Edition (what a hell is that anyway?) have a claim to close IMSLP.

I will surely boycott any scores published by Universal Edition and those who are associated with that company.

[falcon1]

Maybe we should blast their mailboxes with angry letters?

[Coqui]

Maybe we should blast their mailboxes with angry letters? Agree. IMO, the second thing to do is to fill our mailboxes with public domain scores and exchange them p2p. Easy, affordable, accurate, perfectly legal.

[Pingu]

Maybe we should blast their mailboxes with angry letters?

How about a burning bag of dog poo on their doorstep?

This really sucks. I didn't get to read the original cease and desist, but I don't know what the problem can be. I suppose there's the possibility that people were posting works that were public domain, but where the 'typesetting' of the particular edition posted was not. It's also possible that people were posting works which were public domain in the country they were posting, but not in some other countries. Either way, UE really ought to have had more common sense than to behave like the Big-Bad right from the off. All that does is generate bad will towards them.

[Hannes_F]

Appearently they have done a lot for conteporary composers in the past giving them contracts. I even found one of my composition teachers in their list.

So I would be interested into both sides of the story before coming to a conclusion.

Hannes

[keithjfuller]

Appearently they have done a lot for conteporary composers in the past giving them contracts. I even found one of my composition teachers in their list.

So I would be interested into both sides of the story before coming to a conclusion.

Hannes

you're for THE MAN?!?!?!?! i'm only kidding, and i can totally see your point. and if this is the case that modern composers who make money by selling these scores are getting their things posted something has to be done. i just feel that it should be a case by case problem as opposed to just shutting down something like this. its like shutting down all hospitals because a doctor or two didn't have the right qualifications. this has been a wonderful resource to me, as i'm sure it has countless others. i've used it to help me with orchestrating, or just give me an idea as to what was going on in a composers head. anyway, it just seems that a few improperly posted works should shut down something that has become an invaluable resource to so many. this just seems like the big ole music industry making excuses to close down something that doesn't make them money.

[Fabio]

I personally find this kind of actions unfairly business oriented: they dont compete with quality, but with privilege.

I will never buy any score from Universal, and I will suggest all my friends and pupil doing it.

Databases of uncopirighted scores are an historical quantum leap of the human community: people like Universal are not protecting business of composers or musicians, they are only paying his own salary against the benefit of the human culture.

For me they can fail and die: if they are fair professional, they just need to make make good books for cheap price, and they will survive. They will protect living composers, and let ancient uncopirighted music being available.

All the rest is business, dirty unfair business: I hope they will soon face banckrupcy.

[falcon1]

This isn't only damage to those who have enjoyed to see and download scores by old masters both famous and not. I have used this site as a resource to get to know composers which I didn't know anything about and play their music.
Also this was also channel for new composers to promote their own works, and now this channel is gone!

Universal Edition sucks big time!

[falcon1]

Email sent and working on a letter to my mail list of Icelandic organists and musicians!

Universal Editions will probably lose most of its business here in Iceland very soon!

[Pingu]

Appearently they have done a lot for conteporary composers in the past giving them contracts. I even found one of my composition teachers in their list.

So I would be interested into both sides of the story before coming to a conclusion.

Hannes

Absolutely. I love Universal Edition - they publish a lot of Ligeti's scores, and other stuff that I use a lot. But that just increases my disappointment when they act all corporate.

[nikolas]

All contemporary scores on IMSLP (including my own scores) were there on permission of the composers. I know that for a fact!

EU can go beep themselves for all I care. I no longer have need for scores.

Plus their point was basically "you are offering the chance to somebody to violate copyright (but not happened yet, more than 2-3 scores, which you should remove, btw". It reminds me a bit of the radio: the radio pays for us to listen, who us, btw could for all they know, be recording the tunes. So... a chance to get copyrighted material for free...

YAY for BS copyright! :(

I am honestly upste!





Now, something I read on a different forum:

All this was in favour of the owner(s) of IMSLP, who, after the 2nd letter, just shut down the site, and were left with server(s) full of scores for them to enjoy.

I find the above idea, copmletely insulting, to anyone who had anything to do with IMSLP. :(

[qccowboy]

I don't see how Universal Editions AG has any standing to bring any legal action what so ever against the website if there is no demonstration that the website actually IS infringing on its copyrights.

As far as I know, there is no such thing as a "preventative" injunction (an injunction "in case the defendant DOES do" whatever action) for intellectual property.

If there were, then UE would have grounds for a lawsuit against all makers of scanners, since any owner of a scanner could "potentially" scan intellectual property of UE and disseminate it illegally.

[nikolas]

Well yes, those are my thoughts as well...

but we are not lawyers so... plus there have been cases such as this before... (I think, but can't name, cause I don't know names).

I am intrigued enough to ask my uncle, 60 years old lawyer to see what he has to say on the actual letter...

[tradivoro]

the problem is that all these sites are created and maintained by very nice people, who give of their time and energy freely, and weasels in the publishing business can buy armies of lawyers to chase after people... so, the website closes down to avoid hassles...

I can't tell you how many websites have been closed over the years of materials that you can't buy because it's out of print, because some person, (i want to use a much stronger word) in the music industry feels their company is losing millions of dollars because this is out on the web... Meanwhile, nobody is making or losing any money, because the work is not available, it's not being sold...

I hope that whoever was running this site gives all these materials to dozens of sites all over the world, that way, even if they managed to close another site, there will be another site with the same materials..

[Leaf]

It would be nice if someone with some legal knowlege would volunteer to moderate the submittals that site to make sure no infringement. it seems like that's all they need, but since it is a nonprofit .org, they can't pay someone to do that, which is probably why they had to shut down.

There needs to be some legal protection for sites like these that offer pb works, when capitalism steps on the availablitity of historic works and educational access, it is no longer capitalism, it's organized crime and it's theft. We are the public and so public domain is our domain, they're robbing us.

[l.buck]

If I understand it all properly, the problem seems to be that the server was hosted in Canada where copyright lasts for 50 years after a composers death. In the EU (and Austria where UE is based), copyright expires 70 years after the composers death.

There were a number of scores on the site which UE objected to - with the likes of Bartok, R. Strauss, Rachmaninov et al as they are not public domain within the EU. Although there were warnings on all the pages saying that this material was most likely not public domain in the EU, there was nothing to actually stop one downloading it if you lived in a country where it was not legal.

Subsequently UE have decided to threaten a law suit if the site was not shut down with immediate effect.

I must say that although I understand where they are coming from, I do not in any way condone what they have done. I believe they have been very short sighted and have made a lot of enemies very quickly by taking such action. I was reading earlier that very few music publishers have downloads available (I can't think of any actually), and they expect you to buy an entire book, even if you want just one piece of music. They may actually generate more sales if they implement a system such as itunes for music - where you can download what you want legally, worldwide at a sensible price, and not have to pay a vast amount of money for a load of stuff you don't want. Considering the amount of material which is available in electronic format, I really think it is time music publishers came 'up to date' - it is not 1900 anymore and there should be more material available than ever before. Instead there are major companies who want to protect their sales in an old fashioned world, who by refusing to embrace technology are not only making enemies, but are missing out on potential sales.

What UE have also done is to remove a very valuable resource to musicians worldwide, valuable in many different ways - from the Bach project which was almost complete, to a resource where you can find music which is not available in print. I for example have a very active interest in lesser known music, and have downloaded lots of scores which are not in print, and are not likely to be in print anytime soon - such as a music by Joseph Wieniawski, Litolff, Bortkiewicz, Henselt, Kullak, Dreyschock.....the list goes on and on.

I really hope it does come back, if there was a policy whereby you took the copyright expiry date as 70 years worldwide, then there should be no question of whether a score if legal or not.

Just my two cents worth. I had to vent it somewhere :(

[Hannes_F]

Hmm ...

so what they probably would need to reopen again was respecting a copyright of 70 years for scores that can be downloaded worldwide and offering UE a cooperation that includes forwarding IP adresses of copyright violators, so that UE can take action towards the posters instead of running after IMSLP.

Yes - no - maybe?

[nikolas]

For some reason things appear to be more complicated than that... Otherwise it would be dead simple to have a team of "experts" and check the uploaded scores, before publication, or something, and remove the 2-3 scores that violate copyright (by accident of course)

Problem lies that UE is looking to stop uploading of all their scores, in case something happens, which is unbelievable!

I actually know that many org, and libraries, and unis are working on reopening the site, or maybe IMSLP 2.0... Hope that this day comes soon.

[Coqui]

IMHO, in the digital era, a copyright on a bunch of bytes is an illogical and anachronistic thing.

A digitized score is not the music itself and no trees have been cut down to reproduce it: in 2007, publishers and composers should gain their incomes from recordings, broadcastings and, above all, live performances. But scores should always be free, even (or especially) contemporary scores, for a greater worldwide diffusion of modern and innovative music: Bartok, Ligeti, Stravinskij and other contemporary masters should be freely accessible.

We all should write to the EU and other Western parliaments strongly asking for a reformation of the coypright laws. In other words, politics must regain its supremacy on an obsolete, nineteenth-century-like business.

:n:

[AlanPerkins]

What a travesty.

Hopefully this will get resolved with the only sensible solution - reopening the site.

What a bunch of scumbags.

[khiun]

I personally believe that in this matter UE is taking advantage of our ignorance about copyright laws. They claim a 70 years period after composer's death to maintain copyrights over that composer's scores. As far as I know, this copyright period does exist NOT for the publishers, but for the composer's descendants or the LEGAL owners of the handwriten form of those scores. This means that, unless the composer actually sold the handwriten score (thus giving away all its rights) to this editor, they can not claim any rights on this! For publishers, I think that printrights for specific works remain as far as 20 years after composers death.

But there is a point in their claim, although easily breakable. If someone scans a particular printed edition of some score, that person is infringing the printrights of that particular edition's publisher, because that scanning is a direct and unauthorized copy of that particular edition. But, if the same person makes a .mid file (with a lot of work though!) out of the same score, in practice it's not infringing the publisher's printrights, because the .mid file doesn't retain any specific details that identify it as a copy of that same particular edition. See the difference? That's why there are so many editions of a same score. As public domain, many publishers have access to the handwritten form of the scores, so each one can make their own edition, and none can claim that other publishers are stealing their printrights.

In conclusion, UE may have printrights over some editions of some scores of some composers, but NOT over every work of that specific composer in any whatsoever edition. If that was the case, than all my piano books of Bela Bartok, Shostakovish, Rachmaninoff and others (who they claim to represent...) would be illegal, as they are not UE printed editions.

Hope this case turns right for all of us users and composers!

All the best to all.

P.S.: may this enlighten us, modern composers, for our choices when trying to publish our works. NEVER choose big corporations to print our works! They take away many of our rights, mainly our right to make our music as public as possible. I strongly think that most deceased composers must be furious in their tumbs to see others taking commercial advantage of their hard-life works.

[Coqui]

For publishers, I think that printrights for specific works remain as far as 20 years after composers death.
I just checked in the SIAE (the Italian Society for copyright) website, but I didn't find this. Nevertheless I think that your distinction between rights on manuscript versus published music is (morally, at least) correct.

IMO, a non-profit organization should obtain the manuscripts for free. There's no logic in keeping them in a strongbox.

[khiun]

I just checked in the SIAE (the Italian Society for copyright) website, but I didn't find this. Nevertheless I think that your distinction between rights on manuscript versus published music is (morally, at least) correct.

IMO, a non-profit organization should obtain the manuscripts for free. There's no logic in keeping them in a strongbox.
As I said, I think it is like that - not sure its just 20 years, but yes, I think it's still less than 70. But one thing I know to be true: publishers have fewer rights over a manuscript score then the composer or its descendants, for logical obvious reasons, even after the composer's death.

Let's imagine that a publisher retains all copyrights over the manuscript score. Now imagine that the composer wishes to modify something in the original score, make a second version of it or even re-instrument it. If the publisher retain all copyrights, the composer couldn't do that without publisher's permission, even being him the author!! Can you imagine this?? That is the power of the manuscript! Who legally owns it, controls it! That's why composers MUST ALWAYS register manuscripts under their name, not the publisher's! After author's death, the manuscript registry legally passes to its descendants, and it must be them to give permission (or not) for others (including other publishers) to make copies of it. What publishers retain, is printrights over their printed edition of the manuscript. Now, what may also happen is that they may 'force' composers to agree with an exclusivity clause, stating they are the only publishers that can print that specific work (for a stated period of time, after which, contract must be renegociated), in order to agree selling the composers work and give him the money. This is what's happening with audio recordings....and it seems it has come to printing scores too...

Bottom line, if permission has been asked to - and given by - composers or their legal representatives, to publish their works from manuscripts in such site, there is nothing that commercial publishers could legally do about it, unless they claim they have the manuscripts...and then we can all ask them how did they get them, being intelectual property of their author...this can turn out a bad case for them...

[Hannes_F]

IMHO, in the digital era, a copyright on a bunch of bytes is an illogical and anachronistic thing.

This is what I hear from people that share music and programs illegally. Funny that composers tend to deny copyright nowadays.

What khiun says makes sense to me.

[Chinablu]

This is what I hear from people that share music and programs illegally. Funny that composers tend to deny copyright nowadays. In a civilized society a score should always be in the public domain as a common property of the humanity. A book is a book in itself, a score is not the music in itself.

Keeping a piece of paper with some dots and dashes under lock and key, like cattle in the stockyard, sounds me an outdated concept of "private property". Free access to a score makes good advertising to the composer and gives every serious musician fresh material of study right at home, not an occasion for plagiarizing.

My 0.02

[rwayland]

In a civilized society a score should always be in the public domain as a common property of the humanity. A book is a book in itself, a score is not the music in itself.

Keeping a piece of paper with some dots and dashes under lock and key, like cattle in the stockyard, sounds me an outdated concept of "private property". Free access to a score makes good advertising to the composer and gives every serious musician fresh material of study right at home, not an occasion for plagiarizing.

My 0.02

Seems like the same agrument could be used for text books, novels, sound recordings, auto designs, or any other thing that you wanted to take free.

Richard

[AlanPerkins]

I have just written this to UE:



Hello,

I think it is a terrible shame that you have decided to take the action to force IMSLP to close.

A much more appropriate course of action would have been to support the site, even offering to take it over and put the technology in place to prevent breaches of copyright violation.

By offering a premium product at a price alongside the free downloadable, you could have increased your revenue, instead you choose to bully this initiative into submission.

Such a shame.

[Gesticulator01]

Seems like the same agrument could be used for text books, novels, sound recordings, auto designs, or any other thing that you wanted to take free.

Richard
The crucial phrase is "in the public domain". Universal themselves said there were no infringements - and Nikolas is proabaly right in saying that the contemporary scores were all there with permission of the composers.

What ever the intellectual property intricasies of this are, its hard to escape the general impression that UE are just using financial/legal clout to enforce a monopoly of distribution over what legally and morally should be there for all to enjoy. By definition.

They dont get away with such an action for free - I hope the internet chatter bites their reputation. And well said in your letter, Alan.

[rwayland]

The crucial phrase is "in the public domain". Universal themselves said there were no infringements - and Nikolas is proabaly right in saying that the contemporary scores were all there with permission of the composers.

What ever the intellectual property intricasies of this are, its hard to escape the general impression that UE are just using financial/legal clout to enforce a monopoly of distribution over what legally and morally should be there for all to enjoy. By definition.

They dont get away with such an action for free - I hope the internet chatter bites their reputation. And well said in your letter, Alan.

You seem to have missed what I was responding too. The post that I quoted stated that ALL SCORES should be in the public domain. That is the point that I strenuously object to. That amounts to somebody telling me that I must work without compensation, and I believe that matter was resolved with a constitutional amendment.

Richard

[AlanPerkins]

I think Richard you are 100% correct - we need to understand that the Intellectual Property (IP) lies in the music, which is generally represented by the score.

By way of analogy, we can compare this to software. The application is the music, the source code is the score and the execution of the software is the performance of the music.

Clearly the source code / score is where the original IP resides.

To extend the analogy further, take a look at Linux - Linux source code is open source, but then various third parties have taken that source and tweaked it with their own nuances - some in the form of interesting user interfaces, installers, documentation etc, and others with more vertical add-ons aimed to make it bigger-better-faster in some way. These companies are all entitled to claim IP rights to the extensions, documentation and packaging changes they have introduced to make Linux easier / more widely usable / faster / whatever. They will succeed or fail on the strength of how much better their extensions / services make the experience than the low-cost (free) version. But they cannot force anyone else from making available the basic public domain free version.

If I may, permit me to provide another analogy. Look at Shakespeare: the words of Shakespeare are magnificent and fairly freely available, but I can also purchase his words from a value added provider, who may be successful based on presentation, annotation, explanation, illustration etc. The value added provider has a right to the packaged and value-added product, but not to the underlying source material (the words).

And one more: A news channel can present news and opinion based on any event. They will be paid by consumers (whether end user or intermediate content consumers) for the material and opinion based on how well they present / analyse the new event. And they are entitled to copyright ownership over that news item (the presentation / analysis), but they will never be entitled to the news event itself. (This analogy ignores complications like payments for exclusive rights to attend a private event so is more aimed at public domain news events).

The biggest and saddest reality in all this is that the project has been built on a deck of cards due to the fact that it is built by one dedicated student without the right backing. In that sense UE are irresponsible in bludgeoning it out of the water.

[rwayland]

...

The biggest and saddest reality in all this is that the project has been built on a deck of cards due to the fact that it is built by one dedicated student without the right backing. In that sense UE are irresponsible in bludgeoning it out of the water.

I agree absolutely!

Richard

[Gesticulator01]

You seem to have missed what I was responding too. The post that I quoted stated that ALL SCORES should be in the public domain. That is the point that I strenuously object to. That amounts to somebody telling me that I must work without compensation, and I believe that matter was resolved with a constitutional amendment.

Richard
Yes youre right sorry, I did misread the quote you were responding to. I strongly object to the idea in that quote also.

I wonder what good a publisher really does themselves by chasing after a project like this. How many people who used the site as a reference, will now go and buy a new edition instead? The same people are likely to go to other resources, such as libraries, to get the same info/scores.

Publishers could see sites like IMSLP as an opportunity instead. For a company of UE's size, website upkeep is minimal, and gives them a foot in the door for future developments, maintains goodwill with users, gives them advsertising and a BIG shopfront door for their target customers.

But no, they'd rather play short-sighted lawyer games, and piss people off.

[AlanPerkins]

I had a response to my letter:




From: Dr. Isabella Hangel [mailto:hangel@universaledition.com]
Sent: Monday, 22 October 2007 16:59
To: Alan Perkins
Subject: AW: IMSLP

Dear Mr. Perkins,
I am very sorry, there is a massive misunderstanding.
We never forced this site to close down, we just wanted to make sure that they stop offering our COPYRIGHT PROTECTED material.
We have nothing against the opportunity to legally download sheet music which is in public domain.



To which I responded:



Thank you for the reply.

I understand you did not force its closure. The fact is the site was being run by a university student without adequate funding or backing. Instead of trying to make legal threats, a different approach would have seen your company benefit.

It is not the fault of the site that a few people placed music that was subject to copyright.

It is a great loss to the world.

Anyway, thank you for the response.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Alan Perkins

[etLux]

.
http://imslpforums.org/Second%20U-E%20Cease%20and%20Desist%20Letter.pdf

http://imslpforums.org/viewtopic.php?t=615
.

[Chinablu]

Seems like the same agrument could be used for text books, novels, sound recordings, auto designs, or any other thing that you wanted to take free.

Not at all.

As I previously said, a text book is a text book where form and content coincide. In a music score form is not the content and there are no theroretical reasons, apart from a consolidated belief subject to change at any moment, to seclude it. You can freely borrow a score, even a copyrighted one, at public libraries, and in the third millennium IMSLP should well be considered a public global library.

The "intellectual property" takes cover the author from plagiarism: this is totally legitimate, plagiarims must be prosecuted by law. But the successful musician (and his publisher) doesn't earn the big money from scores, but from radio broadcasting, concerts or even, in pop music, creating his/her fashion brand. A score is an infinitesimal part of the music market, in most cases it can be given away with no harm for the author (see, to say, the public showcase (http://www.finalemusic.com/showcase/default.aspx) in Codamusic site).

[nikolas]

I made this thread here, and not anywhere else on NSS cause I knew the amazing Garritan forums members :) This discussion is most interesting.

About IMSLP:

I reread the letter, and it actually, simply says:

A. take the copyrighted scores of your servers by the 19th of Oct.
B. Find a system to prevent such thing from happening again.

-The End-

The rest are legal crap...

It would be dead simple to do the above and keep IMSLP open, which brings me to a great question "why did they close the site down, instead of taking the (up to) 10 scores which were copyrighted, as an error from the users?"




The rest:

Scores, as mentioned before, have their own copyrighted (publishing rights). Additionally, what's kinda funny, but does make abit of sense, is that new editions from old scores (a new edition with publishers comments on) by Beethoven, is actually still copyrighted.

Now, scores is an art, cause I've been (almost) a copyist for many years ,and know the trouble of making perfect scores. Never mind the effort before the computer times (which is closer than we want to remember).

Scores do carry music, but are:
a. also sold
b. property of someone.

I value my scores greatly, and although I give away my music and my scores for free, I sure want to know if anyone plays my music anywhere (=royalties).

It's not something to be taken lightly, please. :) Of course I see very little reason to the 70 years of copyright, to begin with, but now that I have kids, I sure would like to leave them something (eg, my music), since I don't have a store, money to leave them, when I leave. I guess so it goes with their children, and my grandchildren when the time comes.

On the other hand, being SO much on the internt, and having benefited 1000000% times from the net and such forums as this one, as well as totally open minded and kind people like Gary, who is always responsive to my e-mails :) I do believe that I want to return something, so I'm doing my best. :) Not sure if it's enough, but I sure want to try.

(Am I not a romantic sucker after all?)

[Pingu]

Not at all.

As I previously said, a text book is a text book where form and content coincide. In a music score form is not the content and there are no theroretical reasons, apart from a consolidated belief subject to change at any moment, to seclude it. You can freely borrow a score, even a copyrighted one, at public libraries, and in the third millennium IMSLP should well be considered a public global library.

The "intellectual property" takes cover the author from plagiarism: this is totally legitimate, plagiarims must be prosecuted by law. But the successful musician (and his publisher) doesn't earn the big money from scores, but from radio broadcasting, concerts or even, in pop music, creating his/her fashion brand. A score is an infinitesimal part of the music market, in most cases it can be given away with no harm for the author (see, to say, the public showcase (http://www.finalemusic.com/showcase/default.aspx) in Codamusic site).

Sorry, are you really suggesting that scores should be public property immediately from their conception? There seems to be some confusion, and talking-at-cross-purposes, in this particular sub-thread, so I'm not totally clear.

If that's what you are suggesting then I kind of get where you're coming from, but I'm not sure you've thought it out.

Frstly I think the idea that a negligible percentage of a piece's revenue is down to score sales is probably only true of very popular pieces. There are thousands of pieces, written by those in academia, which are destined for very little performance, and no air time, but will probably be studied by numerous music students. If their scores were immdeiately downloadable you would be robbing them of the very meagre money they make from composition. This, in turn, would probably cause the government here in the UK to renew their edict that composition can no longer be considered towards the publishing quota of a lecturer; even if it didn't, the universities themselves would probably enforce a similar rule, since departments that don't at least break even are being shut down in many universities (music, as a degree subject, has already vanished from two fairly prominent unis because it was considered financially unviable). At the moment we have a fairly delicate balance, where many fantastic composers have chosen to live in academia, making most of their money from lecturing and tutoring, whilst satisfying their publishing quota by composing. If they couldn't do this, then they would either have to become specialists in the research of other fields, or leave academia (and most of them could, after all, make a much better living outside - although they might consider it 'selling out'). Either way the teaching of composition would take quite a hit.

Secondly, even for popular pieces, for every performer who plays it on air, or records a CD, there are several thousand wannabees who learn the notes, and aspire to do the same, but never will. These people need physical scores, not pdfs. So, under your system the composer would make nothing from these students, the music publishers would make nothing, but Hewlett-Packard would make a small fortune. How is that right? You may feel people like Universal Edition are corporate monsters, but at least they're getting rich by giving some modicum of support to the music world. Why take their life-blood and throw it to people who do nothing at all for us?

[Gesticulator01]

Not at all.

As I previously said, a text book is a text book where form and content coincide. In a music score form is not the content and there are no theroretical reasons, apart from a consolidated belief subject to change at any moment, to seclude it. You can freely borrow a score, even a copyrighted one, at public libraries, and in the third millennium IMSLP should well be considered a public global library.

The "intellectual property" takes cover the author from plagiarism: this is totally legitimate, plagiarims must be prosecuted by law. But the successful musician (and his publisher) doesn't earn the big money from scores, but from radio broadcasting, concerts or even, in pop music, creating his/her fashion brand. A score is an infinitesimal part of the music market, in most cases it can be given away with no harm for the author (see, to say, the public showcase (http://www.finalemusic.com/showcase/default.aspx) in Codamusic site).

Thats a lot of sometimes very vague, contestable statements youve racked up there Chinablu.

There are plenty of good reasons why the score is a fundamental part of protecting the intellectual property of a composer. Even the guys who ran IMSLP wouldn't dispute that. ( To get back on topic..)

[Raymond62]

My 2 cents. You always can borrow the scores from your local library (I hope) and study the music you want.

Next, I must say that I don't understand why Symphonies of Beethoven are still copyrighted material. I do have the score of Symphony 1 of Mahler in front of me and it says: "Don't photocopy this material" . OK, I can scan it, write it down again with Overture and then it is mine (copyright wise) or not?

Raymond

[Pingu]

My 2 cents. You always can borrow the scores from your local library (I hope) and study the music you want.

Next, I must say that I don't understand why Symphonies of Beethoven are still copyrighted material. I do have the score of Symphony 1 of Mahler in front of me and it says: "Don't photocopy this material" . OK, I can scan it, write it down again with Overture and then it is mine (copyright wise) or not?

Raymond

It's the copyright of the actual appearance of that edition - i.e. the Publisher's right to their own input, but not to Mahler's. Yes, if you copied out Mahler's 1st in Overture then the resultant file would be yours. Also, many older editions are now completely free of copyright, so they can be scanned.

[Chinablu]

My 2 cents. You always can borrow the scores from your local library (I hope) and study the music you want.
What is the difference if you study a score via pdf? You can print it at your home, annotate it, throw it away if you need space on your desktop and still have a safe copy on your hard disk.

Reasoning in term of "hard copy" in the digital era is not actual anymore: libraries have become virtual, our legal costumes should fit accordingly...

[etLux]

I'm bumping this for a few reasons.

First, extremely important copyright issues are being
raised and examined due to the IMSLP events.

Second, copyright is a matter of importance to many
of us here, and the IMSLP forum, in the process of
discussion, also contains a great deal of information
about the ins and outs of copyright.

May I encourage those with an interest to spend some
time exploring these matters on the IMSLP forum:

http://imslpforums.org/viewforum.php?f=1&sid=9762bb6b2de6bd777d5b8c8d931216e4

My best,



David
www.DavidSosnowski.com
.

[nikolas]

David,

On the contrary I am rather offended by the whole discussion over there.

IMSLP was SO big that, with closing down the opportunity came for everyone to start commenting on everything. Even UE are there trying to defend their case, only sad thing, a bunch of 20-25 year olds will never understand a few things. And to think that I brought the news here.

But you know what the UE letter was nothing but an excuse to close down the site. The reason was quite simple: too much work and the lack of financial support.

how lovely isn't it?

And while the situation is like this, the Swedish Pirate party (political party) is there trying to convince everyone that copyright laws are unreasonable and that the 70, or 50 years after death should be 0 or something, and other things.

Sure it is interesting, but the whole discussion is SO far of from the real issue: IMSLP closed down, that I don't see it opening to the efforts of that forum anytime soon.

I am utterly dissapointed with this whole situation. Even if the head of IMSLP started of nice and all that, this is quite unfortunate imho.

Either way, David, cheers for letting everyone know of the forums there.

[darrob]

Hi

The forums have offered a slight shred of light.

There have been several posts discussing alternative ways of reviving IMSLP. Some of the admins have posted that they are in discussion with various organisations regarding the future of IMSLP.

While IMSLP in its current form will no longer be running, I have little doubt that the library in itself will continue at some stage in the future.

In the meantime, there have been a lot of interesting snippets regarding copyright, copyright protection, C&D letters and the legal barging that surround such demands.

Cheers..


Daz :0)

[etLux]

David,

On the contrary I am rather offended by the whole discussion over there.



May I note, my friend, and to all, that I am not endorsing the
discussion at the IMSLP forum, one way or the other;
but, rather, noting it as an important case from which we may
all learn.

Intellectual rights is a major issue, today; and, increasingly, an
extremely complex one. Events such as those now transpiring
at IMSLP point this up.

My personal view is that all of the laws surrounding intellectual
rights are outmoded and inadequate to the task of managing the
matters that have arisen as consequences of our technology.

Nor do I have pat answers or ready solutions to these dilemmas.

In the end, we must balance the rights of society to have the
fruits of the artists it engenders; while likewise fairly treating
those who create the art in the first place.

How we will do this remains to be seen; but to fail to consider both
cultural rights and individual intellectual rights in an fashion that
is equitable to both... might well lead to no art at all.

My best,


David
www.DavidSosnowski.com
.

[nikolas]

May I note, my friend, and to all, that I am not endorsing the
discussion at the IMSLP forum, one way or the other;
but, rather, noting it as an important case from which we may
all learn.

Intellectual rights is a major issue, today; and, increasingly, an
extremely complex one. Events such as those now transpiring
at IMSLP point this up.

My personal view is that all of the laws surrounding intellectual
rights are outmoded and inadequate to the task of managing the
matters that have arisen as consequences of our technology.

Nor do I have pat answers or ready solutions to these dilemmas.

In the end, we must balance the rights of society to have the
fruits of the artists it engenders; while likewise fairly treating
those who create the art in the first place.

How we will do this remains to be seen; but to fail to consider both
cultural rights and individual intellectual rights in an fashion that
is equitable to both... might well lead to no art at all.

My best,


David
www.DavidSosnowski.com (http://www.DavidSosnowski.com)
.
David, by all means, I didn't mean that you endorse the society, just that since this thread was bumped, and since I started it, with false assumptions about IMSLP I tried to put things straight on what I think.

My personal thoughts about copyrights are that the laws are ridiculous, and only benefit the publishers, etc. There is absolutely no reason for copyright to last that along, after the death of the composer. Plus it is one of the reasons, nobody likes contemproary music anymore. You need to be dead 70 years to be heard and analysed really!

But while this discussion is most interesting here, it has little to do with the closure of IMSLP and UE is being bashed rather additionally, as if a company of that size, wouldn't come out with such letters.

This is what saddens me really. The project IS closed currently for no reason. UE had no right to ask for any additional software to check IP etc, but had right to ask for the scores to be removed. Other than that, IMSLP would never sign a letter to ask 3000 euros (or $) for every copyright breach! Especially for a free project. So a dead end, but closing the IMSLP is a result of inner problems in IMSLP and NOT as a result to the 2 letters sent from UE!

Still the question of international standing of copyright laws is really important, but doesn't bother me a thing, since I will be dead for anythin liek that to come up with my own music! :D No worries then!

[Coqui]

Copyright is incomprehensible to me: "Keep culture away from people, and you will get a better human kind".

In other terms: "If you have enough money to buy a Berio's score you can't be stupid; if you have money you are clever-minded by definition, and you deserve a wide format score along with a drink on a 5-stars hotel terrace".

What kind of world is this?

[nikolas]

Copyright is incomprehensible to me: "Keep culture away from people, and you will get a better human kind".
It depends on when.

you mean to tell me that composers should be working for free?

[Jeff Turner]

I haven't read this entire thread, but I don't understand why some people think that they have a right to take something and not pay for it. 25 years ago, it was incomprehensible to take a copy of a score without paying for it, now because of the internet we think we can all get this for free. I guess I'm in the minority, but I don't understand.

I support anyone who's trying to enforce copyrights in today's world.

JT

[tradivoro]

I think that the best solution to this whole problem should have been, remove the scores that were infringing on copyrights and leave up the vast majority that were not infringing on copyright... Somehow that will never get implemented...

[nikolas]

I haven't read this entire thread, but I don't understand why some people think that they have a right to take something and not pay for it. 25 years ago, it was incomprehensible to take a copy of a score without paying for it, now because of the internet we think we can all get this for free. I guess I'm in the minority, but I don't understand.
Jeff, you should be a bit more informed about the situation, before speaking like this.

IMSLP server(s) are in Canada and in Canada the said scores ARE public domain. Additionaly IMSLP had a tagging system which mentioned the scores that were public domain in all the world, or only in Canada+USA. Canada and USA have 50 years after death, while Europe has 70 (and Mexico 100!)

All scores in IMSLP were, either public domain, in CANADA (unless someone uploaded a score and the mods didn't catch it in time, but of course it would be deleted), or with permission from the composers.

This has NOTHING to do with piracy AT ALL!


I support anyone who's trying to enforce copyrights in today's world.

JT
copyrights? You mean the Holst foundation sueing Zimmer 2 years before the expire of copyrights? That kind of copyrights you mean? ;) Or maybe Mahlers scores (96 years dead) which happen to still be copyrighted in some countries. But, yes sure, Mahlers grand grand children could use some income, no? Oh no! It's the publishers who own the copyrights. Foolish me...

I find the current copyright laws ridiculous and I'm a composer myself, making a living out of music. But I don't break the law.

I am against piracy all the way, and buy all the stuff I use, and also preach a lot to everyone who is ignorant about the harm of piracy. But this case is simply not about piracy at all. And this is why it's SO important.

Copyright laws are being discussed and there needs to be a legal solution to what happens in certain situations.

[reberclark]

I may be woefully behind the times but...

aren't Canada and Mexico (as well as the US and most of Europe) signatories to the Berne convention?

List of Signatories:
http://www.copyrightaid.co.uk/copyright_information/berne_convention_signatories

and doesn't the text of the Berne convention cover all of this?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html

(see "Duration")

I have self-published and been published by other publishers. I vastly prefer the latter and have no problem selling my copyright to them for a percentage of their income on my stuff. When I have asked permission to arrange or set another person's work I have always been given permission and am usually thanked for even asking - no fee involved! But maybe that's because I pick obscure stuff nobody cares about anyway!:D

[klassical]

It appears there is hope for IMSLP. I found this earlier today (via Slashdot).
[fyi - I think IMSLM (below) is a typo]
- k

2. Project Gutenberg has volunteered to keep as much of the
IMSLM Project online as is legally possible, including a few
of the items that were demanded to be withdrawn, as well as,
when legal, to provide a backup of the entire site, for when
the legalities have finally been worked out.


> Several news outlets report the shutdown of the International
> Music Score Library Project, a Canadian site run by a college
> student, after a European music publisher demanded it stop
> serving music scores to the world that were still under
> copyright in Europe, even if they were no longer copyrighted in
> Canada. Canadian lawyer and copyright-policy advocate Michael
> Geist has a blog article on it here:
>
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2308/125/
>
> The maintainer of IMSLP is now saying he is strongly
> encouraging "any organization willing to support a continuation
> of IMSLP". See his site http://imslp.org/ for more details.

[Gesticulator01]

It does appear from glancing over the IMSLP site that the situation is a little more complex than was first discussed/reported in this thread.

A google search of "IMSLP Shutdown" suggests that theres a lot of talk about this, but mainly on musicians sites. I'm not that surpirsed that UE felt the need to address the issues directly 'on the ground' at the IMSLP site.

[tonyF]

This whole sad episode is a classic example of the "profits before people" ethos of the age we live in. It is only common sense and good ethics that a composer should have all the copyright protection possible so long as he/she lives. The composer is the creator - the result is his/her idea and no-one else's. I see no ethical standpoint from which anyone else - even descendents - can make any claims on this work unless the composer specifically gives instructions to do so, if necessary in a last will and testament. A painting or sculpture can be on open view for all to appreciate, a piece of architecture is equally open to all. Books are, in most cases, free for all to read at public libraries. Why should musical compositions be treated differently?
Perhaps in the not too distant future composers will be able to sell their compositions directly online and obviate the need for the middlemen - the publishers - whose role is largely parasitical. For composers who are no longer alive it is hard to see any moral justification for a law to protect anyone at all without the express permission of the composer given while he/she was alive.
Perhaps someone living in a part of the world which does not recognize these ridiculous laws should reopen this website so that we may all benefit once more from this source of knowledge and not have to be deprived by the greed of some corporation more concerned with the love of money than the love of music.

[Leaf]

I missed this article in the BBC from two weeks ago. They wrote about this case.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7074786.stm

[englishgent]

For those of you interested in the development of this matter:

IMSLP will be online again on July 1st, 2008 at 12AM EST

(This according to their Wiki page which they set up to provide news updates)

http://imslp.wikidot.com/

[sunbird]

IMSLP will be online again on July 1st, 2008 at 12AM EST
http://imslp.wikidot.com/
Excellent news! I've been waiting for this! *()

Yudit

[Gustov Varbirski]

I remember when gas stations started charging for air to put in your tires. There was a big cry that went up about air being free. So it is. When you need to fill your tires, just grab a handful and shove it into your tires. On the other hand, if someone has to provide a compressor, and the electricity to run it, and the parts and labor to maintain it, then they have a right to collect money on their investment or at least to be reimbursed for their expenses.

Now it seems to me--I could be wrong--but it seems to me that we're talking about published editions of scores. I know if I buy a G. Schirmer or a Kalmus edition of, say, "The Messiah," someone has edited it and had it engraved and therefore that edition is not necessarily free, even if the original music is public domain. Just my humble point of view. It's kind of like if someone were to take (this could happen) a violin that was very old, say a Stradivarius, and sample it, then they have a vested interest in those samples, even though the manufacturer of the instrument is long dead and out of business. Am I wrong?

[Garritan]

It's kind of like if someone were to take (this could happen) a violin that was very old, say a Stradivarius, and sample it... I don't think that could ever happen.... ;)

[KingHenrik]

If anyone wants to trade classical/film sheet music ( i have amazing collection) PM me please. Great to hear of this news.

[Stephanie Pray]

IMSLP!!! ;) :D)(~

[Steve_Karl]

It appears there is hope for IMSLP. I found this earlier today (via Slashdot).
[fyi - I think IMSLM (below) is a typo]
- k

2. Project Gutenberg has volunteered to keep as much of the
IMSLM Project online as is legally possible, including a few
of the items that were demanded to be withdrawn, as well as,
when legal, to provide a backup of the entire site, for when
the legalities have finally been worked out.





Excellent!
Project Gutenberg is a great resource also.