Second U-E cease and desist letter (new topic)

[PI]

Posted on another thread, reposted here.
-------------------------------------------

To all those, who still don't get UE's point.

Let's agree on one thing: there are works on IMSLP which are still under copyright in Europe. It is irrelevant where the server is located. The only thing that matters is that IMSLP is providing service in Europe and as such it has to abide European law. If IMSLP were restricted for Canadians only, then UE would have no problem at all. The only thing they ask is that works whose copyright they hold should not be accessable from the EU. They don't want to enforce European law in Canada. They enforce it in Europe. By no means would IMSLP be brought to court in Canada, it would happen overseas. The rule is very simple: if you don't own the right to distribute a certain work in a certain country then you can't distribute it there. It doesn't matter that you have the right to do so somewhere else.

The Dover example above is wrong. Even Dover could not sell scores of the works in question in the EU, unless they license them from UE. They can't provide the service in the EU, they don't have the right to do so. You can by the score elsewhere and bring it home, but in that case you may violate some import laws (I'm not quite sure on this). But Dover can't sell it to you.

The fact that IMSLP is not for profit is again irrelevant. In the EU it might hurt the sales of UE. They only worry about how much they lose not how much IMSLP makes. They wouldn't even care if IMSLP were actually selling Bartok's works in Canada.

Of course, it is impossible the review all the copyright laws in the world and implement elaborate IP filters to make sure that every person gets what they have the right to. Noone expects this from anybody. But after some country/organization/company shows up and asks you to remove specific content illegal in their country, your options are limited. Either you believe them and abide or you don't believe and go to court. Actually, UE played it nice, they sent some letters instead of starting a lawsuit right away. They could have.

If you still don't get it, consider this: Do you really think that just because something is legal in your country (weed, weapons, banned literature, allofmp3?) you can sell/transfer it to any other country regardless of the laws there, and leave all the responsibility with the recipient??

Instead of cursing UE, we should look ahead, admit that IMSLP was distributing copyrighted material in the EU, remove it (or just make it unaccessable from Europe) and move on.

Certainly, I do hope IMSLP comes back online very soon after all this has been sorted out. As I haven't followed the internal affairs of IMSLP very closely, I don't know about the other events that led to this complete shutdown.

[Yagan Kiely]

UE played it nice, they sent some letters instead of starting a lawsuit right away. They could have.

They have personally attacked Feldmahler among other things, they have not played it nice. They have not filed a lawsuit because they themselves are not sure of the consequence of the case:

Quote:
Hi, Just a quick word of support on behalf of a sister-project, http://LibriVox.org. We've had similar legal threats, pushed back, and succeeded. Copyright lawyers tend to claim rights they do not have. This is the case here.

Anyway, good luck and if there is anything we can do, please let us know.

Best,
Hugh McGuire.



Quote:
Actually he is *not* right about copyright law. We have had similar issues at LibriVox.org. We follow the lead of the extensive legal work done by gutenberg.org, and our response to such letters and threats is as follows:
Quote:

Project Gutenberg has done exhaustive research over the years on this subject, and has not found any indication that the copyright laws of one country will have any force in any other country, even in cases of publishing materials on the Internet or the World Wide Web…

However, if you do come across any new case law or rulings that might effect some change, please let us know and we will discuss with our informal advisers at Project Gutenberg, so that they can update their research concerning such cases. As always, we will follow the legal standard that Project Gutenberg uses.

Instead of cursing UE, we should look ahead, admit that IMSLP was distributing copyrighted material in the EU

That is just plain wrong. IMSLP was not distributing works into Europe as that implies a conscious decision to illegally provide Europeans with scores and promote this. That is a lie.

[kongming819]

Hi there,
Feldmahler, you are not to blame for the closure of the site, though it is a truly, truly sad day. My heart sank when I read your statement. I really feel horrible that it had to come to this and wish there was something I could do.

ditto

[PI]

IMSLP was not distributing works into Europe as that implies a conscious decision to illegally provide Europeans with scores and promote this. That is a lie.

Whether letting people download the score is distribution or not is up to a judge. You can get the verdict, but it costs money.

[Vivaldi]

Dover cannot sell some scores directly to other countries where the works are still protected. Take for example Stravinsky's works (eg. Rite of Spring). These works are available only in the U.S. Other examples include Mozart's operas (for legal reasons these titles cannot be sold in the Federal Republic of Germany, now irrelevant since the German reunification) and some reprints of French Scores (available worldwide except France). These disclaimers are explicitly stated in the book itself and Dover's catalog.
However, does this prevent the scores from being sold to places where they are still protected? I don't think so. Go to any online shop such as Amazon.com or BarnesandNoble.com or even Sheet Music Plus and you can easily buy the scores no matter where you live. No questions asked. I don't know about the copyright restrictions in Asia, but I have already have in my collection all the Stravinsky ballet scores and a hugh number of French score reprints, all by Dover, and nobody is suing me.
Now, who should be blamed? The online companies? Dover? Us customers?

[Odin]

Hello

Posted on another thread, reposted here.
-------------------------------------------

To all those, who still don't get UE's point.

Let's agree on one thing: there are works on IMSLP which are still under copyright in Europe. It is irrelevant where the server is located. The only thing that matters is that IMSLP is providing service in Europe and as such it has to abide European law. If IMSLP were restricted for Canadians only, then UE would have no problem at all. The only thing they ask is that works whose copyright they hold should not be accessable from the EU. They don't want to enforce European law in Canada. They enforce it in Europe. By no means would IMSLP be brought to court in Canada, it would happen overseas. The rule is very simple: if you don't own the right to distribute a certain work in a certain country then you can't distribute it there. It doesn't matter that you have the right to do so somewhere else.

The Dover example above is wrong. Even Dover could not sell scores of the works in question in the EU, unless they license them from UE. They can't provide the service in the EU, they don't have the right to do so. You can by the score elsewhere and bring it home, but in that case you may violate some import laws (I'm not quite sure on this). But Dover can't sell it to you.

The fact that IMSLP is not for profit is again irrelevant. In the EU it might hurt the sales of UE. They only worry about how much they lose not how much IMSLP makes. They wouldn't even care if IMSLP were actually selling Bartok's works in Canada.

Of course, it is impossible the review all the copyright laws in the world and implement elaborate IP filters to make sure that every person gets what they have the right to. Noone expects this from anybody. But after some country/organization/company shows up and asks you to remove specific content illegal in their country, your options are limited. Either you believe them and abide or you don't believe and go to court. Actually, UE played it nice, they sent some letters instead of starting a lawsuit right away. They could have.

If you still don't get it, consider this: Do you really think that just because something is legal in your country (weed, weapons, banned literature, allofmp3?) you can sell/transfer it to any other country regardless of the laws there, and leave all the responsibility with the recipient??

Instead of cursing UE, we should look ahead, admit that IMSLP was distributing copyrighted material in the EU, remove it (or just make it unaccessable from Europe) and move on.

Certainly, I do hope IMSLP comes back online very soon after all this has been sorted out. As I haven't followed the internal affairs of IMSLP very closely, I don't know about the other events that led to this complete shutdown.

The legislation of today is not satisfying and urgently needs to be changed to the public community´s fovor.

UE´s two C&D-letters were a hostile act and deserve to be met like that. By writing these letters they chose a way of confrontation, thereatening and bullying.

Let say that some of their claims may be correct due to the unsatisfying legislation of to-day. But their way to act is not. It lacks all kindness and understanding and open mind.

Therefore they deserve a response which is proportional to their own action. A worldwide boycott of their products by music amateurs would be a proper answer.

We should not need to discuss here about how the IMSLP site can be legally re-opened, we should just re-open it. There are institutions which are willig to do so.

The fact that IMSLP is not for profit may be irrelevant in the coåyright legislation of today, but it SHOULD be made relevant and decisive in the copyright legislation from tomorrow.

Sincerely

[Vivaldi]

I suppose UE got what they deserved. But I feel that a boycott is not an answer. Try convincing that to hundreds of orchestras or libraries around the world when they depend on UE's sale or rental of scores of copyrighted music under UE. I don't think it is going to happen on a very large scale that is going to affect UE, not in the long run anyway.

[Odin]

Hello Vivaldi

I suppose UE got what they deserved. But I feel that a boycott is not an answer. Try convincing that to hundreds of orchestras or libraries around the world when they depend on UE's sale or rental of scores of copyrighted music under UE. I don't think it is going to happen on a very large scale that is going to affect UE, not in the long run anyway.

I suggested a worldwide boycott by music amateurs like us, not by professionals.

Sincerely

[Vivaldi]

Entschuldigung Odin,
I applaud your actions, but I'm afraid UE will won't care. Their publications are mainly targeted at professional musicians and orchestras. I seriously doubt the boycott from us amateurs will dent their sales or reputation. However, if your idea can be successful, you would have to ask these professionals to boycott as well.
I'm not saying your idea is bad, just that I think it won't affect UE's confidence and sales.

Danke,

Vivaldi

[vwromero]

This isn't over. Something great has been started here. This idea is now firmly rooted in the hearts and minds of many. The more beautiful the idea, the greater the attack. The approach may need to be modified, but we'll come back. Somehow...

[zingmaster]

Agreed. And when it does come back, it'll have the legal backing and the support base from the very start.

[Vivaldi]

I can fully understand if UE proceeded with the C and D letter in the first place, after all they were just protecting their interests, albeit using the wrong approach. But if they did really intimidate Mr Feldmahler, then that is plain wrong and I would be pretty p*ssed off if they really did.

[aslsp-fl]

About the Dover scores: they can be found in European bookstores, even if and where they should not; there is little need to buy them from Amazon. In the past years Dover sales were very limited in Germany, but now I have seen Dovers even there - no matter who owns what.

What is troubling now with Dover, is that I understand they are withdrawing some little sold titles from their catalogue - for the first time they are reducing their offer instead of expanding it.

A very funny case happened some years ago. Kalmus is very much in the same situation of Dover, they print music whose copyright is expired in USA, but they do not sell it overseas not to infringe European copyright laws (unlike Dover, they somewhat try to enforce this ban). So, time ago, I rented from my Boosey agent a full performance material for Strawinsky's Petrouchka, original version. It came the material, and I was sent also a Kalmus score, with a Boosey mark on it. What happened? In spite of being the owner of the Petruska original version in Europe, they did not even take the trouble of actually printing it, they bought some Kalmus copies and remarked them. Perfectly legal but quite ridicolous....

[violineb]

This is a sad day. I only just noticed that my favorite sheetmusic site is down. I'm currently a student at I.U. Bloomington in violin performance, and despite having one of the biggest music libraries I still came to this place for convenience sake. Is there no chance to figure out a way to resurrect the site. Maybe as some other people suggested exclude works newer than 70 years.

[Yagan Kiely]

Maybe as some other people suggested exclude works newer than 70 years.

This limits a majority of the people and countries in the world too much. It is better that IMSLP comes back strong in a month than crippled now.