UE statement on the ongoing discussion

Archived threads.

Moderators: kcleung, Wiki Admins

Kalli
forum adept
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 1:41 pm
notabot: YES
notabot2: Bot
Location: Germany

Postby Kalli » Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:38 am

No, Odin. You've got the right to fight for your position. But do it in a form, which can't be misunderstood. The UE doesn't need to speak with us. They think they are right (perhaps they are) and the correspondence with the IMSLP is just bonhomie. We dont't find a solution yet. So don't close us the doors in case we find one! This won't help anybody.

Again, you have got the right to fight for your opinion. You can express it here as often as you want. But the correspondence with the UE should only be the right of Mr. Feldmahler or his lawyers. Everything we do, will come back to him. And that's not fair!

Odin
active poster
Posts: 144
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:00 am
notabot: YES
notabot2: Bot
Location: Sweden

My correspondence with UE is already finished

Postby Odin » Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:43 am

Hello

Kalli wrote:No, Odin. You've got the right to fight for your position. But do it in a form, which can't be misunderstood. The UE doesn't need to speak with us. They think they are right (perhaps they are) and the correspondence with the IMSLP is just bonhomie. We dont't find a solution yet. So don't close us the doors in case we find one! This won't help anybody.

Again, you have got the right to fight for your opinion. You can express it here as often as you want. But the correspondence with the UE should only be the right of Mr. Feldmahler or his lawyers. Everything we do, will come back to him. And that's not fair!


It was never my intention to afflict any damage to Mr. Feldmahler and to the project. My correspondence with UE was terminated today.

Regards
Odin

Kalli
forum adept
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 1:41 pm
notabot: YES
notabot2: Bot
Location: Germany

Postby Kalli » Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:46 am

I know, that you don't act in bad faith. But the effect cant't be expectet.

Vivaldi
active poster
Posts: 407
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:54 pm
notabot: YES
notabot2: Bot
Location: Malaysia

Postby Vivaldi » Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:27 am

Hi Odin?
Your correspondance with UE was terminated? What happened?

Odin
active poster
Posts: 144
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:00 am
notabot: YES
notabot2: Bot
Location: Sweden

Normal decision

Postby Odin » Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:37 am

Hello Vivaldi

Vivaldi wrote:Hi Odin?
Your correspondance with UE was terminated? What happened?


UE and I decided not to continue the dialogue. Both sides had already presented their point of view. That´s all. I think that some people here might be quite glad over this.

Regards
Odin

Irishmaestro
forum adept
Posts: 57
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:00 pm
notabot: YES
notabot2: Bot
Location: Cork, Ireland

Postby Irishmaestro » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:11 pm

While I completely understand UE's point of view (and almost wholly agree with it). I still fail to see how the music of Gustav Mahler that had been uploaded could possibly be protected by copyright.

(.) Gustav Mahler died in 1911, which means that (in Ireland and the UK at least) the copyright for all of the works published during his lifetime expired in 1982 (on the 19th of May, to be exact).

(.) So, if the symphonies in question were published in or before 1911 (and the editions uploaded were scanned from those impressions printed before 1911), then there's been no copyright violation whatsoever, and therefore UE have no copyright claim to the files uploaded.

(.) If, however, later impressions were used to create the files (those published in 1936 or later), then UE do have a legitimate claim, however.

Correct me if I'm wrong, of course, but that's how the situation appears to me.

~Tom

Yagan Kiely
Site Admin
Posts: 1139
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 8:16 am
notabot: YES
notabot2: Bot
Location: Perth, Australia
Contact:

Postby Yagan Kiely » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:47 pm

(on the 19th of May, to be exact).
Copyright lasts the entire year.


While I completely understand UE's point of view (and almost wholly agree with it).
There point of view (at least by their posts here) have been to wildly accuse feldmahler of censorship, incompetence, purposefully promoting illegal activities amongst other things. They are not protecting the composers rights, for they are dead. They are protecting their own and have tried to manipulate the public on these forums so the public do "understand" them.

Irishmaestro
forum adept
Posts: 57
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:00 pm
notabot: YES
notabot2: Bot
Location: Cork, Ireland

Postby Irishmaestro » Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:17 pm

ArcticWind7 wrote: There point of view (at least by their posts here) have been to wildly accuse feldmahler of censorship, incompetence, purposefully promoting illegal activities amongst other things. They are not protecting the composers rights, for they are dead. They are protecting their own and have tried to manipulate the public on these forums so the public do "understand" them.


That's not what I was talking about, and I would never agree with defamation of someone's character (especially someone behind so useful a resource as IMSLP). I was referring to the fact that the site (though unintentionally, I know) was facilitating downloading of copyrighted works. Unlike Pop and Rock CDs music scores (especially 20th Century works) have a limited target consumer base, namely musicians (usually competent ones), and therefore that DOES deprive editors, etc, of some well-needed income!

I don't, however, agree with their claim to the Mahler Symphonies (which are most DEFINITELY in the Public Domain). Unless it was a Piano Reduction or something. Full Scores, if published before 1936, however, have absolutely no copyright protection whatsoever.

Carolus
Site Admin
Posts: 2187
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 11:18 pm
notabot: 42
notabot2: Human
Contact:

Postby Carolus » Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:31 pm

Irishmaestro, you're not getting the crux of the dispute here. IMSLP is located in Canada and abides by Canada's copyright laws (where the term is life-plus-50), not the EU's. Universal is demanding that IMSLP enforce EU copyright laws upon the entire world. IMSLP was founded and run entirely on a volunteer basis, with no funding of any kind. Universal hired a lawyer to threaten a lawsuit - even though their case under Canadian law is dubious at best.

Blouis79
regular poster
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:07 pm

Postby Blouis79 » Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:08 pm

Carolus wrote:[...] Universal is demanding that IMSLP enforce EU copyright laws upon the entire world. [...] their case under Canadian law is dubious at best.


I'm inclined to agree, though I expect they would have to live with country-specific copyright policies.

Legally, I presume (as a non-lawyer) there are some technicalities in a European company trying to sue a canadian citizen. The courts tend also to not want to "break" a person of few resources to favour a large corporation, so even if IMSLP did lose its case if it went to court, damages may not be high. Note that Napster was a corporation trying to make money skirting the law on copyrighted material. IMSLP is a site trying to spread copyright-free material to the world of musicians.

If UE(Canada) tried to take IMSLP to court, they would lose under Canadian Copyright law. UE(Austria) would have great difficulty taking IMSLP to court in Austria. No doubt UE and music publishers have their own agenda and legal advice. Interesting to see how courts will react to attempts to enforce internationally longer copyright. Given that copyright terms have extended from 25 to 50 years, it seems to me that the arguments for uniformity and global interest would outweigh arguments for protection in a world of free trade.

I see the music publishing industry globally is feeling hurt by downloadable scores:
http://www.mpaonline.org.uk/Publications/Articles/Sheet_Music_and_Tablature_Q_A.html
...and they name some offenders including sheetmusicdirect.com, who claim to be totally legal on their "choose country" page and also have an automatic country selector (+ manual override) that thinks I am in a country I am not in http://www.sheetmusicdirect.com/...thus proving the futility of IP_based filtering. Better to have a legal acceptance button "I am not in the EU".

Irishmaestro
forum adept
Posts: 57
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:00 pm
notabot: YES
notabot2: Bot
Location: Cork, Ireland

Postby Irishmaestro » Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:38 pm

Carolus wrote:Irishmaestro, you're not getting the crux of the dispute here. IMSLP is located in Canada and abides by Canada's copyright laws (where the term is life-plus-50), not the EU's. Universal is demanding that IMSLP enforce EU copyright laws upon the entire world. IMSLP was founded and run entirely on a volunteer basis, with no funding of any kind. Universal hired a lawyer to threaten a lawsuit - even though their case under Canadian law is dubious at best.


It's not the scores being there that's the problem (if they're on a server in a country where they're legal, such as Canada, then there's no infringement), it's the fact that people from countries where the music is still in copyright could potentially download the scores which is the problem. They're not trying to enforce EU law on the whole world, that would be both silly and pointless (since it would never succeed). They're trying to enforce EU copyright law in the EU. Or at least, that's how it would seem.

Richard Black
regular poster
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:48 pm

Postby Richard Black » Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:33 pm

it's the fact that people from countries where the music is still in copyright could potentially download the scores which is the problem


It's not even that, it's that people from those countries could _easily_ - too easily - download them. If any potential illegal downloading, however tortuous (e.g. someone suggested going to Canada, downloading all the scores on to a USB memory stick or similar, and coming home with it in your pocket) it would be completely impossible for different countries to have different copyright terms. Which would admittedly make this whole business unnecessary, no bad thing.... All IMSLP has to do to placate UE etc. is make downloading from the 'wrong' countries sufficiently awkward, where 'sufficiently awkward' is the hard thing to define.

Irishmaestro
forum adept
Posts: 57
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:00 pm
notabot: YES
notabot2: Bot
Location: Cork, Ireland

Postby Irishmaestro » Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:35 am

Richard Black wrote:(e.g. someone suggested going to Canada, downloading all the scores on to a USB memory stick or similar, and coming home with it in your pocket) it would be completely impossible for different countries to have different copyright terms.

Whoever suggested that was being silly. Equally well, we have to allow for someone inventing a time-machine (therefore proving Einstein wrong), travelling 100 years into the future, downloading scores that are now copyrighted, and then taking them back to the past(present) with him\her.

The only solution to that is either (a) to institute perpetual, everlasting copyright for everything, or (b) to abolish copyright. And each would be unjust.

dolhuis
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 12:59 pm
notabot: YES
notabot2: Bot

Postby dolhuis » Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:21 am

Richard Black wrote:All IMSLP has to do to placate UE etc. is make downloading from the 'wrong' countries sufficiently awkward, where 'sufficiently awkward' is the hard thing to define.


IMSLP argued that it had already done that, they instated the warnings, which would, according to Canadian jurisprudence -- see the blog of the Canadian IP lawyer, be sufficient.

Why should, for a Canadian citizen in Canada, weigh UE's vision on what is sufficient more than Canadian jurisprudence?

Blouis79
regular poster
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:07 pm

Postby Blouis79 » Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:29 pm

Nope, IMSLP doesn't have to make it "sufficiently awkward". Read the legal opinions of Michael Geist and Howard Knopf.

See my post in this thread:
http://imslpforums.org/viewtopic.php?t=680

If IMSLP makes users aware of the law, it has probably done enough.

Do car manufacturers have to prevent their cars from going faster than the speed limit?


Return to “Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest