IMSLP Forums

Mr. Irons has recently sent me this:

"We will post if and when we feel we can contribute to the discussion."

He is still communicating with me, and still rubbishing IMSLP and claiming it has a "catastrophically flawed system".

ArcticWind7 wrote:Mr. Irons has recently sent me this:

"We will post if and when we feel we can contribute to the discussion."

He is still communicating with me, and still rubbishing IMSLP and claiming it has a "catastrophically flawed system".

What's IMSLP's plan-of-action right now?

Same as usual. In talks with people to get it back up with the full catalogue.

Apparently Mr. Irons and U-E is rather confused right now; on one hand they tell me that they think IMSLP is great and wonderful and wishes it to come back, and on the other they say it is "catastrophically flawed". Next time they say something about IMSLP, tell them to try and not contradict themselves.

And speaking of contradictions, they somehow managed to misspell "IMSLP" as "IMLSP" throughout the entire severance letter. I don't know how that was possible, but apparently it was.

Apparently Mr. Irons is as incoherent and ignorant of copyright law as the others at UE. The term "catastrophically flawed" evidently roughly translates as "not enforcing UE's ideal of copyright protection upon the whole planet because we say so." I can't say I'm terribly suprised by this, in light of previous demonstrably false blanket statements from him that Bartok and Schoenberg are copyright in the USA (Only those works first published after 1922 are copyright in the USA).

IMSLP will be back - with everything that is pulic domain in Canada.

Hmm, is it possible that UE and their lawyers have screwed up big time? Maybe they sent the C and D letter too hastily, without considering the long term consequences, not to mention their PR. Also, mispelling the entity/organization they were accusing of copyright breaches, whether intentional or not, does not look good on their part. This gives me the impression that their lawyers did things hastily, without consideration and not doing their homework. If I were UE, I'd hire a new law firm.

If I were UE, I'd hire a new law firm.

Don't encourage them!

And speaking of contradictions, they somehow managed to misspell "IMSLP" as "IMLSP" throughout the entire severance letter. I don't know how that was possible, but apparently it was.

"IMSLP? Of course we think it's great. We had a problem with 'IMLSP'. It is quite different."

Is this a lawyerly tactic? I doubt it, but I wouldn't put it past a sufficiently shady lawyer.

Hello

Vivaldi wrote:Hmm, is it possible that UE and their lawyers have screwed up big time? Maybe they sent the C and D letter too hastily, without considering the long term consequences, not to mention their PR. Also, mispelling the entity/organization they were accusing of copyright breaches, whether intentional or not, does not look good on their part. This gives me the impression that their lawyers did things hastily, without consideration and not doing their homework. If I were UE, I'd hire a new law firm.

And if I were a UE representative I would lay down the
whole issue, apologize, sit down in a corner somwhere
and feel ashamed.

Regards

Has it occured to Mr Irons or UE that the sending of the C and D letter to IMSLP in the first place is "characteristically flawed" as well?

Are you all aware that there is a statement about the IMSLP case on UE's website? It's quite interesting to read, I think.
Maybe we all should send our opinion in written form to UE as they don't seem to take it serious what is obvious here in these forums.

You find it there:

http://www.uemusic.at/truman/en_templat ... f_id=14921

(The German title says: »The Rise and Fall of IMSLP«)

Professor Geist has notified me of that article a few days ago. However, I'm just too lazy right now to refute the numerous misinformation in that article. Plus, refuting the article means very little unless IMSLP comes back online, which, as the front page says, I'm currently working on.

omg, did you read that thing? What a bunch of crap! So inaccurate as to be entertaining.

And the key to the UE letter is of course this:

UE greatly values its standing with serious musicians, and would hate to think this could be jeopardised by a minor legal dispute. From discussions with musicians around the world, we are happy that those who support the work we are doing are not going to change their mind simply due to the failure of yet another internet start-up.

UE clearly realizes that a lot of us (correctly) blame them for interfering with a completely legal and valuable resource for musician and music-lovers. I don't know whether UE's lawyers would consider me a "serious musician." I do, however, purchase music. I have no intention of ever purchasing another UE edition of anything. And I certainly intend to inform other musicians--serious or not--of UE's actions so that they, too, can decide whether they want their money going to pay for the legal harassment of their fellow musicians.

Mr. Irons' statements have been getting further from the truth. They are verging on libelous. I don't see how he could believe what he is saying. My only thoughts are that his own lies have corrupted him, or that he has simply sold out and will lie for money.

Either seem to fit.