UE statement on the ongoing discussion

[Carolus]

Here's another suggestion for Universal, Mr. Black, PI, et al:

Instead of issuing demand letters, making threats of what amounts to extortion via lawsuit, etc., why not instead offer to assist IMSLP in securing and installing the necessary software to block users from the EU from downloading works that are under copyright in the EU while leaving them free to download works that are public domain there?

Surely this would be considerably less expensive in the long run than a) going to court - where there is substantial chance that UE would lose its case; b) generating the type of negative publicity that is already in abundant evidence.

IMSLP was unique among downloadable sheet-music sites in that it actually implemented an extensive copyright warning system, deleted works that were in violation, etc. Instead of making wild accusations of "conspiracy", why not instead offer to improve IMSLP by making it more difficult for users in the EU to violate copyright laws.

[jhellingman]

Let start with saying that current copyright is unreasonable long, and that a shorter term will be a great win for everybody, including the public and artists, excepting maybe alone a few bullying rent-seeking publishers of old materials. (And even these would do a bigger service to mankind if they would concentrate on developing new artists).

So set reasonable aside. The demands are not.

Furthermore, they are not legitimate. They have no basis in law, as the IMSLP only publishes in Canada, and nowhere does Canadian law put an obligation on him

The conspiracy to break copyright theory completely lacks legal merit, and will be kicked out of any EU court if defended by a competent lawyer, if not even before that, the court has declared itself out-of-jurisdiction. Your act of including out-of-copyright in the EU composers demonstrates your bad faith. You know all that, but you also know that this student cannot afford to pay a lawyer in Europe. That is why your behavior is bullying, and a frustration of law.

I think the community can best hit you back by giving the utmost priority to digitize each and every work in the UE portfolio that is Public Domain somewhere in the world, and publish it there. (Although this will be done in a few years time anyway, have a quick look at the internet archive and shiver....)

In the mean time, you may be doing us a great favor by pushing home the need for rational copyright laws, with terms more in line with what is needed to promote culture and arts, instead of suppressing it, lets say something like 20 years from first publication...

[WJM]

That sounds nice, but IMSLP would almost certainly be deemed in a court of law to be conspiring with those downloading the scores to break copyright law.

A court of law in what country?

[WJM]

UE made perfectly reasonable requests in a perfectly reasonable way and in doing so showed evidence of a willingness to discuss stuff in a cordial way.

No, it did not.

It is not reasonable to expect the laws of one country to apply in another.

Attempting to pursue this unreasonable course of action was unreasonable in its very nature, to say nothing of the way in which it was done.

Since Mr Irons has said absolutely clearly that he supports the basic idea of IMSLP, with only the rider that works in copyright in certain territories are not offered quite so readily to users in those territories

That's a problem for those "territories" to work out, if they so choose.

Sites like IMSLP should take reasonable steps to ensure that scores are not being downloaded in countries where they are in copyright.

Why?

Should sites in those other countries take reasonable steps to ensure that scores are permitted to be downloaded in countries where they are NOT in copyright?

Why or why not?

[aslsp-fl]

UE made perfectly reasonable requests in a perfectly reasonable way and in doing so showed evidence of a willingness to discuss stuff in a cordial way.

Were I in Universal shoes, I would have written such a letter: "Dear IMSLP, you are offering European residents the possibility of illegally downloading our copyrighted works. We ask you to remove, as soon as possible, the following works: [follows list of works to be removed]. If you do not remove, we will take legal steps against you. Best regards."

On receving such a letter, most bona fine users would remove most of the files, maybe objecting to some items. This solution would have been an honourable compromise for both parties. Seen from the IMSLP side, the cost of a legal battle would be too high not to comply. Seen from the Universal side: yes, UE could sue, but frankly this means showing a judge proof of damage, and this could not be easy. Also, the court could always declarate itself out of jurisdiction (not an impossible outcome).

Asking IMSLP, as in the first letter, to sign a statement assigning the jurisdiction to an Austrian court, and putting a minimum charge at 3000 euros per (supposed) infringiment, with no top limit, is so outlandish a request that nobody in his/her mind would have signed it. Were I to go to my lawyer with such a request, he would be the first to ask me not to sign, even if I were at fault.

Asking IMSLP to put filters is also a bad request. Universal, as the copyright holder, has the right to have the copyright infringement stopped real soon now. But Universal has no right to decide the technical way to do it (it may prove difficult or even impossible).

[imslp]

Why is no bread suddenly better than half (more like 90%) of a loaf?

Because it makes a point that we do not like people slowly chipping away at our rights so that we somehow end up with an "international" copyright of life+70 even when more than half of countries have a life+50 copyright term. Remember when we used to have publication+14 as the copyright term?

Also note that UE is actually bringing up laws in individual countries, for example, some copyright extension in France (I don't know about the details), and the Spanish copyright law of life+80. I do not think that, as you seem to think, the enforcement of Mexican copyright law is so far fetched given their actions.

In any case, I wanted to reply here in this thread that I've responded to UE's accusations in this thread here.

[PI]

They have no basis in law, as the IMSLP only publishes in Canada

??? This surprises me. I thought IMSLP was intended to be available worldwide.

[PI]

Here's another suggestion for Universal, Mr. Black, PI, et al:

Instead of issuing demand letters, making threats of what amounts to extortion via lawsuit, etc., why not instead offer to assist IMSLP in securing and installing the necessary software to block users from the EU from downloading works that are under copyright in the EU while leaving them free to download works that are public domain there?

Surely this would be considerably less expensive in the long run than a) going to court - where there is substantial chance that UE would lose its case; b) generating the type of negative publicity that is already in abundant evidence.

IMSLP was unique among downloadable sheet-music sites in that it actually implemented an extensive copyright warning system, deleted works that were in violation, etc. Instead of making wild accusations of "conspiracy", why not instead offer to improve IMSLP by making it more difficult for users in the EU to violate copyright laws.

You have a good point there. Unfortunately, I don't have the knowhow to implement such a filtering system. As such, it should be done by the ISP in consultation with the site owner.

What I tried to do here is to advocate for UE to clear up the picture. I doubt IMSLP can come online without blocking the composers in question in the EU.

In the meantime, I thought of a semi-solution. Before entering the site the user would get to choose which country they are browsing from. Then the content is limited to meet the copyright laws in that country. Although this system be deceived easily, it might hold up in court. At least it has a better chance than a warning. IMSLP could argue that the user downloaded the protected content by reporting false information, thus wilfully and knowingly circumventing the limitations.

You are right, IMSLP is the best online public domain sheet music site. I wonder why is it down now?? Why don't the admins just temporarily block the mentioned composers and leave the rest (>90%?) of the site running until an IP based filtering system is implemented?

[WJM]

ou are right, IMSLP is the best online public domain sheet music site. I wonder why is it down now?? Why don't the admins just temporarily block the mentioned composers and leave the rest (>90%?) of the site running until an IP based filtering system is implemented?

For starters, because there is no legal obligation to do so.

In Canada, and in most of the world, the works are no longer in copyright.

They are in copyright in Austria? Too bad for Austria.

[PI]

Should sites in those other countries take reasonable steps to ensure that scores are permitted to be downloaded in countries where they are NOT in copyright?

Not offering something which is public domain is not illegal.

Offering something which is not public domain is illegal.

It's that simple. The only thing you have to be careful with is that the definition of public domain varies.

[samthegreat]

I don't understand what's so difficult to understand about everything that happened. If people would just read the open letter at www.imslp.org, maybe they would stop asking stupid questions.

-UE didn't ask for IMSLP to shut down. The burden of site maintenance was already too much for its founder...then add legal woes to the picture. It says this right in the letter.

-In the founder's eyes, and many others', compliance with UE's demands would have opened the floodgates for more publishers to send similar c&d orders, lawsuits, etc.

-Stop turning every thread into a fight about the fairness of countries' copyright laws. They're not going to change for the better anytime soon, so we might as well get used to it. Though I do personally believe that the steps taken by IMSLP to ensure copyright protection in particular countries were sufficient. See the analogy somewhere in the other thread which was begun by Universal Edition Vienna concerning car manufacturers being responsible for drivers speeding because they built the car capable of going 100 mph. Of course, that's just my opinion.

I, like many others, wish that the rest of imslp (possibly minus the scores in contention) was up, and from what I understand the founder is taking steps to ensure that this will occur in the future. Hopefully it's soon, because I got a bunch of Corelli and Borowski that's just chompin at the bit. =). But we evidently must be patient. We are of course not privy to any negotiations between whoever and whoever concerning both the legal issues at play here, and the continuance and future maintainence of IMSLP. However, I'm sure Feldmahler is working harder than we can imagine.

I also appreciate the people who have been intelligently contributing to the recent discussions. (Thanks, arcticwind7!!!)

[Carolus]

PI writes:

In the meantime, I thought of a semi-solution. Before entering the site the user would get to choose which country they are browsing from. Then the content is limited to meet the copyright laws in that country. Although this system be deceived easily, it might hold up in court. At least it has a better chance than a warning. IMSLP could argue that the user downloaded the protected content by reporting false information, thus wilfully and knowingly circumventing the limitations.

This certainly appears to be a reasonable request. IMSLP obviously has no interest of any kind in encouraging users who reside in the EU to violate EU copyright laws. Indeed, the whole purpose of implementing the extensive warning system was to discourage users from violating copyright laws. If such a filter were added, users from the USA and Canada would still have access to works which are public domain in their respective countries. So, that leaves us with a couple of questions: 1) Would this be a satisfactory solution to address UE's legitimate concerns about people in the EU violating UE's copyrights? 2) Would this be an inexpensive and relatively painless-to-implement solution for Feldmahler - or whoever the successor might be? (In short, a reasonable request.)

This is the kind of thinking that's actually needed here and I, for one, very much appreciate PI submitting this idea. Getting into legal wrangles over different interpretations of copyright laws and their applicability in different countres is ultimately unproductive - benefitting only the law firms involved in the litigation.

[ras1]

PI wrote:

In the meantime, I thought of a semi-solution. Before entering the site the user would get to choose which country they are browsing from. Then the content is limited to meet the copyright laws in that country. Although this system be deceived easily, it might hold up in court. At least it has a better chance than a warning. IMSLP could argue that the user downloaded the protected content by reporting false information, thus wilfully and knowingly circumventing the limitations.

I to think this is reasonable, but I fail to see any difference between this and simply having a disclaimer on the offending pages (which could be part of an autotag) saying, "By downloading this file, you certify that you are a member of [such-and-such a country]"

But then, I don't really see a big difference between this and the current system. Maybe it would be better in court?[/quote]

[Odin]

Hello

Don´t yield to UE and to their demands, make them yield to you and to your demands. They started the fight, they must surrender or be defeated.

Sincerely

[nikolas]

Don´t yield to UE and to their demands, make them yield to you and to your demands. They started the fight, they must surrender or be defeated.

So this is a battle for you? I'm sorry but you seem hugely more interested in the copyright laws than actually resolving the situation (= reopning IMSLP), which should be the center point here.

Don't turn this situation in a war against UE and copyrights and blah blah. Find other ways to do that, don't use IMSLP.

also:

ou are right, IMSLP is the best online public domain sheet music site. I wonder why is it down now?? Why don't the admins just temporarily block the mentioned composers and leave the rest (>90%?) of the site running until an IP based filtering system is implemented?

For starters, because there is no legal obligation to do so.

In Canada, and in most of the world, the works are no longer in copyright.

They are in copyright in Austria? Too bad for Austria.

Do you absolutely always do what is your legal obligation? Cause if this way so I guess Mr. Feldmalher had no legal obligation to start IMSLP in the first place. I mean, the issue here should be reopening IMSLP, no?

Of course the "battle" should not stop, and of course there should be no reason why copyright free scores in Canada+wherever else should be banned from IMSLP altogether, but still, this is not the center, nor it should be. Wha PI proposes is perfectly reasonable, imo.



BTW, is there any real lawyer reading this, knows about the situation? A normal real lawyer who would be able to comment on all this, because, well, I'm a composer, and most here are musicians, I reckon, so we do know very little on what actually goes on. Making assumptions about what should be right or wrong, and rubbish parallels about cars in other countries (sorry UE but it was rubbish, and this is not a swear word at all) does not help.

Where are the real facts? The cold facts? I need a responsible entity (NOT from UE, of course) to tell me: "Listen Nikolas, what is copyright free in a country can/can't/whatever and blah blah". I don't care what everybody thinks, and although I have my own opinion, and don't see any reason in current copyright laws indeed and I find them completely outdated (listen Odin? I almost agree with you. ) still it doesn't make any difference.