Everyone, including UE know that IMSLP would never do that and that is was a joke. If they don't find it annoying, their loss, but they know we do not consider it an option or regard it more than a joke.Maybe not amusing to UE and their lawyers.
Vivaldi wrote:Composers born in 1861 not PD in Canada? I don't buy it.
The first thing we got from UE - that I know of - was a demand to sign an agreement to pay 210,000 Euros for works that are public domain in Canada.
It was not nicely worded, and meant information (which should be a right to all humans) that is free and legal in most countries is not available.You mean the First Cease and Desist letter as reproduced on this very forum? It's actually quite a nicely-worded letter saying, quite simply, please don't put these files up for download.
It was though.The attached contract, however, strikes me as a piece of silliness as no one in their right mind would sign it, given that it would have incriminated the signatory even in the case of a momentary lapse of thinking straight. Even so, it was far from a demand for any number of Euros.
With the amount of time they have spent analyzing IMSLP - the forums and the main page - that if this is true (which is extremely highly unlikely) it is entirely the negligent fault of UE.My guess, thinking about this, is that UE didn't realise quite how small an operation IMSLP actually is. They probably expected it would have a legal depertment of some sort that would come back with some sort of negotiation and I don't think one can really be very surprised if they were a bit taken aback by the reply they received - also reproduced on this forum.
Keep up, we are not doing that.It's quite obvious that Feldmahler and colleagues are generous and public-spirited people with no intention whasoever of cheating UE or anyone else but, and I'm sorry to sound a critical note, business tact and diplomacy don't seem to be on the agenda. It might feel good for a bit thumbing your nose at someone you believe to be in the wrong in the eyes of the law but I don't recommend it as a strategy for settling disputes easily and peacefully.
Kalli wrote:Odin wrote: And a print from
1816 is certainly PD.
Are you sure?
You have come here with an air of knowledge of in depth copyright law, yet fail to back up your arguments, and get a lot of facts about IMSLP wrong.
Richard Black wrote:Doesn't really show the Public Domain advocates in a very good light to the rest of the world, seems to me.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests