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

[Vivaldi]

I still feel that UE's insistance on restarting IMSLP soon is a gimmick to get the public back on their side. What's the rush? Let Feldmahler and co do their stuff, get everything sorted out, and then roll out the new IMSLP rather than restarting a crippling version.

[Kalli]

I agree with Vivaldis opinion. The damage for the UE is bigger than they imagined before. Now they want to "calm the waves".

[Yagan Kiely]

It is most certainly just PR.

Maybe not amusing to UE and their lawyers.

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.

[Austin766]

What the hell is wrong with them (U-E)? While I understand that they want to protect their income, IMSLP was the least of their worries. Thanks FeldMahler for creating IMSLP, I loved using it, and the scores were excellent. I used IMSLP on several occasions to get organ music because it is so expensive at stores, not to mention very hard if not impossible to find in most music stores. U-E and their lawyers are a bunch of jerks who don't understand the challenges facing musicians. Personally I think that copyright should be standardized world wide (I am a US citizen) and I agree with the Canadians, copyright ought to be natural life + 50 years post mortem.[/quote]

[raph]

my best wishes to getting imslp back online.

should a donation system come into effect, i'm sure i would contribute\.

[Boris Crépeau]

Composers born in 1861 not PD in Canada? I don't buy it.

The basis of expiration of copyright is not the Birth of a creator but his/her death. If a composer born in 1861 died at the ripe age of 110 in 1971, his/her work would be copyrighted until 2021 (1971+50) in Canada.

[Euler]

I want to add my name to the list of people supporting who support Feldmahler. I've been using IMSLP for years now, and am very sorry to see it shut down. I would be happy to pitch in (what I can) for legal/server costs.

Someone earlier mentioned the Wikimedia foundation. This seems like something perfect for them. Has anyone contacted them?

p.s. I will pay $40 for a CD/DVD image of IMSLP before it was shut down. Contact me!

[matteo]

It's interesting that UE is trying to counter the bad publicity they created for themselves by their ill-considered attack on IMSLP.

In justification of their position, they claim that they didn't tell Feldmahler to close the site down. Maybe they didn't in those exact terms. But what they did do was write two threatening and legally disingenuous letters.

If this is not barratry, it is getting close to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry

It seems quite clear that IMSLP was not in breach of copyright law in Canada and was therefore an entirely legal operation. UE claims that their concerns are with composers' works that are still under copyright protection in the European Union. They have no proof that there actually was a breach of EU copyright. Such breaches are only alleged - and would have to be proven in a court of law. Furthermore - it seems to me that only the individuals who may or may not have downloaded the protected scores in the EU would be in danger of prosecution, not the site, its owners or its ISP.

When copyright owners have punitive intentions, they can and do issue writs against site owners, ISPs and individuals. The point here is usually harassment and, as is often the case, the one with the deepest pockets gets his way.

If UE were genuinely supportive of the free distribution of public domain scores, they would not have written "Cease and Desist" letters but would have negotiated a solution to the very few works on IMSLP that were still under European copyright protection. Their C&D letters presented a much more serious scenario than is actually the case.

UE claims to have attempted negotiations with IMSLP - but that these overtures were ignored. I have no information on this. It is possible that IMSLP did reject their attempts to reach a negotiated solution - perhaps on the grounds that UE's demands were unreasonable.

One of the many wonderful things about the internet is that free access to information acts as a foil against repression. Never before has the public had such free and easy access to public domain works - especially in the field of music. This access is a right that should be guarded with ferocity, particularly in a world where we prize our freedom of speech - even if that is slowly being eroded.

UE's sympathetic noises are nevertheless belied by their actions. It is possible that their lawyers were more aggressive than intended - who knows? Maybe there were other unrelated strains on administering the site? Possible.

I was however fascinated to discover: "UE demanded 50,000 Euros from IMSLP to "license" works which are unambiguously public domain in Canada."

Ooops - perhaps there are vested interests here? Perhaps this is all about money (and control) - at least from UE's point of view?

UE should take note that their move is unpopular; that actual composers do not support it, and neither do professional or amateur musicians. It is also short-sighted insofar as the ease of access to PD scores actually promotes music in general and is more likely in the long run to earn money for them. Some contemporary composers actually choose to make their scores generally available and find that this is helpful in the dissemination of their music - and so - ultimately - is also financially advantageous.

IMSLP has shown itself to have enormous public support. UE's position is legally contentious (IMHO). Personally I would publish and be damned - but in the interests of avoiding expensive and time-wasting legal wrangles - I'm sure that some small adjustments can be made to get the site back up and running. Good luck!

Long live IMSLP! UE - get real, and get straight!

[Carolus]

Thanks, Matteo, for a very well stated and thought out post. As the person who has been one of the copyright enforcers at IMSLP for the last two years, I can attest to the following:

1. Any title posted found to be genuinely under copyright in Canada was removed.

2. There were numerous and explicit warnings - translated into several laguages - for users to observe the copyright laws of the countries in which they reside. IMSLP had a complicated set of copyright tags in place advising of which works or composers were protected in the EU, the USA, etc.

3. 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.

[Kalli]

[quote="matteo"]
Furthermore - it seems to me that only the individuals who may or may not have downloaded the protected scores in the EU would be in danger of prosecution, not the site, its owners or its ISP.
[/quote]

I think in the German law (and the Austrian too) it's culpable to do something (here to download the copyrighted files in the EU) and it's even culpable to give somebody the chance to do something culpable ("aiding and abetting" a culpable action). I'm not sure what happens, if the person, who gives the chance is in another country.

The UE said in one of the letters, that it's easy to check the IPs of the persons, who download the files. I think they will do this, if Feldmahler won't agree with their request.

[Richard Black]

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

[Yagan Kiely]

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 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.

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.

It was though.

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.

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.

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.

Keep up, we are not doing that.

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.

[Odin]

And a print from
1816 is certainly PD.

Are you sure?

Yes, I had some musicologists from the Royal Conservatory
(Kungliga Musikhögskolan) in Stockholm investigate it, and
they found that it was an original print from 1816. The paper
quality and the print is typical for the time before paper was
made from cellulose pulp from trees, and the paper looks
clearly hand-made. The sonatas are typical for the time and
sound like the early sonatas by Beethoven.

Regards

[Richard Black]

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.

Whatever you say. But I _have_ got some experience of working in businesses, over the years, and I just think you guys are being unnecessarily paranoid, and unprepared to admit to simple lack of experience in general. Doesn't really show the Public Domain advocates in a very good light to the rest of the world, seems to me.

[Leonard Vertighel]

Doesn't really show the Public Domain advocates in a very good light to the rest of the world, seems to me.

Maybe it doesn't show the PD advocates in a very good light to the business world. It certainly doesn't show the business world in a very good light to many musicians. The comments of musicians and composers in these forums have once again made it apparent that the excessive copyright of these days doesn't really protect the artists anymore, but primarily the interests of the shareholders. This was not the purpose of copyright when it was introduced in the first place.