jvdhout wrote:As a musicologist i think it is a big loss that the IMSLP has been closed. I know the basics of copyright, music and computers to offer the following:
I would like to reopen the IMSLP on my own account and turn the site into a completely legal music site (which is not that hard, because the site was already for about 98% legal.)
The only way we can guaranty the continued availability of music and cultural heritage is to tell, and keep on telling the parliamentarians and other politicians involved that such a give-away party of public goods is unacceptable
jhellingman wrote:Please tell the Dutch government and the European commission how big the loss was when they stole 20 years of work from the public domain back in 1995.
jvdhout wrote:We have about 1.000 years of written music and the discussion is now about 2% (20 years) of the status of 'public domain'. So there is still a lot to cover for the whole world. Those 20 years can be covered for the countries which have a 50 year limit. And with an IMSLP you can have a strong statement towards the 70-year-limit-countries.
HonkyTonk wrote:No lawyer, me, but I know that Gershwin's works went out of copyright in the UK in the late 1980's and a few years later when I was enquiring about them at Chappell's (the London agent) I was informed that they were again subject to copyright restrictions, so I guess that new legislation can put works, whose copyright has lapsed into the public domain, straight back into the hands of publishers!
Archangel wrote:Your right, the publishers deserve no right to the music they publish, after all they are not the ones who create it. But, how else will composers get there music out to everyone while still making a living. Even in strongly fortified systems, there are always cracks.
jvdhout wrote:Secondly, How can we - with a messed-up-system - get the IMSLP back online? And that question is more interesting at this point. The only thing I can think of, is obeying the laws from the countries where te site can be seen [...]. If someone else knows an alternative: I would like to hear those! but i can't think of anything else.
Please read the BBC article on the situation. It is 100% legal. UE have no authority, neither does EU. Warning are sufficient. It does matter where it is hosted as long as you don't promote illegal activities. Those "little" adjustments take a huge amount of effort and money, and are not required. See BBC again.It does not matter where the site is hosted when you own a site for a worldwide public (UE is right about that). You only have to make an alteration for the 20 years (70-50) which people are not allowed to see in every country. Maybe it is even better to work from a 70+ basis (because there is still a lot in the public domain!) and make little adjustments for separate laws in countries where more scores are legal to publish.
jhellingman wrote:HonkyTonk wrote:No lawyer, me, but I know that Gershwin's works went out of copyright in the UK in the late 1980's and a few years later when I was enquiring about them at Chappell's (the London agent) I was informed that they were again subject to copyright restrictions, so I guess that new legislation can put works, whose copyright has lapsed into the public domain, straight back into the hands of publishers!
Yep, and recently, a Dutch choir was heavily fined for performing his works from copied sheet music, just months before they will become public domain again. We need to be constantly vigilant to stop parliamentarians (in the EU via the undemocratic and completely non-transparent ways of the European Commission) from giving in to bribes and giving away public property for nothing.
ArcticWind7 wrote:Someone correct me if I am wrong, but the music will be public domain while the words are copyright (Depending on county... don't know the details). Translating copyright text in itself is an infringement, so publishing it should be as well.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest