I am certain that Phalese's customers were grateful to him for rounding up all that music.It wouldhave been very expensive for an individual to buy all those books. And I think stationers may also have been in the business of providing handwritten music to order. Scribes came quite cheaply back then. There was a glut of scribes in Augsburg during the 16th century that the guild of scribes refused to take any apprentices unless they agreed to leave Augsburg when their training had ended. ----- Original Message ----- From: Alain Veylit To: Arthur Ness Cc: Lute Net Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 1:23 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Leonardo Sciulzzo / Pirates of Penance
Arthur, Copyright laws were first passed in England in 1712. The previous laws consisted of publisher's privileges, which essentially meant that the authors did not get any share in the profit of the sales. Hence the necessity for them to have dedicatees and patrons willing to finance their works. Copyright laws came into existence in fact to protect the rights of authors against their publishers. Pirates were not always bad: there was a famous publishing pirate in England in the early 18th century, named Curll. A story goes that Alexander Pope once met him in disguise in a dark alley to sell him his own manuscript which he pretended to have obtained illegally. A pirated work was a popular work, and as we know, there is no bad publicity. Alain Arthur Ness wrote: >Webster's under "Pirate" > > <quote>To reproduce without authorization, esp. in infringement of copyright.<unquote> > >There was copyright of sorts in the 16th century, when composers or publishers were given exclusive rights from the ruler (king, dodge, duke) for a period of time, usually just ten years. If Phalese's lute books were brought into Venice they would probably be confiscated, and perhaps the owner fined. The fine would go to the publisher whose works were pirated by Phalese. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Arthur Ness > To: Jon Murphy ; Lute Net ; Roman Turovsky > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 10:34 AM > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Leonardo Sciulzzo / Pirates of Penance > > > Dear Jon, > > I don't understand why you are writing to me. "Piracy" and "Pirate" are a proper terms used by bibliographers to refer to a publisher who puts out works previously published by others. (Much piracy is prevented these days by the copyright laws.) > > The most notorious musical pirate of the 16th century was Pierre Phal=E8se. For example, in the 1540s he published five books of lute music. Not a single piece originated with him, but all were pirated from earlier prints by Petrucci (Venice, 1508), Attaingnant (Paris1529 and 1530), Formschneider (Nuremberg 1533), Narvaez (Vallodolid, 1538), H. Newsidler (Nuremberg 1533), Rotta (Venice 1546), F da Milano/Borrono (Venice, 1546), da Crema (Venice 1546), Bianchini (Venice 1546) and Francesco/Pierino (Venice 1547). He really traveled far and wide to amass all that boodle. > > To catch modern day pirates Ophee changes a few notes in his editions of public domain music, so that when someone else publishes the same pieces with his alterations he can charge them with copyright infringement. Of course one can go back to the original public domain piece and publish that, and there is nothing that Ophee can do about it. > > He only has copyright on the edition he publishes, such as "Recollections of Ireland" with all those mistakes. Anyone can use and even publish the same piece by downloading the pubic domain copy from the Royal Library in Copenhagen, thanks to Coldwell. Anyone can correct all the mistakes in that manuscript, and publish it and obtain their own copyright protection. (Just don't copy from Ophee, or he will get you.) > > From what he is harping on in this thread seems to suggest he thinks he has some exclusive rights to the piece. He doesn't. And I was under no obligation to refer to his faulty edition, since the piece is readily available from Copenhagen, without Ophee's heavy-handed mis-editing. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jon Murphy > To: Arthur Ness ; Lute Net ; Roman Turovsky > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 3:37 AM > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Leonardo Sciulzzo > > > Being uniformed on this thread I'll say "I don't know no MO". I have some > knowledge of piracy, but only on the high seas. Is it so important (and it > might be for the personal income of the individuals involved) that this list > be dedicated to the finding of rights for publication. If that is the case > is there a list with all the same people where publishing rights are less > important than the music? I am not a scholar, nor do I pretend to be. I do > read things, and make opinions for myself, but I gather that a scholar must > have some qualification. I don't. I shall retire to my bed at this late hour > with that knowledge (where I shall console myself by eating popcorn and > reading a book, the latest being Evan Thomas' writings on John Paul Jones, a > flawed but seldom examined Naval Officer who basically created the US Navy. > But I might choose another book on musical history, or another on Celtic > Warriors. I'll know which I read when I pick it up off my bedside table. But > scholar I'm not, as one needs an official imprimature for that. > > Best, Jon > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Roman Turovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Arthur Ness" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Lute Net" > <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> > Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 6:49 PM > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Leonardo Sciulzzo > > > > > Besides, Ophee's edition has so many mistakes, I couldn't refer to it to > > make my point about Beethoven influences. > > MO deliberately inserts mistakes into his "editions", to track down > > potential piracy. A scholarly type, isn't he? > > RT > > > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________ > > $0 Web Hosting with up to 200MB web space, 1000 MB Transfer > > 10 Personalized POP and Web E-mail Accounts, and much more. > > Signup at www.doteasy.com > > > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > > > > > -- > >-- > > > > --
