2008/11/29 yota moteuchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> This is not possible. There is no such thing as a rights-management
>> organization that allows free licenses.
>
> That's why I need to understand more precisely the role of editors and
> rights management organisations.
A RMO (supposedly) handles your rights. It has the right to enforce
your so-called "Intellectual Property", to sue anyone it wants on
"your" behalf (but outside of *your* control), etc.
> Isn't the composer allowed to waives it's right to publish and distribute ?
> Isn't that the place of an editor ? If the the composer agree, why the
> editor wouldn't be the "set of all the contributors to the score
> typesetting" ? What would that be an issue for the SACEM ?
Because when there's a publisher, the two-parts deal between the
author and his RMO becomes a three-parts deal between the author, the
RMO and the publisher. That doesn't change anything else: the RMO will
still regard any copy/modification/performance as an "Intellectual
Property" violation.
> I am just thinking that...
> When I contibute to wikipedia... my work is put under the wikipedia
> copyright, isn't it ?
No. IIRC, everyone that contributes anything still owns the copyright
for his contribution (which is why Wikipedia cannot, suddenly, change
its license and become non-free: that would require *all* contributors
to give their permission for such a change, and it is impossible).
> Let's forget one minute about the GPL mess...
I don't know what you're referring to.
> If I set up an ssociation, which is endorsed by the composer to publish and
> distribute the work... and if this association allow the contribution of
> every goodwilled person ... do i break the law somewhere ?
1) Yes you will, as long as the composer hasn't explicitely specified
a free license.
2) This would require that *any* modification or distribution or
performance has to be submitted to your "association".
3) one common point of all free licenses is the right to
_redistribute_ the work: e.g. a music teacher is allowed to copy
scores for his pupils, without asking *every* individual pupil to go
to your association's website and download the score for himself.
Therefore such a mandatory centralization as you're imagining is not
allowed by free licenses.
> I can perhaps convince him, but the others... I was trying to find a place
> where young composers half cautious/suspicious half unaware of their rights
> or of the "open" side of the force and young musicians could share sheets
> (et plus si affinité)
That is a noble goal, but you have two ways of dealing with suspicious
people: either you can do everything to remove all the risks they
might fear (and thereby confirm their paranoia), or you can show them
there are no risks.
Look, I am myself building a free-music publishing house in France,
there's also the Éditions Outremontaises in Quebec, there's also the
Mutopia project, and a number of small structures out there. Why
reinventing the wheel by creating a non-free structure?
> How many time did I try to set up a quartet just for fun with some friends.
> Stopping after the third rehearsal because the piece was too hard or too
> boring. I was glad I had some "free" copies :)
Yes. This is absolutely necessary (otherwise, there's a good chance
that contemporary music, if not all written music, could simply
disappear in a long-term future).
But, once again, *what* do you mean by "free"? Allowing people to
download a sheet without paying is *not* enough, and will *never* be.
-> it forbids redistribution (e.g. the teacher may not copy the score
for his students)
-> it forbids modification (e.g. I can't put a saxophone instead of a bassoon)
-> it forbids public performance (e.g. I can play in front of my
mother but not in front of my mother's friend)
-> it forbids making money (e.g. the school that wants to play your
song but asks for a €2 fee in order to finance a visit to the Louvre)
-> on the other hands, it *does* allows SACEM's private milice to
- spy on citizens by listening everything they download on the Internet
- come up uninvited in conservatories, and search for illegal
copies in pupil's and teacher's personal effects
- racket anyone about anything (for Pete's sake, just have a
look at
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soci%C3%A9t%C3%A9_des_auteurs,_compositeurs_et_%C3%A9diteurs_de_musique#Spectacle_de_fin_d.E2.80.99ann.C3.A9e_.C3.A0_l.E2.80.99.C3.A9cole
)
So, if you ever were to create such a structure; as a composer, as a
musician and as a simple citizen, I'm afraid I wouldn't ever consider
having anything to do with it. That sounds rude, but it's the way
citizens are treated nowadays.
>> > 3 - to allow people to easily arrange the sheets for new instruments
>> > (thanks to lilypond sources)
>>
>> This is definitely impossible.
>
> well I pass on this one
That's your loss.
>> What you'd need is a CC-NC, which would allow non-commercial
>> performances
>
> Don't like CC-NC it's the contrary of what I'm looking for...
Not if you're trying to *control* what commercial use people do. Once
again, NC doesn't forbid commercial use, it forbids commercial use
made *without your authorization*.
> By the way, I don't know who is Neil (nice to meet you pal) but Valentin, I
> have to confess I'm really fond of your ... *.ly coding style :)
Thanks. Hope you'll come up with some nice ideas for the LilyPond
community, for musicians, for composers and for freedom.
Cheers,
Valentin
_______________________________________________
Mutopia-discuss mailing list
Mutopia-discuss@mutopiaproject.org
http://lists.bcn.mythic-beasts.com/mailman/listinfo/mutopia-discuss
