In my opinion (certainly not a legal one) copying to replace or protect legally purchased music is exactly analogous to copying a CD to protect the legally purchased original. Publisher a recording companies do themselves a disservice and appear greedy when they insist otherwise.
I agree that much of the current copyright law is antiquated and does not reflect the current state of technology (both music and printing) nor the way many today work (or would prefer to work). It is the publishers who want to do business as they did 50 years ago that cause this. My music is sold with a license to copy parts (but not scores) as needed for the original purchaser. In addition, I make site licensing available for large institutions with multiple performing organizations. See this link for a complete description. http://www.rgsmithmusic.com/Copyright.htm For several years I have been of the opinion that the present publishing model is outdated. Music goes out of print because of expenses of printing, storing, and marketing large print runs. For institutional use, it makes much more sense to print on demand from a .PDF or other electronic file. Publishers would dramatically reduce their expense, music dealers would not have to stock so much music that may or may not sell, and musicians would no longer see music go out of print. A music store's business would change to marketing popular music and musical books for mass consumption, earlier works not published electronically, and digital files of other works. Dealers could also profit from printing (for an additional fee) digital files for customers that don't want to print their own (or can't). I'll be glad when the laws reflect present reality. Richard Smith www.rgsmithmusic.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Darcy James Argue wrote: > Keith has only ever been talking about his own use. But he (and > others) have assumed that legally, he must re-purchase a set of > replacement parts, and that re-engraving or photocopying the > deteriorating parts would be a violation of copyright. This seems > wrong to me on principle, but then again, much of copyright law does. > > Cheers, > > - Darcy > ----- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://secretsociety.typepad.com > Brooklyn, NY > > > > On 23 Aug 2006, at 1:33 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote: > >> >> On Aug 22, 2006, at 8:36 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: >> >>> Can someone explain why, legally, Keith can't just photocopy or >>> re-engrave the deteriorating parts? >> >> For his own use, he absolutely can. The only problem is if he made a >> copy for somebody else who had not purchased the original. >> >> Andrew Stiller >> Kallisti Music Press >> http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Finale mailing list >> Finale@shsu.edu >> http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > > _______________________________________________ > Finale mailing list > Finale@shsu.edu > http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale >
begin:vcard fn:Richard Smith n:Smith;Richard org:R.G. Smith Music Engraving & Publishing email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] url:http://www.rgsmithmusic.com version:2.1 end:vcard
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
