Quote:
On the other hand, a license which -- for example -- (only) forces me
to give credit to the composer, editor or publisher is free. I can
share it with my friends and perform it for an audience.
Wrong! The only rights *anyone* has is the copyright. If anything
whatever
is published without a proper copyright notice on the title page or on
the first page of music *all* rights are forfeit, and anyone can use it
or publish it or perform it or put his own name on it or even make a
few meaningless changes and copyright it as his own without the
author's consent or knowledge. Thus, it will not stay free. Obviously,
if you publish an urtext edition of some Mozart, for example, the
original
music is not copyrighted, nor are there performance rights. But without
a
copyrighted title page, no credit whatever to the composer, editor or
publisher
or anyone else has to be be given nor can it be demanded.
A title page is the *only* way that any kind of permissions can be
granted, because a copyright notice is the *only* way that these rights
can be retained.
I vehemently deny that my discussion of royalties was off topic. I was
simply trying to show why commercial republication of public domain
or copyrighted music from the site was very very unlikely to happen,
but that small scale publishing, not just by individuals for their own
use
but also by teachers to give or sell to students, is as inevitable
as it is desirable.
A person downloading music should take the printer's oath.
There is no English word for urtext. I guess "original version as it
first appeared with no changes" is as short an English phrase as I can
manage. There is no English word for pralltrill either, because it
remains undecided whether it is a mordent or inverted mordent:-)
--
Peace, understanding, health and happiness to all beings!
((((((( g__n__u f_o_r_c_e )))))))
lily_lily__lily MN[-------------------->mm@ _lilypond__
dave No Va USA David Raleigh Arnold [EMAIL PROTECTED]
