I have to disagree again.
> in 1988. There was always protection for unpublished works *in theory*
> but how can you enforce a copyright if you cause publication
> of your own
> stuff without a copyright notice? How is anyone seeing it to know that
> it is copyrighted? How is he to know where it came from or
> whether it is
> by JSB or Mr Anon? By definition, you can't put all of this
> on page one
> of an urtext, and therefore a title page is necessary.
The law places the onus on a person copying a work to determine its
copyright status. That means that if you find something without a copyright
notice you should not copy it until you can determine that it is out of
copyright, or get permission from the copyright owner.
For free works (music or otherwise) this makes it important to have some
kind of notice about what copying is permitted so that those who care about
observing intellectual property rights will not be unnecessarily
constrained.
> I totally agree that the copyright is for the music, and not the
> underlying code. I would agree that, according to the same
Actually, if I write Mudela code for a piece of music then that code is
protected by copyright separate from the copyright on the music itself. I
have the right to permit copying under whatever conditions I choose
stipulate.
> argument, BG
> is sitting on what is thought to be billions of dollars worth of
> software to which he has no enforceable legal rights, and I
> would agree
> that all software licenses are invalid, free and otherwise. One should
> be able to copyright a game, but not a spreadsheet or
> operating system,
Actually, about 12 or 13 years ago Australian courts ruled that computer
programs were not covered by copyright. As I recall, the ruling stood for
about three months before being overturned by a higher court.
> The very existence of printed music implies that it can be shared with
> friends and played for an audience if no admission is charged. No one
> has ever had any interest in restricting that sort of
> performance right.
Hmm ... I'm not so sure about that. This kind of free performance IS covered
by Australian copyright law. Think about playing music on the radio. It's a
free performance, but royalties are most definitely charged. Once again, for
free music this should probably be specifically dealt with. This is one of
the big gaps in the currently available public licences.
Glen Prideaux
