From: David W. Fenton lists.fin...@dfenton.com
Reply-To: finale@shsu.edu
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:11:41 -0400
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] OT: Copyright and downloadable music
On 10 Jul 2010 at 5:59, dhbailey wrote:
my post was quoted by Blake Richardson, who
then went
From: John Howell john.how...@vt.edu
Reply-To: finale@shsu.edu
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 13:01:44 -0400
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] OT: Copyright and downloadable music
If there IS a single problem, it's obviously the one we've all been
aware of all the time: the progress
On 10 Jul 2010 at 5:59, dhbailey wrote:
my post was quoted by Blake Richardson, who
then went on the tirade against stupid things done in the
name of copyright protection.
No, those were done in the name of enforcing performance rights,
which is distinctly different from copyright.
On 9 Jul 2010 at 19:42, Blake Richardson wrote:
It's this sort of draconian, heavy-handed thuggish approach to
copyright that's turning off an entire generation of people from
respecting it.
Not a single one of your examples has anything at all to do with
copyright or copyright enforcement.
At 1:41 PM -0400 7/11/10, Blake Richardson wrote:
From: John Howell john.how...@vt.edu
If there IS a single problem, it's obviously the one we've all been
aware of all the time: the progress of technology has made new
crimes not only possible but really, really EASY!
Copyright
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 10 Jul 2010 at 5:59, dhbailey wrote:
my post was quoted by Blake Richardson, who
then went on the tirade against stupid things done in the
name of copyright protection.
No, those were done in the name of enforcing performance rights,
which is distinctly different
Blake Richardson wrote:
[snip] All sorts of scary stuff is happening in Europe
under the umbrella of
artists' rights. There's a proposal (don't know whether it's made it into
law yet) to give sculptors and painters the right of first refusal on sales
of their work. Under such a system, if
John Howell wrote:
At 1:41 PM -0400 7/11/10, Blake Richardson wrote:
From: John Howell john.how...@vt.edu
If there IS a single problem, it's obviously the one we've all been
aware of all the time: the progress of technology has made new
crimes not only possible but really, really EASY!
At 2:38 PM -0400 7/11/10, dhbailey wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
It's really crucial to maintain the distinction between the two,
seems to me, and getting all bent out of shape about the idiots
going after the Girl Scouts (ASCAP will surely lose in court if EFF
or somebody else steps up to
Indeed. There is a BIG difference between Criminal and Civil Cases. I think the
original poster needs to bone up on this..
On Jul 11, 2010, at 11:45 AM, dhbailey wrote:
O.J. was never convicted of anything -- he simply lost a lawsuit as defendant
and was forced to pay the penalty that
As far as the Nicole Simpson murder, you are correct, but of course O.J.
Simpson was convicted of armed robbery, kidnapping, and other felonies on Oct.
3, 2008, and is currently serving a minimum 9-year sentence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson
Cheers,
- DJA
-
WEB:
Darcy James Argue wrote:
As far as the Nicole Simpson murder, you are correct, but
of course O.J. Simpson was convicted of armed robbery,
kidnapping, and other felonies on Oct. 3, 2008, and is
currently serving a minimum 9-year sentence.
You're correct -- I should have been more specific that
John Howell wrote:
From: dhbailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com
Let's be fair about things here. Yes, there's a problem with people who
believe that just because the internet makes it easy, they're entitled to
whatever they want without paying. But you also have to take into account
the
dhbailey wrote:
John Howell wrote:
From: dhbailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com
Let's be fair about things here. Yes, there's a problem with people who
believe that just because the internet makes it easy, they're
entitled to
whatever they want without paying. But you also have to take
I am from an older generation, but kids these days have the attitude that the
money goes to multinational companies, with only a trickle to the composers and
performers, their heroes.
My generation bought into the arrangement and that's who passed the laws (same
with plant/gene/life ownership).
Graeme Gerrard wrote:
I am from an older generation, but kids these days have the attitude that the money goes
to multinational companies, with only a trickle to the composers and performers, their
heroes.
My generation bought into the arrangement and that's who passed the laws (same
with
David, I think that's a very accurate summation of the industry then, and also
now. I was surprised to read that most older major league rock bands continue
touring not just for the glory of it, but because, for that year, the bulk of
their income will come from the tour. The Rollingstones were
I'm not trying to pick a fight here, just understand
WHY, exactly, is it offensive in any degree that anyone can (having enough
money and a willing seller) become a holder of copyrights?
The individual artist's rights are NOT abridged just because someone may buy
their publisher's
Cecil, in many ways I agree with you. Full stop. I 'm equally not trying to
pick a fight, but am merely attempting to understand why the original owners of
such monumental works of popular music such as the Beatles' library are forced
to undergo legal proceedings to retain their work , or
At 5:59 AM -0400 7/10/10, dhbailey wrote:
You misread the quotation attributes, John. I didn't say that at
all -- my post was quoted by Blake Richardson, who then went on the
tirade against stupid things done in the name of copyright
protection.
I am most definitely arguing that 2 wrongs
Nigel Hanley wrote:
Cecil, in many ways I agree with you. Full stop. I 'm equally not trying to
pick a fight, but am merely attempting to understand why the original owners of
such monumental works of popular music such as the Beatles' library are forced
to undergo legal proceedings to
On 7/10/10 1:00 PM, finale-requ...@shsu.edu finale-requ...@shsu.edu
wrote:
From: John Howell john.how...@vt.edu
Reply-To: finale@shsu.edu
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 20:26:23 -0400
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] OT: Copyright and downloadable music
From: Blake Richardson btr1
At 8:22 AM -0400 7/10/10, dhbailey wrote:
I have no idea if the situation has improved any
these days, but for many years that was very
true, often with performers being on the hook to
the record labels for a lot of money which was
never recouped by the record sales, due in large
part to
No, you didn't miss something Cecil. It's a difference between
considering copyrights and patents as property, which can be traded,
sold, leased, assigned, rented, or otherwise treated like any other
property, and considering them a somehow philosophically belonging to
their creators and to
Cecil Rigby wrote:
I'm not trying to pick a fight here, just understand
WHY, exactly, is it offensive in any degree that anyone can (having
enough money and a willing seller) become a holder of copyrights?
The individual artist's rights are NOT abridged just because someone may
buy
Nigel Hanley wrote:
Cecil, in many ways I agree with you. Full stop. I 'm
equally not trying to pick a fight, but am merely
attempting to understand why the original owners of such
monumental works of popular music such as the Beatles'
library are forced to undergo legal proceedings to retain
Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
Nigel Hanley wrote:
Cecil, in many ways I agree with you. Full stop. I 'm equally not
trying to pick a fight, but am merely attempting to understand why the
original owners of such monumental works of popular music such as the
Beatles' library are forced to undergo
John Howell wrote:
[snip]
The former is exactly true, as I've pointed out before. But I'm not
sure the latter really is. If you ever walked through a record company's
distribution warehouse (and I have), you realize that of all the records
that company fronted for and released, only a few
At 5:40 PM -0400 7/10/10, dhbailey wrote:
Interestingly, the ownership of the involved copyrights is so murky
that even the publishers have no clue anymore.
Actual story -- years ago I discovered that a then out-of-print
concert band arrangement I had just purchased (and dearly wanted to
At 5:44 PM -0400 7/10/10, dhbailey wrote:
I perhaps spoke incorrectly -- it was the record company executives
which got fabulously wealthy. Of course, the labels did, too, or
the larger conglomerates wouldn't have started buying them up.
Well sure, but they don't do it through obscene
On 11/07/2010, at 9:49 AM, John Howell wrote:
Can I insert a little word into your statement, which will make it accurate?
At 5:44 PM -0400 7/10/10, dhbailey wrote:
I perhaps spoke incorrectly -- it was the record company executives which
got fabulously wealthy. Of course, the labels
Sure, I'll accept that addition. But my point was that while the top
executives of companies do get huge salaries, it's the percs and
extras that makes them millionaires. Surely we've seen that with the
recent financial meltdown, and the salaries and bonuses that have
been paid to executives
I had gotten the link to that blog from a different list
(orchestralist maybe?) and as always am intrigued by the way
that many people seem to think that additional exposure to a
potential wider buying audience is what we musicians want,
whether we be composers or performers. I can't remember
dhbailey wrote, in part:
I ...snippage... am intrigued by the way that many people seem to
think that additional exposure to a potential wider buying audience is
what we musicians want,
I blame the model of the commercial radio stations for this. Years
before there was an all-talk, all the
At 8:31 AM -0500 7/9/10, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
dhbailey wrote, in part:
I ...snippage... am intrigued by the way that many people seem to
think that additional exposure to a potential wider buying audience is
what we musicians want,
I blame the model of the commercial radio stations for
Dr. Howell wrote:
I have no idea ... whether you remember the
Payola scandals of the '60s,
Though the payola scandals were within my lifetime, I'm not quite old
enough to remember them. I was looking at the issue from the
perspective of the end user, suggesting that the commercial
From: dhbailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com
Reply-To: finale@shsu.edu
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 05:45:08 -0400
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] OT: Copyright and downloadable music
The same attitude goes for people wanting to download
copyrighted music without the copyright owners
From: dhbailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com
Let's be fair about things here. Yes, there's a problem with people who
believe that just because the internet makes it easy, they're entitled to
whatever they want without paying. But you also have to take into account
the almost psychopathic
Dr. Howell,
Just a technical point: while Blake Richardson, the author of the post
to which you responded, did, indeed, quote David Bailey, Blake was the
author of the bit of the post post to which you responded, not David.
The problems arising from attitudes towards copyright (and I would
This was on the NY Times website today (I didn't see it in the
printed paper):
http://tinyurl.com/29wzmx9 =
http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/no-easy-answers-in-the-
copyright-debate/
It refers to a blog post from a Broadway composer, Jason Robert
Brown, and his interaction with a
From: Andrew Stiller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: finale@shsu.edu
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 14:21:30 -0400
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] (OT) Copyright (was Score Binding Question)
On 8/4/08 1:00 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
As an aside, the reluctance of the studios
From: John Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: finale@shsu.edu
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 20:16:23 -0400
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] (OT) Copyright (was Score Binding Question)
On 8/3/08 1:00 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
As an aside, the reluctance of the studios
Blake Richardson wrote:
As an aside, the reluctance of the studios to allow publication of
their
vast wealth of orchestral film scores is inexplicable to me.
I would dearly love to even examine the Dumbo score. Brilliant
orchestration, highly inventive--especially Pink Elephants on Parade.
At 5:25 PM -0400 8/2/08, Blake Richardson wrote:
From: John Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: finale@shsu.edu
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 15:49:10 -0400
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] Score Binding Question
Are we really talking about donation here, or plain and simple
deposit with LC
Randolph Peters wrote:
[snip] Pretty soon I'll be blown away. For the moment I'm grateful to
be making
a living, and so must ask that for a limited time (in the Thomas
Jefferson sense) you please respect my small, treasured usemonopolies.
Don't pirate my editions; do plunder my visions. The
On Mar 26, 2007, at 4:55 AM, dhbailey wrote:
he doesn't define what he thinks a limited time (in the Thomas
Jefferson sense) really is, so we're each left to picture our own
interpretation of that remark.
I think it may be said without fear of contradiction that limited
time was not
On 26 Mar 2007 at 16:57, Andrew Stiller wrote:
On Mar 26, 2007, at 4:55 AM, dhbailey wrote:
he doesn't define what he thinks a limited time (in the Thomas
Jefferson sense) really is, so we're each left to picture our own
interpretation of that remark.
I think it may be said without
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 26 Mar 2007 at 16:57, Andrew Stiller wrote:
On Mar 26, 2007, at 4:55 AM, dhbailey wrote:
he doesn't define what he thinks a limited time (in the Thomas
Jefferson sense) really is, so we're each left to picture our own
interpretation of that remark.
I think it may
My internet search skills are barely noticeable, and I've never come
across anything that gives the whole story on the earlier versions of
U.S. copyright, but I believe that the revision of the law in 1909
EXTENDED the period of copyright to 28 plus 28 years, which means
that previously it
dhbailey wrote:
he doesn't define what he thinks a limited time (in the Thomas
Jefferson sense) really is, so we're each left to picture our own
interpretation of that remark.
Andrew Stiller replied:
I think it may be said without fear of contradiction that limited
time was not intended to
On Mar 26, 2007, at 8:27 PM, John Howell wrote:
My internet search skills are barely noticeable, and I've never
come across anything that gives the whole story on the earlier
versions of U.S. copyright, but I believe that the revision of the
law in 1909 EXTENDED the period of copyright to
On Mar 26, 2007, at 8:27 PM, John Howell wrote:
My internet search skills are barely noticeable, and I've never
come across anything that gives the whole story on the earlier
versions of U.S. copyright [...]
A pretty good discussion of the copyright philosophies of some of the
Founders
Since this list often gets into discussions about copyright I thought
I would recommend a recent article in Harpers by the novelist
Jonathan Lethem:
http://www.harpers.org/TheEcstasyOfInfluence.html
If you don't have time for the whole article, here are the final paragraphs:
Artists and
Please folks, a bit of advice.We, (Canberra City Band here in Australia) have a very tatty copy of the Maurice Jarre music for the film Lawrence of Arabia.It works wonderfully for concert band and we dig it out every couple of years and thoroughly enjoy playing it. The audience loves it too!
) 62910787. Mob 0417-042171
-Original
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Jonathan Smith
Sent: Sunday, 16 July 2006 4:55 PM
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: [Finale] Ot- copyright.
Please folks, a bit of advice.
We, (Canberra City Band here in Australia
Please folks, a bit of advice.
We, (Canberra City Band here in Australia) have a very tatty
copy of the Maurice Jarre music for the film Lawrence of Arabia.
It works wonderfully for concert band and we dig it out
every couple of years and thoroughly enjoy playing it. The audience
Dear Keith,
Disclaimer: lay opinion.
Seems to me that if you obtained the piece legitimately, you are free
to do what you want vis-a-vis repairing copies by Finale-ing the
whole thing, if you like, and continuing to perform it. Maybe others
have more informed opinions.
Chuck
Chuck
: Saturday, 15 July 2006 11:42 AM
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] OT- copyright.
Dear Keith,
Disclaimer: lay opinion.
Seems to me that if you obtained the piece legitimately, you are free
to do what you want vis-a-vis repairing copies by Finale-ing the
whole thing, if you like
The exact rules are different in different countries - there are several
information sheets about the law in Australia here, including one for
Music: choirs, bands, private music teachers
http://www.copyright.org.au/information/specialinterest/music.htm
Their answer for the question Can I
keith:
I am not an attorney in any jurisdiction, and am not well informed about
Australian copyright law.
You don't indicate who it was that advised you that the item was no
longer available. In my experience in the U.S., It's no longer
available is not reliable unless it is known to be
60 matches
Mail list logo
