gmane.music.mutopia.discuss

Re: half copyrighted

yota moteuchi — 2008-12-01T20:12:25

_______________________________________________ Mutopia-discuss mailing list Mutopia-discuss-KSwT1vaRc9aJnvDnx1genB2eb7JE58TQ< at >public.gmane.org http://lists.bcn.mythic-beasts.com/mailman/listinfo/mutopia-discuss

Re: half copyrighted

Graham Percival — 2008-12-01T11:35:50

No, no; I haven't recorded it, let alone be willing to publish it. I practice what I term "civil obedience" -- instead of "civil disobediance", where one breaks laws one disagrees with, in my professional life I deliberately follow every technicality of copyright law. I research whether I'm allowed to use the Qt icons in my Qt applications, I cannot perform any 20th century music (apart from large groups like orchestras, for which I assume that they're big enough that if they didn't pay the composer they'd get sued), and I examine libraries and pick GPL'd or BSD'd software libraries based on what the license of the overall software will be. That last point may seem obvious, but I've encountered some academics who link to GPL code without making their main program open-source. Cheers, - Graham

Re: half copyrighted

Valentin Villenave — 2008-12-01T11:16:03

2008/12/1 Graham Percival public.gmane.org>: Interesting -- I take it you have, since then. Show us the tape! :-) Cheers, Valentin

Re: half copyrighted

Graham Percival — 2008-12-01T10:41:43

Oh, it handles your rights perfectly well -- you sell your rights to the RMO, and it sends you money occasionally. If you're popular and/or lucky, depending on the country and the way it's set up. As Valentin said, this doesn't mean that *you* keep your rights. Ambiguity with "copyright license" and "copyright". You (Yota) still owns the copyright on your contribution. But you have licensed that work to wikipedia under a non-exclusive, non-revocable copyright license which allows wikipedia to reproduce your work for free. Now, if you want to sell your contribution to a publisher, you can still do that. But that publisher can't insist that your work is removed from wikipedia, since you've already given wikipedia a non-revocable right to distribute your work. Well, it depends what Yota meant by "endorsed". If the composer says "yeah, sure, sounds good" but hasn't explicitly allowed his work to go under a free license, the composer could sue you for copyright infringement. Of course, hopefully your composer friend would just say "sorry buddy, I didn't actually want you to do this. Buy me a beer, take the material off-line, and we'll call it even". Now, if your composer friend has sold the work to a RMO, that RMO could sue you "on his behalf", even if your composer friend is willing to forgive you. I'm not even certain if that's allowed. I just skimmed the Canadian copyright act; sometimes it says "public performance", and other times it just says "performance". I honestly wouldn't be surprised if I technically broke the law when I performed the first Benjamin Britten solo cello suite at one of my cello teacher's student concerts in front of a dozen cello students. This is why I started composing my own works, by the way. I was horrified when I discovered that, after spending six months learning how to play that beautiful music, I wouldn't be allowed to record myself playing it and put it on the internet. Cheers, - Graham

Re: half copyrighted

Valentin Villenave — 2008-12-01T10:20:17

2008/11/29 yota moteuchi public.gmane.org>: 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. 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. 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). I don't know what you're referring to. 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. 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? 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. That's your loss. 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*. Thanks. Hope you'll come up with some nice ideas for the LilyPond community, for musicians, for composers and for freedom. Cheers, Valentin

Re: half copyrighted

Neil Puttock — 2008-11-30T21:39:23

2008/11/29 Valentin Villenave public.gmane.org>: Hehe, I've been lurking here for a while; I really should pull my finger out and submit all the stuff I've typeset (I volunteered to typeset Mendelssohn's Songs Without Words last year, but so far I've only submitted one piece). OK, I'll have a look at it, though my eyes usually glaze over at such things. ;) I don't have an account, but I'll certainly get one set up; I might set up a repository for my Mutopia stuff. It brought my Ubuntu installation to its knees for some reason (probably greedy memory usage combined with a lack of virtual memory, since I've foolishly installed it inside Windows :) I recompiled under XP, and it compiled fine (after about 50 minutes!) Cheers, Neil

Re: half copyrighted

yota moteuchi — 2008-11-29T22:39:15

Re: half copyrighted

Valentin Villenave — 2008-11-29T20:05:10

2008/11/29 Neil Puttock public.gmane.org>: Wow, I'm honored (here I was, thinking that this ML was confidential... ;) Please do tell me whether you find the license sensible or not. The code is a mess (but I'm currently busier adding notes than correcting the code). I hope you have an account on repo.or.cz; then I'll happily give you permissions on the repository, in case you have a minute and want to improve or correct something. Oh, and if you want to compile the score, don't forget to uncomment the scenes at the bottom of full_score.ly or vocal_score.ly :-) Cheers, Valentin

Re: half copyrighted

Neil Puttock — 2008-11-29T19:47:23

2008/11/29 Valentin Villenave public.gmane.org>: Apologies for the slight highjack, but Valentin, this is amazing; I'm seriously impressed. I've checked out the repository so I can be a fly on the wall of your compositional process. ;) Cheers, Neil

Re: half copyrighted

Valentin Villenave — 2008-11-29T18:21:40

2008/11/29 Yota public.gmane.org>: I am very much interested in this topic, since I'm about to publish a free-licensed score of mine. Si vous le souhaitez, nous pouvons discuter en français (je traduirai si nécessaire). That's OK. The modification itself is never under restricted terms. The distribution of a modified version may be. This is not possible. There is no such thing as a rights-management organization that allows free licenses. You may, by special authorization of the author, let people download your score for free; but if anyone makes a copy that would make him a counterfeiter. Alive composers do *not* make a living from their royalties. That is a myth. Composers only live (for the luckiest ones) through - lectures - teaching - commissions - residences. As long as they can't perform, they won't be interested in rehearsing. This is definitely impossible. I think Graham has very clearly expressed how reading such a thing would make any of us feel. What you'd need is a CC-NC, which would allow non-commercial performances (it is *very* restrictive, though, since it doesn't allow a music school to perform it if they make public pay a fee; it doesn't allow to distribute it on a website where there's advertisment either). This way, if anyone wants to perform it in a "commercial" approach, they'll to ask the composer for a special authorization -- which he may (or not) give for a fee, and this way he should make much more money than through an organization. But the only way to do that is to not be a member of *any* organization. That is what I've recently done when writing an opera for a major French opera house; I had to write my own license, which you can read on http://repo.or.cz/w/opera_libre.git?a=blob;f=LICENSE The source code is available under GPL, with the following exception: any performance/recording/modification that includes narrative elements (characters, lyrics, events, etc.) has to comply with the CC-NC license. I had to keep this license because of my librettist, because we're both new to this and we wanted the opera house to give us some money. This way, the opera house doesn't have to pay the SACEM nor the SACD, they directly pay us instead, and everybody is happy. (... but as soon as I can, I'll update my license and remove the -NC clause, because I really do want my music to be free as in http://freedomdefined.org ) In your particular case, I think the best thing you can do is educate your composer friend, and (if still possible) save his soul from his organization. Cheers, Valentin

Re: half copyrighted

yota moteuchi — 2008-11-29T14:07:18

Re: half copyrighted

Graham Percival — 2008-11-29T14:04:25

It's a polite request. I said "please". S'il vous plat, n'utilisez pas le terme "open-source type license". The typesetting is not *another* work. I believe it qualifies as a derivative work of the original composition. Or perhaps the single work (the sheet of music) contains multiple copyrights... anyway, the typesetting is not entirely distinct from the original composition. Again, I am not a laywer; if you seek legal advice, consult a qualified lawyer in your jurisdiction. Cheers, - Graham nsult a qualifi_______________________________________________ Mutopia-discuss mailing list Mutopia-discuss-KSwT1vaRc9aJnvDnx1genB2eb7JE58TQ< at >public.gmane.org http://lists.bcn.mythic-beasts.com/mailman/listinfo/mutopia-discuss

Re: half copyrighted

Graham Percival — 2008-11-29T13:59:18

Sorry, I missed your earlier post with CC-BY-NC 3.0 text. But I think my point remains (see below). Read that again and put the emphasis on the final two lines. My interpretation is this: "If you're not performing something NON-COMMERCIALLY, then this NC license doesn't mean that you don't need to pay for it." (which really just says "if you don't accept this copyright license, then you need to find another way to get permission to reproduce this work -- we suggest ASCAP, BMI, SESAC".) In other words, if a solo cello sonata is published it under CC-BY-NC, I can record myself playing it and encourage people to download it for free over the internet without sending anybody any money. I can also perform the work at free concerts in parks, shopping malls, or whatever I feel like doing. I don't think that Yota's composer wants that kind of a license. I am not a lawyer, of course; if you seek actual legal advice, consult a qualified lawyer in your jurisdiction. - Graham Percival

Re: half copyrighted

Garrett Fitzgerald — 2008-11-29T13:45:03

Oops, I replied directly last time, instead of to the list. Sorry about that. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Garrett Fitzgerald public.gmane.org> Date: Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 05:48 Subject: Re: [Mutopia-discuss] half copyrighted To: yota.news-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org I'm sure someone else will chime in with a more-accurate response, but since I'm sleepless and bored, I'll take a swing at it. :-) Under the CC-SA license, you do not give up copyright on the material, so your subject line, "half copyrighted", isn't accurate. Also, I think that you mean CC-BY-SA, as you want the attribution to stay with the piece. CC-BY-NC might be even better, as you're then restricting the redistribution of the music to non-commercial use -- I think. Anyone wishing to use it commercially would have to license it separately. The full text of the CC-BY-NC 3.0 license states, in part: # "For the avoidance of doubt: " 1. Non-waivable Compulsory License Schemes. In those jurisdictions in which the right to collect royalties through any statutory or compulsory licensing scheme cannot be waived, the Licensor reserves the exclusive right to collect such royalties for any exercise by You of the rights granted under this License; " 2. Waivable Compulsory License Schemes. In those jurisdictions in which the right to collect royalties through any statutory or compulsory licensing scheme can be waived, the Licensor reserves the exclusive right to collect such royalties for any exercise by You of the rights granted under this License if Your exercise of such rights is for a purpose or use which is otherwise than noncommercial as permitted under Section 4(b) and otherwise waives the right to collect royalties through any statutory or compulsory licensing scheme; and, " 3. Voluntary License Schemes. The Licensor reserves the right to collect royalties, whether individually or, in the event that the Licensor is a member of a collecting society that administers voluntary licensing schemes, via that society, from any exercise by You of the rights granted under this License that is for a purpose or use which is otherwise than noncommercial as permitted under Section 4(c)." So, I think you're covered, except that a high school, for example, might be able to use the music for a school performance without paying royalties -- I'm a little hazy on how that works. On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 04:31, Yota public.gmane.org> wrote:

Re: half copyrighted

Garrett Fitzgerald — 2008-11-29T13:44:23

How does that square with the language from the CC-BY-NC 3.0 license I posted earlier? The 2.5 license seems even clearer: # For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical composition: 1. Performance Royalties Under Blanket Licenses. Licensor reserves the exclusive right to collect, whether individually or via a performance rights society (e.g. ASCAP, BMI, SESAC), royalties for the public performance or public digital performance (e.g. webcast) of the Work if that performance is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. 2. Mechanical Rights and Statutory Royalties. Licensor reserves the exclusive right to collect, whether individually or via a music rights agency or designated agent (e.g. Harry Fox Agency), royalties for any phonorecord You create from the Work ("cover version") and distribute, subject to the compulsory license created by 17 USC Section 115 of the US Copyright Act (or the equivalent in other jurisdictions), if Your distribution of such cover version is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.

Re: half copyrighted

yota moteuchi — 2008-11-29T13:43:43

Re: half copyrighted

Graham Percival — 2008-11-29T13:28:33

Yes, that seems absurd. It certainly isn't compatible with any type of "open-source" license (including CC) that I'm aware of. The right to perform sheet music without royalties is one of the fundamental parts of any "open-source" license for music. I suppose that the "non-commercial" condition weakens this point. What you want to do is to create your own type of license, allowing unlimited reproduction and modification in sheet music form, but not giving users permission to perform the work. You should consult a lawyer for this task. And please don't use the term "open-source type license", since this is not open-source at all. - Graham Percival

Re: half copyrighted

Yota — 2008-11-29T13:21:02

In fact, my first "client" would be a Belgian composer and a member of the sabam :) The big point I would be able to clear up (for me, the editor, the composer and for the user) is that: the music will not be released under an open-source type license but the edition (and just the edition) will. The user will be allowed to modify/share/distribute the support but not the artwork... does it seems absurd ? I am not good enough at laws to understand the subtilities of the small letters printed at the bottom of the CC 3.0. Nor to understand the consequences for the legal claimant. Yota O_o

half copyrighted

Yota — 2008-11-29T09:31:11

Hi, I ask you, even if it's merely related to mutopia. But I need a bit of your experience on copyright/left. I would like to publish some sheets under an open licensing scheme (let's say creative commons). The "edition" (the notes printed, lilypond sources files etc..) would be freely available for copy, modification (under restricted terms) and distribution etc... But the "music" itself would remain the property of the composer, with all the right granted by the law in the country of the composer : both moral AND patrimonial rights (whereof the right to be paid for a public performance, via organisms like the french SACEM, etc...) The goal would be 1 - to remunerate alive composers 2 - to allow students to try sheets and rehearse, for free (free as free beer) 3 - to allow people to easily arrange the sheets for new instruments (thanks to lilypond sources) I now have a problem of wording. How could I say unambiguously that "this edition is released under the terms of the CC-SA (c) J. Smith 2008" "the composer is a member of the SACEM don't forget to declare your performances" ? Hop, Yota

Re: Help with corrections

Jay Anderson — 2008-10-16T01:53:54

I'd be willing to help. Let me know what to do. I'm not sure I have the time to be in charge of the effort right now, but I'd be very willing to update some pieces. I assume we'd be updating them to 2.11.62 (or 2.12 when that comes out). -----Jay On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Chris Sawer public.gmane.org> wrote:

Help with corrections

Chris Sawer — 2008-10-15T20:01:39

Hi all, We have had quite a few people sending in corrections recently, which is great news. The ability to correct mistakes in the archive is one of Mutopia's main advantages over other sheet music sites. However... many of the pieces in question were created with old versions of LilyPond. I have several installed on various virtual machines but often don't have the right one. Unfortunately I am struggling to find the time to make these corrections so am wondering if anyone would like to help? Basically the pieces in question either need upgrading to a current LilyPond version, or an old version of LilyPond needs to be compiled and installed (usually non-trivial on modern machines). Would anyone like to help out with this? The ideal would be for someone to offer to be in charge of making corrections; they would check that the correction is valid, and upgrade/update the files on Mutopia as appropriate. Chris