This is a trickier issue than it may first appear -- partly, I think, because the law has not kept up with technology to some degree, and partly because there are a couple of different models of "borrowing" being employed. Even the way in which the question is originally phrased here doesn't directly address what is often being asked concerning the passing around of music, and how that is typically accomplished.
Consider
Since when is it now OK to publicly ask and receive any printed music ...
Printed music? For the most part, people aren't asking to borrow a sheet of
printed music. They're asking for (or being provided with), a
digital file that represents that music. It's perfectly okay to loan (or give, or sell) someone your printed copy of the music. But it's NOT okay (except under very specific circumstances) for you to loan (or give, or sell) a
copy that you make of that. But with the current technology, isn't this really splitting hairs? And wouldn't it be okay for you to make a personal copy of your original as a "backup" in case, for example, your original is damaged (fire, rain, beer, whatever)? I'm not absolutely confident of the correct legal answer to this last question -- if there is one at this time -- but you can see how gray areas are introduced.
I think that the correct answer -- in the strictest interpretation -- is that no, you can't make such a backup reproduction. If you damage your copy, you must acquire a new one from the publisher or acquire permission to copy one. On the other hand, the law does permit
"reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy". Only by a "library"? Would a court uphold that distinction? Would such a violation ever be pursued?
So I can certainly send you my own printed copy of, say, "Stars and Stripes" (even the entire set of band parts). But can I copy that and send you the
copy -- either printed or digitally? The answer to that seems, clearly, "No."
The exceptions (the
only exceptions that there seem to be) to the prohibition against copying appear in the law concerning the "fair use doctrine". Here are the guidelines on that:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html. None of these allow for the copying of a complete work (or musical part) and sending that copy to anyone to use for any purpose. Even as a teacher, you may invoke the fair use doctrine only to use a
portion of the work for teaching purposes. But read these guidelines carefully and you'll see how they leave some areas of vagueness, including:
"The distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement in a particular case will not always be clear or easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission."
and
"When it is impracticable to obtain permission, you should consider avoiding the use of copyrighted material unless you are confident that the doctrine of fair use would apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine whether a particular use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney."
(Yeah, well, thanks a lot for that guidance.)
It seems pretty clear what the intention of the law is. It usually seems pretty clear when people are intentionally attempting to circumvent it or violate it. But given the government's own view of the vagueness and uncertainty of the law in any specific case, the answer to whether something is a violation or is inviting a violation is at times very unclear. Whether this should be determined by a board moderator or left to the individuals involved seems best left as a decision by those responsible for the running of the board. I'm not going to even suggest an answer to that question.
