Copyrights and TubeNet

[windshieldbug]

And remember, the NSA is keeping copies of EVERYTHING that goes over the net, including eMails...

[Dan Schultz]

The 'Community Music' forum on Yahoo has strict rules regarding requests for copyrighted materials and only entertains solicitations that use the terms 'borrow' or 'buy' as it pertains to originals. Of course, this is just a matter of terminology.

Chatfield 'lends' copyrighted materials all the time. Certainly they must know that many folks who 'borrow' music from them simply copy it and return the originals.

In the case of TubeNet.... I think such solicitations should be very discreet to keep the site from becoming a 'clearing house' for copyrighted materials.

[ghmerrill]

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.

[mclaugh]

Printed music?

As opposed to a digital audio file.

Clearly, "someone" didn't get the memo.

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.

Textbook illustration of "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt."

[brian_c]

There's a simple solution for the website: get a DMCA agent. AFAIK, a DMCA agent prevents rights holders from suing you immediately. Instead they have to go through the process of a takedown notice and so on. Then they can sue you when you fail to follow through.

[Michael Bush]

Textbook illustration of "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt."

You are hoist with your own petard.

I think it's a textbook illustration of an excellent post on the issue.

[Bob Kolada]

My one and only question- why isn't this brought up when folks with the "professional" label ask?

[Untersatz]

And what is the problem if it is done privately? I DON'T see anybody posting any reproductions
of sheet music here on this site. If it is done via private email between members, how can this
site be held responsible?

[ken k]

and why is this now in the "non-music/feedback" thread?????

[Tubaryan12]

and why is this now in the "non-music/feedback" thread?????

Makes sense to me. The OP posed a question / comment about behavior on the forum, not a question directly related to tuba.

[ken k]

and why is this now in the "non-music/feedback" thread?????

Makes sense to me. The OP posed a question / comment about behavior on the forum, not a question directly related to tuba.

tubenet, "the bulk of the musical talk"

k

[Tubaryan12]

and why is this now in the "non-music/feedback" thread?????

Makes sense to me. The OP posed a question / comment about behavior on the forum, not a question directly related to tuba.

tubenet, "the bulk of the musical talk"

k

Feedback: "Give me advice on how to make things better"

I thought that was the OP's intent.

[Untersatz]

Feedback: "Give me advice on how to make things better"
I thought that was the OP's intent.

Since when is it now OK to publicly ask and receive any printed music regardless of copyright infringement here on TubeNet?

Sounded more like the OP was complaining about people doing it
I don't see anybody receiving any printed or illegally copied music "on this site"
But I don't think it's right to try to obtain music for free, just to be a cheap-*** either!

[imperialbari]

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."

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/diglib/ihas/loc.n ... &size=1024

[Untersatz]

If a website such as TubeNet allows for the free and illegal exchange of copyrighted material, it is seen by current laws as akin to "aiding and abetting" unless policies and efforts are in place to prevent such activity.

Is asking a crime? If the exchange of said illegally copied music is not posted or transferred on this site, there
shouldn't any problem, right? What about someone that is asking for a "replacement part" in a pinch, for a lost
or damaged part that they are already a legal owner of? That is mostly the type of request that has been posted
on this site. I never hear of anyone asking for a complete score or set of parts simply because the are too cheap
to buy it. And Bob asked a very valid question that went completely "unanswered"

My one and only question- why isn't this brought up when folks with the "professional" label ask?

[pgym]

If the exchange of said illegally copied music is not posted or transferred on this site, there shouldn't any problem, right?

So you don't think asking or enticing people to break the law in the first place is a problem?

What about someone that is asking for a "replacement part" in a pinch, for a lost
or damaged part that they are already a legal owner of?

Contacting the publisher for a replacement should ALWAYS be the first resort, not the last resort, not least because the so-called "emergency performance exception," which is strictly limited to educators in a non-profit setting, acting within their capacity as educators requires emergency copies to be destroyed and replaced with fair copies following the performance for which the emergency copy was created.

And, no, "I can't reach the publisher" or "I don't have time to contact the publisher" aren't valid excuses. It's no more difficult to reach publishers via their websites than to reach the forum, and it takes no longer to send a replacement request via their contact page than it takes to log in and post the request on the forum.

[Reptilian]

(Fair use)

[hup_d_dup]

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.

Copyright law as practiced is continuously evolving. As an example, the sheer mass of photographic images that are now created by the use of digital cameras results in many more images that have close similarities to each other, therefore narrowing the scope of copyright protection on many individual images.

One aspect of copying changed when it became common to sell digital files of software. It was recognized that as a practical matter buyers would need, and were permitted, to immediately create backup copies to protect against disc failure or file corruption. But to protect against market dilution (which is the primary purpose of copyright law) it was specified that use of the copy was conferred by ownership of the original. That is to say that the original and copy could only be used by whoever had possession of both.

In a similar manner, although for a different purpose, owners of copyrighted audio files are permitted to make copies for personal use. This evolution of copyright law was an accommodation for the need of consumers to play music through different playback devices. The important thing to keep in mind here is that copying of this sort does not dilute the market value of the copyrighted material because the consumer will only listen to one device at at time *as long as the original and copy remain in the possession of a single individual*.

It can safely be assumed that a percentage of the of the sales of audio CD's on eBay are copyright violations because the sellers have copied the CD's and remain in possession of digital files. This of course dilutes the copyright owner's market value — the effect is exactly the same as if the seller had kept the CD and sold the digital file. Either way the result is that now two people have simultaneous access to content but the composer/performer has been paid only once.

Because the application of copyright law must be consistent through various media (books, software, art work, etc.) regarding fair use and copy protection, the standards that have evolved for digital files can be a helpful guide to copying of printed matter. For instance, the example of copying sheet music to protect against rain damage would seem to be a reasonable fair use. However, the copying would have to be done as a backup in anticipation of possible damage, not after the fact. Asking a second party for a replacement pdf, regardless of why it needs to be replaced, is a clear violation. The principle here is that any permitted copy must be made by and for the owner of an extant original. Additionally, if an owner sells or gives away an original, he loses the right to use any copy he made.

Hup

[Untersatz]

Asking a second party for a replacement pdf, regardless of why it needs to be replaced, is a clear violation. The principle here is that any permitted copy must be made by and for the owner of an extant original. Additionally, if an owner sells or gives away an original, he loses the right to use any copy he made.

Let's suppose that you ARE the legal owner of a particular piece of sheet music & the
sheet music gets damaged or lost. You are saying that the music must be purchased
again & a copy cannot be obtained from another person who has this said piece of music?

[Dan Schultz]

Asking a second party for a replacement pdf, regardless of why it needs to be replaced, is a clear violation. The principle here is that any permitted copy must be made by and for the owner of an extant original. Additionally, if an owner sells or gives away an original, he loses the right to use any copy he made.

Let's suppose that you ARE the legal owner of a particular piece of sheet music & the
sheet music gets damaged or lost. You are saying that the music must be purchased
again & a copy cannot be obtained from another person who has this said piece of music?

I understand this as correct.