Copyrights and TubeNet

Feedback or suggestions. Be kind. Admin has final decision for any/all removed posts.
Forum rules
Feedback or suggestions. Be kind. Admin has final decision for any/all removed posts.
User avatar
Untersatz
4 valves
4 valves
Posts: 657
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:52 pm
Location: California

Re: Copyrights and TubeNet

Post by Untersatz »

Tubaryan12 wrote:Feedback: "Give me advice on how to make things better"
I thought that was the OP's intent.
Curmudgeon wrote: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 :shock:
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!
King 2341 (New Style)
B&S PT-600 (GR55) BBb
Blokepiece "Symphony"
User avatar
imperialbari
6 valves
6 valves
Posts: 7461
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 3:47 am

Re: Copyrights and TubeNet

Post by imperialbari »

ghmerrill wrote: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
User avatar
Untersatz
4 valves
4 valves
Posts: 657
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:52 pm
Location: California

Re: Copyrights and TubeNet

Post by Untersatz »

Curmudgeon wrote: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"
Bob Kolada wrote:My one and only question- why isn't this brought up when folks with the "professional" label ask?
:shock:
King 2341 (New Style)
B&S PT-600 (GR55) BBb
Blokepiece "Symphony"
pgym
4 valves
4 valves
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:30 pm

Re: Copyrights and TubeNet

Post by pgym »

TubaMusikMann wrote: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.
____________________

Don't take legal advice from a lawyer on the Internet. I'm a lawyer but I'm not your lawyer.
Reptilian
bugler
bugler
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 2:56 am

Re: Copyrights and TubeNet

Post by Reptilian »

(Fair use)
hup_d_dup
4 valves
4 valves
Posts: 843
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 9:10 am
Location: Tewksbury, NJ

Re: Copyrights and TubeNet

Post by hup_d_dup »

ghmerrill wrote: 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
Do you really need Facebook?
User avatar
Untersatz
4 valves
4 valves
Posts: 657
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:52 pm
Location: California

Re: Copyrights and TubeNet

Post by Untersatz »

hup_d_dup wrote: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?
King 2341 (New Style)
B&S PT-600 (GR55) BBb
Blokepiece "Symphony"
User avatar
Dan Schultz
TubaTinker
TubaTinker
Posts: 10423
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Newburgh, Indiana
Contact:

Re: Copyrights and TubeNet

Post by Dan Schultz »

TubaMusikMann wrote:
hup_d_dup wrote: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.
Dan Schultz
"The Village Tinker"
http://www.thevillagetinker.com" target="_blank
Current 'stable'... Rudolf Meinl 5/4, Marzan (by Willson) euph, King 2341, Alphorn, and other strange stuff.
User avatar
Untersatz
4 valves
4 valves
Posts: 657
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:52 pm
Location: California

Re: Copyrights and TubeNet

Post by Untersatz »

I suppose it's the same as people copying VHS cassette tapes, CDs & DVDs....
Good thing nobody does that! :lol:
King 2341 (New Style)
B&S PT-600 (GR55) BBb
Blokepiece "Symphony"
hup_d_dup
4 valves
4 valves
Posts: 843
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 9:10 am
Location: Tewksbury, NJ

Re: Copyrights and TubeNet

Post by hup_d_dup »

TubaMusikMann wrote: 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?
These are the options as I understand them: 1. The sheet music could be borrowed. 2. An original could be purchased.

There is another possible option (this is speculation on my part) that could be considered a fair use, and that would be to transcribe the part from the score. This could be reasonably be considered a replacement original rather than a copy.

Hup
Do you really need Facebook?
User avatar
ghmerrill
4 valves
4 valves
Posts: 653
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 7:48 am
Location: Central North Carolina

Re: Copyrights and TubeNet

Post by ghmerrill »

Hup's postings are both informative and, I believe, correct. I have only one question (since I don't know and haven't looked into the answer to this myself):
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.
When you say "It was recognized ... and were permitted ...", is this a matter now of copyright law -- so that it covers ALL cases of copying for such uses? -- or is this an explicit right that a particular publisher may grant to the purchaser (and hence some publishers may grant it and some not)?
Gary Merrill

Wessex EEb tuba (Wick 3XL)
Amati oval euph (DE LN106J6Es)
Mack Brass euph (DE LN106J9)
Buescher 1924 Eb, std rcvr, Kelly 25
Schiller bass trombone (DE LB/J/J9/Lexan 110, Brass Ark MV50R)
Olds '47 Standard trombone (mod. Kelly 12c)
hup_d_dup
4 valves
4 valves
Posts: 843
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 9:10 am
Location: Tewksbury, NJ

Re: Copyrights and TubeNet

Post by hup_d_dup »

As a point of background information I will mention that I am a retired commercial photographer, so I have followed copyright evolution for several decades. I am not a copyright expert, and my primary knowledge is of copyright as it relates to images, not music. However, copyright practice across various media needs to be logically consistent to be effective, so practice in one area will influence others.
ghmerrill wrote:
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.
When you say "It was recognized ... and were permitted ...", is this a matter now of copyright law -- so that it covers ALL cases of copying for such uses? -- or is this an explicit right that a particular publisher may grant to the purchaser (and hence some publishers may grant it and some not)?
I believe this began as a market force, not a copyright issue. Sometime in the 90's (perhaps earlier) software customers demanded assurance that they would not lose their investment due to unstable software or computers, and suppliers complied to avoid loss of sales or market share.

However, common practice is one of the ways that copyright practice evolves. Due to previous common industry practice — and the lobbying that goes with it — there are references to legitimate copying of software to protect against loss of originals in the Digital Copyright Millennium Act of 1998.

As to your specific question — "is this a matter now of copyright law -- so that it covers ALL cases of copying for such uses?" — I would say no. The issue of copying sheet music we are discussing would be, if it were to be decided in a court, a fair use issue; similar accepted practice in a different area could be a guide but perhaps not a determinant.

Here is what the statute says about fair use:

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.


You can see from the above that ultimately a lot of subjective thinking goes into applying these four points. Practice and case law have helped to crystalize these factors but there will always be new situations that fall into grey areas.

When you hear the real experts talking about this they always hedge when asked about a new issue.

Hup
Do you really need Facebook?
Post Reply