Pirated music: good thing, bad thing or nothing?

[Gurn Blanston]

I did. I found only what can happen to someone in this or that country, but nothing about what did actually happen to a flesh-and-blood person.

I know there have been prosecutions, I used to read about them from time to time. Mainly of the type where some kid came to visit grandma and downloaded 2 gigabytes before going home, and now granny is losing the house to RIAS...

[(poco) Sforzando]

I did. I found only what can happen to someone in this or that country, but nothing about what did actually happen to a flesh-and-blood person.

YouTube often will delete uploads it considers violation of copyright, but I don't know how much further action it will take other than deleting the item or the user's account. But so many things get uploaded every minute that I wonder if YouTube can keep up. I've seen lots of things that are definitely under copyright out there and easily downloadable with a free utility like Free YouTube Downloader. Some of these items have been up there literally for years.

[Wakefield]

I can tell you that no creator of intellectual property, like music content, will agree with you.  When a recording is offered for sale, either as a physical item or a digital artifact, the creators, publishers and distributors only accrue royalties when it is bought (or sold in some fashion, used as ringtone, or streaming services, pay royalties, etc.).  Illegal downloads take money out of the pockets of all the creators involved in the project. 

You might dance around this simple logic all you want, but the bottomline (pun intended) is that creators of content are hurt by illegal downloads.  Also, even if the music is in the public domain, like much of classical music, the recording itself is copyrighted by the record label and the performer shares in this income.

Addressing your last point, digital technology has changed nothing about copyright protections.  It is the same term for composers and songwriters no matter how the music is presented to the market.  The clock on copyright starts ticking the minute it is registered (which usually is just before a recording is released) - and if it is a digital track or a CD it does not change the length of the time the content is protected or falls into public domain.

It's curious: I tried to offer some (objective) description about differences between objects protected by the traditional concept of property and the object of copyrights. But you took it as a plain defense of illegal downloads.

Property, as we know it, is a notion developed from the Roman Law onwards, and referred to material things. On the contrary, copyright protection is a very recent notion, with no more than two hundred years of changing regulations and now faced with the problems of digital technologies.

Problems related to copyright are never simple. For example, do you agree with the existence of public libraries? Public libraries purchase one or more copies of a certain book, but it can potentially be read by thousands of people, so it could be argued that there is a theft of the intellectual activity of the author. Then if a student can read a book in the public library, but he can also download it illegally to do a homework (and then destroy it), the differences begin to be difficult to establish.

Personally, I am the owner of several thousands of books, disks and movies, and I have paid several thousands of dollars to purchase them. Currently, I have, in addition, three subscriptions to streaming services of music (ClassicsOnLine HD, Spotify and, since yesterday, Apple Music), so I'm not a guy personally interested in illegal downloads; but I'm sure that new technologies claim for a rebuilding of the architecture of the current notion of copyright, even if "the industry" is against it. To deny it is to want to hide the sun with a finger.

Formulations as "copyleft", "free software" and "creative common licenses" are a proof that this is a real problem and an invitation to think these issues without dogmatic lenses.

i would warmly recommend to those interested, the books by the American lawyer Lawrence Lessig, many of them available under creative common licenses; for instance this one: http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/   



I would also recommend his TED Talk titled "Laws that choke creativity":

http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity#t-945141

[jlaurson]

Thank you. That doesn't answer all my questions, but it's a start so I'll ask a couple more. (And in these next cases it's a subject of real interest to me.)

One of my concerns has always been the use of recorded music in plays. For example, I saw a production of Noel Coward's Hay Fever recently where the director played several Coward songs as mood-setting music before and after each act. Absent permission from the record company (and which would probably require payment of a royalty), I wonder whether this falls under fair use. It is clearly not fair use in the usual sense of quoting for a review or that sort of thing; on the other hand each excerpt was only a few minutes. But it's rare to attend a play where some kind of recorded background music isn't used.

The published script for Michael Hollinger's play Opus, which is about a string quartet performing the op. 131, requires in addition to the normal royalties a CD costing $35 that is to be used during each performance of the play.

I myself was writing a play in which I wanted to use the entire Cosi fan Tutte overture. Obviously the Mozart in itself is in public domain, but no recording is, and besides I wanted to repeat the entire sonata-allegro section following the introduction until the coda. So I finally decided to input the entire overture into Finale and create a WAV file from that. Clearly this is perfectly legitimate.

But how about this: in another part of the play I would love to use about 15 seconds from Stravinsky's Symphony of Psalms, where the score is still under copyright. If I create a Finale file of this excerpt and make a WAV from it, am I within the fair use laws?

You will want to get expert advise, before venturing into this, but as a guideline to inform yourself: A recording older than X years (this changes every time Mickey Mouse is about to drop out of copy right protection, cynics might note) can be used any way you like it.
30 Seconds (or 10% of a "track" [whatever that is], whichever is less) of any recordings can be used under the fair use claim...
Things like Stravinsky can be tricky; he re-composed a few items to get them a new round of copyright... but the truly old stuff, if you have a rights-free interpretation, can be used. More anon.

[Florestan]

YouTube often will delete uploads it considers violation of copyright, but I don't know how much further action it will take other than deleting the item or the user's account. But so many things get uploaded every minute that I wonder if YouTube can keep up. I've seen lots of things that are definitely under copyright out there and easily downloadable with a free utility like Free YouTube Downloader. Some of these items have been up there literally for years.

Precisely.

[Karl Henning]

Things like Stravinsky can be tricky; he re-composed a few items to get them a new round of copyright...

Or, to establish any copyright, as the copyright of any of his work published with Editions Russes de Musique was not honored in the West, IIRC.

[San Antone]

Or, to establish any copyright, as the copyright of any of his work published with Editions Russes de Musique was not honored in the West, IIRC.

Yes, much of his greatest music had no copyright protection in the West.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Yes, much of his greatest music had no copyright protection in the West.

Or should we say, much of his earlier music. As has been said, he revised a number of his early works to establish Western copyright. Probably one incentive was Disney's use of Le Sacre in Fantasia (1940), which appalled poor Igor as the score had been cut and re-arranged considerably, and he considered Stokowski's performance "execrable." (I do not know what he thought of Stokowski's Beethoven Pastorale or Bach Toccata, which seem to me even more execrable.) Plainly Stravinsky was not won over by Mickey Mouse or by Disney's stunning use of animation, the likes of which stirred Sergei Eisenstein (of Battle Potemkin and Alexander Nevsky fame) to consider Snow White the greatest film ever made.

[San Antone]

Or should we say, much of his earlier music. As has been said, he revised a number of his early works to establish Western copyright. Probably one incentive was Disney's use of Le Sacre in Fantasia (1940), which appalled poor Igor as the score had been cut and re-arranged considerably, and he considered Stokowski's performance "execrable." (I do not know what he thought of Stokowski's Beethoven Pastorale or Bach Toccata, which seem to me even more execrable.) Plainly Stravinsky was not won over by Mickey Mouse or by Disney's stunning use of animation, the likes of which stirred Sergei Eisenstein (of Battle Potemkin and Alexander Nevsky fame) to consider Snow White the greatest film ever made.

Right; I meant "most well known", e.g Le Sacre. 

[(poco) Sforzando]

You will want to get expert advise, before venturing into this, but as a guideline to inform yourself: A recording older than X years (this changes every time Mickey Mouse is about to drop out of copy right protection, cynics might note) can be used any way you like it.
30 Seconds (or 10% of a "track" [whatever that is], whichever is less) of any recordings can be used under the fair use claim...
Things like Stravinsky can be tricky; he re-composed a few items to get them a new round of copyright... but the truly old stuff, if you have a rights-free interpretation, can be used. More anon.

Understood. The problem here, though, is that I'm not considering use of a recording in any case, only an electronically entered passage from a score that is most likely still under copyright. (My rule of thumb with Stravinsky is to see if a Dover edition has been printed for the work. Unlike the early Russian works, so far it has not.) I have to find out if 2-6 measures lasting perhaps 20 seconds when played will constitute fair use or violation, as paying a royalty to B+H is bound to cost a small fortune regardless. Of course until the play has achieved sufficient form for me to submit to a theatre, the whole thing is perhaps moot, but I don't want it to be rejected because I haven't considered these issues.

[Jo498]

And so in the US it would seem that (a) is illegal as is (c). But (b), which strikes me as more heinous than the others, is perfectly legal.

I do not know about the US and I not a lawyer (God forbid!). In Germany there is to my knowledge a clear difference between (anonymous) filesharing, that is providing the file to a large and indefinite number of potential users and giving "a few" (up to 5 or so) copies to personal friends, free of charge.

The problem is actually not new in the digital era. Similar slogans as "copy kills music" were already en vogue in the 1970s and early 80s when copying LPs on compact cassette tapes was apparently an issue. Despite the official solution, namely a fee on empty media and cassette players, the music industry kept wailing that schoolyard sharing or mix tapes were killing their profits.

How could b) ever be a legal problem? Nobody is forced to pay the outrageous price, the disc in question is not a good or commodity one needs to survive etc., so it is simply supply vs. demand.

Legally, it seems that it is completely irrelevant if there was only a small batch of recordings issued, if the recording is oop or not etc. For my personal moral evaluation this is relevant, however.

As for your questions with regard to the use of Mozart's or Stravinsky's music in theatre perfomances, in Germany there would usually be a fee to the GEMA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEMA_%28German_organization%29
involved. I have no idea if there is a corresponding institution in the US.

[merlin]

But fundamentally, the world does not owe you the music collection of your dreams. Any more than it owes you the house of your dreams, the car of your dreams, the spouse of your dreams. It certainly doesn't owe you one particular recording of Beethoven's piano sonatas out of the myriads available.

WTF?  Fascinating how you draw up a blueprint about me based upon sharing my experiences in terms of seeking availability of particular recording tracks.  Total projection, and patronizing as well!

Just who in blazes do you think you are?  And the same goes for your yeah-yeah running dogs!!!

[Karl Henning]

I just read that as a general observation.  (I.e., the world does not owe me the music collection of my dreams, either.)

[merlin]

I just read that as a general observation.  (I.e., the world does not owe me the music collection of my dreams, either.)

Duly noted, Karl.  Thanks!  But it specifically cites my pursuit of a particular recording of a movement of op. 106.  That is VERY particular, in my book!

BTW, Lucchesini's interpretation of the Adagio sostenuto is quite wonderful, perhaps the best I have heard.  And since I play that particular piece, it was inspiring as well.

[Ken B]

I just read that as a general observation.  (I.e., the world does not owe me the music collection of my dreams, either.)

Does it owe me the collection of your dreams?

I just hope it doesn't owe me the the collection of James's dreams.

[Cato]

I just read that as a general observation.  (I.e., the world does not owe me the music collection of my dreams, either.)

Yes!  Tone and intention are very difficult at times to glean on the Internet: this is why so many misunderstandings arise here and everywhere.

I also did not interpret Orfeo's remark as an attack on anyone specific, and the specific example was most probably used because it was floating closest due to the earlier discussion.

Does it owe me the collection of your dreams?

I just hope it doesn't owe me the the collection of James's dreams.

0:)   There are worse collections, like those of my students! 

[aukhawk]

Interestingly, the BBC often issues appeals for old personal recordings of classic old shows (radio or TV), or occasions of historical significance, which the BBC have themselves failed to archive.  Even though these recordings were certainly illegal at the time and in breach of copyright - the BBC now seems to be very grateful for that clandestine activity.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Interestingly, the BBC often issues appeals for old personal recordings of classic old shows (radio or TV), or occasions of historical significance, which the BBC have themselves failed to archive.  Even though these recordings were certainly illegal at the time and in breach of copyright - the BBC now seems to be very grateful for that clandestine activity.

Similarly, in a box set of Bernstein recordings issued by the NY Philharmonic, one Wagner disc resulted from an illegal recording by a member of the audience.

Peter Gutmann's review: "Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this disc is its source. Although boasting the best sound and stereo spread of the entire set (and the quietest audience), it was recorded covertly (and illegally) in the midst of the concert hall by an ardent fan. Of course, these were the days before pocket-sized digital recorders, reliable wireless microphones, or even decent-sounding cassette decks, and one can only imagine how he managed with the bulky reel-to-reel equipment of the time. What's more, he attended and taped three of the four repetitions of this concert and gave the current producers the luxury of a choice among them (this disc is a composite of two). The Philharmonic did not broadcast its concerts during this era, and so were it not for such brazen defiance of the law this incredible concert would have never resurfaced. The multiple ironies of this entire situation are truly astounding!"

[jlaurson]

Interestingly, the BBC often issues appeals for old personal recordings of classic old shows (radio or TV), or occasions of historical significance, which the BBC have themselves failed to archive.  Even though these recordings were certainly illegal at the time and in breach of copyright - the BBC now seems to be very grateful for that clandestine activity.

An interesting aside, if nothing else.

Or maybe... yes, maybe I'll just illegally copy and tape every TV show and concert I go to, and in case of "oops" I'll just cite the trusty old: "JUST IN CASE!" defense, replete with shoulder-shrug and freeze-frame faux-guilty look. 

[(poco) Sforzando]

An interesting aside, if nothing else.

Or maybe... yes, maybe I'll just illegally copy and tape every TV show and concert I go to, and in case of "oops" I'll just cite the trusty old: "JUST IN CASE!" defense, replete with shoulder-shrug and freeze-frame faux-guilty look. 

Which doesn't address my point about the Bernstein Wagner.

But pause a moment on TV shows. What constitutes "illegal copying"? If I had (in the older days) a VCR or today a DVR (which is supplied by the cable company) or an interface like HomeRun, I could and can record any TV show for which I have paid my cable subscription. And I have done this numerous times. Say for instance that PBS broadcasts a Live from the Met opera or Turner Classics plays a movie by Bergman or Fellini I'd like to have. Now of course I could buy the DVDs of the Met opera or the classic film, but I have the means to record the show and either keep the output file on my computer and/or burn my own DVD. I am not selling or giving away the material to anyone else, and it is purely for private use. I have paid the cable company their fee, a portion of which no doubt is paid to the stations I am viewing. Explain to me the "illegality" in such cases.

In fact, in 1984 the Supreme Court decided 5-4 in Universal Studios vs. Sony Corporation of America to allow home recording.