4 ms·

As EFF notes, this is great for him, but horrible generally, in that chances of success against jerks will likely be low. Also, I wonder about speculation that

As EFF notes, this is great for him, but horrible generally, in that chances of success against jerks will likely be low. Also, I wonder about speculation that Sony might have owned copyright for the score that he played.

zeta0134 8y ago
I don't think I want to live with a legal system that claims that my performance (as a human player) of someone else's sheet music is somehow bound by copyright. I draw that line at recorded performances, wherein, say, the orchestra might have reproduction rights to their recording of a public domain work. I think if the law is any more strict, things like covers wouldn't be able to exist legally, and looooots of genuinely entertaining small-time youtube entertainers that develop their talents by singing or playing covers would suddenly be under legal fire. Even a complete novice can sing along to something on the radio, so trying to claim that they shouldn't be allowed to do so fails my smell test.
- jacquesm 8y ago
  > I don't think I want to live with a legal system that claims that my performance (as a human player) of someone else's sheet music is somehow bound by copyright. It's going to be hard to find a place where you'd want to live then. I agree that this is a thing that should not exist but it does and the practice is very wide-spread. For an encore: There was a case (I really wished I could find a reference) iirc where a band had sold the rights to a piece and they were then required to pay royalties on a performance of their own creation.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    That's distinguishable, I think. In your example, I gather that the band sold rights to a piece, and not just to a particular score or arrangement of the piece.
- wool_gather 8y ago
  Covers exist because of intra-music-industry rules: so-called "mechanical licensing". Arrangements and original compositions are very much subject to copyright...so this is the world you're living in, I'm afraid.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    OK, but does the copyright for a score or an arrangement apply to just the thing itself (as in a file or printout) or also to music performed using that score or arrangement?
    - aidenn0 8y ago
      That's complicated, but here's my layman's understanding. If you write down an original song in a score, then you have copyright for that song, including performances of that song. This is actually true for any time an original song is first placed in a fixed medium, so if you record a song but don't write it down, then the rules are the same. If you make a novel arrangement for a public domain song, then you have copyright for that specific arrangement, including performances of that song. If you transcribe a public domain song, then you may have copyright for that transcription (so if someone were to photocopy it, it may infringe), but you do not get any copyright to songs performed from that transcription. Radio play of a song pays a fee to the owner of the writer's copyright, but not the performer of a song, so David Paich & Jeff Porcaro (or whomever paid them for ownership of the rights) are getting money every time Wheezer's cover of "Africa" plays on the radio, while Wheezer does not get money.
    - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
      The performance using it is a derivative work for which you'd need a license to create (in UK) or perform, or publish.
deanmen 8y ago
How would you distinguish a performance based on the public-domain Bach-Gesselshaft Ausgabe from one from a different score? Also I don't think Sony prints editions of classical texts.
- mirimir 8y ago
  That came up in a recent thread about this issue. As I recall, someone claimed that expert listeners can tell what score was used.
  - zentiggr 8y ago
    Experts supposedly could tell expensive wines from table wines... this doesn't pass muster for me anymore either. <rant>I'm getting to the crotchety old man stance of - drop copyrights, drop patents, everyone gets paid for [a live performance|first sale of a physical object] and screw all this secondary income bullshit. None of it makes sense and it leaves too many openings for pirates/scumbags/greed to suck money out of the public. </rant>
    - mirimir 8y ago
      There's certainly a strong argument for rolling back all the extensions and expansions for patents, copyrights and trademarks, which have been rammed through over the past few decades, by exploitative rights holders. The alternative is just to ignore it all, and use adequate OPSEC to avoid prosecution. If the system is so totally dominated by monied interests that there's no hope for relief, what else can we do? Just declare independence, and let them pound sand. China and Russia have at times done that, more or less. And we can create our own overlay Internet that can't be coerced or taken down. Or at least, can't be taken down without unacceptable consequences for the commercial Internet. If it comes down to it, overlay routers can spread as malware, and use covert channels, hidden in HD video etc.

zeta0134 8y ago

I don't think I want to live with a legal system that claims that my performance (as a human player) of someone else's sheet music is somehow bound by copyright. I draw that line at recorded performances, wherein, say, the orchestra might have reproduction rights to their recording of a public domain work. I think if the law is any more strict, things like covers wouldn't be able to exist legally, and looooots of genuinely entertaining small-time youtube entertainers that develop their talents by singing or playing covers would suddenly be under legal fire. Even a complete novice can sing along to something on the radio, so trying to claim that they shouldn't be allowed to do so fails my smell test.

jacquesm 8y ago
> I don't think I want to live with a legal system that claims that my performance (as a human player) of someone else's sheet music is somehow bound by copyright. It's going to be hard to find a place where you'd want to live then. I agree that this is a thing that should not exist but it does and the practice is very wide-spread. For an encore: There was a case (I really wished I could find a reference) iirc where a band had sold the rights to a piece and they were then required to pay royalties on a performance of their own creation.
- mirimir 8y ago
  That's distinguishable, I think. In your example, I gather that the band sold rights to a piece, and not just to a particular score or arrangement of the piece.
wool_gather 8y ago
Covers exist because of intra-music-industry rules: so-called "mechanical licensing". Arrangements and original compositions are very much subject to copyright...so this is the world you're living in, I'm afraid.
- mirimir 8y ago
  OK, but does the copyright for a score or an arrangement apply to just the thing itself (as in a file or printout) or also to music performed using that score or arrangement?
  - aidenn0 8y ago
    That's complicated, but here's my layman's understanding. If you write down an original song in a score, then you have copyright for that song, including performances of that song. This is actually true for any time an original song is first placed in a fixed medium, so if you record a song but don't write it down, then the rules are the same. If you make a novel arrangement for a public domain song, then you have copyright for that specific arrangement, including performances of that song. If you transcribe a public domain song, then you may have copyright for that transcription (so if someone were to photocopy it, it may infringe), but you do not get any copyright to songs performed from that transcription. Radio play of a song pays a fee to the owner of the writer's copyright, but not the performer of a song, so David Paich & Jeff Porcaro (or whomever paid them for ownership of the rights) are getting money every time Wheezer's cover of "Africa" plays on the radio, while Wheezer does not get money.
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    The performance using it is a derivative work for which you'd need a license to create (in UK) or perform, or publish.

deanmen 8y ago

How would you distinguish a performance based on the public-domain Bach-Gesselshaft Ausgabe from one from a different score? Also I don't think Sony prints editions of classical texts.

mirimir 8y ago
That came up in a recent thread about this issue. As I recall, someone claimed that expert listeners can tell what score was used.
- zentiggr 8y ago
  Experts supposedly could tell expensive wines from table wines... this doesn't pass muster for me anymore either. <rant>I'm getting to the crotchety old man stance of - drop copyrights, drop patents, everyone gets paid for [a live performance|first sale of a physical object] and screw all this secondary income bullshit. None of it makes sense and it leaves too many openings for pirates/scumbags/greed to suck money out of the public. </rant>
  - mirimir 8y ago
    There's certainly a strong argument for rolling back all the extensions and expansions for patents, copyrights and trademarks, which have been rammed through over the past few decades, by exploitative rights holders. The alternative is just to ignore it all, and use adequate OPSEC to avoid prosecution. If the system is so totally dominated by monied interests that there's no hope for relief, what else can we do? Just declare independence, and let them pound sand. China and Russia have at times done that, more or less. And we can create our own overlay Internet that can't be coerced or taken down. Or at least, can't be taken down without unacceptable consequences for the commercial Internet. If it comes down to it, overlay routers can spread as malware, and use covert channels, hidden in HD video etc.