3 ms·
I certainly don't think transcribing an old piece should mean that you now own the piece for the next 160 years.
by mort96 2y ago
I certainly don't think transcribing an old piece should mean that you now own the piece for the next 160 years.
- gjsman-1000 2y agoThey don't own the piece. Anyone is allowed to transcribe the old piece for themselves, and then own the transcription they created.
- mort96 2y agoSame difference. It makes 0 sense that they own anything played based on the transcription for 160 years.
- immibis 2y agoIrrelevant. All playbacks of the piece will be copyright-struck, regardless of the transcription used.
- Manuel_D 2y agoBut there'd be a finite number of ways to transcribe a piece. This someone would be able to claim the only ways to faithfully play the original public domain piece.
- gjsman-1000 2y agoIn that case, the law is not incompatible with you both owning your own transcriptions, even if they are identical. You might need some proof that you created your own if sued, but that's the copyright system.
- ipaddr 2y agoWhy not copy and say it's independently created? It does make it incompatible.
- AlotOfReading 2y agoYou don't own "the piece", you have a copyright claim to the specific parts you contributed of the specific arrangement/transcription you produced for the duration of copyright. Someone else can take that original work and create their own transcription/arrangement that you would have no claim over. ContentID is unable to reliably distinguish these two.
- mort96 2y agoI don't see the difference. It means that if you transcribe a piece, I can't play the piece you transcribed based on your transcription for well over a hundred years. That's the bullshit.
- gjsman-1000 2y agoNo; if you create your own transcription, and it just happens to be identical, you own the copyright on your transcription. You can't steal someone else's, but you aren't forbidden from making your own, even if the end result is the same. (Better be able to prove that you made it yourself though.) Transcription takes time and effort. Time and effort equals a copyright.
- mort96 2y agoYou start your message with "No;" yes the rest of your message does not refute anything I said.
- ziofill 2y agoThis is so confusing. What stops people from copying music verbatim (with little effort) and obtaining copyright? And once someone has done so, if I try to do it too how can I claim I was transcribing the original and not the copy, since it’s identical? And if two identical transcriptions can exist, how to adjudicate which one to credit?
- AlotOfReading 2y agoCopyright isn't exclusive, so the original rights holder you derived from would still have claim. You only have copyright on the derived work over the creative input and changes you provided, if any. If two people independently make the same creative changes, they both have copyrights on distinct works that happen to be identical. There's a well-known blog post on this subject called "What colour are your bits" (https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23) that goes into more detail, but the gist is that the copyright is not solely determined by a work's representation in the world, but rather by the process to create it (of which the representation is simply a product). If this needs to be adjucated, it's done by the courts.