Posted by Rick Denney on September 21, 2001 at 14:15:57:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copying music. A Crime? posted by publisher on September 21, 2001 at 12:53:33:
Don't put the wrong meaning on the word "lease."
The point of copyright law is that the creator of a work has a right to profit from that work. The normal copyright period for works created since 1978 is the life of the author, plus 75 years (or, just 75 years if the author is anonymous). For works created before 1978, that period is 28 years from the date of creation, at which time the copyright holder may extend the period one time for another 28 years. So, written expressions that are more than 56 years old have already passed into the public domain.
Copyrights are assets that may be inherited, just like houses and other assets. So, the death of the author does not open the moral right to copy his work. Copyright ownership is sometimes assigned to a publisher, in return for a royalty. But that assignment must be done in writing.
In my opinion, when a publisher ceases to provide available copies, and when the author shows no interest in finding a more interested publisher, then the legal prohibition against making copies creates a moral dilemma. But the dilemma is not legal--making copies is clearly illegal. Even then, you should consider the alternatives to making a copy.
For example, Cliff Bevan wrote a book, called The Tuba Family, in the late 70's. The publisher had long since ceased printing the book, and few copies were available in circulation. Demand for those copies increased, such that original editions sold for hundreds of dollars. Now, if I wanted a copy, I could either pay hundreds for it, or I could make a copy. Morally, I might think it okay to make a copy, since Bevan could not profit from the sale of a used version, although the fellow who wants to sell me the rare first edition also has a right to get what the market will bear. But if everyone made copies, and the prices for real editions didn't rise to reflect the high demand and low supply, then Cliff would not have seen the demand and would not have been motivated to write a new version, which he published himself last year, and which I hope has been financially rewarding for him. Books are hard to copy--lots of pages--and the motivation to make copies was therefore not very high. That isn't so for a lot of music.
Virtually all published music that is still copyrighted is available, though not necessarily from the original publisher. You just have to buy it used, and pay the price. When this alternative is not available, then you have your moral dilemma. I have been looking forever for a score to Vaughan Williams Second Symphony, which, as a study score, is not available from the publisher. I have seen some special editions sell for high prices (in England, so that I only hear about the sale after the fact), but I don't want one that badly. My only choice is to find an old library edition that has passed into the public domain. Of course, that choice isn't available for, say, a Shostakovich symphony. I'm glad I'm not a conductor trying to build a library for study.
Orchestra parts are maybe a bit different. Parts are often available for purchase from the publisher at surprisingly low prices. But when the publisher offers only scores or entire sets of parts, then you can probably consider an individual part an excerpt, and if you use it for study or critical review, that is a fair use. Again, the burden is on you to prove that it is a fair use if the publisher comes after you.
Chuck is right that some publishers make microscopic edits so that they can copyright the whole work all over again. These often don't hold up in court, though, if the infringer can show that the work exists in substantial form in the public domain. But who wants to have to prove that in court, and accept the burden of proof, which is on the accused infringer? Finding an old edition to work from, say, in a library, is the risk-free solution.
Rick "who misses easy access to a good music library" Denney