Re: Another Lilypond Story

[Erik Sandberg]

On Friday 17 December 2004 21.32, David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
> On Friday 17 December 2004 02:14 pm, Erik Sandberg wrote:
> > On Friday 17 December 2004 17.49, David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
> > > On Friday 17 December 2004 05:46 am, Erik Sandberg wrote:
> > >
> > > No.  So what if it did?  What protection does the downloader and viewer
> > > need? My only point is that it does not protect the writer.
> >
> > If you have the piece available on your homepage, this is probably
> > because you want people to download & view it. Therefore it might be in
> > your interest to make it legal to do so.
>
> You put it up; it's legal to download it.

I'm not sure about the details of law here. Probably depends on local 
copyright law. But just because a file is accessible on the net, doesn't mean 
it's legal to download it. E.g., I think it is illegal to download pirated 
software. Hm.. I guess that when you deliver a link from your webpage to the 
music, you implicitly grant a license that it is allowed to download it. I 
don't know.

> > I.e., it is not about _protecting_ the
> > downloader/viewer, it is about giving him (limited) rights to enjoy your
> > work.
>
> a distinction without a difference.
>
> > Of course, you will have to be extremely careful about which license you
> > choose, so you don't give away more rights than you want to.
>
> Being careful is not doing it at all.

*One way* of being careful is not doing it at all. Another way is to choose a 
license carefully.

> > If it is in your interest to get as much publicity as possibly for your
> > work, it might be a good idea to allow others to publish it on their
> > homepages as well.
>
> So they use your stuff to attract people to their homepages.  Doesn't
> sound like a good idea.

Uh.. why not? I don't understand.

I probably misunderstand you here. What is your purpose of publishing your 
music on the web?

I have 2 reasons myself:
1. I hope that someone will find it useful; I just want the best for the 
public (more on this later).
2. I want to make myself famous, and show how good I am. This is why I include 
a little copyright notice saying that I am the author.

I can think of some other reasons, which I'm not much affected by:
3. For some reason, I want more visitors to my homepage; I might hope that 
someone searches for my work on the net and comes to my page.
4. a "shareware" kind of thing, I want people to download my music so that 
they see how good it is, so that they want to buy my permission to play it.

> > If you want this to be generally allowed, then I think
> > it is a good idea to share it under a license. It could perhaps say
> > something like: "you are allowed to download and view this music, but not
> > to perform it publically. You're not allowed to make derivative works.
> > You are allowed to share it with others,
>
> There's where you might make trouble for yourself.  The rest of it
> you have already and don't need.

This is the thinking I don't understand. If people all over the world 
publishes your music, all saying "This is the work of dra, lots of creds to 
him for it, you should contact him and send him money if you want to play the 
music", then would you feel ripped off?

> > > The copyright *is* the license, which belongs exclusively
> > > to the copyright holder.  That's the whole idea of a copyright.  Don't
> > > attempt to share it with all and sundry, only with BMI/ASCAP or the
> > > like if you want. A user license would amount to assigning it.
> >
> > Sorry, I didn't understand the 2 last sentences (limited English skills).
>
> A copyright is *property*.  You can't expect to give away chunks of it and
> still have it.  In the US, publishers used to insist that the
> copyright be "assigned" to them, which was basically a way of cheating
> the writers.

Ah, perhaps I'm starting to understand. It all has to do with bmi/ascap, 
right? When you register with them you're giving them all your copyrights on 
your works, and in return they handle the licensing for you. And if you 
already has licensed your work to others, then they will not find this 
copyright very valuable so they will not want to handle the licensing for 
you.

Is this a correct interpretation of your concerns?

> > > Suppose the composer does a serious rewrite of part of his work.  He
> > > should be able to rescind permission to reproduce previous versions, to
> > > de-authorize them so to speak.  A license would interfere with that.
> > > Don't do it.  daveA

I might misunderstand something here... if you give someone permission to 
reproduce your work, then this is some kind of license, right?

> > I don't understand this - you mean that if you first allow somebody to
> > make a recording of your work, and then you make a major rewrite of your
> > work, then you can suddenly tell him that he may no longer sell his
> > recording since the music is obsolete?
>
> When someone makes a recording of your work, he obtains a license to record
> it, almost always from a third party, a music licensing organization such
> as BMI/ASCAP in the U.S..  They exist in every country.  The
> composer/publisher is a member of said organization.  They handle the
> performance and recording licensing for you.  Any other arrangement is
> impossible.  I don't know how many such organizations are going to go
> chasing after your royalties if you have been giving them away.
>
> If you specify that anyone can record your stuff but you can pull it if
> you rewrite it, certainly you can do that.  What's fair in this world 
> is what you agree to.  Only a fool would record a work without a better
> deal than that.  1984?  Maybe.  It's *your* stuff.
>
> If you allow someone to download music, he has it, right?  He can read it,
> he can play it, etc..  Do you want to
> give him performance and recording rights too?  Do you want him to be able
> to revise it and put his name on it?  Why do you want to give him anything?

One reason why I want to give away rights, is partly the same reason I chose 
to work with the lilypond team: I just want public good. This decision is 
partly based on the highly irrational belief that I will be given back what I 
give away, and partly based on the positive feeling I get when I think I have 
helped someone.

In general, when I have a piece of information that I don't think I will be 
able to extract much money from selling, I will gladly share it with the 
public, in the hope that it will do something good someday.

> He doesn't *need* anything.  Your enforceable rights do not depend on him
> agreeing to anything.  A license cannot possibly do you any good.  daveA

This is a matter of defining what's good. Lots of musicians put up some of 
their mp3:s for free, hoping that they will spread so that people will know 
about the band & buy the CD. I have heard that this strategy has been 
successful. And I think the spreading of your music is vastly increased if 
you give others the right to redistribute it. But the copyright laws don't 
allow redistribution, so you would need some kind of license to grant this. 
Do you get my point?

Also, a license that clearly forbids all commercial use of your music without 
your permission, will (by definition) protect you from anyone who wants to 
make money from your work without giving you any royalties.

Erik