Re: Solfege Resources -- 404 bach chorales in Lilypond format with Movable Do solfege.

[Graham Percival]

On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 02:16:44AM -0800, Mike Blackstock wrote:
>    Just to clarify: anything is copyrightable of course

That is false.

> - there's no laws
>    that I'm aware of that
>    prevent people from asserting a copyright; question is, can it/has it a
>    chance of standing up?

You are confusing things.  Somebody may claim to possess copyright
on something, but "asserting a copyright" does not mean that it
is, in fact, under copyright.  Whether something is under
copyright is a question of the written law and case histories (in
countries which recognize precedence), not mere opinion.

Granted, a pessimist may point out that certain highly-paid
lawyers are more successful in having judges agree with their
opinions than non-highly-paid lawyers.  I am not claiming that the
case history is a perfect record of objective judgements, but (for
better or worse) those judgements *are* the precedence.


Moreover, there are in fact laws against abusing the system.
Various jursidictions have laws against "malicious prosecution".
The (in)famous DMCA of the USA requires a copyright claimant to
swear under perjury that they do, in fact, own the copyright in
question.

Admittedly, this does not appear to be enforced -- there have been
a few cases wherein the MPAA, RIAA, or actors on their behalf,
have claimed copyright when they did not in fact own the
copyright.  But that's a problem of enforcement, not the written
law.


>      I spent an hour or so doing various searches looking for court decisions
>      and came up blank; I'm wondering if we're making a "mountain out of a
>      mole-hill"? Can somebody find an instance of a music publisher suing
>      somebody over such things?

I believe that it is more common to issue a "cease and desist"
letter first; if the offending party complies with it, there is
generally no lawsuit.  These definitely happen; for example,
recent action against guitar tab notation for pop songs:
http://www.wired.com/listening_post/2007/03/music_publisher/

I've heard that publishers of "Christian pop/rock" songs are
particularly active in this regard.  There's good money in selling
sheet music to church groups!

And don't forget about the German kindergarden that was recently
sued for infringing copyright on sheet music:
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14741186,00.html?maca=en-rss-en-all-1573-rdf


> Like I say I couldn't find any with my
>      average search skills; it would certainly be illuminating to see how the
>      courts have ruled however.

Sadly, these stories are a dime a dozen these days.  In many
cases, they never go to court because any lawyer will tell their
client that they don't have a hope of defending against the
charge.

For example, if your amateur church choir photocopies a 1984
arrangement of a hymn for SATB plus rock band (for the teenagers
in the congregation to play), that's a clear infringement of
copyright.  There's no point trying to defend yourself legally;
you're absolutely on the wrong side of the law.



> I'm wondering if fingerings and/or phrasing
>      slurs are even copyrightable:

Yes.

> is a suggestion on how to solve a
>      technical problem copyrightable?

If it is in fixed form (generally meaning "written").

> If so, couldn't one copyright a golf
>      swing?

Not the swing itself, but any fixed representation of that swing.
In this case, perhaps an instructional video?  voice-over, showing
the swing from different angles, maybe slow-motion video... that
is definitely under copyright.

> It starts to look ridiculous

Some people, including myself, think so, and therefore vote in
favor of political parties which favor copyright reform.

But never confuse what is *moral* with what is *legal*.  I have
been discussing my interpretation of the *laws*.  I am not saying
that a company is *morally* justified in suing a kindergarten, or
amateur choral group, or a website showing guitar tabs.

Cheers,
- Graham