More troubles for IMSLP

April 22, 2011 at 04:50 AM ·

 That's too bad.  IMSLP is great!

April 22, 2011 at 06:22 AM ·

online again.

April 22, 2011 at 02:05 PM ·

Copyright laws worldwide are in serious need of a complete overhaul.

April 22, 2011 at 03:03 PM ·

 Have you those of you with YouTube channels noticed that every posted classical piece, including those clearly in the common domain, get a copyright notice?

April 22, 2011 at 03:35 PM ·

www.imslp.org/wiki does not work yet, on my computer, but this does: http://184.107.161.242/wiki/

April 22, 2011 at 03:51 PM ·

IMSLP's website says,

"The recent IMSLP outage was due to an attack by the Music Publishers Association (UK). While IMSLP encourages open discussion of copyright issues, we have zero tolerance for underhanded tactics. To MPA's credit, they have voluntarily retracted their claim. IMSLP will also be working on technical measures to prevent any future attacks."

PS. I reached IMSLP through http://184.107.161.242/wiki/ (thanks for that link). http://imslp.org/ also reaches the site but it doesn't then have the above message. http://imslp/org/wiki is still inaccessible.

April 22, 2011 at 05:01 PM ·

I'm suprised they don't get in more trouble than they do!  If you want something that is not PD in the US, all you have to do is have a friend overseas download for you :-|  I've of course uploaded MANY pieces of my own to the collection...most of Artot's works and the two solo sonatas of Godard for instance along with many others.  Love the site but am very suprised it's lasted as long as it has.

April 22, 2011 at 05:45 PM ·

The world has the right to share culture... many of the composers are dead anyway and thus can't have any money from sales. 

I love that website and am so greatful for it!

April 22, 2011 at 06:26 PM ·

 I do think that copyright matters. It's important to follow copyright laws; they are set up to protect composers, authors, filmmakers, photographers, speakers, programmers, etc.. If something is in the public domain, then it's fair game. But no, I don't think that everyone simply has a right to anyone else's creative output, for free.

April 23, 2011 at 12:23 AM ·

First, I very strongly agree in the concept of copyrite. 

That said, much of the activity done in the name of copyrite is done by non-artist business types that first try to corner the market on someone else's marketable skill or talent, then get as much profit from it as possible.

I think even the business types are entitled to their revenue, as they are often the ones that provide the funds for artists to perform and reach the audience. There needs to be some balance!

I hate it when I purchase a song or album, and I can't make it mobile; if I copy it to another media, in some cases I am breaking copyrite law.
I also think there needs to be a reasonable time the music is protected; in many cases it works, but there are times when it is protected for waaaaaay too long.

I liken some of the RIAA tactics to the tactics of patent trolls that are doing their best to profit at the expense of technological development. Even if there is a valid purpose behind their actions, they are still trolls because of their antics.

April 23, 2011 at 12:23 AM ·

First, I very strongly agree in the concept of copyrite. 

That said, much of the activity done in the name of copyrite is done by non-artist business types that first try to corner the market on someone else's marketable skill or talent, then get as much profit from it as possible.

I think even the business types are entitled to their revenue, as they are often the ones that provide the funds for artists to perform and reach the audience. There needs to be some balance!

I hate it when I purchase a song or album, and I can't make it mobile; if I copy it to another media, in some cases I am breaking copyrite law.
I also think there needs to be a reasonable time the music is protected; in many cases it works, but there are times when it is protected for waaaaaay too long.

I liken some of the RIAA tactics to the tactics of patent trolls that are doing their best to profit at the expense of technological development. Even if there is a valid purpose behind their actions, they are still trolls because of their antics.

April 23, 2011 at 01:31 AM ·

Laurie, I agree very much for a live composer or author but can we harm Beethoven or Vivaldi if we find their music for free on IMSLP or any similar website? (I don't think they had kids or much descendants who can now, in 2011, collect the money from the sales of the music they compose)

Perhaps it's very different for those who have direct family still alive.  Then, the money should go to them obviously...

But, of course, I'm very ignorant of the official laws... 

Anne-Marie

April 23, 2011 at 03:25 PM ·

I also think sites like IMSLP have a role in making available out-of-print music that nobody would bother to re-publish, and that would be ridiculously difficult to find on the open market. I've found several interesting pieces in my historical research: Lady Halle's brother's piece, Berceuse Slave, which she used in her recitals, as well as Tartini's letter to Maddalena Sirmen, and some Vivaldi concertos used at the Pieta that to the best of my knowledge are not available commercially...stuff like that. IMSLP has a role for researchers, both amateur and professional, as well.

April 23, 2011 at 08:20 PM ·

Anne-Marie - should Bach's direct descendents (there are some in this country) still get royalties from his music?

April 23, 2011 at 09:17 PM ·

 @Tom: No, they shouldn't. Copyright law varies in different countries, but is roughly the life of the composer plus 50 or 70 years. Bach died in 1750, so that's 261 years. Wikipedia has a good page on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

April 23, 2011 at 09:30 PM ·

Thanks Pedro! 

Not knowing the info, my first reflex would have been to say yes but that it is less important than the direct or close decendants who may rely pretty much on this income to live (per example: a wife of a famous composer or musician who dedicated her life to have his achivements known to the world or raise the kids and have no real job of her own) 

Pedro, that law makes sense since it can, at least, protect the close family who maybe (I said just maybe...) didn't have much jobs since they were all in the "machine" surrounding/supporting the artist!   

April 23, 2011 at 11:34 PM ·

While I also support the concept of copyright, I feel sure it must have contributed to (though not single-handedly caused) the rut many orchestras seemed to get in regarding performing the same pre-20thc works over and over, since it's always more affordable to perform public domain music no matter how reasonable the fee.  One unfortunate side effect that I haven't seen directly mentioned.

IMSLP is hardly the only service that can be used in either an ethical or an unethical way.  Call me naive, but I do think one can trust most people's sense of fairness and conscience in an appeal to do the right thing whenever possible.  Those who laugh at that kind of human decency and cheat anyway, just plain suck.

April 24, 2011 at 09:28 AM ·

A little trap in the copyright law of some legislations that people can easily overlook is that if an author's work remains unpublished during his lifetime a term of copyright can run from its first publication after his death. Family or an executor could therefore sit on that work and decide to publish it after the author's death, perhaps many years after, thereby ensuring an income from its publication and further rights (eg performance) for decades to come. I believe this has happened with the works of literary authors during the past century, and perhaps it could happen with music.

Lengths of copyright for all countries are given in this Wikipedia article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright_length
I note that the entry for the USA is of a complexity verging on the Byzantine :)