A very cool project has been killed by copyright. According to Wikipedia,
“The International Music Score Library Project (IMSLP) was a project for the creation of a virtual library of public domain music scores, based on the wiki principle. Since its launch on February 16, 2006, more than 15,000 scores, for 9,000 works, by over 1,000 composers were uploaded, making it one of the largest public domain music score collections on the web. The project used MediaWiki software to provide contributors with a familiar interface.“Following a cease and desist letter from Universal Edition of Vienna, IMSLP closed on October 19, 2007… The cease and desist letter expressed concern that some works that are in public domain in the server’s location in Canada with copyright protection of 50 years post mortem, but which are protected by the 70 years post mortem term in some other countries were available in those countries. … It has since moved to a temporary site with no content.”
Anyone who loves music ought to mourn its passing. Except for those who also support copyright, who should be tarred and feathered.
(Thanks to Tim Virkkala)
{ 20 comments }
Just because copyright can be used to violate rights does not mean it is bad. After all, do you, Stephan_Kinsella, urge banning hatchets because they can also be used for evil? Just as a hatchet can be used to threaten people for good or bad purposes, so the threat of a copyright lawsuit is not always wielded against innocent, non-profit types, as in this case–sometimes copyright suits threaten people who want to make a profit. So let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater, please.
I did not write the post above–someone is stealing my nym, which violates my IP rights. I have nothing against profit–in fact, I support the right of companies to use intellectual property to make monopoly profits. So there.
One wonders why Stephan_Kinsella keeps giving example after example of injustices resulting from application of intellectual property laws. Could it be, hmm, that he has a vested interest in abolishing the IP system? After all, he’s a practicing patent attorney!
In case it wasn’t blindingly obvious already, the above three posts are not by me, the real “Person” aka Silas Barta. Those of you familiar with my posting style and typical arguments can see this already. As one pretty stupid error, “Silas” above put the underscore in Stephan_Kinsella’s name — I only do that thing when posting as “Person”. When I post as Silas, I ditch the underscores.
Someone seriously needs to get a life.
Mr. Kinsella,
How do you respond when people label your views as “quasi-socialist?”
Quasi-socialist? Kinsella is advocating the free market against modern mercantilism: the state favors protected producers over actual competition. Pathetic that some people can’t tell the difference.
This “amazing” music project was based on theft. Some jerks used someone else’s music records in ways the owners never consented to… Now they even dare to argue that they should be able to violate the rights of those people who inherited the works of their parents. O tempora, o mores.
Copyright terms have been retroactively extended several times since these older works were published. So even if you argue that the buyer implicitly agreed to a “copyright contract” at the time, it isn’t the same as what is being enforced today.
It’s hard to “steal” non-existent value. If the cost of getting legitimate permission from the copyright holder exceeds any value that may be gained from making it available, lots of works will simply languish in the dustbins of history until inconsistent government laws allow some distant generation to the freedom to once again access these ancient works.
But hey, better nobody has access to a creative work than to “steal” low-valued intellectual property.
Larry,
if the punishment for criminals exceeds the value they get from theft (as in theft of someone else’s exclusive rights in their property such as books or CDs), the criminals will not dare to engage in such trespass.
Allow me to quote my earlier posting:
It is a common misconception here that a regular person cannot currently obtain the full ownership right of a music CD – including the right to replicate it at will. Such “immunity” to copyright costs a lot of money and most of us can only afford to purchase a limited use of these products (service). Unfortunately, some criminals – who only pay for such limited use – just hijack the product’s exclusive rights (withheld by the author). The libertarianism should be the last place where they could get any support.
PS
PR, people who pay $14.95 for a CD know that they are not getting the same rights as a record label who paid a fortune to get those rights from the owner. It is an implicit contract, par excellence.
An implicit contract that can change retroactively (from 28 years to life+70) without the consent of either of the original parties? Neat.
Regardless… People who pay $14.95 know that they did not obtain full ownership rights, which cost a whole fortune in hit pop music. I don’t generally care how state interprets its role in protecting contracts and private property rights – because I’m a libertarian (individualist) anarchist. Nevertheless, I must speak out against criminals and those who openly advocate crimes against private property rights.
Hi. There seems to be some misunderstanding about the project under discussion. There was no stealing of “records” — there was scanning and archiving (and thus distributing) VERY OLD sheet music.
The composers, dead. No musicians’ performing rights violated. The site was devoted to helping musicians get music to perform!
But some European companies that sell public domain sheet music objected, so the project was killed.
Sometimes all it needs is for a lawyer to draw up a lawsuit, and, even if the suit has no legal validity, the lawyers get their way because the defendents don’t want to bother defending themselves. Too much trouble.
I don’t think there’s a principled solution to this. But contempt for suit-happy lawyers and greedy publishers is fun to nurture.
twv–the problem is not lawyers at all. It’s IP law itself. And why does this exist?–because of lawyers? No, because of the stupid populace which supports evil legislators who create such idiotic schemes.
Twv,
Just because the original owner of some sheet music is dead, it doesn’t mean that property rights die with him. Once again, physical recordings of any kind are property and they are subject to terms of market exchanges. If you want to scan and distribute that piece of someone’s property, you have to pay the market price for such full ownership rights. What some people do instead is theft. They actually make IP advocates look good.
I once bought an item for $19.99 that had a $20 mail-in rebate. I could have easily paid $40 or more for the same item elsewhere. It never once occurred to me that I wasn’t getting full ownership simply because it was a bargain.
So far I’ve gathered that there is some “implied contract” that is neither full ownership (which is what you get from any other sale), nor is it the prevailing copyright law at the time of purchase (which would have expired its term decades ago in the case of these old works), but some third, perpetual agreement that exists only in Sasha’s head. Apparently, this third contract is so self-evident that only a thief could possibly mistake it for one of the other two.
This would be a lot easier if these non-standard sellers simply made their wishes explicit up front instead of leaving us to guess.
Let’s face Reality. The fact is like with Hollywood movies, a certain group of opportunists with armies of lawyes of their kind have seized the music market as their own.
It would be totally absurd if I buy a -whole- US automobile, then buy foreign replacement parts for it, modify it to my tinkering (and other) taste, rent it for a profit, and sell it together with title of property, and then some Henry Ford grand, grand-kid shoved me to a certain judge, and found me ‘guilty’ of ‘property rights’ violation. Yea, sure.
The music gangsters owe me (and the world) quite a bit of money for the dozens upon dozens of music I (we) had to buy, only to find out a whole album was -dirt- or only one or two pieces were worth it, with no possiblity of refund.
That is stealing, and they do it by the millions, with impunity. They -own- the law, the lawyers, the judges, and their puppets in government. They can’t sell to ‘pirates’ who cannot afford them anyway, so that’s not a ‘loss’. That’s sharing, tithing. And that’s Higher Law.
Musical authors only make their money with their concerts, in a strangled musical world; royalties are pittance. $15 for a CD is highway robbery, and all that one is supposed to do is… wear it til it’s useless.
The great medium of the internet and direct downloading by the -Millions- at a reasonable price from author-musicians, the good ones, will benefit only the authors, and their popularity will rise exponentially.
Once the cost of music drops and its appreciation (and quality) raises, we will see a change in attitude at a global scale, after we remove the enriched music intermediaries.
They imposed their distorted view of music and ‘law’, robbed us long enough already, and held back the development of true musical art. They will, though, continue living without working til they drop.
There is no ‘piracy’ out there, there is only retribution. ‘As you sow so shall you reap’. That’s also Higher Law.
“This “amazing” music project was based on theft. Some jerks used someone else’s music records in ways the owners never consented to… Now they even dare to argue that they should be able to violate the rights of those people who inherited the works of their parents. O tempora, o mores.” –
The works were completely within the copyright laws of the countries where they were hosted (Canada and the US), as the works were out of copyright there.
“Just because the original owner of some sheet music is dead, it doesn’t mean that property rights die with him.” –
All works were out of copyright, regardless of whether otheres inherited the works.
Sasha, You were right when you said:
“Once again, physical recordings of any kind are property and they are subject to terms of market exchanges”
The key word you used was “physical recordings”. More than one person cannot possess THAT “physical” recording simultaneously.
The information age is eliminating a lot of real scarcity. Get used to it.
hi all,
Found this post whilst researching IP; thing is, this music project is still going! You can download music scores from here: http://imslp.org/
Comments on this entry are closed.