Copyright etc., topically January 2012

[isokani]

Actually - no, downloading a file is incorrect and uploading is even worse!

Except, surely, and at least, if the recording is the property of the uploader...

[violinconcerto]

Not only that, Tobias, but when it becomes known that any of the downloads have at any time been available as CDs they have been taken down as quickly as possible.  I don't see any crime here at all now.  How 'bout you?

I told that somewhere here before, but I had my own experiences with that (and I did not put any files on my site, just biographical data) and so talked to several lawyers working in the music sector (for example one at the Bayerischen Rundfunk, a German radio station). And I can tell you, everything here in the download section is somewhat illegal! You make material owned by artists available for which none here has copyrights! Thats simply a crime. If you do it 1 day and just one other downloads it, then shares it with his 5 friends who put it online - then they got you! And if they want, you have to pay copyrights fees for the composer, the orchestra, the conductor, the radio station, etc... pretty, pretty bad
Its just so, that none of them is doing that - but they can! And they are in the right!

Thats just what I say, so if anyone here gets effed up by the law, don't rant and rave and feel like a choirboy.

Best,
Tobias

[violinconcerto]

Actually - no, downloading a file is incorrect and uploading is even worse!

Except, surely, and at least, if the recording is the property of the uploader...

To be in the position to do so, you must own the copyrights of

1. the composition (so if you are the composer, OK, you got them),
2. of the performance (so if you are the performer, OK, you got them)
3. of the production (so if you are the recording studio, OK, you got them)

So actually you only have the rights to upload a file without any further documents, signments, etc if you write a piece, play it on your piano and record it with your hi-fi system. In that case you are fine.

But if you buy a recording, you only got the permission to play the recording for yourself, because you don't own the copyrights of the three parts above!

Best,
Tobias

[Amphissa]

Sorry, Tobias, but I beg to differ. It is not all illegal.

Copyright laws vary by country, but in every country, copyright protection expires at some point. I would guess that all 78 RPM recordings have entered public domain. Many of the old LP recordings have entered public domain. Etc.

Secondly, and most importantly, is the exception to copyright law (in the U.S. and many other countries) that permits distribution of copyrighted materials to a limited, well defined number of people for research and education (learning), and when there is no commercial gain for anyone involved.

So long as access is limited and the recordings are not distributed beyond our group and there is no commercial gain to be had by anyone, I think we are not in violation of copyright laws. Everything we share here is unavailable commercially, our use is not for redistribution or sale, and it is primarily for the enlightenment/education of ourselves.

There is a big (VERY BIG) difference between us and MegaUpload. MegaUpload was a filesharing service, but it also functioned as a primary distribution service for distributing new movies, music and other materials that are currently on the market. There was a great deal of trafficking in recent releases, and they were profiting from the service. In addition, among the many types of materials they were distributing was child pornography.

So, on the surface, MegaUpload looked like Mediafire and Rapidshare and Filesonic and other file sharing services. But it was much more than that.

There are a number of groups like our own in which music lovers share live broadcasts and old recordings among themselves. They have been in existence for many years. They are careful to limit the types of recordings they permit (with rules similar to our own), and have experienced no difficulties.

One precaution I do recommend to everyone is to use file names that are obscure, or wrap your files inside a ZIP cover with an obscure name. The reason is because the files residing on Mediafire servers are searchable by Google. By using file names that are obvious (composer work, for example), you are in effect, making the music you upload available to the entire world.

So, I recommend that everyone go into Mediafire and rename your files to cryptic file names that you can decipher, but no one would ever use for searching in Google. This would not affect the links, so there would be no need to change those. Just the file names. I don't think this is a big deal, since everything we share is old classical stuff that is not available commercially, but it is an extra layer of protection for those who are still nervous about it.

I am not a lawyer, but I have dealt quite a lot with copyright in academic settings. I think we are within the bounds of copyright law, even in the restrictive U.S.

[Dundonnell]

Nor am I a lawyer..although I did study International Law at university for a year

One fundamental principle I seem to recall though was that 'unenforceable law is bad law'

And with regard to the issue of music uploaded for members of this site, I can honestly say that I have downloaded vast quantities of music from all over the world over the last month or so but if any of the symphonies, say, I have downloaded appeared-in a different performance obviously- on a cd which was reasonably straightforwardly available I will buy the cd as well. The most recent examples of that would be the Arthur Somervell 'Thalassa Symphony' and the Merikanto Symphonies Nos. 1 and 3. All three of these symphonies can be downloaded courtesy of members and I have certainly downloaded them myself. Now all three have been issued on cd and I shall be buying these cds too

[violinconcerto]

Sorry, Tobias, but I beg to differ. It is not all illegal.

No problem of course 

You are right, that copyright differs from country to country. I can understand that you use the US law, I surely take the German law, that maybe explains a few differences.
And you are also right that copyright expires. I am not sure how many years are necessary, but for every recording ALL copyrights have to be expired (not only the 70 years after the death of the composer). I think for performers its 50 years, and maybe for production as well. The files here uploaded mainly are broadcasts from post-1962 or LP recordings also recorded after 1962. So they are in all copyright I guess.
And finally I am not sure how a court of justice would decide about our "profession as a researcher". Actually I think most here are "just" some music lovers. I guess that isn't enough to be a musicologist.

Anyway, your statement made it clear: the whole subject is - unclear.

Best,
Tobias

[Jimfin]

Yes, I for one would have have paid for all the music I have downloaded here, if it were available on CD, or on an official download. And, since nearly everything I have downloaded is a BBC broadcast, I don't feel that's like stealing from a private company: the BBC is funded through the public, so essentially belongs to it. And I have always wondered why they don't release more of their broadcasts as CDs and make some money.
       If I tried to calculate the amount of money record companies have made out of me over the years, I would probably faint in horror.

[Dundonnell]

Over the last 20 years (since I began collecting cds) I reckon I have spent somewhere in excess of £30,000 on cds. A lot of money certainly but it averages out and I buy fewer per month these days because I am no longer collecting standard repertoire items......I have all the ones I need or want No doubt better performances have been issued since I bought my Schubert Great C major, for example, but the versions I bought were rated at the time as amongst the best so I shall be happy with them

[violinconcerto]

Yes, I for one would have have paid for all the music I have downloaded here, if it were available on CD, or on an official download.

Hmmm, maybe you should try to translate this into "normal life behaviour" and compare. If you go to a shop, see a thing you like, ask if you can buy it, the shop owner say No and then you steal it. After that you get caught and say for your defence: "If the shop owner would have sold it, I would have paid for it!"
I don't think thats a good excuse in "internet life" as well.

And, since nearly everything I have downloaded is a BBC broadcast, I don't feel that's like stealing from a private company: the BBC is funded through the public, so essentially belongs to it.

Well, I can understand that but thats actually not the point. A part of your taxes funds the BBCs does not mean you own the copyrights, it just helps to let the BBC exists. You also fund the streets you are walking on, but don't own them.


Best,
Tobias

[JimL]

Yes, I for one would have have paid for all the music I have downloaded here, if it were available on CD, or on an official download.

Hmmm, maybe you should try to translate this into "normal life behaviour" and compare. If you go to a shop, see a thing you like, ask if you can buy it, the shop owner say No and then you steal it. After that you get caught and say for your defence: "If the shop owner would have sold it, I would have paid for it!"
I don't think thats a good excuse in "internet life" as well.

The analogy doesn't quite hold true in this case, since the LPs and broadcasts involved here are, as near as I can tell, private property of the individuals holding them that are either no longer available for purchase, or, in the case of the dubbed broadcasts, never were.  In many cases the labels, performers and of course, the composers are no longer alive to receive royalties.  An argument can be made that their estates may be due remuneration, but even if it isn't 70 or 50 or whatever years after these performances, this is an exclusive website.  And I don't recall there being any mention of research or education having to be by professionals or students.  Surely everyone participating in this site qualifies as an amateur student, at some level.

[Jimfin]

I'm not entirely convinced that I don't own the streets and pavements, albeit jointly with my fellow-citizens, and, since I pay tax, I feel entirely free to use them. It would be different were I to try to stop other people using them. Likewise with recorded material, although in one sense one is "taking" it, in another sense one is not, since the rightful owner does not actually "lose" it. Nobody is losing money by our sharing this material, since it is not being commercially released. They are making no money out of it whether we share it or not.

[Mark Thomas]

I'm going to bring this topic to a close for now because we seem to be in a classic "agree to disagree" situation and nobody here (myself included needless to say) is an expert in this field.

Amphissa has made the very sensible suggestion that those of us who have uploaded files alter the file names so that their content is unclear to non-members searching MediaFire and other file sharing sites, and I shall certainly be doing that with my files.

I see that the large file sharing site FileSonic has closed down its sharing facility. If anyone here has uploaded files to FileSonic for sharing here, they need to be found another home.

Finally, members may rest assured that we'll be keeping a very close watch on developments.

[Mark Thomas]

A quick note of reassurance as a follow up to my last post. Amphissa helpfully suggested renaming your files held on file-sharing sites to prevent non-members searching for and downloading them. Most of the files linked to from UC are held at MediaFire which I now find has no search capability. Therefore any files uploaded by UC members for UC members should be secure against downloading by third parties.

[Mark Thomas]

Eric has helpfully pointed out that, while MediaFire doesn't have a native search facility, it is still possible to google and find files there. It won't find the folder name, just the file name. So, in my case, a search for "Mediafire Bleyle" won't find my Bleyle uploads because the mp3s don't have Bleyle's name in the title. But a search for "Mediafire Flagellantenzug" would find that mp3.