Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II
From: Bert
Date: 12 Nov 99 - 09:33 AM

Publisher, Re: copyright material on HFA website. I didn't say that I didn't understand it. I said that it confuses the issue.

For example, if HFA have 6 versions of a song and we have six on our site, we will have to check each version against every other, 36 checks, to make sure that we do not have one of 'their' versions posted.

Why can't they just sell (or give, as BMA have done) us a license?

I suspect that their sole intent is to close this site down. And these are the guys that you have chosen to represent your business.

It is because you are associated with them that you are receiving a certain amount of flack from some of us. If you lie down with a dog you'll wake up with fleas, as the saying goes.

Don't worry about the anonimity issue, many of us use nicknames and 'A Publisher' is as good as any.

Bert.

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II
From: Ferrara
Date: 12 Nov 99 - 08:53 AM

Just caught up on the end of the first thread, and on this one. There's a lot of thoughts roiling around in my head, but the only one I can figure out how to express, is that I'm really grateful to A Publisher for their interest in the site and their attempt to communicate and make a bridge between the two sides. I don't always like the things s/he says, but they're reasonable and they're stated fairly.

Publisher, about the list that HFA requested. The Mudcat/DT is a non-profit, wholly volunteer organization, maintained primarily by three people who all have real jobs in addition. Even if they wanted to, I suspect they couldn't scour that database for copyrighted material in less than a six months. Figuring out which of the non-licensed music is actually copyrighted somewhere would be a monstrous huge job. So for practical reasons as well as principal, the protesting publishers and agencies have to do the job themselves if they want it done. Thanks for taking on your part of it.

Folks, I don't think most of the darts that have been thrown at Publisher are justified. I've had a lot more hope for a sane resolution of this issue since s/he came on the scene.

Thanks for listening. - Rita Ferrara

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II
From: Wolfgang
Date: 12 Nov 99 - 04:34 AM

Publisher did state in the first post s/he was not a regular.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II
From: Margo
Date: 12 Nov 99 - 01:10 AM

Publisher hasn't addressed the question of why the Digital Tradition database isn't simply downloaded by those who want to see what is in it. The information is there for the taking. Why the nasty letter and demand for a list?

Margo

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II
From: katlaughing
Date: 12 Nov 99 - 12:39 AM

Jeri, I thought it was pretty obvious that I meant her/his Mudcat identity, if s/he had one prior to being A Publisher. I don't really care who they really are; I just want to know if it is someone we have all trusted and come to know here as another Mudcatter before they were A Publisher.

Yes, s/he seems to be trying to be reasonable, but when asked for specifics, s/he obfuscates and plays coy, while their appointed representative goes on the offensive and is unreasonable.

Logically, the HFA, with its paid staff, IF they really care, should be the ones who have to diligently comb through various sites for any of their clients' copyrighted material; that is, presumably what they get paid for, i.e. protection of their client's property. To come on like gangbusters and then expect a bunch of volunteerswhom they are accusing to do all of the work for them is ridiculous. I hope A Publisher calls them to task for this; with over half a million titles, I would expect A Publisher's voice would be paid heed to at HFA/NMPA.

I still say it is a simple matter. Why would HFA/NMPA continue to be the bullies, when Max has already indicated his desire to comply? The only reason I can see is a seeming megamaniacal desire to control it all. If this weren't true, they know they could resolve the matter very quickly and easily, from all that I have read on these threads.

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II
From: Metchosin
Date: 12 Nov 99 - 12:28 AM

Why do I keep having visions of Farenheit 451 creep into my mind! I once heard some arschloch state that the meek might inherit the earth but they'll never take title to it. It wasn't funny then and it still isn't. Mitigation of loss seems to be the fundamental issue of concern to any copyright owner. It therefore behooves us to ponder whether or not any loss in financial terms will be suffered by the aforesaid copyright holder. It may be argued that the unlimited access to this material poses the risk that unscrupulous individuals may subsequently use matierial found on Mudcat for performance and personal profit. However, all of this material, copywritten or not is available from numerous other sources , therefore frightened, anonymous publishers and their posturing attorneys will have a difficult time demonstrating loss attributable to the non-profit activities of Mudcat. As I understand it, no one is required to give up material or "evidence" to another party seeking to litigate without instruction by the Court for an Examination for Discovery. I know there are a lot of lawyers who are also musicians who might be able to wade through this sabre rattling and veiled threat campaign.If you are out there please shed a little light and expertise on the subject. Perhaps we should all remember that a great deal of this material is also in public libraries. Should they too be locked up and censured?

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II
From: Jeri
Date: 12 Nov 99 - 12:13 AM

Honestly folks, I don't agree with everything A Publisher has said but he/she appears to have an open mind, and doesn't deserve to be treated like the spawn of Satan.

Sucking us in? Violating our trust? How? I don't have any problem with anonymity unless someone hides behind it so they can be nasty without taking responsibility. There's no reason I can think of why I need to know who s/he is. If we treat people as enemies, they may become enemies. If we treat them as friends, they may become friends. Too bad those lawyers didn't think of that.

Kat, as to your third paragraph...YES!!!!

Malcolm, I'm sure only the copyright of an arrangement of a public domain song would stand up in court. There are gobs of copyrighted PD songs out there now, but not many would be foolish enough to sue for royalties on the PD music and words. They'd be remarkably foolish to tackle some of the people here, with all of their vast resources and knowledge.

A Publisher, per Max's phone conversation with them (click here) they wanted a list with the PD material removed. That was a bit strange. These guys are treating him like a bad guy, but one who they trust to judge whether a song is PD or copyrighted.

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 12 Nov 99 - 12:01 AM

The Publisher-- "A new arrangement of a PD song creates a new copyright."

Clearly, this explains why Clementine, at the NMPA site
shows 15 different copyright claims; why the Battle
Hymn of the Republic has about 60 and why there are
95 claims for Greensleeves. SInce the Digital Tradition
contains only lyrics and, for about half
the songs, a simple melody line, it seems obvious that
nobody's creative arrangement is being used.
Could you tell us which copyright
holder should be applied to for permission? Especially
since, in the examples I've used, there's demonstrable
prior art going back more than 100 years.

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 11 Nov 99 - 10:46 PM

As I understand it, while it is quite possible to copyright a new arrangement of a PD song, the original version on which it was based remains in public domain. Perhaps "a Publisher" would comment?

Malcolm

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 11 Nov 99 - 10:03 PM

she shoots she scores! Right on,Kat-ripping!

LEJ

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II
From: harpgirl
Date: 11 Nov 99 - 09:45 PM

...you go girl!

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II
From: katlaughing
Date: 11 Nov 99 - 09:31 PM

Oh, well, it was a thought and a myth I've heard over the years, but I think I will do some more checking just to be sure.

Publisher, one of the main reasons the Mudcat is one of the best places on the web is because of the honesty and openness of most people who come here and wind up staying. While you've been helpful, I still question your motivation in keeping your identity and you rcomplaint secret. Are you a regular who has sucked us all in with camraderie and would we then die of shock after having our trust violated by finding out who you really are?

This is a site maintained on a totally volunteer basis by folks who have been willing to comply from the start. HFA or yourself or anyone else who has a problem and wants their material removed should quit the machinations and just let Max and Dick know which ones and be done with it. Otherwise, in the end, with the highhandness which HFA has already demonstrated, the only ones who will come out with anything are the lawyers and that would be senseless stupidity for all concerned.

There really is no need for the continued threats and machinations. HFA has paid staff who can do their homework, compile a list and notify Max.

katlaughingNOT!

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II
From: Barry Finn
Date: 11 Nov 99 - 09:00 PM

I'm so tickled that Dear Publisher has the artist's well being at heart & above all their best interests. I don't understand how the artist signs or gives away control of their work to their publisher unless their pressured right from the start (with their best interests at heart, Little Richard should be in on this thread). Why on earth would , as Dear Publisher put it earlier, the publishing companies want control over one's copyrighted material unless it's a very good business move (which tends to make me tink 100 times on their intent). It was mentioned above about Mudcat becoming a publishing company & maybe giving Harry Fox a go for his business. A better way would be to use the internet (see if Harry employs more networkers than the amount of folkies that visit this site daily, either Dick mentioned a million a day or a week - hopefully I got that close). If all the singer/musicians/songwriters boycotted any publisher that had business dealings with these leeches than they may take a 2nd look, if a movement like this took hold of the internet the news would surley pick it up & lend to it's momentum maybe the embarrassment, the bad publicity, the financial blow & the unjust dealings would cease & these blood suckers would have the tables & the laws turned in favor of the artist. Barry

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II
From: A Publisher
Date: 11 Nov 99 - 08:15 PM

Fair use is a very difficult thing to prove. Parody is harder still. Having made public your idea to do so would immediately cancel all claims of fair use.

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II
From: A Publisher
Date: 11 Nov 99 - 08:14 PM

Kat-

You cannot create a new arrangement (altering lyrics, etc.) of an already copyrighted work without the copyright owner's permission. That is infringement and would not be viewed nicely now that you have been made absolutely aware of same.

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II
From: Paul G.
Date: 11 Nov 99 - 07:49 PM

Max --Wasn't your next conversation with the sheisters, er, lawyers today? What happened?

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II
From: Margo
Date: 11 Nov 99 - 07:12 PM

But Kat, I wonder if such a thing would hold up in court? After all, courts do consider intent......Margarita

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II
From: MTM
Date: 11 Nov 99 - 07:11 PM

Kat

Might be a bit of a stretch, but what you are referring to could be considered a form of parody. In copyright squabbles, parody is often considered to fall under the fair use clause of copyright law. Judgement of whether a fair use is indeed a fair use or an infringement considers the following factors:

1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

This is probably redundant info to you, but there it be anyway.

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II
From: katlaughing
Date: 11 Nov 99 - 06:27 PM

It's simple, really, if we split the work up, we each take a few songs, change a word or note, here or there and they are no longer the copyrighted material in contention that we don't even know the name of right? Then Dick and Max or whomever can copyright THOSE versions and do whatever they want with them. When we registered my brother's work wiht the copyright office, thatw as what we were told. Anybody could change them ever so slightly and our copyright would not cover it. Has this changed?

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Nov 99 - 05:10 PM

There are a couple of posting that came on to the Round 32 part 1 thread that didn't make it to the Round 2 Part 2 thread (is this making your head spin too?).

Anyway one was from A Publisher, and s/he expressed surprise at the idea of a rude letter from HFA. So here's a copy of it in case s/he can't find it.

:

October 4, 1999

Via Certified Mail Max Spiegel The Digital Tradition 28 Powell Street Greenwich, CT 06831

Re: "The Mudcat Café"/www.mudcat.org

Dear Mr. Spiegel:

As you may be aware, the National Music Publishers Association, Inc. (NMPA) is a national association of over 700 American music publishers.

It has come to our attention that you have participated in, caused or authorized, via the above referenced website, the reproduction, distribution and transmission of lyrics of copyrighted musical compositions owned or controlled by our publisher members. As far as we are aware, no authority for such activities has been obtained from our members who own the copyrights in the musical compositions involved.

Accordingly, on behalf of our members, we demand that you immediately cease and desist from all such infringing activity. We further demand that within ten days of the date of this letter, you confirm that you have complied with the foregoing demand and provide us with your proposal for amicably resolving our members' claims against you.

If we have not received a timely response to the foregoing demands, we will advise our members, and legal action for willful copyright infringement may be brought against you.

This letter is written without prejudice to all of our members' rights and remedies at law or in equity, which are hereby reserved on their behalf.

Sincerely

Charles J. Sanders

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II
From: A Publisher
Date: 11 Nov 99 - 04:55 PM

As for the copyright PD works on HFA/NMPA's site - those are a classic example of misunderstanding about PD. A new arrangement of a PD song creates a new copyright. Yes, publishers do it all the time to keep important works from falling into the public domain (and that may or may not be morally right. I'm not here to argue that with you), but often heirs to a work also often hire someone to do this as well (in other words, it's not always the publisher doing this).

To reply to the request for links - here's a few:

POPULAR MYTHS ABOUT COPYRIGHT

www.copylaw.com/articles/copy-myths.html (written by a copyright attorney)

www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

GENERAL INFORMATION

Library of Congress Circular on Copyright - palimpsest.stanford.edu/bytopic/intprop/circ1.htm

Copyright Resource Page www.aimnet.com/~carroll/copyright/faq-home.html

COPYRIGHT LEGISLATION

The Digital Millenium Copyright Act - lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pdf (NOTE: you need an Adobe Acrobat reader plug in on your browser to read this).

Finally, my group which meets with the HFA/NMPA regularly has designed an all-purpose letter regarding internet licensing. It's at www.nmpa.org/nmpa/expression.html As I said, this is not the educational site I envision, but it's a start.

Now - I must go do my work.

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II
From: Bert
Date: 11 Nov 99 - 04:41 PM

It makes you think. Either they are not smart enough to do that OR they are 'only' interested in closing us down.

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 11 Nov 99 - 04:14 PM

I'm confused. If, as the Publisher states, NMPA is looking for a list of what we have in the DT, it's easily obtainable from the alphabetical listing, at the top of this page. 26 keystrokes (plus, I guess, another 51 clicks on Back).

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II
From: Bert
Date: 11 Nov 99 - 04:00 PM

Publisher, unfortunately they 'did' ask for a list of the offending titles before they would 'consider' giving us a license. As an alternative they wanted us to remove those titles. And as I said above, they wouldn't tell us which titles were causing the problem.

And to confuse the matter more, they have copyrighted versions of public domain material on their site.

Bert.

Subject: RE: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II
From: Bert
Date: 11 Nov 99 - 03:45 PM

Jeri, you say.....

My next wildest dream has Max saying something along the lines of "We wish to cooperate, and would have from the beginning, if you had indicated that cooperation rather than opposition was what you expected and desired. What do you really want?"

Max already tried that approach with them, right from the start. What they want us to do is to remove all the offending material, without them telling us what that material is. OR THEY'LL SUE US.

Bert.

Subject: Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 part II
From: Margo
Date: 11 Nov 99 - 02:58 PM

Hope you don't mind Part 2 of round 2. The other was getting lenghty and took forever to load.