Re: Another Lilypond Story

[Erik Sandberg]

On Friday 17 December 2004 17.49, David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
> On Friday 17 December 2004 05:46 am, Erik Sandberg wrote:
> > On Friday 17 December 2004 01.24, David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
> > >
> > > A license *might* protect some evildoer ripping you off but it won't
> > > protect you,  You don't want to give all and sundry any license.  I use
> > > "possession of this document does not confer on the bearer any rights
> > > at all."  You have the copyright.  A license cannot improve on that. 
> > > daveA
> >
> > IANAL, but would not that copyright disclaimer forbid anyone from even
> > downloading and viewing the document?
>
> No.  So what if it did?  What protection does the downloader and viewer
> need? My only point is that it does not protect the writer.

If you have the piece available on your homepage, this is probably because you 
want people to download & view it. Therefore it might be in your interest to 
make it legal to do so. I.e., it is not about _protecting_ the 
downloader/viewer, it is about giving him (limited) rights to enjoy your 
work.

Of course, you will have to be extremely careful about which license you 
choose, so you don't give away more rights than you want to.

If it is in your interest to get as much publicity as possibly for your work, 
it might be a good idea to allow others to publish it on their homepages as 
well. If you want this to be generally allowed, then I think it is a good 
idea to share it under a license. It could perhaps say something like: "you 
are allowed to download and view this music, but not to perform it 
publically. You're not allowed to make derivative works. You are allowed to 
share it with others, but only under the same terms and only if you give 
credit to the original author". (You would of course need a proper license in 
lawyer language). As long as the license is this restrictive, I don't see how 
it could damage you. Bear in mind that as soon as a person breaks any 
conditions of the license, then the license is void and normal copyright 
restrictions (i.e. you may basically do nothing) apply.

> > For this reason, it can be nice to your homepage's visitors to tell them
> > what they actually are allowed to do with the document. For this purpose,
> > a formal license can be a good thing.
>
> A musical composition or literary work is not used to produce other
> documents.  It isn't software.  

This is true, music is not software. But it is information, and some people 
may want to spread their music in a way similar to the way Free Software is 
spread, i.e. freely but with a few restriction.

> It shouldn't have a user license, only 
> restrictions.  

If there are only restrictions, this means that you don't allow anything. If 
you don't want to allow anyone to use your composition, then one might argue 
that it is not a good idea to publish it at all.

> The copyright *is* the license, which belongs exclusively 
> to the copyright holder.  That's the whole idea of a copyright.  Don't
> attempt to share it with all and sundry, only with BMI/ASCAP or the like if
> you want. A user license would amount to assigning it.  

Sorry, I didn't understand the 2 last sentences (limited English skills).

> Suppose the composer does a serious rewrite of part of his work.  He should
> be able to rescind permission to reproduce previous versions, to
> de-authorize them so to speak.  A license would interfere with that.  Don't
> do it.  daveA

I don't understand this - you mean that if you first allow somebody to make a 
recording of your work, and then you make a major rewrite of your work, then 
you can suddenly tell him that he may no longer sell his recording since the 
music is obsolete? (sounds 1984 to me :) ) Seems that I have missed something 
basic about how copyright works, can you please expand on it?

Erik