Re: ISMLP/WIMA (?)

[David Raleigh Arnold]

On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 22:11 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> David Raleigh Arnold <address@hidden> writes:
> 
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:52:03 +0100, Hans Aberg wrote:

> On 19 Jan 2012, at 21:58, David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 11:05 -0800, Bernardo Barros wrote:
>>>> Open software people tend to consider artists as being equivalent
to
>>>> programmers, so they think artists should starve. I have no
sympathy
>>>> with that view. Obviously. Knowledge should be free, Yale to the
>>>> contrary. Art shouldn't be free until the artist gets his.
>>> 
>>> The source code of the lilypond score is not the `music' or even
>>> `art', so maybe people get confused.
>> 
>> That is true of the program code, but not the data.
> 
> According to the WIPO Copyright Treaty, computer programs are
protected
> as literary works as in the Berne Convention:
>   http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/trtdocs_wo033.html#P56_5626
> 
>> The
>> document must carry a copyright notice if it contains the notes,
>> because it is the composition written in a form of musical notation.
>> The complete source, published with a copyright notice, would
copyright
>> the piece. Published without the notice, all copyright would be lost.
> 
> 
> This is not the case in the US since 1989:
>   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_notice
> 
> Hans

We have drifted from the issue here. If your recommendation
is to include the notes of an original copyrightable
musical composition in an upload to be used as an
exemplar of lilypond, your advice is absolutely terrible.
Substitute something in the public domain, and make it short.

Computer programs should have been without protection
until new laws were written. They are a bad fit for
either copyrights or patents. There was a bad judge
who didn't have the discipline or wisdom to dismiss
the first case, and so we have a lot of bad law.
Proprietary programs are already greatly retarding progress
or halting it instead of advancing it.

The time on programs should be *less* than the time
on patents, since no physical working model needs
to be made. Copyrighted material is intended to have
a useful life after the expiration of copyright, not
to be useless, like CP/M or Windows 3.2 or 98 for example.
Regards, daveA

-- 
Information is not knowledge, indoctrination is not teaching,
tradition is not evidence, and belief is not truth.