| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Mana Pua
Aloha
USA
13 Posts |
 Posted - 08/21/2003 : 08:43:52 AM
|
Aloha Everyone!
For all of you that have never seen my postings before, it's because this will be my first! I wish to begin by thanking Andy for providing us all with a forum where we Slackers can share our passions. That being said, I'd like to get some feedback about the sharing of music. Chances are that if you're reading this posting, you're familiar with sites like Olga, or Kazaa, or the now defunct Napster! I should state from the onset that I am a firm believer in the sanctity of our copyright laws, and that intellectual properties such as music, software, etc., should be protected. On the other hand...I also believe that music should be, and must be shared! Of course, here lies the rub! How many of us have heard the stories of how the art of Slack Key was almost lost forever because of the archaic practice of "only" teaching to family members? God only knows how many great works have faded into oblivion because of this practice! But, as we all know, the music could not be held back and inevitably reached all of us. Now, what should we do with it? The other day I asked a friend to copy some tabs from an out of print music book that he had recently acquired. He told me he couldn't do it because he had a moral conflict with copying protected materials. I had to tell him that while I admired his convictions, the sharing of music for the sake of learning is one of those gray areas that lends itself to individual interpretation. But, he stood fast and I was left to ponder this dilemma on my own. Then a few days later I found out that my friend gave the book to someone else. Who in turn used the tabs to learn at least one of the songs before giving the book to someone else! Now, here's where I have the most conflict with copyrighted materials. By the letter of the law, passing the book around is perfectly acceptable. You can even sell the book, should you so choose. But, reproduce any part of it without permission and you could be held liable!
I remember my third grade music teacher giving me a mimeographed copy of Herb Alpert's "A Tast of Honey" as part of our band's new repertoire. Now, I suppose he might have had permission from Herb to reproduce his music. But, I find it highly unlikely!
OK, I need some feedback from everyone. My contention is that reproducing music for arts sake circumvents the prevailing copyright laws. The reason for this is because the laws pertaining to the protection of intelectual properties were enacted to protect those properties from unauthorized profiteering. Therefore, by eliminating the "profit" from the equation voids ones liability. Beyond this, the distribution of, and the media by which these materials are distributed become purely academic.
From the postings that I have read, many of you have unresolved issues pertaining to this subject. Hopefully, we can work them out together! Again, thanks Andy. And, I hope to hear from all of you.
|
Kepoo |
|
|
Admin
Pupule
USA
4551 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2003 : 11:05:20 AM
|
All I can say is that laws are not always practical or dictated by common sense. In most cases, the intention behind laws are good but in many "real world" situations they do not achieve what they originally sought out to do. We can complain about arcane laws on the books or make good arguments for why certain laws do not make sense. Are there many shades of gray? Of course. Our courts are struggling to define those shades of gray everyday.
As Admin of this site, my stance is very clear... to make sure that we stay out of trouble and do not become a candidate for going to court to define a shade of gray. This is why I need to keep a watchful eye to insure that this community does not become a vehicle for trading pirated music, learning materials, etc. I appreciate all of you in the online `ohana who help maintain this goal. Moreover, it is important to respect the artists and teachers so that they can come and share in the aloha and information exchange here too. In my opinion, that is far too valuable to risk losing on account of copying some CDs or books. That's my 2 cents. |
Andy |
 |
|
|
Mainkaukau
Lokahi
USA
245 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2003 : 12:16:18 PM
|
As an artist , I find the process of creating of piece of artwork, may it be a painting, a sculpture or a song is more satisfying than the finished product. If it was'nt for the money and recognition that we all desire to some point, I could care less about copyright laws.
Copyright2003 |
|
|
|
RJS
Ha`aha`a
1635 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2003 : 1:01:19 PM
|
I've got mixed feelings. I've published things and want to make the meager royalties that I'm entitled to. On the other hand, I've had people come to me and say they couldn't afford the publishers price, and I gave a copy or two away. (I know that would upset the pubisher.)
I've just finished a CD which I have paid for myself -- that's a lot of money on my fairly tight budget, In fact it took about 1 1/2 years to save for. I would like to break even, and the thought of having my album passed around for free before that happens doesn't feel very good to me.
As to transcriptions, sheet music etc. My personal policy is: if it is out of print, I don;t have a problem copying it for someone who wants to learn. I don't have a problem charging for costs, but I do have a problem making a profit on it. I have passed on some material to one or two of my close friends or "regular" correspondents. I also have some students and I try to give them material I've worked up or which I have permission to share from the author. I have fudged a bit on this when I got a student who really was short of cash and for whom a book of music was VERY expensive. (I thought a couple of seniors on very limited income.) I try to ask myself, would this person buy the music if I didn't pass it on to him or her. Also, some individuals are on record that they don't want their stuff passed on. I respect that.
As far as this site. I'm also on record supporting Andy's policy of trying to keep this site bulletproof. There's too much good here to jeopardise it.
Raymond
San Jose |
|
|
|
Mana Pua
Aloha
USA
13 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2003 : 08:06:22 AM
|
Andy, I understand your disclaimer...uhm, I mean...your position! Ha ha! Look, no one can fault you for taking a hard stance against such a controversial issue. I myself have already stated that I too am a staunch advocate of the laws pertaining to intellectual properties. Only, I also believe that these laws leave room for individual interpretation. I have no doubt that many of us interpret the "spirit" of our laws to mean we are bound to protect these copyrighted materials against exploitation. I also have no doubt that your readers, being for the most part, artisans themselves, have nothing but the utmost regard for these properties. And, I find it hard to believe that any of us consciously wish to deprive another artist of his dues.
To paraphrase Raymond, keeping this site bulletproof is paramount. But, your position aside, both Eric (MainKauKau) and Raymond's (RJS) postings only confirm the beliefs I already subscribe to. Mainly, we are all destined to drift into that "gray area" between our duty to protect the properties of our artisans and our obligations to perpetuate our own individual disciplines. Therefore, until someone clearly defines the gray areas to me, I'm left to my own resolve. And my position (like Eric's"MainKaukau") is simply...remove the money factor, and sharing becomes what it was meant to be...Kokua. |
Kepoo |
|
|
|
Mainkaukau
Lokahi
USA
245 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2003 : 12:30:56 PM
|
| Hey "char siu pao" (sorry man, I just had to write that), well written, especially since you agree with me. I am always aware and respect the rights of other musicians or songwriters since most of the material I play is not mine. When I first started performing professionally at the tender age of 19 years I was'nt aware and really did'nt care about copyright regulations. Luckily, Elton John, James Taylor, and even Celio and Kapono (should'nt it be Celio and Henry?) were to busy to file lawsuits against my parent's estate at the time. Today, because of greed and the lack of benevolence within our society I do comform to the music laws of the land whenever I can. Personally, I would be honored if any one of my songs were part of some musician/entertainer's repertoire. |
|
|
|
cpatch
Ahonui
USA
2187 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2003 : 12:52:18 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mana Pua
OK, I need some feedback from everyone. My contention is that reproducing music for arts sake circumvents the prevailing copyright laws...Therefore, by eliminating the "profit" from the equation voids ones liability.
This is a commonly held misconception that holds no legal grounds whatsoever...see #9 at the following Web page:
http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2000-all/jassin-2000-08-all.html
By your argument, if you do work for me then I shouldn't have to pay you as long as I don't profit from what you've done. |
Craig
My goal is to be able to play as well as people think I can. |
|
|
|
Mana Pua
Aloha
USA
13 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2003 : 5:35:32 PM
|
Thanks for your contribution Craig. But, as I interpret that paragraph, the law is "not" perfectly clear. The key as I see it is two fold. One, "Will my use of a protected property adversly affect the value of the said property?" And two, "Will the manner by which I use the material undermine it's value?"
Granted, the paragraph you refered to is overly generalized and is probably the writers interpretation of this part of the law. But, that only goes to prove my point. Let me run this scenerio past you. Let's say I buy a protected property, for conversation sake, we'll say a sheet of music. Now, I practice the piece until I've got it wired and then I decide to give the piece to a friend. Only, before I give the piece away, I make a copy of it for my own future reference. Now, although I may be in violation of a portion of the law that restricts the actual reproduction of the property (if there is such a section), I'm convinced that I am not in violation of the afore mentioned section pertaining to adversly affecting, or undermining the said properties value.
OK, I understand that my scenerio is only one example. But, even the answer to question number 9 starts with a partial disclaimer. It starts with "Not necessarily." Which exemplifies the fact that a violation must adhere to specific guidelines in order to qualify as a violation. This being the case, on almost any individual basis, the use of a protected property would not be in violation of either of the key points refered to in your example.
Craig... I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation, but this is why I asked for some feedback. I may have cut too wide a swath for my first posting! So, let me restate my position: The reproduction of protected materials for the sake of perpetuating art, in most cases, may not be in violation of the prevailing laws.The reason for this is that the laws are specific with regards to what constitutes a violation, and on an individual basis would most likely be impossible to prosecute. This doesn't mean that we would be innocent. It simply means that the statistics to prove a case like this would most likely not be available. Therefore, evidence not withstanding, prosecution would be deprived of practical significance. With regards to profiteering, the profit in itself would be tantamount to a confession of guilt. Therefore, wouldn't the absence of profit be tantamount to, at the least...a nullification of guilt? Thereby leaving one in the same position as an inoccent until proven guilty person. Which takes us back to the first part of my position.
OK, I know I'm long winded, and I may be completely wrong here! But, this issue has haunted me for some time and I felt I had to address it. I can only say that I am elated to have a forum with which to voice my dilemma. So, please... feed it back to me! |
Kepoo |
|
|
|
Mana Pua
Aloha
USA
13 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2003 : 6:42:24 PM
|
| Eh...Eric...First, let me say thanks for all your input. And secondly, let me just say...it takes a Mana Pua...to know a Mana Pua! Ha ha! But seriously...anybody with Kaukau in his name has got my vote! Come we go to Wendel's... Ha ha! Hee Hee! |
Kepoo |
|
|
|
cpatch
Ahonui
USA
2187 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2003 : 7:15:40 PM
|
Kepoo, there are two issues here: The first is whether or not you are doing something you are likely to be prosecuted for. The second is whether or not you are breaking the intent of the law. Using your example, if you give the piece of music to a friend and keep a copy for yourself it's highly unlikely that anyone is going to prosecute you. However, both of you now have a copy of the music and are benefitting from it but the author has only received payment from one of you. From a strictly legal standpoint, therefore, the law has been broken and the two of you have, in fact, profited by receiving a second copy of the music for free. (In effect, one of you has stolen a copy from the author.)
Now, does this mean that the author of the music would have a problem with this particular scenario? It depends on the author, but that's part of original intention of copyright law...the author (or copyright holder) should have control over the distribution of his/her work(s). For example, I currently have copies of two OOP slack key books for which I have been unable to track down copies of the originals. In both cases I received permission from the author to make the copy. In another case the author didn't want a copy made so I didn't.
One final comment...you stated that: "The reproduction of protected materials for the sake of perpetuating art, in most cases, may not be in violation of the prevailing law." That's simply not true...there is nothing in copyright law that provides for such an exception.
|
Craig
My goal is to be able to play as well as people think I can. |
|
|
|
RJS
Ha`aha`a
1635 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2003 : 12:29:17 AM
|
Some time ago I checked with an attorney specializing in intellectual property. Her reading of the law is substantially the same as Craig. To use a version of your example, Kepoo, let's say I have a copy of some sheet music and make 200 copies of it at my cost and distribute it to every slack key player who wants to learn the piece, as long as they promise to learn it and share it with others. That perpetuates the art form. There is no personal profit - yet it is still illegal, wether you get caught or not. The attorney told me that as far as copies go - the standard of fair use is "personal, (and non-comercial) use." I have broken the law, will probably do so in the past... "sed lex est lex," i.e. the law is the law. At least that is how I've been lead to understand things.
Raymond
San Jose |
|
|
|
Mana Pua
Aloha
USA
13 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2003 : 10:22:31 AM
|
You guy's are absolutely correct! By the letter of the law, there is probably no truly legal way to reproduce a protected property without permission. I guess my position should have read that because the risk of prosecution is so remote, I have no qualms about continuing the practice. But, understand that I am speaking strictly from a "legal" standpoint. From a "moral" standpoint, I have BIG QUALMS! When I first started copying music for the sake of my art. musicians and authors were faceless, sometimes nameless entities that I neither knew, nor cared about. And, this practice, as my previous story (third grade mimeographs) explained...was learned! When I ran into Gerry Beckley of the group America, it didn't even occur to me that asking him to autograph a xerox copy of his "Daisy Jane" tab could open me up to prosecution. If the truth be known, until I started taking tabs from the internet, I never gave trading music any thought, what so ever. Were it not for all the disclaimers attatched to these tabs, I may never have given them a second thought. Even then, it wasn't until I started learning slack key that the music suddenly took on a face!
My Grandmother once told me a story about having to chase one of the Pahinui boys around the house because he lost his diaper! Gabby was playing music at the kitchen table with my Grandpa and his pals. And, everybody was waiting for the rice to cook! Now, Grandma claims that everybody loved her cooking so much, they'd all start showing up just before dinner! Grandpa's version differs slightly, he told me everybody hung out at their house because the icebox was always full of beer!
The point of this story is that after years of copying and trading tabs, books, tapes, you name it, I find myself at a moral crossroad! All of a sudden I'm learning a discipline where I know all the major participants. Not only do I know everybody, but I respect everybody! And respect, is truly the deal breaker! I should reiterate that my attitude about sharing the music for the sake of perpetuating the arts has not changed. I still believe music must be shared. And, with all respect to Craig, I don't believe I have ever been under a misconception about reproducing protected materials. I suspect I've always known I was doing something wrong. But, illegal and prosecutorial, like beauty...are in the eye of the beholder! I believe that although my hands are not clean in this matter, prosecution for my discretions would have to center around damages. And, since I believe damages would be next to impossible to determine, prosecution would be moot. Therefore, I am left to my own resolve.
I'd like to tell you all that I'm going to take the high (morality) road from now on. But, only time will tell. Like most, I'm afraid I will probably adopt "Don't ask, don't tell." as my personal mantra. As a matter of fact, because I truly do not wish in any way to promote, or encourage the continued abuses, I myself have been guilty of, I will most certainly never bring this subject up again. That being said, I wish to thank everyone for their postings and of course, if you still have opinions...nows the time to post them! Mahalo, Kepoo
|
Kepoo |
|
|
|
Julie H
Ha`aha`a
USA
1206 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2003 : 12:10:52 AM
|
Well, it makes me kind of sad when I think about all those lovely traditional Hawaiian melodies that I've sung for years, and whose authors I do not know, and yet I've been enjoying the sweetness of the songs, but I should not be copying these lyrics and chords to share with my friends over a summer campfire.
What happens to one of my paintings that I hang in the gallery and people go through and enjoy them and may even try to copy them? Do I shield my artwork from the masses and require a payment each time someone gazes at my painting? Silly thought, isn't it? On the contrary, I would want large numbers of people to enjoy what I have created. That will be especially true after I'm long gone to that ukulele heaven in the sky. Love held prisoner within the heart and not shared will die. So will melodies that are not sung, visions that are not shared, dreams that are not acknowledged. Sigh... My 2 cents worth, Julie |
|
|
|
cpatch
Ahonui
USA
2187 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2003 : 04:19:09 AM
|
Julie, as the artist you have every right to exercise your generosity and put your paintings in the public domain. But you also have the right to decide that you want control over how your paintings are used and when and if your are reimbursed for that use. (What if someone decides they want to use one to promote something that you disagree with?) Copyright law is designed to allow you to exercise those rights and protect them.
Incidentally, most traditional melodies are in the public domain. |
Craig
My goal is to be able to play as well as people think I can. |
Edited by - cpatch on 08/25/2003 10:40:16 AM |
|
|
|
Mana Pua
Aloha
USA
13 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2003 : 06:11:02 AM
|
Aloha Julie, Don't be sad, I have an idea! When I originally posted my comments concerning the sharing of music, I'm afraid I was really looking for someone to help me justify what I was doing. That maybe all it took to get around the prevailing laws was to add a disclaimer to each piece. How many of us have seen the following? ##This file is the author’s own work and represents his interpretation of the song. It is intended solely for private study, scholarship or research.## Or, Written by Leonard Kwan, Arranged by Keola Beamer. The latter of the two examples appears in the upper right hand corner of a tablature I got during one of Keola's workshops. It was Leonard's "Opihi Moemoe." And, although Keola may in fact have had permission from Leonard to reproduce his work, I couldn't help wonder if the "Arranged by..." phrase was in fact...a disclaimer! Like the first example, the term "Arranged by..." seems to convey the same sentiment. Although in a much more suttle manner.
I would like to believe that all artists hold the same compassion for sharing as you and I. That art should be shared for it's own sake. But, as long as there are those who actually mean to deprive artisans of their just revenues. There will always be laws to protect the unregulated reproduction of those materials. Unfortunately, these same laws hamper our free exchange of many of the materials we find necessary to perpetuate our respective disciplines.
So, here's my idea. What if we set up accounts here at TaroPatch, where by artisans could post their own tabs for downloading. The downloads could be had for either a nominal fee, or for free, depending on the discretion of the artist. I know many artists that have viable works, only they are unable to find publishers. This could be a win-win situation for all involved! I know there are companies like Sony that are already selling music on a pay-per-song basis. But, they're selling finished works (audible music). And, although I'm thinking more on the lines of basic text music (tabs), it's not inconceivable that a site like this could eventually expand to include multiple forms of music. Think about it, if you could buy tabs for a nominal fee, especially out of print materials, wouldn't you? OK, anyone have an opinion? Andy...are you out there?
|
Kepoo |
Edited by - Mana Pua on 08/25/2003 11:41:55 AM |
|
|
|
cpatch
Ahonui
USA
2187 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2003 : 1:07:53 PM
|
| Andy's policy in the past has been that he will only allow tabs to be posted that are original works by Taro Patch members, are arrangements of public domain pieces, or have the written permission of the original artist. This avoids any potential legal headaches on his part. |
Craig
My goal is to be able to play as well as people think I can. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
