copying another composer's work

I have heard of composers copying another composers work, I meant exactly from melody, Harmony and so on. I have heard this is common in film music/ commercial music, is this true for classical composers ?

Who are the people copying another composer's work - a student composer or establish composer

what are they trying to do, - to get fame or to learn from the composer

what are the legal implications of doing such

what are your views, please share

I *think* that in the professional world, it's much less common in concert hall music rather than in media music.

For example, I was asked to follow, closely, a theme from the Titanic movie, for an ad, since it was a direct reference to that. I had to 'steal' the theme, but make it clever, by not following it exactly! And thus I did and made money. In movies (and less so computer games), the idea of a temp track is always there: Until the composer comes on board, the producers will put some music track which they think fits, in order to carry on adapting the film. When the composer comes in, they usually have to follow those temp tracks quite closely...

In the concert hall, things are not so tough, but I have seen a PhD student, years ago, to have a bunch of scores in front of him, in order to get 'inspiration' for the next work (or to actually just get ideas for cues, etc...).

I've copied a bar here and there from other works, not so much as because I didn't know what to put, but to put a reference on from where my inspiration lies, or to pay homage to the works, or the composers that influenced me!

Finally you do get the case of the student, who will copy, consciously or not, a composer and do so because they either have no control, or they're doing so because it feels great... I mean just look at all those cover bands: They all play songs of other people. And feels professional when you can accomplish that professional sound!

Legal implication: If you copy melody then you could be in trouble, especially if you do so in a commercial project.

If you follow, note by note harmonic progression (which would include the voices doing the exact thing), then you're in trouble.

If you follow chord progression, as simple as that, you could escape trouble, since chord progression, drums and orchestration are NOT copyrighted! (I mean really... Ligetti and Pederecki have done so many clusters before the rest of the world, but film msuic (thriller) is filled with such ideas... You CANNOT copyright an idea and orchestration falls towards the area of idea, rather than practice).

Hope this helps a bit...

I had to 'steal' the theme, but make it clever legal, by not following it exactly!

Fixed.

That's exactly right.

I heard an ad over the holidays using Sleigh Ride. They undoubtedly saved a ton of money in copyright fees by having someone "recompose" Sleigh Ride. The chord progression and the melody contour were slightly altered, and the orchestration was almost identical. The layman even listening carefully would identify it as sleigh ride. A successful legal steal. ;)

LMAO! :D

Nah, Copy is when you use Ctrl+C to do it ;)

I *think* that in the professional world, it's much less common in concert hall music rather than in media music.

For example, I was asked to follow, closely, a theme from the Titanic movie, for an ad, since it was a direct reference to that. I had to 'steal' the theme, but make it clever, by not following it exactly! And thus I did and made money. In movies (and less so computer games), the idea of a temp track is always there: Until the composer comes on board, the producers will put some music track which they think fits, in order to carry on adapting the film. When the composer comes in, they usually have to follow those temp tracks quite closely...

In the concert hall, things are not so tough, but I have seen a PhD student, years ago, to have a bunch of scores in front of him, in order to get 'inspiration' for the next work (or to actually just get ideas for cues, etc...).

I've copied a bar here and there from other works, not so much as because I didn't know what to put, but to put a reference on from where my inspiration lies, or to pay homage to the works, or the composers that influenced me!

Finally you do get the case of the student, who will copy, consciously or not, a composer and do so because they either have no control, or they're doing so because it feels great... I mean just look at all those cover bands: They all play songs of other people. And feels professional when you can accomplish that professional sound!

Legal implication: If you copy melody then you could be in trouble, especially if you do so in a commercial project.

If you follow, note by note harmonic progression (which would include the voices doing the exact thing), then you're in trouble.

If you follow chord progression, as simple as that, you could escape trouble, since chord progression, drums and orchestration are NOT copyrighted! (I mean really... Ligetti and Pederecki have done so many clusters before the rest of the world, but film msuic (thriller) is filled with such ideas... You CANNOT copyright an idea and orchestration falls towards the area of idea, rather than practice).

Hope this helps a bit...

How about composers, who copy melody, accompaniment,with the same instruments and orchestration but slightly alter the melody with passing notes and put the original music in a different key, will it be copying or getting inspiration

How about composers, who copy melody, accompaniment,with the same instruments and orchestration but slightly alter the melody with passing notes and put the original music in a different key, will it be copying or getting inspiration

Depends on what you do with it. If you copy the entire score, then we're certainly not talking about getting inspiration. If you get a small part and develop it yourself, then you could be talking about getting inspiration.

But either way, if you know you're doing it, then you know that you're not exactly "nice" (<- whatever this may imply really... :D)

designbox:

that would be ornamentation. You'd probably get nailed for copyright infringement if all you actually changed (pitch center doesn't count) was adding passing tones to the melody.

I'm against "ownership" in general. If someone wants to take ideas I come up with and do something with them that happens to fall under today's standards as "infringement," then I'm flattered all the same. The only harm that really comes from it is financial... which is sort of a lousy reason to complain about one person's ideas being used by someone else. If there's anything that's contrived in the whole mess, it's the notion that "financial" issues should concern us at all. They shouldn't, in my opinion. We don't "proliferate" music when we're too afraid to use ideas or concepts that already exist.

In the same vein, "proprietary" technology is severely debilitating to progress and growth. Giving whoever "owns" that piece of information the power to horde it and prevent further exploration is just ridiculous. But hey, who am I to argue with the brilliant business and economic minds of our time? It's not like society is any better off without places like Wall Street leading us all to prosperity... man, 1980 to today has just been super-awesome!

And that's how I feel about copyright, and ownership, generally.

I'm against "ownership" in general.

Same. I'm all for recognition where its due, but I don't think that art computes with either money, copyrights or censorship. To a certain point, in terms of getting initial project money as well as some fan-based money, it does, but a real artist doesn't need a lot of money, and if they were to complain about that, if say implemented in reality, then I seriously doubt they're in it for the art. I mean, if more people really cared about music, I think current law aside, we would be in agreement that fame/recognition is tons more important than copyrights, money or censorship, but adding business into the mix seems rather detrimental to the quality of everyday listening. That's just the opposite of what the every day businessman thinks unfortunately. There's a whole other side to music, past when someone is recognized for their personal achievement, where copying should be embraced in terms of both listening and composing, in my opinion. I doubt a real artist would quit composing out of boredom that their paycheck is not getting recognized enough, however I do think that an artist should have the responsibility to embrace people using and reworking their music. It just feels so natural to me, and they want to censor that. It's the equivalent of someone changing up a poem to fit the mood and not being able to read it in public. I don't know where people get the idea that something like that is a disgrace to the original artist, but that's what a lot of tradition is based on, and in no way does it influence the nature of creativity. Money? No way.

EDIT to leave out a tiny bit of swearing here...

Let's go quote by quote...

I'm against "ownership" in general. If someone wants to take ideas I come up with and do something with them that happens to fall under today's standards as "infringement," then I'm flattered all the same. The only harm that really comes from it is financial... which is sort of a lousy reason to complain about one person's ideas being used by someone else. If there's anything that's contrived in the whole mess, it's the notion that "financial" issues should concern us at all. They shouldn't, in my opinion. We don't "proliferate" music when we're too afraid to use ideas or concepts that already exist.

It's not an idea, but a tangible work of art. Let me give you an example, for you to understand: You create a wonderful work, for the loss of your mother. Then this work, for whatever reason is being used by:

a. The harshest group of nazi, when they kill young coloured people.

b. An ad about condoms on the telly.

c. As a dance track, while taking whatever pills are available right now.

THEN come and tell me that it's all about the money, etc...

In the same vein, "proprietary" technology is severely debilitating to progress and growth. Giving whoever "owns" that piece of information the power to horde it and prevent further exploration is just ridiculous. But hey, who am I to argue with the brilliant business and economic minds of our time? It's not like society is any better off without places like Wall Street leading us all to prosperity... man, 1980 to today has just been super-awesome!

Do you REALLY think that patents are the same as copyright? First of all, patents hardly last as long as copyrights do. Second of all, it is a fact that when you apply for a patent you are FORCED to give analytical plans of your idea and how it works, etc. Third of all it is also a fact that there are many workarounds patents, so there's nothing being stopped or held back for too long.

Then again there's trademark, there's patents and there's copyright, none of which are the same, right? ;)

Same. I'm all for recognition where its due, but I don't think that art computes with either money, copyrights or censorship. To a certain point, in terms of getting initial project money as well as some fan-based money, it does, but a real artist doesn't need a lot of money, and if they were to complain about that, if say implemented in reality, then I seriously doubt they're in it for the art.

... So... Let's see.

I spend 50 hours a week or more working on music. I make no money out of it and I have to feed a family of 4 (including me and I'm huge), along with any expenses to promote my art and music, for free or not for free (even the Internet costs money and I have to use it order to post in YC about my works, no?). So how am I supposed to make a living?

There's a whole other side to music, past when someone is recognized for their personal achievement, where copying should be embraced in terms of both listening and composing, in my opinion. I doubt a real artist would quit composing out of boredom that their paycheck is not getting recognized enough, however I do think that an artist should have the responsibility to embrace people using and reworking their music.

True to an extent, but really, isn't classical music being circulated enough? Do you have any problems using Ligeti, or Pederecki, or Messiaen techniques? Nope, cause there's nothing stopping you from doing so. In fact I'd venture even futher to say that you can directly quote composers' works (I've done so in academic work), and have absolutely no legal issues at all! I mean, if you think about it, when you publish a score (with whatever price tag, from free to gold coins), you automatically allow everyone to use it. Either as a performer (unless you plan on chassing down every pianist and go "Oh... you're not good enough. Give me back my work"), or as a composer to take inspiration, or ideas, etc. There's nothing to stop anyone and there shoudln't be something.

It's the equivalent of someone changing up a poem to fit the mood and not being able to read it in public.

Of course it's not. Take my works and perform them (ergo voice them up), any way you like. Even without the respect that I'd require.

I have a feeling that you two are talking while being out of the loop!

The point is simple: If you provide a service you should be paid for it, no? Either by your clients, your audience, your government, etc. And, as it always happens in 95% of the cases you still HOLD the right to refuse service. You can't press a private teacher to take you on a student, nor a lawyer to accept you, etc. In fact in the states you can't even press on a doctor to save your life, right?

Isn't the above the exact idea of copyrights? The right to allow or not service to someone? And to get compensation for your services?

And while we're at it, how about live performances? Do they hold any copyrights? Any rights? What happens to the recording of that? Is it THAT much different to automatically get 0 monetary value?

Let's go quote by quote...

It's not an idea, but a tangible work of art. Let me give you an example, for you to understand: You create a wonderful work, for the loss of your mother. Then this work, for whatever reason is being used by:

a. The harshest group of nazi, when they kill young coloured people.

b. An ad about condoms on the telly.

c. As a dance track, while taking whatever pills are available right now.

THEN come and tell me that it's all about the money, etc...

A. The harshest group of Nazi using my work to inspire them to kill brings up a plethora of issues I could spend days discussing. Is my work responsible for their choice to kill? I mean, it's kind of laughable that you bring this up as a defense to copyright.

B. An ad about condoms? I don't know... are they great condoms? More of the same... it's another laughable defense. I chuckled.

C. Dance? What's wrong with dance, again?

How about clarifying your defense for copyright first. I'm amused by the examples, some of them made me laugh out loud, but by and large, what is this supposed to convince me to believe?

Do you REALLY think that patents are the same as copyright? First of all, patents hardly last as long as copyrights do. Second of all, it is a fact that when you apply for a patent you are FORCED to give analytical plans of your idea and how it works, etc. Third of all it is also a fact that there are many workarounds patents, so there's nothing being stopped or held back for too long.

Then again there's trademark, there's patents and there's copyright, none of which are the same, right? ;)

Do you really think "workaround" patents exist? Do you really think patent legislation would be an issue at all right now if anything you said was actually true? Here's a hint: Go do more research about the patent issue.

... So... Let's see.

I spend 50 hours a week or more working on music. I make no money out of it and I have to feed a family of 4 (including me and I'm huge), along with any expenses to promote my art and music, for free or not for free (even the Internet costs money and I have to use it order to post in YC about my works, no?). So how am I supposed to make a living?

The problem is that you have to make money to live, not that you have to own your music. It just so happens that you equate owning music to making money. Separate these two issues and you'll understand my point.

We live in a world that's changing, thanks to technology, and holding steadfastly to obsolete social models doesn't really convince me to do the same. In my opinion, what I do now doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of economic sense. I should have developed an interest in something that was more financially rewarding than music. But flip this coin and it makes even better sense that I accept my interest for what it is and say to hell with the consequences. I'm over being driven to pursue money. I don't compose to make money or "earn a living," and I don't see that it really makes any sense to say, "I have to make money, so I'll let copyright do that for me," when composing music and earning money are so far removed at this point.

Let's not forget the over-abundance of music in the world and how little of it is paid for. This is not merely a coincidence. It is the inevitable outcome of economics that anything "abundantly available" loses value, essentially lowering the COST. Cost, in economics, is determined by 1) supply and 2) demand, which presumably makes things which are in high demand in lower supply. Well, with advances in technology, things like music are abundantly available no matter what the demand is, so now what do we do, impose scarcity - do we artificially lower supply to raise the cost and "value" of music? Forget about it! Money is the problem, and with it, this desire to "own" scraggy rather than sustain abundance and "access" to those things. Copyright is a part of this paradigm, one that I simply don't believe to be relevant to the changes taking place in the world.

True to an extent, but really, isn't classical music being circulated enough? Do you have any problems using Ligeti, or Pederecki, or Messiaen techniques? Nope, cause there's nothing stopping you from doing so. In fact I'd venture even futher to say that you can directly quote composers' works (I've done so in academic work), and have absolutely no legal issues at all! I mean, if you think about it, when you publish a score (with whatever price tag, from free to gold coins), you automatically allow everyone to use it. Either as a performer (unless you plan on chassing down every pianist and go "Oh... you're not good enough. Give me back my work"), or as a composer to take inspiration, or ideas, etc. There's nothing to stop anyone and there shoudln't be something.

I teach middle school children how to play music. They like popular tunes like Smoke on the Water and Ironman, but existing arrangements of these works are above their abilities. These arrangements are copyrighted and it is therefore illegal for me to arrange these tunes without permission from the publisher. Yet, my students want to learn how to play these tunes. I could actually use a simpler version to give them this experience and improve their skills. If the publisher doesn't agree to my arranging the tunes to the playing ability of my students, do I violate copyright anyway and give them the opportunity, or do I just tell them, "Sorry, it's a copyright issue...?"

Seriously, this is a real world, legitimate example of how copyright is such an unnecessary obstacle. Even buying the arrangement and re-arranging the parts creates a new "arrangement" of the tune, a derivative work, and without permission to do this is infringement. So, yeah, screw copyright.

Of course it's not. Take my works and perform them (ergo voice them up), any way you like. Even without the respect that I'd require.

I have a feeling that you two are talking while being out of the loop!

Heh... if I'm "out of [your] loop," all the better for me. I'd prefer an open-source world to whatever you call this "loop" of yours.

The point is simple: If you provide a service you should be paid for it, no? Either by your clients, your audience, your government, etc.

My point is, if the world is changing, I'm really not interested in holding onto outdated systems stagnating that change. I'm not saying this of Copyright but rather of "needing money" in general. Again, I'm against ownership in general and support changes which make ownership no longer necessary or relevant to society.

And, as it always happens in 95% of the cases you still HOLD the right to refuse service. You can't press a private teacher to take you on a student, nor a lawyer to accept you, etc. In fact in the states you can't even press on a doctor to save your life, right?

Uhm... doctors take the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm (including inaction). This means a doctor is ethically bound to save a life if they possibly can. In the states, you're not obligated to be treated for a medical condition if your vital signs are stable. This sucks for people with cancer who remain stable until their cancer makes them unstable, at which point any treatment for cancer is too little too late. Refusing service is a fuzzy issue in the states for a plethora of reasons that would take days to discuss. How about we stick to the topic at hand for now, shall we?

Isn't the above the exact idea of copyrights? The right to allow or not service to someone? And to get compensation for your services?

No.

And while we're at it, how about live performances? Do they hold any copyrights? Any rights? What happens to the recording of that? Is it THAT much different to automatically get 0 monetary value?

Again with the money... ugh. I don't know why I wasted time responding (mostly out of respect for a long inquiry), but I hope some of my reply gets through to you.

Personally, I would be flattered if someone borrowed an idea of mine and used it. However: If that same person takes large segments of my work and passes it off as his/her own, then I believe that I should be acknowledged or reimbursed for the massive quotation. Why? Because, there is a difference between using a small idea and copying large segments of work. Using a small idea in homage to another composer generally means that you use the idea fleetingly or you develop it differently than the original piece the idea comes from (like the various homage variations, etc.) Using a large idea, verbatim, doesn't quite fit with this 'homage' concept - especially when the original composer isn't at minimum acknowledged. Instead, you are passing the large passage of quoted material as your own - which is, in virtually all other fields, highly unethical.

Where it comes to copyright and the idea of owning ones creative work:

I belief as the creator of my works that I SHOULD own full creative control of them. I created them, after all. That's my choice - just as it is your choice to not seek to verify via copyright control that you own full creative control of your work. Is either choice wrong? I don't think so. You created your work and have the right to do with it as you please - just as I have the right to do what I wish with mine.

In regards Ownership Society (or w/e you termed it):

I don't think it is wrong at all for a person to own things they create. We don't prevent inventors from receiving patents for their creations AND we allow them to receive compensation anytime that another bases an invention off their patent. So, I ask, why shouldn't the same allowance be extended to inventors of artistic work? Do not artists (painters, photographers, sculptors, composers, etc.) work for long hours on end as inventors do? Do not artists also have needs for existence that need to be met? Do not artists deserve to earn a living doing what they love to do as those in other fields?

In regards Ownership Society (or w/e you termed it):

I don't think it is wrong at all for a person to own things they create. We don't prevent inventors from receiving patents for their creations AND we allow them to receive compensation anytime that another bases an invention off their patent. So, I ask, why shouldn't the same allowance be extended to inventors of artistic work? Do not artists (painters, photographers, sculptors, composers, etc.) work for long hours on end as inventors do? Do not artists also have needs for existence that need to be met? Do not artists deserve to earn a living doing what they love to do as those in other fields?

I don't think it's a question of "right" or "wrong" but rather of what proliferates music and inspires creativity. Are we to say that it doesn't inspire creativity when a composer is inspired to write something based on something that already exists? This is the essence of creativity as I've come to understand it... but in the nomenclature of copyright it borders on a thin, subjective line of being called a "derivative work" or "fair use".

There's certainly something to be said for the necessity of copyright at this moment because of the society in which we live. I've said nothing to the contrary, but it is my belief that this is not an absolute condition of society (meaning that copyright, and ownership generally, are as subjective as anything else in this world - and will not remain relevant with adequate technological and social development). I have a problem with the notion that people "deserve" something in return for the work they do, not because people aren't "deserving" but because no equitable outcome can result from it in practice.

I work hours upon hours creating a musical masterpiece and earn a few dollars while some investment group CEO working 10-15 hours a week and playing golf over built-in 4-day weekends, deducting his travel and lodging expenses under his corporate business account from his company's taxes, rakes in millions of dollars in bonuses annually... no, there's no equity whatsoever. And even putting the shoe on the other foot, I'm certainly no more deserving of raking in millions annually than some CEO responsible for sustaining a giant corporation that employs tens of thousands of people earning pennies to every dollar I make. Either way, it's not equitable, and no amount of regulation or complex system restructuring will change this condition.

The economics and politics of this "acquisition model" exist in perpetuity. These exist because a majority of people across the developed nations of the world still believe the social mantra that "opportunity" for "liberty and prosperity" exists due to free (or loosely regulated) markets and commerce, democratic/representative governance, etc. Well, maybe this was the case in theory, but it has never been so in practice. It never will be, but few have come to accept this reality. It's because of this mantra and the models that grow out of it that we're doomed to repeating cycles of revolution, prosperity, corruption, empiricism, and collapse again and again.

Let's be clear that whether it's copyright or patents, homes or cars, food or clothing, it all comes down to "legitimate" equality of opportunity, and this cannot be gained in the throws of a world where acquisition is the means to this end - where the cost and "tangible value" of anything we need or produce grows only when it becomes less available (see the Diamond Water Paradox). I have yet to include corruption, power, and conflict which brings a whole new level of complexity to the issue.

Sorry, I had no intention of derailing the thread, but it seems people wish to debate my opposition to ownership instead of the topic. So, not my fault... just wanted to point that out.

AT LAST! You replied! :D

A. The harshest group of Nazi using my work to inspire them to kill brings up a plethora of issues I could spend days discussing. Is my work responsible for their choice to kill? I mean, it's kind of laughable that you bring this up as a defense to copyright.

B. An ad about condoms? I don't know... are they great condoms? More of the same... it's another laughable defense. I chuckled.

C. Dance? What's wrong with dance, again?

How about clarifying your defense for copyright first. I'm amused by the examples, some of them made me laugh out loud, but by and large, what is this supposed to convince me to believe?

Of course they were supposed to ammuse everyone! They are hardly real examples.

But the point, which you totally missed is this: You create a work, which you totally adore, dedicated to... your dying mother (for example), and this exact work, so dear in your heart, is being used in a number of different ways, none of which brings any memory to why the work was created but quite the opposite.

That's the point. Not that music is responsible to anything, etc...

Do you really think "workaround" patents exist? Do you really think patent legislation would be an issue at all right now if anything you said was actually true? Here's a hint: Go do more research about the patent issue.

Hell yes! I've done my research very well thank you. you do know who I am, what I'm doing, etc. Don't you think I've done my research well enough? ;)

The problem is that you have to make money to live, not that you have to own your music. It just so happens that you equate owning music to making money. Separate these two issues and you'll understand my point.

I seperate those two to understand your point perfectly, but it remains that all I can do is compose, to make a living. If I can't own my music, how am I going to make money out of it to make a living? How will I dedicate the number of years in order to reach the status that I desire and make money? Same goes for everything else.

We live in a world that's changing, thanks to technology, and holding steadfastly to obsolete social models doesn't really convince me to do the same. In my opinion, what I do now doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of economic sense. I should have developed an interest in something that was more financially rewarding than music. But flip this coin and it makes even better sense that I accept my interest for what it is and say to hell with the consequences. I'm over being driven to pursue money. I don't compose to make money or "earn a living," and I don't see that it really makes any sense to say, "I have to make money, so I'll let copyright do that for me," when composing music and earning money are so far removed at this point.

And this is exactly why you're out of the loop. You compose for the heck of it, you don't expect to make any money and you piss on others people way of making money. Regardless if you agree or not! ;)

In the end if I'm offering a service I should be getting paid, right? And not only that, I should create something that I call 'mine': This is elementary stuff: A drawing was done by someone in your classroom, you don't take it and show it as yours, do you? How would THAT feel?

Let's not forget the over-abundance of music in the world and how little of it is paid for. This is not merely a coincidence. It is the inevitable outcome of economics that anything "abundantly available" loses value, essentially lowering the COST. Cost, in economics, is determined by 1) supply and 2) demand, which presumably makes things which are in high demand in lower supply. Well, with advances in technology, things like music are abundantly available no matter what the demand is, so now what do we do, impose scarcity - do we artificially lower supply to raise the cost and "value" of music? Forget about it! Money is the problem, and with it, this desire to "own" scraggy rather than sustain abundance and "access" to those things. Copyright is a part of this paradigm, one that I simply don't believe to be relevant to the changes taking place in the world.

Here's where I will seperate the two issues you talked about earlier: Making money and owning music.

Problem comes with plenty of reasons, and in all honesty my irk with copyright abandance lies more in the '(whateverish) moral' sense, rather than the economical, regardless of my earlier posts. Yes, it's true that it helps make money (and there's no other way to do it really, if you let go of any monetary value in music: Nobody is going to pay for nobody, so I'm out of a job immediately!), but it doesn't help, and the bullshit from RIAA is not helping anyone! (Yes, it's a contradiction to what I've been saying I know that). Same goes for your example of Smoke on the water (btw, bliah tune... so old... can't you come up with something more decent to give them? :D).

I mean really, are we not allowed to... whistle a tune while taking a bath? Or play a tune on teh piano because we like it? There's a line somewhere there... It's music, everybody can hum it, play it, etc. Not circulate it around for whatever reason, but still...

I teach middle school children how to play music. They like popular tunes like Smoke on the Water and Ironman, but existing arrangements of these works are above their abilities. These arrangements are copyrighted and it is therefore illegal for me to arrange these tunes without permission from the publisher. Yet, my students want to learn how to play these tunes. I could actually use a simpler version to give them this experience and improve their skills. If the publisher doesn't agree to my arranging the tunes to the playing ability of my students, do I violate copyright anyway and give them the opportunity, or do I just tell them, "Sorry, it's a copyright issue...?"

First of all I would strongly assume that this falls into the 'fair use' clause of the copyright law, and you wouldn't have a problem, so you're basically drawing a strawman here, but anyhow:

As I said above, there's a limit to what copyright should or not should do. I'm totally against DRM, I'm very much in favor of open source software (heck, I did my whole PhD in Open Office and donated a fair amount to various open source projects and others... BTW, if you remember a thread about recording the piano, etc, I was the one who started offering money to the guy offering to record the piano works, for a lost mic... ;)). And I'm very much in favor of education, whatever the cost!

That said there is also a limit to what one can do with a piece of music. But you can't relate cause you don't compose like your life depended on that, while I do!

Seriously, this is a real world, legitimate example of how copyright is such an unnecessary obstacle. Even buying the arrangement and re-arranging the parts creates a new "arrangement" of the tune, a derivative work, and without permission to do this is infringement. So, yeah, screw copyright.

Read my first paragraph. Take up Ave Maria and make it a soundtrack for a porn movie! By all means! But if Ave Maria was YOUR tune, how would you feel? Would you feel that you're possing an unnecessary obstacle? Or feel strongly about not having your Ave Maria played while Dark Angel was having @n@l...

Heh... if I'm "out of [your] loop," all the better for me. I'd prefer an open-source world to whatever you call this "loop" of yours. Ready my earlier comment on the loop: You don't compose for a living, so you don't give a scraggy to enter MY shoes!

My point is, if the world is changing, I'm really not interested in holding onto outdated systems stagnating that change. I'm not saying this of Copyright but rather of "needing money" in general. Again, I'm against ownership in general and support changes which make ownership no longer necessary or relevant to society.

Yes, but how am I going to make a living? I simply don't get this! I am 33, and have based all my life in training to be a composer, etc... Give you an alternative that works (without having to work on Wall-Mart), and then we can discuss further.

And I won't keep composing, although I have a dire need to do, despite my look as a dry professional, if I can't solidify some kind of income. why should I? Would you keep teaching if someone said you wouldn't get paid at all for the next few years, or until something else would change?

Uhm... doctors take the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm (including inaction). This means a doctor is ethically bound to save a life if they possibly can. In the states, you're not obligated to be treated for a medical condition if your vital signs are stable. This sucks for people with cancer who remain stable until their cancer makes them unstable, at which point any treatment for cancer is too little too late. Refusing service is a fuzzy issue in the states for a plethora of reasons that would take days to discuss. How about we stick to the topic at hand for now, shall we?

No... let's discuss it from another angle instead:

You missed the point, yet again: You CAN refuse service, can't you? In most cases (even doctors, which does apply in the States and I very well know that). So why can't I refuse you listening to my tunes? Basic copyright issue... :D (which I actually can't if you've bought, downloaded, heard on the radio, whatever the tune).

Refusal of service. Don't like it? It's like ownership, isn't it?

Again with the money... ugh. I don't know why I wasted time responding (mostly out of respect for a long inquiry), but I hope some of my reply gets through to you.

Well, you have your salary, I don't. I need my clients to know that they will be able to make a living in order to hire me. Basic economics in the simplest of sense. How can they secure that?

Really, you're are pissing all over from your safe ground of being a teacher... Your salary, your pension plan, etc... You don't care the bit for others, yet you seem to claim for freedom of copyright, etc...

EDIT: Switched too Italics after the middle, cause YC forum won't let me use so many quotes! :D bliah...

Actually let me be very clear.

I find little wrong to someone downloading an mp3, or a score or something. It's natural and it's a substitute to getting it right on your own. I mean is it illegal to listen to a song on the radio and then playing it on the piano on my own? I hardly think so.

I feel very bad for DRM: I hate the damn thing.

I dislike pirate control and dongles, iLoks and the such: They are trouble for legit users.

I'm a huge supporter of free education and free open source software. I use plenty of those, have donated, and I hope I have offered a lot of knowlegde in this and other forums (music related of course).

That said I understand that a work can be like a child: Despite monetary issues, or other, it still remains 'yours' somehow. You can't really stop someone from (mis)using your work, but this doesn't mean that we should let go of all ownership notion in art/music. At least I don't think so.

And money does come into play. If I am to put a large sum of money into learning, producing and circulating my music, I should somehow get that sum back, plus more to put back into making more music. Related with copyright or not (copyright is a tool after all), it remains valid, whether Antia likes it or not. You want to disolve all copyright and expect the composers to keep composing? Find some other way to get them money, in order to concetrate on what they should be doing.

Then again this would probably lead to the abolishment of all values: The audience are the best judge of music, despite academics, semantics and other. Take that away and put the government in charge and see what happens. Clasical music is no exception: What remained of the old times is what the audience and pros alike decided to keep "alive". The rest has been burried. From all the composers funded by kings and nobles, only a part has travelled through time!

Me: "I'm against ownership in general, so copyright really isn't something I support."

Nikolas: "Copyright is necessary for people like me to make money."

Me: "That's fine. It's necessary because of the way our society is now, but I don't support the way society is now and prefer the changes taking place that will make things like copyright no longer necessary. I see no reason to change my mind about copyright."

Nikolas: "You're pissing in my cereal. You're a teacher earning a salary. I need copyright to make a living as a composer."

I know it's not quoted exactly, but uhh... how would you like me to respond exactly? Should I lie and tell you that I think copyright is just "peachy" and recant my views? I'm not going to do that. While copyright and ownership are necessary for you, I don't support copyright. I genuinely believe ownership is detrimental to the human way of life and, more relevant to composition, detrimental to creativity. I'm still -not convinced- to believe otherwise. Sorry.

Can we please put the thread back on the rails now?

Ownership is the basis of a capitalist society.

Motivation for creativity dies without ownership.

I believe Shaun is against the absolute control over OTHER composers' creative purposes for making derivative works. Which I tend to agree with.

I believe Shaun is against the absolute control over OTHER composers' creative purposes for making derivative works. Which I tend to agree with.

Actually me too, as I hope is evident from my huge posts...

Problem with Shaun is that he tends to over generalize and make wrong assumptions about someone, or someone's sayings... Anyhow... there's another thread about this discussion now.

Ownership is the basis of a capitalist society.

Motivation for creativity dies without ownership.

Ownership is the basis of every social model, not just capitalist.

The question to ask of each model is "what" can (or could) be owned as well as "who" can own.

And take care when we discuss things like "motivation" that we're not treating it like a constant of capitalism. All motivation boils down to is the "desire" to do something. We can be motivated to create many things without ever "owning" those things. Motivation for creativity hardly "dies" without ownership.

Problem with Shaun is that he tends to over generalize and make wrong assumptions about someone, or someone's sayings...

I stated my beliefs on the topic, you argued with me about my beliefs and failed to persuade me to change my mind, and now you're making blatant statements goading me into continuing this farce of a discussion.

I really don't appreciate being trolled, Nik. Move on.

Ownership is the basis of every social model, not just capitalist.

Allow me to amend my statement:

private/personal ownership is the basis of a capitalist society.

We can be motivated to create many things without ever "owning" those things. Motivation for creativity hardly "dies" without ownership.

No, but it suffers. That's why socialism always fails. When something is owned by everybody, it is owned by nobody.

Allow me to amend my statement:

private/personal ownership is the basis of a capitalist society.

You cannot simply "own" something and say, "I have a capitalist society"... there must be some form of exchange in value among members and institutions of a capitalist society. Otherwise, there is revolt among those with less against those with more, and society collapses.

No, but it suffers. That's why socialism always fails. When something is owned by everybody, it is owned by nobody.

"Always" fails? China is doing just splendidly, and they aren't a "Capitalist" society by any means - they are far more socialist coming out of communism than the United States that was founded on principles of the Roman Republic and Democracy. Care to amend this as well?

"Always" fails? China is doing just splendidly, and they aren't a "Capitalist" society by any means

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform

I only post the wikipedia because the point is evident. China's rise since the 70's is largely due, like Russia's rise in the 80's, to economic and social liberalization.

- they are far more socialist coming out of communism than the United States that was founded on principles of the Roman Republic and Democracy. Care to amend this as well?

Panis et circensis. QED. No one funds the Super Bowl except private parties. Much of our agricultural stuff is to limit, not share, food production.

On topic - there's fair use, people. It's education; to a degree, it's derivative works; it's personal use; it's tons of legal battles to define it specifically; it's different in every country.

I find the copyright debate to be foolish. Firstly, open-source contracts tend to set copy rights; but more importantly, there's no reason why shareware, freeware, open-source, and proprietary need to be opposed. I don't sell my music -- it's partly a gay "Ahm an Ahhhrtiste!" but it's also that I'm, like AntiA, not in Nikolas's position. I don't want to make money, I just want to write music.

http://en.wikipedia....economic_reform

I only post the wikipedia because the point is evident. China's rise since the 70's is largely due, like Russia's rise in the 80's, to economic and social liberalization.

From the wiki...

"The Chinese economic reform (simplified Chinese: 改革开放; traditional Chinese: 改革開放; pinyin: Gǎigé kāifàng, literally Reform and Opening) refers to the program of economic reforms called "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" in the People's Republic of China (PRC) that were started in December 1978 by reformists within the Communist Party of China (CPC) led by Deng Xiaoping...

"...For 2010, China was ranked 140^th among 179^th countries in Index of Economic Freedom World Rankings, which is an improvement from the preceding year."

I think this points out that China is a Socialist nation, at least at this point, thus disputing the claim that Socialism always fails.

On topic - there's fair use, people. It's education; to a degree, it's derivative works; it's personal use; it's tons of legal battles to define it specifically; it's different in every country.

Arranging a piece of music for your ensemble after purchasing the parts and score of the tune is still creating a derivative work. It's not like the copyright Nazi's are going to come breaking down the door demanding millions in damages over it, but as a technicality, it's not clearly defined as "fair use."

I find the copyright debate to be foolish. Firstly, open-source contracts tend to set copy rights; but more importantly, there's no reason why shareware, freeware, open-source, and proprietary need to be opposed. I don't sell my music -- it's partly a gay "Ahm an Ahhhrtiste!" but it's also that I'm, like AntiA, not in Nikolas's position. I don't want to make money, I just want to write music.

To be fair about it, though, I don't live in a country that supports the arts nearly as well as Nikolas either. It's not to excuse myself from the pursuit entirely, since if I could live primarily off of composing music I would. Composition just isn't a practical pursuit for (presumably) the breadwinner of a family of four in the United States, at least for the majority of composers who are primary breadwinners for their families.

Also, for me at least, it's not a case of wanting or not wanting to make money. I see "earning income" as a necessity, not a desire. It's a condition that I am forced to comply with, meaning my pursuits in life are restricted to anything I can do that provides an income, whether I enjoy doing it or not. The "Ahm an Ahhhrtiste!" mentality never made sense to my interests in composing music. I just don't really care one way or the other if my music earns money or not because it's of far greater meaning to me personally than fiscally.

I only post the wikipedia because the point is evident. China's rise since the 70's is largely due, like Russia's rise in the 80's, to economic and social liberalization.

This x100.