Stu Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 ... Again, IMO, never. Especially if the corps has been rehearsing/performing the show as originally written. I can't imagine being in Madison and having Robert Smith and the rest of the staff sitting me down during everydays and telling me that the badassed closer that we have to our show, the whole "rejuvenation" part, has to be changed. I would think that this would do far more damage to the kids. And it's all about the kids, right? ;P So, how would you explain to the youth that this great institution called the Madison Scouts, one with a proud tradition of honor, is choosing instead to purposely break the law; and thus placing the corps into financial ruin by the huge fines which would ensue if you continued on that path? Would in not be far better to inform the youth that the Madison Scouts organization has been, and always will be, and honorable institution; and while unfortunate, to keep that honor the current youth are going to have to step up and learn a new portion of the show? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 People have often talked about the 33% rule (change something by 33% and you no longer have to worry about copyright infringement). That is a misnomer. There is no such rule. I suggest that you read the law itself. You can find it here: http://copyright.gov/title17/ Thanks! I appreciate you taking the trouble to post those links. The Batt vs. Cage case is most interesting to read about. (As that was a dispute in Britain that was never resolved in court, does it hold any weight in Americans law?) As for the second link, I'm sorry to say I don't have time to read or even search the entire U.S. copyright code right now for the relevant text; is there any chance you could point me to just the section that clarifies whether, say, any post-1948 composer who's written music including silence has in fact infringed on John Cage's work? Or if a minimum amount of silence is required? Or if only an explicitly-titled section of silence counts? Does it only matter if the title is similar to 4'33"? What if it's called 4'32" and scored for bagpipe instead of piano? What if it's called 4'31" and includes completely different instructions in the score from Cage's? Or four movements intead of three? Would a silent flute sonata titled "Nightingale with Laryngitis" bring down the wrath of the Cage estate? Does John Cage own silence? Or named silence? Does his work infringe on all the composers who previously used shorter bits of silence in their works? How about a work of silence titled 4'33": A Parody -- is that protected by fair use? Whoa, sorry, got carried away there. No need to answer any of that. Just idle musing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 The more apt question, IMO, is at what point should a corps director pull the plug on a selection when it starts becoming apparent they might not get the rights? Again, IMO, never. Especially if the corps has been rehearsing/performing the show as originally written. I can't imagine being in Madison and having Robert Smith and the rest of the staff sitting me down during everydays and telling me that the bad-###ed closer that we have to our show, the whole "rejuvenation" part, has to be changed. I would think that this would do far more damage to the kids. And it's all about the kids, right? So, how would you explain to the youth that this great institution called the Madison Scouts, one with a proud tradition of honor, is choosing instead to purposely break the law; and thus placing the corps into financial ruin by the huge fines which would ensue if you continued on that path? Would in not be far better to inform the youth that the Madison Scouts organization has been, and always will be, and honorable institution; and while unfortunate, to keep that honor the current youth are going to have to step up and learn a new portion of the show? I took OrlandoContraAlum's argument not to be in advocacy of illegal activity, but to claim that the artistic integrity of the *properly licensed* live performance trumps the status of the unsecured synchronization license. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrlandoContraAlum Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 So, how would you explain to the youth that this great institution called the Madison Scouts, one with a proud tradition of honor, is choosing instead to purposely break the law; and thus placing the corps into financial ruin by the huge fines which would ensue if you continued on that path? Would in not be far better to inform the youth that the Madison Scouts organization has been, and always will be, and honorable institution; and while unfortunate, to keep that honor the current youth are going to have to step up and learn a new portion of the show? Except that they are NOT breaking the law. They asked for, paid for, and received the rights to arrange and the mechanical rights. How exactly are they breaking the law again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrlandoContraAlum Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 I took OrlandoContraAlum's argument not to be in advocacy of illegal activity, but to claim that the artistic integrity of the *properly licensed* live performance trumps the status of the unsecured synchronization license. This. Thanks. If my original post looked in any way like I was advocating the breaking of the law, that was not my intent. I was simply stating that, as a member of the corps, I would rather perform the show as designed, not change it for the sake of the DVD release (especially since I would be able to at least hear the entire show in APD/CD format). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Thanks! I appreciate you taking the trouble to post those links. The Batt vs. Cage case is most interesting to read about. (As that was a dispute in Britain that was never resolved in court, does it hold any weight in Americans law?) As for the second link, I'm sorry to say I don't have time to read or even search the entire U.S. copyright code right now for the relevant text; is there any chance you could point me to just the section that clarifies whether, say, any post-1948 composer who's written music including silence has in fact infringed on John Cage's work? Or if a minimum amount of silence is required? Or if only an explicitly-titled section of silence counts? Does it only matter if the title is similar to 4'33"? What if it's called 4'32" and scored for bagpipe instead of piano? What if it's called 4'31" and includes completely different instructions in the score from Cage's? Or four movements intead of three? Would a silent flute sonata titled "Nightingale with Laryngitis" bring down the wrath of the Cage estate? Does John Cage own silence? Or named silence? Does his work infringe on all the composers who previously used shorter bits of silence in their works? How about a work of silence titled 4'33": A Parody -- is that protected by fair use? Whoa, sorry, got carried away there. No need to answer any of that. Just idle musing. I find you idle musing to be "amusing" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 (edited) Except that they are NOT breaking the law. They asked for, paid for, and received the rights to arrange and the mechanical rights. How exactly are they breaking the law again? I took it in the way N.E. Brigand thought I took it; that you were advocating breaking the law. My misunderstanding; sorry! However, I do have a question for you: What if, after learning the music and drill, it was discovered permission to arrange, or permission to perform, had been denied. How do you think Robert Smith should approach the corps members with that information? Edited September 9, 2011 by Stu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrlandoContraAlum Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 I took it in the way N.E. Brigand thought I took it; that you were advocating breaking the law. My misunderstanding; sorry! However, I do have a question for you: What if, after learning the music and drill, it was discovered permission to arrange, or permission to perform, had been denied. How do you think Robert Smith should approach the corps members with that information? THAT would be a completely different situation, and yes, I would guess the show would have to be changed. Which opens up a wholly new road down which this discussion can head. A scary one, to be honest. Especially since, as has happened already with Sync rights, what if the permission is given, then rescinded after the fact. :shudder: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 ... what if the permission [in reference to arrange] is given, then rescinded after the fact. :shudder: This is where I really have an issue with the current Copyright Law. Unless a special circumstance can be cited (for example vulgar curse words placed in an arrangement of a child's song after permission to arrange has been given), permissions already approved should not be allowed to be rescinded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrlandoContraAlum Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 This is where I really have an issue with the current Copyright Law. Unless a special circumstance can be cited (for example vulgar curse words placed in an arrangement of a child's song after permission to arrange has been given), permissions already approved should not be allowed to be rescinded. Makes sense to me. Good example, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.