Letter from Tresona

[GUARDLING]

Agree on that for sure. I am amazed at the budgets I hear about for the national level bands.

I have been with a few bands that budget was crazy high. Great programs for sure and extremely creative ways to NOT depend on the board of ED for a cent.

[MikeD]

Speaking of which, Leoš Janáček's Sinfonietta premiered in 1926, which means that in five years, it finally moves into the public domain. Which corps will play it in 2021?

Been on my annual Regiment request list for years

[Pete Freedman]

Before jumping into the meaning behind Article Eight Section Eight of the Constitution, let’s go back further to establish a basis just like the Founding Fathers did. Was John Locke in error when he penned in 1689 that Life, Liberty, and (Property) are ‘Natural’ Rights?

Locke was one of many Enlightenment thinkers who argued about rights. None of them were assumed bodily into our constitution. The Founders of this country are the Enlightenment thinkers who framed it, and N.E. Brigand has just given you their view on copyright.

Similarly, Garfield suggested basing our system on Atlas Shrugged, a libertarian work. But libertarians often propose the elimination of copyright law entirely! And with some justification given their perspective. Songwriters go to the government whining about other people singing their tunes, and ask the government to pass a grand law enshrining a series of notes as a kind of property. And Keynesian government agrees, but with limitations. This "property" expires, and various uses don't count, including non-profit educational use. Then, people like Keith Hall propose strengthening the existing non-profit education exception (I would call it clarifying) and is treated like a Marxist.

[Stu]

If all you are concerned about is dollars, yes. But if you're concerned about *value*, you may get a different answer.

Value differential is a subjective intangible whereas cost differential is a monetary tangible. Example: There is no denying that a Dry-Aged 8 oz. Kobe Steak at $129 costs more than an 8 oz. Sirloin at $29. However the value of the Kobe costing $100 more than the Sirloin is debatable.

[N.E. Brigand]

Before jumping into the meaning behind Article Eight Section Eight of the Constitution, let’s go back further to establish a basis just like the Founding Fathers did. Was John Locke in error when he penned in 1689 that Life, Liberty, and (Property) are ‘Natural’ Rights?

Sufficiency proviso! Lockean common! Scarcity problem! Nonrivalrous intangibles! Waste prohibition!

No need for the questions. Just make your case. But basically, I'm with Pete on this one.

[N.E. Brigand]

Socialism, even in the music industry, works until you run out of other people's money to give away.

Cliff's Notes of Atlas Shrugged should be passed out at every Bernie rally.

It is a sign of the times that those who have lived in their parent's basement, or sheltered their own kids in their basement, "rise up" to take from others that which they've failed to earn for themselves.

/rant. It's just band.

One of my favorite jokes: ". . . The other, of course, involves orcs."

[Stu]

Locke was one of many Enlightenment thinkers who argued about rights. None of them were assumed bodily into our constitution. The Founders of this country are the Enlightenment thinkers who framed it, and N.E. Brigand has just given you their view on copyright.

Similarly, Garfield suggested basing our system on Atlas Shrugged, a libertarian work. But libertarians often propose the elimination of copyright law entirely! And with some justification given their perspective. Songwriters go to the government whining about other people singing their tunes, and ask the government to pass a grand law enshrining a series of notes as a kind of property. And Keynesian government agrees, but with limitations. This "property" expires, and various uses don't count, including non-profit educational use. Then, people like Keith Hall propose strengthening the existing non-profit education exception (I would call it clarifying) and is treated like a Marxist.

I invite you to read the actual words, both written and spoken, made by the Founding Fathers from September 1787 through August 1788 concerning their views on the construction of the Constitution which exist in a two-volume set called: The Debate on the Constitution; Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification.

Part One: http://www.amazon.com/The-Debate-Constitution-Antifederalist-Ratification/dp/094045064X

Part Two: http://www.amazon.com/The-Debate-Constitution-Antifederalist-Ratification/dp/094045064X

[Stu]

Sufficiency proviso! Lockean common! Scarcity problem! Nonrivalrous intangibles! Waste prohibition!

No need for the questions. Just make your case. But basically, I'm with Pete on this one.

And basically, I am with Locke on this one. So was Jefferson, who penned the Declaration; and while he used the phrase "Pursuit of Happiness" instead of "Property" he also included the phrase "Among These" which indicated that there actually are other Natural Rights not mentioned in that document (example is Property). And most of the Founding Fathers belief structures were grounded on this belief structure during the construction and ratification of the Construction (see links in above posting). While there were hypocrisies concerning Natural Rights these people lived with which needed to be corrected over time (see the 13th amendment as an example), and the Founders did place provisions on limiting the scope these Natural Rights (see due process to take away property, or in the case of arts and sciences a time limitation on exclusive ownership) Property, whether tangible or Incorporeal, was and is considered to be a Natural Right within the belief structure of the Founding Fathers. I do not make my call on this based on my own interpretations, or via judicial case law of interpretation done over the years which have recently been influenced by Nihilistic Existentialism. But my views are based on the actual words of the Founding Fathers concerning their own views of the construction of the founding documents with a direct line of cohesive philosophical connection from the Declaration, through the Constitution, and through the various Amendments.

P.S one can state that the Locke/Founding Fathers philosophical views were/are wrong. But one cannot say with honesty that they themselves considered Property to be anything other than a Natural Right.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Stu

[Pete Freedman]

I figure many public school music teachers may get their advice from NAFME on these matters, so I did some rooting around on their copyright page. Several facts jumped out at me:

1. It itself appears to have been lifted from a booklet that is jointly "sponsored" (not written) by two music publishing interest groups and three music education groups. That sounds very wolves-and-sheep-sleeping-together, but it's fake. On the bottom it says, "The MPA grants permission to photocopy this book of guidelines for distribution." So it wasn't written by a fiduciary for music teachers in any sense. It was written by the copyright owners. So it must be cast in the light most favorable to them. Music teachers have been getting their legal advice from opposing counsel.

2. NAFME is for both profit and non-profit music educators, which makes the advice highly misleading for non-profit educators who would obviously think the phrase "music teachers" refers to them when in fact they have better rules.

3. All copyright issues for music teachers are lumped together in one article, and then each is treated only superficially and confusingly.

4. The advice only mentions non-profit rules when they are quoting (or paraphrasing) the actual non-profit law from Title 17. But this is mixed in with the for-profit content in a confusing way.

5. Under Derived Works (arrangements) there is no mention of non-profit education. This means there is no advice at all on arrangements made for non-profit educational institutions (that I could find).

Again, the law may well side with the copyright holders because of some loophole or court case that effectively nullifies 110 Part 4 and the face-to-face exception, but it seems like these laws are probably there for some reason.

[Stu]

I figure many public school music teachers may get their advice from NAFME on these matters, so I did some rooting around on their copyright page. Several facts jumped out at me:

1. It itself appears to have been lifted from a booklet that is jointly "sponsored" (not written) by two music publishing interest groups and three music education groups. That sounds very wolves-and-sheep-sleeping-together, but it's fake. On the bottom it says, "The MPA grants permission to photocopy this book of guidelines for distribution." So it wasn't written by a fiduciary for music teachers in any sense. It was written by the copyright owners. So it must be cast in the light most favorable to them. Music teachers have been getting their legal advice from opposing counsel.

2. NAFME is for both profit and non-profit music educators, which makes the advice highly misleading for non-profit educators who would obviously think the phrase "music teachers" refers to them when in fact they have better rules.

3. All copyright issues for music teachers are lumped together in one article, and then each is treated only superficially and confusingly.

4. The advice only mentions non-profit rules when they are quoting (or paraphrasing) the actual non-profit law from Title 17. But this is mixed in with the for-profit content in a confusing way.

5. Under Derived Works (arrangements) there is no mention of non-profit education. This means there is no advice at all on arrangements made for non-profit educational institutions (that I could find).

Again, the law may well side with the copyright holders because of some loophole or court case that effectively nullifies 110 Part 4 and the face-to-face exception, but it seems like these laws are probably there for some reason.

Go to the source: http://www.copyright.gov/