Letter from Tresona

[Stu]

Did you know that there is an opera called Scalia/Ginsburg about those two friendly Supreme Court rivals who were also opera lovers? I believe they saw it performed. Does anyone know if the music is suitable for adaptation to drum corps?

As for the rest of your post, rather than get into a political debate, I'm thinking of something else my philosophy professor said, although not in the class I took. I heard it secondhand from a fellow student a semester or two earlier. And looking around the internet, I wonder if he borrowed it from someone else: "Principles are like farts; you hold onto them as long as you can, but eventually, you have to let them go." Which may be distant cousin to some other ideas that C.S. Lewis puts forth in That Hideous Strength and elsewhere, about how as mere humans, what looks to us like immutable natural laws may have some flexibility, being only facets of certain deeper truths.

I knew they were very good friends and both opera lovers; I was unaware of the opera based on that friendship. Too bad most people who disagree professionally to that degree cannot set aside their differences outside of the professional realm for a friendship.

I can also respond to Pete by addressing your second paragraph (and yes this directly relates to copyright law). Principles can chage, and so can our Constitution. The Founding Fathers were very smart. They knew that things would morph over time so they created a way for the Constitution also to morph called amendments. Their intent was to make the Constitution a ‘bedrock’ which was hard to chisel but could be altered with great debate and hard fought effort. And therein is the brilliance; that the Constitution would always be a solid foundation which would not become squishy due to fads, whims, or a select few power hungry individuals trying to circumvent it. So, if the majority of citizens in the entire country now wants to move our government away from the republic side and more toward the democracy side, and move our economic system from the capitalistic side more to the socialistic side then by all means amend the Constitution. At that point I will not bark. The thing is that via the influence of people like Nietzsche, Marx, and Keynes, those seeking power within the United States in the early 1900’s started coming up with ideas to mask the ‘rock’ which is hard to chisel. They did this with claims like the document is actually ‘living and breathing’ not a cold ‘rock’. Thus they do not have to amend with hard fought debate, nope, they just have to convince enough people that since the definitions of the words already penned had changed Soft Marxist Socialism and Keynesian Economics can now be implemented. This bypassing the amendment process has worked so well for them over the years that the ‘living and breathing’ concept is now a staple for Justices like Ginsberg as well as taught as fact in academia by poly-sci and economics professors.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Stu

[Pete Freedman]

The educational exemption has nothing to do with charter vs public schools. In fact, the second a piece is performed publicly, it no longer falls under the educational exemption. The educational exemption only applies to a legally-obtained work to be used in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a non-profit institution in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction. The copyrighted work can be displayed or performed as part of mediated online instructional activities of a governmental body or an accredited nonprofit educational institution. In this case, online access to the display or performance must be restricted to students officially registered in the course or to employees of governmental bodies as a part of their official duties or employment. Also, the content under consideration for use directly must be directly related to the learning goals of the course.

There are a few other restrictions as well, mostly related to the length of the work, how much you can use, and a few other details. For more information, check out this site on Exceptions for Instructors in U.S. Copyright Law.

Here's 110 Part 4:

(4) performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work otherwise than in a transmission to the public, without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage and without payment of any fee or other compensation for the performance to any of its performers, promoters, or organizers, if—

(A) there is no direct or indirect admission charge; or

(B) the proceeds, after deducting the reasonable costs of producing the performance, are used exclusively for educational, religious, or charitable purposes and not for private financial gain, except where the copyright owner has served notice of objection to the performance under the following conditions:

(i) the notice shall be in writing and signed by the copyright owner or such owner’s duly authorized agent; and

(ii) the notice shall be served on the person responsible for the performance at least seven days before the date of the performance, and shall state the reasons for the objection; and

(iii) the notice shall comply, in form, content, and manner of service, with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation;

The above may not format properly.

Now, if there have been no cases interpreting this, then there is no "narrow interpretation". Someone made that up. Non-profit schools should be getting something for free that for-profit schools (such as charter schools) and professional bands must pay for. Or was the committee just chillin', running down the clock to 5:00?

[Pete Freedman]

I knew they were very good friends and both opera lovers; I was unaware of the opera based on that friendship. Too bad most people who disagree professionally to that degree cannot set aside their differences outside of the professional realm for a friendship.

I can also respond to Pete by addressing your second paragraph (and yes this directly relates to copyright law). Principles can chage, and so can our Constitution. The Founding Fathers were very smart. They knew that things would morph over time so they created a way for the Constitution also to morph called amendments. Their intent was to make the Constitution a ‘bedrock’ which was hard to chisel but could be altered with great debate and hard fought effort. And therein is the brilliance; that the Constitution would always be a solid foundation which would not become squishy due to fads, whims, or a select few power hungry individuals trying to circumvent it. So, if the majority of citizens in the entire country now wants to move our government away from the republic side and more toward the democracy side, and move our economic system from the capitalistic side more to the socialistic side then by all means amend the Constitution. At that point I will not bark. The thing is that via the influence of people like Nietzsche, Marx, and Keynes, those seeking power within the United States in the early 1900’s started coming up with ideas to mask the ‘rock’ which is hard to chisel. They did this with claims like the document is actually ‘living and breathing’ not a cold ‘rock’. Thus they do not have to amend with hard fought debate, nope, they just have to convince enough people that since the definitions of the words already penned had changed Soft Marxist Socialism and Keynesian Economics can now be implemented. This bypassing the amendment process has worked so well for them over the years that the ‘living and breathing’ concept is now a staple for Justices like Ginsberg as well as taught as fact in academia by poly-sci and economics professors.

The Lockean bedrock you refer to isn't what you think it is. Locke advocated several limitations on property rights, some of which would be considered marxist today. See Part 3. Property here.

Locke, Jefferson and other "bedrock" enlightenment scholars supported exceptions to copyright. It was not an absolute. There is no reason they would have objected to Section 110 (and other exceptions) in the copyright law.

And who cares? It exists. It's the law, and has been for a long time. Should non-profit teachers not fight for their legal rights under the law? Seriously, start a thread on changing the copyright law to conform to your vision of Lockean principles.

[Jeff Ream]

Again, I agree that nobody forces scholastic bands into engaging in high cost activities; but for the ones who do choose to engage it rings hollow if they complain about the costs of playing in that higher level sandbox.

when longtime costs jump drastically, people will complain. You would

[Jeff Ream]

1. I wouldn't call arranging music "copycats." There is a pretty awesome art to taking a piece of music, adapting it for a completely different style/venue/usage, and making something fresh from it. There are some corps who do some original work (like Blue Devils having Gordon Goodwin write a chart for them the last two seasons), albeit a minority.

2. There is a PLETHORA of risk when it comes to composing a show for drum corps, especially when there are already inherent rubrics and needs for competitive success. Most show concept ideas, I suspect, either come from inspiration from a particular music work, or a broad conceptual idea with a "oh: and this music would be PERFECT for that idea of statues coming to life!" Taking music from scratch is so much more work for everyone involved (designer wise) because you truly don't know what you're going to get until it's done. Also, there is zero connection to the audience with original music, so it could be more difficult connecting with them. Even then, there is plenty of "original" stuff in DCI that is extremely derivative and feels like, say, the poor man's John Williams' "Empire of the Sun" (though even that had wild competitive success as well as approval of the masses). But it is extremely risky.

3. Even original work could have the same copyright issues. If a composer/arranger has an exclusive contract with a specific publishing copy, it's possible that a corps would have to go through a publishing company and pay a fee to them to secure the rights (which the composer would still get a cut of). I don't know if there are any active composers/arrangers in DCI currently that would have that problem, but it could exist.

4. Again, remember this is typically about sync rights: securing the rights to take someone else's art to put on media and sell. Corps DO secure all necessary arrangement/performance rights for live performances. We are essentially in an era where the activity has to ask itself if they are in the primary business of performing live (in which case DCI has been copacetic w/rights holders for quite a while now), or recording DVDs and CDs to sell (which involve more rights secured; which seem to be the primary issues currently). If DCI is indeed focused almost entirely on the live performance/competition aspect, then they are in a fine place I think. For some of us (me included) this sucks, as we don't go to many/any live shows throughout the year. But for plenty of other fans who go to live shows this is not really a big issue.

an to touch on 4, because of past abuses, people want paid for them.

literally 4 notes a few years ago that were added in last minute cost DCI a bundle

[Jeff Ream]

Definitely: in both a good and bad way, IMO

at least Box 6 is smart in that they grant permission by your circuit...you're doing the A class version in WGI? no one else does. YYOu're doing it in TIA only? ok just you

but then again every year Breathe gets trotted out...

[Stu]

when longtime costs jump drastically, people will complain. You would

Honestly, no I wouldn’t. I only complain about costs going up on things in which I am ‘compelled’ to pay for; such as the government increasing my taxes. However, if Publishing Company A skyrockets their permission to arrange fees to a point out of my reach I would just seek out quality music from Companies B, C, etc… to turn into my competition arrangements. If enough people did that it would help other companies competing against Company A make more profit; which in turn would likely cause Company A to rethink their draconian fee increases. Or Companies A, B, C, etc… might not even care at all that they are losing a small clientele base within this niche we call the marching arts so they all raise their permission fees. And if that were the case I would just look into other options like original music or quality stock charts. What I would not do would be to complain about the ebb and flow of the competitive free market.

[garfield]

Intellectual Property Right and Copyright are two different things. The former is an ownership issue, the latter is a right of copy issue (please see all definitions of Copyright).

As for John Maynard Keynes and his philosophy on property: A) He was not born until 1883 and did not come to adulthood until the early 1900’s, well after our Constitution was written. So to claim that our form of government was intended to become a Keynesian Democracy and Economic System is not valid. B) The birth of the social economics philosophies espoused by Keynes originated from the thoughts of Lassalle; though not a Marxist, he did advocate a soft form of Marxism. C) While the term ‘General Welfare’ is written into our founding documents, it must be viewed through the philosophy of Enlightenment just like the Founding Fathers intended. The Founding Fathers never intended for this country to move from a democratic-republic with a capitalist form of economics over to a socialist form of governmental system. D) The desire to push our country into a Keynesian system began mainly with the progressive movement in the early 1900’s; and has since had a profound impact on constitutional interpretation (see differences between say the writings of Scalia and Ginsberg) as well as our educational system. E) And it is the intent of the modern progressive movement to continue moving us away from the Founding Fathers philosophical constructs of Enlightenment with a capitalistic form of economics with little to no governmental intrusion, and to keep us on the path through Keynesian governmental and economic socialistic ideas until the government and economic system is the antithesis of what our Founding Fathers wanted.

Welcome back, Stu.

[garfield]

Did you know that there is an opera called Scalia/Ginsburg about those two friendly Supreme Court rivals who were also opera lovers? I believe they saw it performed. Does anyone know if the music is suitable for adaptation to drum corps?

As for the rest of your post, rather than get into a political debate, I'm thinking of something else my philosophy professor said, although not in the class I took. I heard it secondhand from a fellow student a semester or two earlier. And looking around the internet, I wonder if he borrowed it from someone else: "Principles are like farts; you hold onto them as long as you can, but eventually, you have to let them go." Which may be distant cousin to some other ideas that C.S. Lewis puts forth in That Hideous Strength and elsewhere, about how as mere humans, what looks to us like immutable natural laws may have some flexibility, being only facets of certain deeper truths.

"Life will, um, find a way."

($1 to Jeff Goldblum)

[garfield]

Here's 110 Part 4:

The above may not format properly.

Now, if there have been no cases interpreting this, then there is no "narrow interpretation". Someone made that up. Non-profit schools should be getting something for free that for-profit schools (such as charter schools) and professional bands must pay for. Or was the committee just chillin', running down the clock to 5:00?

Doesn't THIS pretty much exclude drum corps from the discussion anyway?

(4) performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work otherwise than in a transmission to the public, without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage and without payment of any fee or other compensation for the performance to any of its performers, promoters, or organizers, if—

(A) there is no direct or indirect admission charge; or

(B) the proceeds, after deducting the reasonable costs of producing the performance, are used exclusively for educational, religious, or charitable purposes and not for private financial gain, except where the copyright owner has served notice of objection to the performance under the following conditions:

(i) the notice shall be in writing and signed by the copyright owner or such owner’s duly authorized agent; and

(ii) the notice shall be served on the person responsible for the performance at least seven days before the date of the performance, and shall state the reasons for the objection; and

(iii) the notice shall comply, in form, content, and manner of service, with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation;

Edited April 23, 2016 by garfield