Letter from Tresona

[Kamarag]

Okay, I will not use that term. However, I am not talking about sites that still use Creative Commons Licensing which allows for otherwise copyrighted materials to be distributed free of charge; but with the restriction that those charts cannot be altered. I am talking about uploaded music on the internet by thousands and thousands of indie composers on their own sites or YouTube in which they allow the public to do with as they please.

Right. But that's not "open source" That's just granting an unlimited licence (whether written or otherwise). Legally, if I want to use the music of one of those composers, I still have to request permission (regardless of what the composer stated when he released the music). Not everyone does, but I would for any band I'd write for, and so would any drum corps arranger. It gets even muddier when you get into mechanical, synch, and streaming rights.

Now having said all that, I'd be totally down for a top-to-bottom rewrite of copyright law in this country (and patent and trademark law, for that matter). The digital age has really made things tremendously difficult in ways those laws were never meant to deal with.

[Stu]

On the hand, corps no doubt feel there is a benefit to using music which at least some portion of the audience may already be familiar, in order to make an immediate "connection" with them. Shared cultural touchstones,

Fine and dandy; but the designers should then not complain one iota about the high cost to gain permission to arrange, perform, and record those copyrighted songs in which portions of the audience are already familiar with.

The balancing act is not to rely on the same tired touchstones, and to weave in between some exposure to unknown pieces.

I would not say balancing act, but challenge. And many designers would rather just redo the same tired touchstones than to engage in that challenge of finding the unknown pieces. (again, there is a word that describes that type of behavior; it is called being ... ).

[Stu]

Right. But that's not "open source" That's just granting an unlimited licence (whether written or otherwise). Legally, if I want to use the music of one of those composers, I still have to request permission (regardless of what the composer stated when he released the music). Not everyone does, but I would for any band I'd write for, and so would any drum corps arranger. It gets even muddier when you get into mechanical, synch, and streaming rights.

Now having said all that, I'd be totally down for a top-to-bottom rewrite of copyright law in this country (and patent and trademark law, for that matter). The digital age has really made things tremendously difficult in ways those laws were never meant to deal with.

I see where you are coming from now!!!! The Constitution automatically grants ownership to the original composer. So whether the artist cares about that automatic ownership or not is legally irrelevant. That was certainly a "Well Duh" moment for me!!!

[Kamarag]

I see where you are coming from now!!!! The Constitution automatically grants ownership to the original composer. So whether the artist cares about that automatic ownership or not is legally irrelevant. That was certainly a "Well Duh" moment for me!!!

Don't feel bad...I used to think the same thing. While I think this was really smart on the part of the framers of the Constitution, it certainly is easy to get confused on all this. I actually have to write down what the heck I'm dealing with when it comes to the pieces I've arranged, who owns what, and what the restrictions (if any) are. It's messy.

[perc2100]

Right. But that's not "open source" That's just granting an unlimited licence (whether written or otherwise). Legally, if I want to use the music of one of those composers, I still have to request permission (regardless of what the composer stated when he released the music). Not everyone does, but I would for any band I'd write for, and so would any drum corps arranger. It gets even muddier when you get into mechanical, synch, and streaming rights.

Now having said all that, I'd be totally down for a top-to-bottom rewrite of copyright law in this country (and patent and trademark law, for that matter). The digital age has really made things tremendously difficult in ways those laws were never meant to deal with.

That would be nice, but I suspect too many corporations are OK interpreting seemingly outdated law in ways that benefit them rather than evoke change; heck, our government currently really struggle doing their normal, day-to-day jobs of governing, let alone tearing down/re-writing current law (unless that law benefits millions and was proposed by opposing political party - then the government is OK wasting time passing bills that will always be shot down while doing NOTHING to actually write an alternative bill that may address supposed fundamental problems of old law)

[Kamarag]

That would be nice, but I suspect too many corporations are OK interpreting seemingly outdated law in ways that benefit them rather than evoke change; heck, our government currently really struggle doing their normal, day-to-day jobs of governing, let alone tearing down/re-writing current law (unless that law benefits millions and was proposed by opposing political party - then the government is OK wasting time passing bills that will always be shot down while doing NOTHING to actually write an alternative bill that may address supposed fundamental problems of old law)

The Trans Pacific Partnership treaty that is being shoved down our throats is going to do some nasty things to copyright, trademarks, and patents. The EFF is fighting it, and I dearly hope the TPP is not signed by the president (despite his announcement that he intends to do so).

[skevinp]

I see where you are coming from now!!!! The Constitution automatically grants ownership to the original composer. So whether the artist cares about that automatic ownership or not is legally irrelevant. That was certainly a "Well Duh" moment for me!!!

I don't think the Constitution itself is that specific on the issue, but otherwise yeah.

[Stu]

I don't think the Constitution itself is that specific on the issue, but otherwise yeah.

Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution concerning Arts uses the words "Exclusive Right" as it applies to respective writings; so it actually is that specific.

[skevinp]

Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution concerning Arts uses the words "Exclusive Right" as it applies to respective writings; so it actually is that specific.

I just meant the part about it being "automatically granted", interpreting that to mean the aspect of the right by which it automatically comes into existence upon creation of the work. Congress and/or the judiciary had to play a role in defining it to work that way.

[Stu]

I just meant the part about it being "automatically granted", interpreting that to mean the aspect of the right by which it automatically comes into existence upon creation of the work. Congress and/or the judiciary had to play a role in defining it to work that way.

Oh how I enjoy digging into the minutiae! This is fun, at least for me. And this also shows the difference in the way the Constitution is viewed today by originalists vs. those who adhere to the living and breathing concept. The various writings of Madison indicate that he was likely the leader of those concerned about listing individual rights within the Constitution; and he/they also contended that those rights are automatically provided to us by our Creator. So to understand the original meaning of the term Rights within the Articles, as well as the first Ten Amendments, they should be viewed as much as possible by associating them with other writings from Madison. Thus Article 1 Section 8 (when viewed in that originalist manner) articulates that the Right itself comes into existence at the point a writing is penned by the artist, but it is left up to congress to define just how long that Right can remain "Exclusive". However, I concede that there are plenty of Living and Breathing interpreters who will balk at this belief.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Stu