Music Libraries
- Thread starter DocFox
- Start date
Euphman2
Active Member
Thank you Peter. I used the term unperson as Orwell used it and you have correctly interpreted how I meant it to be used.
Bearing in mind my past defence of the Doc against others, I fail to see why he is so vitriolic towards me and for the record, I cannot fathom how a musical observation can turn into a discussion involving Christianity and Hitler unless Monty Python has written something new!
DocFox
Well-Known Member
Peter missed the quote. Hmmm... Again Euphman2, I apologize for reading too much into it. I wish you just would have explained yourself, as I asked a question (with a question mark). I said I wanted to shut the door on this, and again you bring it up. You could have thanked Peter in a PM.
It is April 3rd. I have been back on this board 3 days. This is too much. The only way for me to have a stiff upper lip is to be gone. Euphman2, unless shamed into it, will never apologize for calling me "unhuman." I put my toe in the water. I do not like it. See you next month with the radio station update.
Euphman2
Active Member
Sorry that you cannot tell the difference between unperson and unhuman. Another difference between English and American English?. I replied to your original post thinking it might be a sensible debate or discussion. Obviously I was totally wrong. Goodbye.
MoominDave
Well-Known Member
Right, shall we draw a veil over this lengthy and painful to watch misunderstanding with a bit of setting the record straight:
At no point did Euphman2 use the term "unhuman". Here's their list of TMP posts. Go down the list, observe that this word never appears (not a hard task). They did not post it. End of.
They did write:
Jim Fox, you are missing out if you have never read any Orwell. He was not just a fiction writer, but a philosophical man of strong ethics who used fiction to dramatically illustrate the dangers of certain ways of political thinking. The work of his being referenced by Euphman2 is the very famous "Nineteen Eighty-Four". The Wikipedia link does a good job of summarising the novel, but essentially it warns of the dangers of totalitarian regimes. People in it are forcibly psychologically manipulated by their government to love what is going on - the novel's central protagonist Winston Smith undergoes a brutal journey from tentative thoughts of rebellion against his situation to traumatised enthusiasm for it. Reading it leaves one with a very uneasy vivid sense of what living somewhere like North Korea must be like, where the state takes a forcefully overbearing interest in the minutiae of the lives of its citizens.
In this novel an "unperson" is a person that fell foul of the state, was erased from records and is now forbidden to be mentioned. It is not a term that I would use here in such a way, and it was a weirdly overreactive comment for Euphman2 to make, regardless of personal history. It is blatantly obvious from context that they simply intended the meaning "I shall be ignoring you now, as I don't like the way you are interacting with me", not intending to reference the more sinister undertones of the term. But even with the sinister undertones attached, it does not mean "unhuman" at all. As they've since gone on not to ignore DocFox, they evidently weren't very set on ignoring him, so I would suggest that the only sensible way to proceed is for all parties to chalk this up to a foolish misunderstanding without further rancour, and stop talking about it... Having "standing up to bullies" as a goal is a fine attribute, but DocFox seeing bullying where none exists is proving a real problem in this thread - the standing up becomes bullying itself when it occurs in a place where bullying isn't occurring.
Everyone happy to just drop it and start talking about music libraries again, if there's anything more to say on the subject?
At no point did Euphman2 use the term "unhuman". Here's their list of TMP posts. Go down the list, observe that this word never appears (not a hard task). They did not post it. End of.
They did write:
Jim Fox, you are missing out if you have never read any Orwell. He was not just a fiction writer, but a philosophical man of strong ethics who used fiction to dramatically illustrate the dangers of certain ways of political thinking. The work of his being referenced by Euphman2 is the very famous "Nineteen Eighty-Four". The Wikipedia link does a good job of summarising the novel, but essentially it warns of the dangers of totalitarian regimes. People in it are forcibly psychologically manipulated by their government to love what is going on - the novel's central protagonist Winston Smith undergoes a brutal journey from tentative thoughts of rebellion against his situation to traumatised enthusiasm for it. Reading it leaves one with a very uneasy vivid sense of what living somewhere like North Korea must be like, where the state takes a forcefully overbearing interest in the minutiae of the lives of its citizens.
In this novel an "unperson" is a person that fell foul of the state, was erased from records and is now forbidden to be mentioned. It is not a term that I would use here in such a way, and it was a weirdly overreactive comment for Euphman2 to make, regardless of personal history. It is blatantly obvious from context that they simply intended the meaning "I shall be ignoring you now, as I don't like the way you are interacting with me", not intending to reference the more sinister undertones of the term. But even with the sinister undertones attached, it does not mean "unhuman" at all. As they've since gone on not to ignore DocFox, they evidently weren't very set on ignoring him, so I would suggest that the only sensible way to proceed is for all parties to chalk this up to a foolish misunderstanding without further rancour, and stop talking about it... Having "standing up to bullies" as a goal is a fine attribute, but DocFox seeing bullying where none exists is proving a real problem in this thread - the standing up becomes bullying itself when it occurs in a place where bullying isn't occurring.
Everyone happy to just drop it and start talking about music libraries again, if there's anything more to say on the subject?
Slider1
Active Member
I believe the use of the word " Orangejuice" might have had something to do with it.
Mesmerist
Well-Known Member
We have a new librarian who has turned from cuddly percussionist to ferocious Sgt Major now he has the job. All our packs have the correct music (photocopy) whilst the pristine originals stay safely in the properly purchased pack. Packs are put out on our seats on arrival and collected in at the end of the rehearsal. If we want to take a part home we have to photocopy the photocopy so no parts get lost. Some players moaned and the rule relaxed (the thought of all those extra parts) but I think he may be right. Some of us *cough* are mightily disorganized and it's frustrating when we waste time waiting for someone to rifle through piles of stuff.
Slider1
Active Member
GJG
Well-Known Member
I can understand the reasoning behind this, (even thought I believe it's technically still illegal unless you have the publisher's express permission) but out of interest, what do you do at a contest? All contests have rules that say the use of photocopied parts is a disqualification offence, and the majority of players that I know will end up with a significant number of pencil markings on their part by the time contest day comes around. Does someone have to transfer all the markings to the original copy so it can be used on the day? Someone once told me that it's OK to use a copied part on the stand at a contest provided you also have the original part with you, however I wouldn't stake my life on that information being correct ...
Last edited:
Slider1
Active Member
Send it airmail. I have not had a beer in 20 years and it is something I miss. Some will not believe this, I have never been drunk (an alcoholic father who beats you has a strong influence). But I would have a pint every so often. I have been on a medication (a life important one) that does not allow me to drink.
Maybe we should stick to darts.
Here we go again, Regarding "a brew" in ENGLISH is normally taken as a Cup Of Tea
jobriant
Active Member
"Doc Fox" is mistaken in this statement. Under US copyright law, printed sheet music is considered to be a consumable item -- one that will eventually become worn out, lost or destroyed and which will thus need to be replaced. For that reason, making copies in order to preserve the originals is illegal under US Copyright Law.
jobriant
Active Member
Another mis-statement of fact by Doc Fox. The Sousa family did no such thing. Sousa compositions that were copyrighted in 1922 or earlier in the USA are now in the Public Domain. Those copyrighted in 1923 or later remain under copyright protection.
DocFox
Well-Known Member
Hmm ... not what they taught us in school - that you could make a copy for your own organizations use if you bought a legal copy (fair use has to fit somewhere). It was not in the law, it was an appellate decision I read the information. Lots of decisions have been passed down. There are hundreds of books on copyrights and their uses. Lots of case law. I did an inter-library search and still did not find a definitive answer. I found all kinds of references. This from the Duke Law Journal "Technological advances in the fields of photocopying and information storage and retrieval .... (has stimulated) a thorough congressional review of copyright legislation. In addition to specific provisions, ... resulting legislation ... codifying (the) previously nonstatutory concept of "fair use."
Mr. O'Briant, you play in an orchestra. Some of the top orchestras use electronic "folders". Do they buy two copies so they can use these devices? I am not going to turn this into a college course. I am not going to spend hours trying to interpret the "fair use" parts of the copyright laws. There are lawyers who make that a specialty and yet do not know every part of the law. Since the Sonny Bono Act of 1998 the copyright and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1999, the copyright law is difficult to simply say "yes" or "no" to and takes a lawyer to understand.
If you want a course that is bulletproof on copyright, I could write a book. But in my quick research, "fair use" in most cases makes me right. But I am not a lawyer, or enough of a know-it-all to presume I am always right. I at least try to be polite.
Mr. O'Briant, you direct a brass band in the United States. I run a radio station and a website that's primary purpose to promote brass bands. I think I could be treated with a little respect.
You are right about Sousa. John Phillip Sousa IV thought about putting everything into the public domain (hence the article I read). He did put a previously undiscovered march into the public domain. Without the draconian measures in the Sonny Bono Act, all his works would be in the public domain by now and so would Mickey Mouse.
Many of you will be happy to hear this. This is my last post. People can say what they want, and call it fact. People can and do call me names, and a guess that is fine. I was just going to post the radio results. Nope. I am done completely
Mr. O'Briant, you play in an orchestra. Some of the top orchestras use electronic "folders". Do they buy two copies so they can use these devices? I am not going to turn this into a college course. I am not going to spend hours trying to interpret the "fair use" parts of the copyright laws. There are lawyers who make that a specialty and yet do not know every part of the law. Since the Sonny Bono Act of 1998 the copyright and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1999, the copyright law is difficult to simply say "yes" or "no" to and takes a lawyer to understand.
If you want a course that is bulletproof on copyright, I could write a book. But in my quick research, "fair use" in most cases makes me right. But I am not a lawyer, or enough of a know-it-all to presume I am always right. I at least try to be polite.
Mr. O'Briant, you direct a brass band in the United States. I run a radio station and a website that's primary purpose to promote brass bands. I think I could be treated with a little respect.
You are right about Sousa. John Phillip Sousa IV thought about putting everything into the public domain (hence the article I read). He did put a previously undiscovered march into the public domain. Without the draconian measures in the Sonny Bono Act, all his works would be in the public domain by now and so would Mickey Mouse.
Many of you will be happy to hear this. This is my last post. People can say what they want, and call it fact. People can and do call me names, and a guess that is fine. I was just going to post the radio results. Nope. I am done completely
jobriant
Active Member
What you describe may have been the case when you are in school, but there have been many changes to copyright law over the years. I co-own and operate a website (not music-related), and thus I work with copyrighted information on a daily basis. Our Intellectual Property attorney assures me that what I stated above -- that using copies in order to preserve originals -- is not in compliance with current copyright law in the United States.
The orchestra in which I play uses printed sheet music that we either rent, purchase or borrow. I have know knowlege of the licensing process for the electronic "folders" you describe, though I know that they exist.
When have I been impolite to you? You made two mis-statements of fact, and I replied with correct information. If I didn't sugar-coat that enough for you, I'm sorry.
Does that mean that nobody should ever disagree with anything you say?
I have written NOTHING disrespectful to or about you.
When did I call you any names?
To me, at least, you create the impression that anyone who disagrees with you is showing you disrespect. I believe this tells us all much more about you than it does about us.
mikelyons
Supporting Member
I am given to understand that using copies is allowed if it is to assist someone with poor eyesight. For example, I find that publishers who try to squeeze too much music onto too few pages makes the music practically unreadable to me. I usually sibelius any such copies and make them large enough for me to read easily. This often seems to result in anything up to 3 extra pages (and page turns.) I hand these copies in to the librarian after use in case we play out the piece again at another gig or contest. Certain BB publishers seem obsessed with creating microscopic music.
In defence of the Doc's maybe OTT reaction the statements in responses #53 and #54 did seem a bit bald and abrupt to me too : "Doc Fox is mistaken is this statement" and "another mis-statement of fact by Doc Fox".
I'm not taking sides or commenting on the accuracy of the details offered by either side - I'm very interested in hearing informed comment and appreciate that the details are both complex and open to interpretation - nor am I claiming to be a better poster myself. What I am trying to do is point out why someone who has earlier suffered considerable undue attack on this forum, and IMHO is now oversensitive to comments, might take offence when non was actually intended.
I'm not taking sides or commenting on the accuracy of the details offered by either side - I'm very interested in hearing informed comment and appreciate that the details are both complex and open to interpretation - nor am I claiming to be a better poster myself. What I am trying to do is point out why someone who has earlier suffered considerable undue attack on this forum, and IMHO is now oversensitive to comments, might take offence when non was actually intended.
jobriant
Active Member
"... maybe OTT reaction..."??? I'd call it completely out of proportion to any slight, intended or otherwise.
If I'd called him stupid or demeaned his experience in the Brass Band world, he might have had reason to jump down my throat. But I didn't. I disagreed with two statements that he presented as fact, but which were not accurate. In a subsequent private message to me he insisted once again that performing from copies to save the originals is legal in the USA because he learned that in school. I don't know when he went to school, but the law and the case law on this (which he claims to know inside-out) have changed.
I will add here that my statement in reply # 53 states clearly that I was writing about copyright law in the USA. It may vary in other countries; I make no claim to knowing all the details of copyright in countries other than the USA, though I have some knowledge (which comes from purchasing brass band music from publishers outside the USA).
Incidentally, in that same private message, Doc Fox admitted that I was absolutely correct in my statement about the Sousa copyrights. I see no such admission here, in public.