Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Media Music

Provider of Free Public Domain Music Re-Opens 142

Posted by kdawson
from the music-wants-to-be-free dept.
Chip Zoller writes "This community took note when the International Music Score Library Project shut down last October, and when Project Gutenberg stepped in to help three days later. I would like to alert you all that our site, IMSLP, has re-opened to the public for good after a 10-month hiatus. All the news updates in the interim can be found linked to the main page. We take great pride in re-opening as it demonstrates our willpower to make the masterpieces of history free to the world; and moreover to make manifest that we will not be bullied by publishers sporting outrageous claims of copyright in a country where they clearly are expired."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Provider of Free Public Domain Music Re-Opens

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @05:03AM (#24013217)
    the ensuing slashdot effect will take it offline for another ten months.
    • by jimmyhat3939 (931746) on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @06:30AM (#24013577) Homepage
      This is what we really need. Yes I know there's software out there for a laptop, and yes I know there are $800 devices for this, but there should be a OLPC type device with a decent sized screen that you can put on your piano or music stand or whatever and grab music off a shared drive or flash RAM card. One of these days people will figure out that people really do want single-purpose devices, like the Tivo or iPod, but for other, less pervasive, uses.
      • by somersault (912633) on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @06:46AM (#24013621) Homepage Journal

        I was going to say that there isn't enough market out there for that type of thing, but actually, there is. Current eBook/ePaper readers are probably too small. I still don't think you're likely to see an A3 sized ePaper device for cheaper than $800 for quite a few years though! You can't have your cake and eat it as they say. That kind of device really would be awesome though, you could even have a foot control to turn the pages, or have the device turn the page for you when it detects the music has reached that part of the page..

        In the meantime, I think a laptop with a 15" or larger screen would do a decent job, and you could pick up a second hand one pretty cheap. Wouldn't have anything like the battery life of an ePaper device though obviously.

        • by Solandri (704621)

          I bought a cheap (~$400) used tablet PC for this. The 12.1" screen is a bit small, but since I specifically got one with 1400x1050 resolution, a full page of sheet music is easily readable. It's got several programmable buttons next to the screen which I've mapped to page forward / page back / next song / previous song. Ideally I'd like some sort of USB foot switch (I've tried a mouse, but it's too easy to click on something or pop up a menu), but for now I can live with tapping a button to turn pages.

          Th

      • by PopeRatzo (965947) *

        Your keyboard to the market's ears.

        I'd buy such a viewer right now, as long as it was less than say, $150, which is approximately the price of a 17" LCD monitor.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Kjella (173770)

        To me it sounds like the solution to your problem is a cheap printer. Or at least that between that and the ones playing it off their laptop screen for free, I don't think there's a market for a specialized device. Standard tablet PC with said software perhaps? Though I've rarely seen those in actual use, so it doesn't surprise me that they're expensive.

      • by CastrTroy (595695)
        The best thing about a device like that, is that you could probably equip it with a microphone and have it automatically flip the page when you reach the end of the current page. Another option would be to have it continuously scroll by, but that might make it a little hard to follow. Hard to say since I don't play music. I guess a third option would be to have it shift one line at a time, as you reached the end of the line. Oh, and a fourth possibility. Have a really short screen, in terms of height, b
  • I have to say it (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Opportunist (166417) on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @05:05AM (#24013231)

    Good luck with that.

    No, really, I mean it. Be prepared to fight the music mafia, worse than you have before. After all, you are presenting a very nasty precedent for them, that copyright on music actually expires and that people can and do make use of it without even asking them first.

    I'm certain, though, that their response will be tu purchase a law that extends copyright in your country, too.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mrbluze (1034940)

      Be prepared to fight the music mafia, worse than you have before. After all, you are presenting a very nasty precedent for them, that copyright on music actually expires and that people can and do make use of it without even asking them first.

      I don't know about that. We're talking about sheet music and stuff that's been around for a LONG time, so it's not really different from what Project Gutenberg is doing - clearly public domain stuff.

      But yes, it's outrageous what people think they can milk money out of. If it were possible, the recording industry would sue you for breathing.

      • by Eternal Vigilance (573501) on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @05:43AM (#24013347)

        If it were possible, the recording industry would sue you for breathing.

        Of course! That violates the copyright on The Police's "Every Breath You Take" and Pink Floyd's "Breathe."

        I really can imagine the folks at RIAA humming "Every breath you take, every move you make, every bond you break, every step you take, I'll be watching you" as they're running deep packet inspections. Kinda creepy to think of that song as an NSA-FISA surveillance theme song. :-(


        I always feel like somebody's watchin' meeeee...

      • Re:I have to say it (Score:5, Interesting)

        by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968@NOspaM.gmail.com> on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @06:27AM (#24013555) Journal
        Sadly,we might as well enjoy it,as they won't be getting anything else as Public Domain is dead. They will simply keep extending the copyrights when it looks like something worth having is close to expiration. By all rights we should be able to listen to Hendrix,Elvis,Joplin, and share them all for free. But as it is now my nephews will be in the ground before any of it even has a chance at expiration,which will never occur. And it is kind of hard to "make your voices heard" and "vote the bums out" when both sides are on the take.


        You know,when I first read the right to read [gnu.org] I thought it was a paranoid fantasy. I now believe like Orwell and Rand RMS has given us a glimpse into the future. I believe that the big desktop PC will eventually go the way of the 8 track,replaced by "media appliances" in the same way that cell phones are phasing out the landlines. When everything ends up hooked to the Internet it won't be hard to have a "WGA" style check done on all your media to check your usage rights,and sites like IMSLP will be relegated to content so old that Henry Ford was still making his Model T and talkies was still a popular name for a movie.


        I truly hope I am wrong,I really do. But with the huge warchests the media corps have to buy our laws,and with the US pushing hard for trade agreements that come with DMCAs for everyone,I honestly don't think I am. But I truly wish them luck,for with the unrivaled greed of these large media companies I think they will need it. And as always this is my 02c,YMMV

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mrbluze (1034940)

          I truly hope I am wrong,I really do.

          Over the years there have been doomsday prophets, one after the other, but most have been wrong. I agree though that we are in for a rude shock if technology tightens enough so that we can't hack it and we can't share stuff anymore. As things stand currently, I think the movement against DRM is strong and healthy and I'm hopeful we'll manage to giver our grandkids a world that still cares and shares, hopefuly more than it does now.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by PopeRatzo (965947) *

          I now believe like Orwell and Rand RMS has given us a glimpse into the future.

          If you're talking about Ayn Rand, she didn't give you a glimpse of anything but her own slightly sick and sad psyche.

          Unfortunately, many of our business-school graduates and young bloggers have read Atlas Shrugged and didn't realize it was more about Ms Rand psychopathology than about reality. Further, those same newly minted MBAs and sad little bloggers like to think of themselves as the Masters of the World, so they bought int

          • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

            by OSXCPA (805476)

            OK, I'll bite... what is it about Objectivism that has so totally pissed you off that you resort to rhetoric and slander? If you disagree with Ayn Rands' views or her objectivist philosophy, surely you can put the argument in a rational form... oh, whoops. Sorry, my bad.

            Like anything written by humans, including so-called 'holy scriptures' of various forms, Rands' work is judged by the behavior of those who espouse it, whether they understand it or not. Tarring her because you met an idiot (or idiots) who o

          • by Blakey Rat (99501)

            Obligatory Bob the Angry Flower comic:

            http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif [angryflower.com]

        • by Kjella (173770) on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @07:29AM (#24013805) Homepage

          I believe that the big desktop PC will eventually go the way of the 8 track,replaced by "media appliances" in the same way that cell phones are phasing out the landlines. When everything ends up hooked to the Internet it won't be hard to have a "WGA" style check done on all your media to check your usage rights,and sites like IMSLP will be relegated to content so old that Henry Ford was still making his Model T and talkies was still a popular name for a movie.

          You think the world is online? You think the world is ever going to BE online? They'd be lucky if they could stop selling Blu-Rays in 100 years or more, in my opinion. Also, anything that doesn't play unsigned music/video is dead on arrival and that's not about to change. They tried putting the cat back in the bag with iTunes/AAC/FairPlay, they tried putting the cat back in the bag with Nlu-Ray/AACS/BD+. I think they're out of options, if you tell people to replace their perfectly working 1080p 7.1 LPCM player that looks and sounds great with something new just so they can try it again it won't work. Try as they may, I don't think they'll ever "unbreak" media.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          We just need to retroactively extend copyright back to the time of the brothers Grimm and we'll see a few corporations change their tune.

    • Re:I have to say it (Score:5, Informative)

      by Alarindris (1253418) on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @05:18AM (#24013271)
      This is sheet music, not actual music files.

      I don't think anyone can really claim to own Bach's Brandenburg Concertos written almost 300 years ago.

      The recordings of his concertos, on the other hand, are a different story.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by NovaHorizon (1300173)
        now.. to get sheet music for a lot of newer music.. and a Google search function to find songs based on note strings.. That way you can figure out that title of that one song that's always stuck in your head.. and all you remember is something like "na na na na NAAAA na na na na" lol
      • What's funny is much of the sheet music I've aquired over the years has copyrights on it, even though much of it was written well over 200-300 years ago. I have piece by Vivaldi that actually says "Do not copy." I'm not sure how they can get away with such things or think anyone will take it serious, but apparently publishers try anyways. I personally dont think I should be paying large sums of money to a publisher to print out a piece they didn't pay for or have any influence in its writing when I can do i
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          What's funny is much of the sheet music I've aquired over the years has copyrights on it, even though much of it was written well over 200-300 years ago. I have piece by Vivaldi that actually says "Do not copy." I'm not sure how they can get away with such things...

          They probably do have some sort of valid copyright on *their layout and presentation* of the music, so directly photocopying could be illegal; you're free to transcribe the notes yourself and then put the result into the public domain or whatever

        • Re:I have to say it (Score:5, Informative)

          by jimicus (737525) on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @06:57AM (#24013665)

          What's funny is much of the sheet music I've aquired over the years has copyrights on it, even though much of it was written well over 200-300 years ago. I have piece by Vivaldi that actually says "Do not copy." I'm not sure how they can get away with such things or think anyone will take it serious, but apparently publishers try anyways.

          IIRC, while the sequence of notes is out of copyright the design and layout of the page on which they're printed isn't. So technically the publisher could well be in the right. IANAL, though.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Solandri (704621)

            IIRC, while the sequence of notes is out of copyright the design and layout of the page on which they're printed isn't. So technically the publisher could well be in the right. IANAL, though.

            So if you read the sheet music, and transcribed the notes into music publishing software like Lilypond [lilypond.org], the copyright wouldn't apply anymore, right?

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by benwiggy (1262536)
          You can play from Vivaldi's original scores, with 17th century musical notation, can you?
          Or are you playing from a modern edition, which a 20th scholar has taken time to translate into something you can read?
      • Re:I have to say it (Score:5, Interesting)

        by wrook (134116) on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @06:20AM (#24013525) Homepage

        I don't think anyone can really claim to own Bach's Brandenburg Concertos written almost 300 years ago.

        You'd think so wouldn't you. But what they do is get an "expert" to reinterpret the score every few years. They write notes, modify some things, etc, etc. I'm not musician, so I can't really comment, but some musician friends of mine really believe that the "new" scores have value.

        Anyway, these new reinterpretations have valid copyright. Yes, you can play the ones from 100 years ago, but as one of my friends said, "Why would you want to. They're horrible." Again, I can't really comment either way except to admit to "not getting it".

        • by slim (1652)

          I think it's analogous to typesetting text. So the order and timing of the notes is not copyrightable, but the way it is presented on the page is.

          If you produced your own illuminated manuscript of some Shakespeare verses, you'd expect copyright on that image.

          As for "why would you want to, they're horrible" - consider reading an original typesetting of a 17th century document -- all funny looking 'S's and 'E's -- versus reading it typeset in a modern font.

        • by oboeaaron (595536) <(moc.cam) (ta) (mwao)> on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @07:12AM (#24013731)

          But what they do is get an "expert" to reinterpret the score every few years.

          There are actually very good musical reasons to do this. Music written or printed 300 years ago looks much different than that published today, and often requires an editor's help to bring it into a form usable by modern performers. To give one example, many instrumental sonatas and other works were written out in "figured bass" notation, which gave the keyboard player only the bass line and numeric symbols representing the harmonies. It was up to the player to improvise the right-hand part. Since very few keyboard players these days can do this, editors of modern editions of Baroque music usually provide a written-out interpretation of the chords, which looks just like normal, modern keyboard music. There are also many notational conventions that have either died out completely, or changed their meaning, which need an expert editor to "translate" them for modern players. In addition, many scores of the time were not published, but circulated in handwritten copies, which often contain many mistakes. Modern editors have to sift through the various copies and make judgments as to which versions are correct. Bach's Well-tempered Clavier is a famous example.

          On the other hand, if you want or need to study the scores as they were written, you want to get an "Urtext" edition, which preserves the original notation as much as possible. Collected editions are presented this way. In the case of the music of J.S. Bach, there are two collected editions, one completed in the 19th century, and the other in the latter half of the 20th. The 19th century edition (Bach-Gesellschaft edition) is now in the public domain and may be copied freely - in fact the Dover editions of Bach are simply reproductions of this edition. The 20th century edition (Neue Bach Ausgabe) is still very much under copyright.

          • by Kalvos (137750)
            Somebody mod this up, please? This is the first accurate representation of the process.
            • by wrook (134116)

              Yes :-) Certainly better than what I posted! To bad I can't rate up the people who respond to me...

          • by grizdog (1224414) on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @08:22AM (#24014139) Homepage
            Everything oboeaaron says is true, but it's more extensive than that. I manage the Gilbert and Sullivan Archive [boisestate.edu], and we have had to put a low priority on sheet music. The only way to be really safe is to go to wherever the original or another uncopyrighted copy is located (in our case usually either the British Museum, the Yale Rare Books Library, or the Morgan Library in NYC), and copy it yourself. This is tedious, and even if a publisher hasn't really added anything substantial to their own copy, they will claim copyright.


            Providing parts and scores would be a useful service for our site to provide, but it's going to remain on the back burner for a while. Along the lines of another thread, it would be great if there were a standard, open format for sheet music. That would provide much more of an incentive for me to pack up my laptop and get some of those parts copied and available.

          • yeah, you're sort of right. basically the publishers bring a new edition out to satisfy some new elitist craze (like urtext) and then pay the music journals to say how good the new edition is.

            my favourite edition of the wtk for example is the orlando morgen edition from 1922(?). he does a great job of collecting all the existing manuscripts for the wtk and producing a really good annotated edition. i have not seen any decent work done on the wtk since then (and in my job as concert pianist and teacher i'
          • I've got the Bach-Gesellschaft edition of the French/English suites on the piano now. It's a perfect example of why other editions exist. It's really quite terrible. It's full of errors and is nearly unplayable. As written it is unplayable, unless you have three hands or can stretch at least a 12th. It's best not to even mention it's treatment of ornaments.

            In contrast, I also have facsimiles of the Cello Suites in Bach's own hand - you can actually play from those once you get used to his handwriting.

      • As a musician it is an amazing library, and it will save me hundreds on purchasing sheet music to play... for example, I can finally get the missing pages of my ancient beethoven sonata catalog back!

      • I dunno...I think the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment [wikipedia.org] totally owns the Brandenburg Concertos. Their recording is truly excellent.
  • by Eternal Vigilance (573501) on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @05:16AM (#24013263)

    But where's all the Metallica?

  • Fantastic (Score:5, Interesting)

    by apodyopsis (1048476) on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @05:23AM (#24013291)
    Fantastic.

    I, for one, would like to thank and congratulate.

    There is no reason why anybody should not be able to download and print copyright free works from 150 years ago, I do - and I am very grateful indeed for the opportunity. Quite apart from that this is a matter of principle - to fight the insidious attempts by labels and corporations to extend copyright and hence earn money even after the original artist is sadly no longer with us.

    Now, if only my piano skills were more up to some of the music. Sigh.

    • Re:Fantastic (Score:4, Insightful)

      by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @07:08AM (#24013711) Homepage Journal

      Now, if only my piano skills were more up to some of the music. Sigh.

      Don't let that stop you, friend.

      Even with a moderately difficult piece, if you work at a small section for, say, a half-hour a day, you'll sit down one day to play it and find that it sounds like music. I'm not saying that as an adult you can learn to play like Glenn Gould, but there's a lot of joy to be had getting a little better, a little at a time.

    • Where did this "for one" meme come from? Just say "I would like to thank you." See how easy that is? No commas, no extraneous words, it's brilliantly simple.

      Personally I think people use the "for one" thing to look like they're bucking the crowd, since the traditional use would be something like: "most people in this city think that kicking puppies is good, but I, for one, think it's terrible!" You set yourself apart from the crowd by having some superior morality.

      The problem is that in stories like this it

      • Yeah, you know, there's just too much subtlety and variety in today's modern English. Not like that fast, efficient Newspeak.

        Your post has nothing to do with good or bad grammar. You're just wasting even more words than you claim the OP was.
      • by maglor_83 (856254)

        Where did this "personally" meme come from? Just say "I think people use the "for one" thing to look like they're bucking the crowd." See how easy that is? No extraneous words, it's brilliantly simple.

  • by dido (9125) <dido@imperi[ ]ph ['um.' in gap]> on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @06:02AM (#24013429)

    I tried to get the score for the Dies Irae for Mozart's Requiem in D Minor (K. 626). I got this instead:

    You have reached this page because the file you requested has not been reviewed for copyright, or is currently restricted due to technical reasons.

    A significant portion of the original IMSLP is still pending copyright review, so expect the number of blocked files to decrease dramatically in the next few months after IMSLP reopening. More details on how to spot a blocked file without having to click on it will be released here very soon.

    Maybe they should have waited a couple more months when this type of message gets less common.

  • Lilypond (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ageforce_ (719072) on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @06:10AM (#24013471)
    Sad they do not promote Lilypond more. Many PDFs on the site have been typeset using Lilypond, but only the PDFs are available.
    Lilypond: http://lilypond.org/ [lilypond.org]
    • by Solandri (704621)
      What's needed is some sort of OCR software that will convert scanned sheet music into Lilypond format.
  • Mutopia (Score:3, Informative)

    by ageforce_ (719072) on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @06:14AM (#24013503)
    Can somebody explain the difference between IMSLP and Mutopia ( http://www.mutopiaproject.org/ [mutopiaproject.org] )?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      As far as I can see, the main differences are that (1) IMSLP has a much better selection, and (2) its files are PDFs containing scanned images, rather than say Lilypond/Finale/Sibelius/midi files, and are therefore about 500 times the size.
      • Re:Mutopia (Score:4, Informative)

        by Jeremy Visser (1205626) on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @09:53AM (#24015085) Homepage

        Correct.

        Mutopia's music is exclusively in LilyPond format, which basically means that not only can you print out the music, you can convert it to midi, transpose it to a different key (if you played a different instrument with a different range, for example) with not much difficulty, and even jam it up a bit.

        IMSLP's music is not necessarily in LilyPond format, so if you wanted to edit it, you'd have to re-input it into a music notation program manually first. (Or possibly OCR it, but that would be pretty shoddy.)

  • How about extending the databse to a storage of midi files of those old music sheets?

  • PRS (Score:5, Interesting)

    by slim (1652) <john@nOspam.hartnup.net> on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @06:38AM (#24013607) Homepage

    My house was a licensed premises in a former life, and yesterday I received a letter from the Performing Rights Society (UK), explaining that if music was played on the premises (whether recorded or performed live) then I was obliged to pay them for a license.

    The letter strongly implies that ALL music is in scope. I just have to decide whether I have the energy and inclination to enter a debate with them about out of copyright works, or works with a permissive license.

    This would all be for my own entertainment. Any suggestions?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      They are notifying you because your house previously had a premises license. However as it's now domestic (I presume) then simply notifying them that it no longer has a premises license and that it is a domestic dwelling should be enough.

      For private accomodation, the PRS can't do anything against you - it's only if it can be heard by the public, then thats when you need to pay them.

      • >They are notifying you because your house previously had a premises license. However as it's now domestic (I presume) then simply notifying them that it no longer has a premises license and that it is a domestic dwelling should be enough.

        Obviously. But it's their job to figure that out. I'd ignore them or send a letter which simply states that you will not be paying licenses for any music played on the premises as they are not public performances (but don't tell them why they're not public). Don't do their job for them.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by slim (1652)

        They are notifying you because your house previously had a premises license. However as it's now domestic (I presume) then simply notifying them that it no longer has a premises license and that it is a domestic dwelling should be enough.

        Well, obviously. Ignoring them is fine. The question is how much fun can be had by entering into a dialogue.

    • Probably a very dumb question :
      If you get a PRS licence, do you still have to buy the CDs you listen to, or can you just play anything downloaded from anywhere?

    • Re:PRS (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MathFox (686808) on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @07:02AM (#24013681)
      Pleas, for our amusement, publish your correspondence with the PRS. (Blacking out your address and if you're in a friendly mood that of the PRS too.) If you don't mind to infringe copyrights, you can publish the letter from the PRS completely.

      Then, publish the URL on Slashdot, so that we have another target for a good slashdotting.

      • by ledow (319597)

        I'm not even sure "copyright" applies to the letter here, either. Received personal correspondence doesn't automatically count. Although, this may vary depending on territory etc. I should imagine that they have to make exceptions for certain things (i.e. I may not be able to scan in an advert I receive as junk mail and post it verbatim online... but then again, I may be able to).

        Otherwise, you'd be in all sorts of stupid situations where threatening letters cannot be reproduced, copies of correspondence

    • by Anonymous Coward

      For a clarification on 'all music': PRS only represent music that's been assigned to them.

      Play some music that ain't.

    • by jimicus (737525)

      My house was a licensed premises in a former life, and yesterday I received a letter from the Performing Rights Society (UK), explaining that if music was played on the premises (whether recorded or performed live) then I was obliged to pay them for a license.

      The letter strongly implies that ALL music is in scope. I just have to decide whether I have the energy and inclination to enter a debate with them about out of copyright works, or works with a permissive license.

      This would all be for my own entertainment. Any suggestions?

      My understanding (ICBW, IANAL) is that copyright on the sequence of notes, the arrangement, the book in which they may be published and any performance of it are all different.

      So you'd either have to play a record which is out of copyright (good luck finding such an old record and hooking up a suitable record player to a modern amp - few modern decks will play at 78RPM) or find 100 year old sheet of music and pay a performer to play that alone.

      In other words, there are exceptions but they're sufficient

      • a wind-up gramaphone

        I read that as wind-up grandma. Something that I briefly imagined grandpa enjoying. Then I felt sick.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by slim (1652)

        So you'd either have to play a record which is out of copyright (good luck finding such an old record and hooking up a suitable record player to a modern amp - few modern decks will play at 78RPM) or find 100 year old sheet of music and pay a performer to play that alone.

        In other words, there are exceptions but they're sufficiently esoteric that it's vanishingly unlikely that anyone will take advantage of them.

        Or music published by the author under a Creative Commons licence [creativecommons.org]. Or my own compositions played by myself. Or folks songs performed by myself without reference to sheet music.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ilovecheese (301274)

      As far as I know, music played in private, for your own personal enjoyment, is not subject to *any* payment of royalties. Only those made in public, and usually those of a commercial nature.

      Since your house was a previous licensed premises, I think all of that gets dismissed since it is no longer a commercial establishment in nature.

      Tell em to kiss off, in my opinion. If they insist, I'd charge them back a monthly fee...

    • Any suggestions?

      Let them come and get you. As annoying as it will be, you have the rare opportunity to make a laughing stock of them.

      Don't forget to send a copy of the letter to your local (or national) newspaper.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Coopa (773302)
      I believe there was a change in licencing laws a few years ago to do with perfomancing and playing music on licenced premises.
      It's not the music you're playing, it's the fact you're playing music makes the the premise an 'entertainments venue' and a different licence is required.
      I remember my local pub wanted to play live music but the planning application and licence application takes into account the local residential area and the entertainments licence was refused.

      I am not a licencing lawyer though.
  • by viking80 (697716) on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @07:36AM (#24013853) Journal

    Imagine how awesome it would be for humankind if all copyrighted material could be accessible to all. All books, art, movies, music etc would be available with a click.

    Here is how we do it:
    Make a global library where everyone can donate a copyrighted work. The library then manages the copy, and make sure only one person can use it at a time. This should be managed like Netflix (which also btw distributes copyrighted material)

    Example:
    1. You rip a DVD to mp4 and upload it,
    2. then place the original in a drawer marked "Archive copy of donated work".
    3. The library registers that it has the license.
    4. Now anyone could download the mp4 to have a copy on the disk, but needed to check out a license to actually view it.

    If a second person donates the same work, no upload is necessary, so skip (1). Only (3) is required (i.e. licensecount++)

    I am sure the with the efficiency of the net, the cost to build up this library to contain everything would be much smaller than the cost to operate current brick and mortar library.

    Also, all the hard software parts is pretty much done/solved: MythTV, Bittorrent, Youtube, and the Netflix algorithm.

    Who will take a stab at this?

    • by VanessaE (970834)
      This leaves out one critical thing: With billions of people having access to the 'net, it's conceivable that millions of people might want the same song at the same time. Who is going to pay for those million copies? Not the users, because by that point, they may as well be buying copies of said song, and then you're back to square one. It works for movies because you're talking about hours of content that is generally watched by any given person once before it is returned. Same for a book. A song is
      • by Reziac (43301) *

        I think the solution is the same one that B&M libraries already use: multiple/regional libraries, with multiple copies of popular works, which can only be checked out as complete works. (Like you can't check out just one song off a CD, or just one page out of a book.)

        IOW, a distributed system, where content can be digitally shifted from one library to another depending on demand, and where checkout periods are similar to B&M libraries -- so you digitally check out a whole CD for a week or two, rathe

      • by prelelat (201821)

        The other question is who pays for the bandwidth as well. Downloading those videos to peoples computers would be very taxing. Would you suggest public funding or ad revenu? I'm sure this is a good idea but would the RIAA and MPAA and other organizations tolerate such a system? At a library they arn't keeping an archive full of originals and handing out backups of movies/books, they are handing out originals. It's an interesting idea and should be looked into but I'm sure theres a ton of red tape that m

    • While this wouldn't change things much for popular content, which people would want at the same time, it seems that for "long-tail" content it would be almost equivalent to making it free as in beer. For example, take some esoteric textbook and make it a free e-book. Anyone can download it, use it, and delete it, which is more or less what would happen with the library scheme.

  • Source for the PDF's (Score:2, Informative)

    by laymusic (140088)
    I think it's unfortunate that they are only allowing .mus (Finale) and .sib (Sibelius) as source formats.

    It would be more in the spirit of a project like this if they allowed open formats like lilypond [lilypond.org] and ABC [redhawk.org]

  • by greyhueofdoubt (1159527) on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @09:54AM (#24015095) Homepage Journal

    Yes, folks, all these FREE public domain HITS can be YOURS!

    -Camptown Races!
    -Amazing Grace!
    -She'll be comin' round the mountain!
    -Ain't we got fun!
    -Anchors Aweigh!
    -Hail, hail the gang's all here!
    -I can dance with everyone but my wife!
    -Mammy o'mine!
    -Row, row, row!
    -Swing low, sweet chariot!

    Yes folks order now and for NO CHARGE you can sing these songs ANYWHERE! Saloons! Public squares! The telegraph office!

    And if you order NOW we'll include at no extra charge:
    -The whiffenpoof song!
    -Stop yer ticklin', jock!
    -Nobody knows de trouble I've seen!
    -It's delightful to be married!
    -I love my wife, but oh you kid!
    -Everybody works but father!

    Don't wait! Call now! DO IT!

    [all real songs]
    [not a troll]

    -b

    • by dbc (135354) on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @01:11PM (#24017977)

      It's interesting that you should pick on "Camptown Races", by Stephen Foster. Foster was pretty much the first person to attempt to make a living as a writer of popular songs. It was a tough slog, mainly due to the fact that his work was widely "pirated" by music publishers. It is in part because of his efforts in the early days that songwriters today actually can make a living writing music.

      BTW -- if you want an intelligent, well-researched, non-corny, sensitive, and exquisitely recorded selection of Stephen Foster works, go here: http://www.joeweed.com/ and look for "Swanee - The Music of Stephen Foster". (Disclaimer: yes, Joe is a friend of mine. My opinion of his work wouldn't change if he wasn't -- just google for some reviews.)

  • The Attribution-ShareAlike license [creativecommons.org] is the closest thing to the GPL that Creative Commons offers.

    My album Geometric Visions: The Rough Draft [geometricvisions.com] is minimalist instrumental piano, all my own original compositions.

    There are direct HTTP downloads in MP3 and Ogg Vorbis, and torrents [geometricvisions.com] in a variety of format, including FLAC - the Free Lossless Audio Codec.

    Also, you may request a free CD [geometricvisions.com]. It comes with an attractive 4-page case insert, as well as a nice full-color label printed on the CD itself.

    The case inse

"Floggings will continue until morale improves." -- anonymous flyer being distributed at Exxon USA

Working...