Jason Robert Brown Battles Music Copyright Infringment- Page 4

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 9:36am

Right, but again I'm not talking about performance. I don't own the text of "Catcher in the Rye," but I can sell you my copy of the book. I can't recite it at Town Hall. And I can't sell you the Xerox I made.

Similarly, I can buy a used copy of a DVD at Blockbuster. But I can't copy that and sell it on the sidewalk.
Updated On: 7/1/10 at 09:36 AM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 9:38am

But - and I'm not being deliberately thick or argumentative here, honest! - I still think the resale is a grey area. You would probably know better than me, but I really thought that it wasn't cut and dry and about the resale of a copyrighted work.

I get what you're saying about a copy turning it into publication, though, but then we get back to the question of whether or not she has the right to take it and use it from the library.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 9:41am

I'm wrong! Mea culpa!

The first-sale doctrine is a limitation on copyright that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1908 (see Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus) and subsequently codified in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 109. The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained. This means that the copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy ends once that copy is sold, as long as no additional copies are made. This doctrine is also referred to as the "first sale rule" or "exhaustion rule."
Copyright Wiki

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 9:43am

It may well be a gray area morally, but I don't think it is legally.

We can all agree that used bookstores have existed and operated legally for centuries, yes? It may well be that plenty of authors wished they didn't, but logic tells you that a line has to be drawn between intellectual property (content) and a physical artifact.

If you publish something as a physical artifact, that thing I buy is mine to do with as I wish. But I can't take its content and do with that as I wish.

If Brenna gave/sold/traded her ONE COPY of JRB's music, he'd have no argument to make.





Updated On: 7/1/10 at 09:43 AM

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 9:46am

Sorry, I was posting at the same time, Phyl. Wasn't trying to beat a dead horse.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 9:48am

LOL. I figured as much. Neither was I. I really thought I understood it better than I did. It's actually much more cut and dry than I thought.

Fair use, however, still confounds me at times.
Updated On: 7/1/10 at 09:48 AM

[newintown]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 9:54am

Yes, yes, but you're not answering the question - do you think that used book stores are operating outside the law and should be shut down? Do you think it's illegal to sell copyrighted material in a yard sale? How about the Salvation Army stores and Goodwill?

*EDIT - whoops, you did answer that question while I was typing it. Sorry.

This is far from a black-and-white situation, although many people can be quite reactionary about the issue (since money is a much more important topic than anything else, including religion or love, these days).

And remember, Brenna is not selling anything; she's giving away.

I mentioned eBay earlier - there are sellers on there who are marketing mass-copied pdfs of full scores on CD. That I find scummy and criminal. However, eBay doesn't seem to care, because I and others have reported these sellers, and they're still there. Search eBay for cymmedia and aschenbach1791.
Updated On: 7/1/10 at 09:54 AM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 9:58am

ETA - I see you and I both just caught up with each other.

Well, no, I don't think used bookstores are operating outside the law, because I just posted the law.

And we've established, Eleanor is giving away copies, and it copies aren't legal under the law.

Do I think it's wrong? Not really, no. Do I think she should have STFU when confronted by the composer? Yes.
Updated On: 7/1/10 at 09:58 AM

[newintown]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 9:58am

And don't forget my earlier question about Michael Lavine, folks (I'm sure lots of you know who that is).

He makes his living by copying music and selling it to others. Do you object?

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 10:00am

Brenna is not giving away something that belongs to her, such as her purchased copy of a score. She is giving away the content of that score.

She is saying "Don't buy this, whereby the creator gets his earned income. Get it from me instead."

She's an illegal publisher.

I realize she's not making money, but that's only half the issue. The other half is neither is the composer.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 10:03am

To clarify, does Lavine only sell things that are out of print? I honestly don't know.

I think - well, really I KNOW - that it was a lot easier to be a scofflaw before the digital age exploded. Or at least to do it more openly.

On a related note, how come that Musical Masters guy was never shut down? Is it because before things were exchanged digitally he wasn't a big enough fish to fry?
Updated On: 7/1/10 at 10:03 AM

[newintown]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 10:07am

Michael sells anything that people ask for. And he's very popular.

Who is Musical Masters?

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 10:09am

I may have gotten the name wrong? That was the "brand" name of the bootleg shows that were sold on tape in NYC. Something like that.

I've heard of the Michael Lavine guy, but didn't know much. If you're correct (and I have no reason to think you aren't), then I do wonder why people like JRB aren't going after him.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 10:58am

I'm still actually confounded by the conversation. I think we're all agreeing that the disseminating of electronic copies of songs is not covered under the fair use laws. But...are we agreeing that photocopies of songs for an audition book ARE covered under fair use?

Because there is not one musical theatre actor in New York (I know that's a big statement...but I'm standing by it) that doesn't have photocopied music in their books. Not. A. One. Whether copied from their own bought sheet music, copied from the library or gotten from a coach (and I have all three in my book), it's still photocopied. Fair use? Or no?

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 10:59am

To go back to the "people who want the piano/conductor score." I've done it a few times, and I have plans to do this again, but my theatre friends and I, a few times a year, get together and stage readings/productions of musicals in someone's living room. We do it with the P/C score (usually a pdf) and do it for fun. That's why I like having them. (Also, sometimes keys are changed for vocal scores, and I have no gift for transposition.)

I'd love to know what JRB would think of the illegal production I did of "Last 5 Years" with my Muppet. I certainly didn't pay for anything I used (other than the Muppet and our clothing).

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 11:21am

Updated On: 7/1/10 at 11:21 AM

[TreyKenyon]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 11:30am

Not to prolong the conversation/debate lol, but there is also a clause in the Fair Use doctrine that allows for photocopying a limited amount of material. For instance, teachers are allowed to photocopy articles from magazines, excerpts from books, and pages from textbooks and then distribute such copies to students. i can't say for sure if it's a word/page limitation or a percentage of entire work..but it's definitely allowed in some way or another

Obviously, for a single song's sheet music (which is what the original exchange was about)it would be hard to use a "portion". However, if the song is one of many in a song book, I imagine that clause would rightfully be in effect. Thus I would think the teacher/coach handing copies of sheet music would prove to be legal.

[DRSisLove]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 11:32am

"don't you think it's just a tad creepy, DRSisLove, that you took the time to hunt down this girl who is barely a teen and publish her FB profile on this very public space? Sure, she should have her FB private, but she's 13 years old. You may want to consider deleting that."

Hunt down is definitely the wrong word. Took about ten seconds of work, most of which was spent with the internet loading the page. In any event, I've taken it down. Not trying to harm in any way.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 11:37am

Like I said, Fair Use is muddy to me, and I think it is for a lot of people. I think a lot of us THINK we know the actual drill (like I thought I did about reselling copyrighted materials) but I think a lot of us are misinformed.

Obviously, for a single song's sheet music (which is what the original exchange was about)it would be hard to use a "portion". However, if the song is one of many in a song book, I imagine that clause would rightfully be in effect. Thus I would think the teacher/coach handing copies of sheet music would prove to be legal.

I don't know about that. What if the song was published on its own? Also, we're talking about photocopying something you don't own (as in getting it from the library). I'm almost certain Fair Use only applies to the one who "owns" that material (the library, in this case). Again, I'm just not sure.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 11:41am

When I saw you'd deleted, DRSisLove, I removed my post. In retrospect, I ought to have PM'd you instead, but my point was that you did take the time, however brief, to find her, then seeing she was 13 (an unpleasant, insanely entitled, obnoxious 13, but still 13), still posted her info. While I think the bashing that goes on here is out of hand (Hunter, Alice, Jen, etc), they're all old enough to know better.

Thanks for deleting.

[AvenueQResident]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 12:04pm

JRB trying to lay this to rest, from his twitter.

"All right, geeks, give it a rest; yes, you deserve everything for free because "the paradigm is changing." Fine, you win. Stop emailing me."

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 12:06pm

Oy.

[newintown]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 12:20pm

Quel idiot.

He's so defended and defensive. I understand he has years of semi-failure to make him thus, but honestly, he would be so much better off if he simply rejoiced in the fact that there are people that like his work.

It's clear he's never going to achieve the success of a Sondheim, Berlin, Porter, or even Galt MacDermott, but he could easily have a more positive attitude about work, art, and money.

[Q]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 12:22pm

This conversation is fascinating - but I think I need to print it out, cut the posts apart from each other, and rearrange them into a different order

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 12:23pm

As long as you don't distribute your remixed thread, Q, you're fine!