I want to concur with Noel, but from the standpoint of the loyal opposition (loyal to FNJ as a friend, but opposed to PART of what he is saying).

I believe that copyright law is both immoral and unconstitutional. I think that artists who copyright their work are largely unaware of the sin they are committing. I believe that all composers generally - and ESPECIALLY composers of Church Music ought to place their work in the Commons.

The comparison to physical goods (sheep) is wholly irrelevant, as ideas, music, words, lyrics are not scarce physical goods, but are rather intangible and infinitely reproducible.

I also feel NO moral guilt about so-called "infringement" of other people's copyright.

HOWEVER....

Copyright IS the law, and it IS legally enforceable. And it DOES get enforced.

You can think it's moral or not, stupid or not- it DOES NOT MATTER.

Whatever your moral position on copyright and intellectual property is:
If you break copyright law (even unintentionally) in your own parish work, you are opening up the parish to litigation and substantial fines.

Therefore, regardless of any moral arguments one way or the other:
It is IMMORAL to put your congregation at such risk.

I believe that copyright law is both immoral and unconstitutional.

The seventh commandment forbids unjustly taking or keeping the goods of one’s neighbor and wronging him in any way with respect to his goods. It commands justice and charity in the care of earthly goods and the fruits of men’s labor. For the sake of the common good, it requires respect for the universal destination of goods and respect for the right to private property. Christian life strives to order this world’s goods to God and to fraternal charity. (CCC 2401)

Goods of production—material or immaterial—such as land, factories, practical or artistic skills, oblige their possessors to employ them in ways that will benefit the greatest number. Those who hold goods for use and consumption should use them with moderation, reserving the better part for guests, for the sick and the poor. (CCC 2405, emphasis mine)

The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. (US Constitution--Article !, Section 8, Clause 8)

The loyal opposition loses one leg (constitutional) upon which to stand. The immoral may come down to prudential judgment (Commons usage vs. registered copyright) as how best to "oblige their possessors to employ them in ways that will benefit the greatest number". But, if thou uses something which is not thine to permissibly have, get thee to a confessional.

QUAERITUR: Does that oblige one to destroy illegal copies one has inherited when entering a new position, subject to finding correspondence which allows permission? (And good luck finding those letters.)

Remember, I have fought a small skirmish in this war.

Copyright is simply a way of paying the writer for their time. It's like hiring someone to write something.

Good grief... I think there are tons of conversations on here all the time that are waaaaay more of a waste of time. If you think it's a waste of time, no one is forcing you to read it!

Actually, I do know of a parish where this happened, not for music, but they were sued for using a poem (and it was a case where they honestly didn't know, because it came from someone else who failed to cite/compensate the author.) So...don't think it can't happen!

rollingrj: Regarding inheriting a copied library, I can't tell you how many times I've heard "___ used to just copy that for us!" First, I told the choir about public domain and the Commons, which they were surprised about (!) then I told them I didn't want to hear about other copies they might have from the past. If I hear the word "copy" when I know they shouldn't have one, I cover my ears and say "la la la". So now they'll say things like "On the 'la la la' that I have, it has different words..." : )

I have copied items when I have exhausted every honest effort to purchase them. Shh! Don't tell Noel ;-) I, too, inherited files full of copies and have gotten rid of many of them.

There is a very simple work around...just use the stuff in the commons, which in my humble opinion is generally far superior to that which is copyrighted.

Then you don't risk getting sued, you do nothing immoral, and you get to sing/play/hear good music.

I fail to see a downside to this approach. It would also help with getting rid of drivel. You can present it as a cost saving measure.

i don't charge people for a lot of my music, but i do put a copyright at the bottom. if anyone ever asks to make copies, i say, "please do, and play the music as much as possible"! (but it still requires asking permission!)

At some point I will publish my music (On paper) for all to buy. The copyright mark simply protects my interest for the future.

Sorry, are you in charge of everyone today?

Sorry, are you in charge of everyone today?

No need to apologize, since such a claim was never made or hinted at (please carefully read the above).

MichaelM, thank you for your thoughtful post. I agree that there has been a major shift since the 1980s, since now people have new ways of uploading things to the internet and copying media. My point is, those who use copyright are responsible to enforce it. First comes 'cease and desist' letter, then court summons, then an injunction, then some kind of trial, then the possibility of a fine, then the collection of a fine.

That's why I find it interesting nobody on this forum has even gotten to 'step one.' It's an indication of how important this subject is.

JennyH, "let's move on" is not for you to say. I'm finding the conversation enlightening on all sorts of levels. Perhaps others are too. No need to shut things down before everyone is ready--I'm pretty sure that's how this forum works.

Here are 444,000 results in a search about church cease and desist...concerning copyrights.

I got 356,901,456 results in less than three seconds when I search Google for: "If I copy music illegally, is this really something my church should be concerned about?"

I did the same thing, Jenny, and google said it found about 2,090,000 results.

My computer's better than yours is.

Your search proves that there are a heck of a lot of people are more concerned about being legal that you are, that's all.

In spite of all the sarcasm, I'm interested in the fact that nobody on this forum has even once gotten to 'step one.' I would suggest to you that it's very telling. I must confess that I have absolutely no interest in comparing google searches, but I freely own that this is much easier than responding to my challenge.

In spite of all the sarcasm, I'm interested in the fact that nobody on this forum has even once gotten to 'step one.'

I think that's because we're mostly smart enough not to commit IP theft.

Then there were the horrid lyrics set to "Edelweiss." Ripped that sucker to shreds with my bare hands. That is the first thing I threw out.

There are no small laws. Only small criminals.

Does medicinal purposes count?

Signed, Worried in Tennessee.

Maybe there should be a separate thread on the appropriateness of this thread.

...and a thread on the appropriateness of threads on the appropriateness of threads. Infinite meta-threads!

Adam:

THAT VIDEO IS COPYRIGHTED AND SHOULD NOT BE POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE!

I don't mind paying a fair price for composer royalties, paper, cost of editing, printing, and distribution. Those are all legitimate expenses and they seem reasonable.

What really bothers me is the 'copyrighting' of public domain music.

The thing is, no one can "copyright" something. Rather, copyright is a "right" that you either have or do not have in a work. You automatically have copyright in a work if you create an original expression and embody it in a tangible medium. You have copyright in the work even if you don't stamp (c) on it and even if you don't register it with the Library of Congress. (But you need to do all that stuff if you want to sue someone for damages later.)

I can have copyright even if I don't stamp (c) on my work, and I can not have copyright even though I do stamp (c) on it. When it comes to copyright, sayin' it's so don't make it so.

Suppose I typeset a piece of public domain music. Assuming I've made no alterations to the work that could count as my original expression, then the most copyright I can claim is the right to prevent you from photocopying my particular typesetting -- and I probably can't event claim that because there is no original expression of mine in the work. I can't stamp (c) on it, I can claim to have "copyrighted it," until I'm blue, but I don't have copyright.

Now, if I add draw some pretty angels and flowers and whatnot all around the musical score, I've just created original (though tacky) expression in which I have copyright, and I think it would now clearly be copyright infringement for you to just photocopy my work, because you'd be copying my original expression. But it wouldn't be infringement for you to write down the score on your own sheet of paper; you can take that element of my work because it doesn't belong to me.

See here for my attempt at a primer on copyright issues.

What recent changes to fair use are you referring to?

H,

You've got to be a bit clearer, a professor can photocopy a piece to teach about it, but you should not perform from that copy. You cannot learn from a copy to prepare to perform it.

IF you have enough hymnals you can make that many single copies for your choir as long as the books are sitting unused, the same with your copying to save weight.

Copying to avoid paying is theft.

Would someone comment, knowledgably, on the legality of
1) Copying things of which one possesses real and legal copies
a) for stictly personal use at the organ for church or recitals without having
to haul around one's nice volumes and save wear and tear on them.
b) examples for class room teacing.

2) Or better: what are the legalities of copying from purchased copies to save wear and tear of one's nice volumes. And, copying examples for classrooem or choir instruction, likewise to save wear and tear on real owned copies.
3) What does the law say when something is out of print and one cannot find a current copyright holder and really needs the material?
4)Are there any loop-holes which favour those who seek vainly for copyright holders which cannot be discovered after reasonable effort, and wish (need) to reproduce given material?

I must admit that I strive to obtain permissions when I know to whom to address requests. But this is not always possible, e'en though one does know that somewhere along the Byzantine line what one wants is 'owned'.

Example: The Plainsong Hymn Book -Ed. Sir Sydney Nicholson in 1932, is out of print but was published under the auspices of Hymns Ancient and Modern. I own the book (they're scarce and hens' teeth) and regualarly copy from it for teaching and choral purposes. Am I on safe ground. Should I approach HA&M?

Perhaps someone would enumerate the conditions by which one could
1. Copy for choral use or teaching a cpyrght wrk which one owns
2. Copy for classroom use a cpyrght wrk which one owns
3. Copy for personal performance on organ, etc., to save tear on one's owned cpyrght wrk.
4. Other...

I think many of us could profit from some informed tutelage on this subject.

Also: does one need written permission to reproduce parts of the mass? Or can one simply give acknowledgment to the USCCB and ICEL