I know that I've been widely blamed for fomenting this attitude that one should never pay for music. But I've never written that and I don't endorse that view. The more complex point is that people ought to pay for true value and not for what I keep calling infinite goods. An example is an organist who is playing 16th century works long out of copyright. You need special editions for the formatting and preservation and convenience, so of course one must pay for this, even though you are not technically paying for a particular arrangement of notes on lines.

It is the same with the PBC: people want a hand-held hardcopy with a beautiful cover. That is what they pay for. If all you want is the music and you don't mind dealing with the frustration of stacks of paper, by all means do not buy it but download it instead. It is a matter of being clear about the real source of economic value here: the finite or the infinite aspect of the good in question.

Let me finally add that I can fully understand why people are reacting against copyright by refusing to pay a dime for anything. This is the kind of backlash mentality one expects in a digital age following a 100-year system of monopolistic control.

Hello again,

Sorry I led off on the wrong foot on this topic. I emailed Mr. Tucker and explained to him how I had "read into" some of his statements things that were not necessarily his ultimate positions because of some things he said which for me, through my personal "filter," were "red flags." ( I also assured him that I would take my daily "chill pill" - in so many words). This, I am sure, led others to "read into" some of my otherwise tame offerings things that were not there, "agendas" and such, and spun downwards from there, and so, on my part, I apologize, and am glad for some greater clarity on understanding of others' positions. I still have some fundamental disagreements with those who are, for me, lessening the appreciation for the concept of IP as we know it, as I, as do the legislatures and courts of most civilized societies, think IP, for the most part, a very good thing, (yes, we know Z!!) but how that plays out in the "real world" can produce some awful consequences sometimes if taken on a "per case" basis, certainly, but we should try to at the same time see the larger picture where it works quite well. So let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater is somewhat what I am saying.

I want to say that this subject, because it involves people's incomes, (not mine, not right now anyway - except in the sense that I sometimes receive jobs from those who do get healthy royalties, actually not so insignificant, now that I am thinking about it, so there is my "agenda," if any) ultimately, can therefore generate heat, and I am sorry that some of that heat I generated was hard to bear, or caused some to wonder about my motives. I myself read into Mr. Tucker's ideas some things that were perhaps not intended on his part, I was filling in the blanks, so to speak, and the reason is that this is a hard subject to discuss in this kind of forum as to be completely fair and accurate, and still be understood, you have to be so nuanced, and state things like 'I like (support) A, B, and C but not D, and E only in these circumstances, but let's not undermine E because the integrity of B depends on it.' That and the idea that the playing field changes so quickly. The internet and the CD/DVD/digital file sharing, like the copy machine and tape machine before them, have changed the playing field quite a bit in the last forty years, with of course an acceleration of this in the last ten. I caution everyone to understand the "unintended consequences" in the lessening of IP controls, though, again, the system is one which is always needing tweaks as the technologies advance, but no wholesale revamping.

I have seen, as I live in Los Angeles, the real hard consequences of file sharing and see that record companies, for example, that once employed a couple hundred, are down to a bare bones staff, ten or less, and then,also, less session work. Commercials once produced here, are done "offshore." No (or so very few)"brick and mortar" record stores where there were hundreds. In my neighborhood, there is a garage set up to interface with a complete live orchestra in Czech Republic via the internet, so folks who play violin here are - well, in deep you know what. So all of these "wish lists" proposed have real consequences on real people's lives. Please reflect on that.

Thanks again for your patience and understanding.

JZ

Dear Jeff, again not to belabor the main thrust of your point (taken), but I rather think Gavin's scenario will remain theoretical, though his point that inaccurate and (to my way of thinking) even unjust materials have found lodging in CPDL is correct. But in both your scenarios, a competent, intuitive and morally centered musician must be part of the equation. If Fr. Expediant hands me either the entire published catalogues of Rory Cooney or Tom Conry, or a complete CPDL version of the Faure Requiem, I'm going to refuse to implement either of those choices on many valid grounds.
Discretion.

PS: I am gladdened to see that Mr. Z and Mr. Tucker have clarified the rarified aires. ;-)

Well, just make sure you have both feet in paradise (none in the waste), Jeffrey, before you enter the dining room. And if it is a restaurant, try not to preface placing your order with "I, myself, will be having...." ;-p
I think you've mentioned that Rory has uttered some revisionist thought regarding past utterances about the efficacy of chant. Rory does have a good brain, and I suspect a good heart as well.

Oh please, don't let my ribald jokery influence your meeting. Cooney, if nothing else, has remained a worker in the field (as in a real parish musician) throughout his career. Can't say that about many of his philosophical fellow travelers. Enjoy your dinner, bon vivant! Have a great California cabernet.