It makes you more or less dependent on the company and their resources

This is precisely their strategy, I would think. I cannot say, though, whether this is actually their policy.

Yes, according to OCP you are to destroy the R&A in November.
OCP has made the complete collection of Psalmody available under their other composers but for some reason, Alstott's R&A has remained unchanged since they were first composed in the 70s and still use the old translation of the Psalter from the Lectionary over the Grail/Revised Grail/Abbey Psalms and Canticles. I know these are going to be the texts whenever we get around to finalizing the new Lectionary in the next decade (hopefully) but they've been used by GIA and others since the first translation came about over a decade ago.

Even if the dispose-and-repurchase proviso is lawfully enforceable, which I doubt it is, that notice only started appearing on R&A collections starting with the 2016 liturgical year. See the attached graphics of the copyright notice pages from the 2015 and the 2016 editions of R&A to see how they differ. Prior to 2016, the prohibition of use after a certain date wasn't stipulated in the printed editions of the music.

So if you have editions from 2015 or prior, you can use those without any qualms at all since there wasn't an explicit time restriction placed on their use.

The music is the same before and after 2016, before and after OCP began stipulating that the printed edition has an expiration date for legal use, so it would seem to me that continued use of music that was previously published without an expiration date is permissible, despite OCP's newly-introduced claim of an expiration date.

If you want to be scrupulous about it, you could buy editions from 2015 or earlier on Ebay.

These links might be of interest:
https://kupdf.net/download/respond-and-acclaim-2015_599fa0c4dc0d60fb3d18496e_pdf

https://kupdf.net/download/respond-amp-acclaim-2014-cycle-a_58ced5f7dc0d604639c3460f_pdf

You could perhaps raise your concerns with Abp Sample. He has ultimate responsibility for the conduct of OCP.

@hcmusicguy

You don't think it would be unethical on my end to actually go against the policy and keep using past editions anyway? Maybe it is scrupulous on my end but part of me also thinks that things that are unjust aren't binding in the first place.

Anyone else have thoughts?

Legal clause or not, surely you could argue that an environmentally sensitive company which preaches social justice should do more than hope you destroy the old copies in an environmentally sensitive way?

OCP : Obsessive Compulsive Pirates ?

perhaps someone with skill could set a relevant text to Masochism Tango?

If you have the time, do what the publishers have been doing for years. Change the key, add a few notes, and rearrange the words. Then it is a new work - yours.

Nor can be keeping on my shelf an item that I bought earlier...
... or would that be 'using' it (in the US-copyright-meaning of the word)?
... would taking it off the shelf be 'using' it?
... would opening the book be 'using' it?
... would learning a piece by heart printed there be 'using' it?
And finally: If I sang this e.g. Responsiorial Psalm at Mass, would I be (ab-)using that publication in terms of US copyright?

If I sang it tomorrow, would the question of copyright infringment depend on whether I learned the piece before or after November 26, 2016? And on whether I did or didn't destroy the book after learning the piece?

(And I was not refering to restrictions of 'performing' this piece of music - otherwise "musical sounds themselves as you sing them" can be covered as well.)

[I'm not expecting to get an answer that I as a non-American can understand]

In the U.S., copyright law provides for a religious service exemption, under which any copyrighted music may be performed at a religious service without having to pay royalties to the copyright owner.

Any copyrighted piece of music may be performed at Mass under the religious service exemption. The copyright owner may not prohibit such a performance at a religious service. However, the exemption only covers live performances, not printing, not recording, and not livestreaming or podcasting.

The R&A copyright question concerns what constitutes authorized printed copies of the copyrighted sheet music.

Elmar's questions about what constitutes unauthorized "use" of a purportedly expired printed edition of copyrighted music go to the heart of the matter. The performance of the music is not at issue, since that is statutorily permitted under the religious service exemption of U.S. copyright law.

Since the sheet music in the annual R&A editions has been virtually unchanged since the 1980s, nobody knows whether the page the psalmist is singing from is from a "current" edition or not, unless they get a peek at the cover art. The Easter Sunday responsorial psalm sung from a 2023 R&A edition will sound the same as one sung from a 1993 R&A edition because the sheet music is the same in both editions. If the response melody and verse psalm tone are memorized, the R&A psalm could be sung by the psalmist from the plain text printed in the Lectionary.

I think that it's outrageous for OCP to request or expect that parishes will continue paying annually for "new" replacement printed editions of the same music they had purchased one to three years ago. And it's silly for pastors and music directors to spend parishioners' offertory contributions on such a wasteful subscription program, questions about the quality of the music aside.

Francis, multi-million dollar fortunes have been made by charlatans selling climate snake oil.

@CharlesW

please forgive me for being incoherent...

who is the "charlatan"...? and... what is the "snake oil"?

(brain not what it used to be...)

I become ever more confused... if 'performing' a copyrighted piece of music in a religious service is allowed in the US; and keeping a freely available, legally bought object cannot seriously be illegal - what exactly is the copyright infringement after the 'expiration date'?

Would a disclaimer to a book be valid in the US, saying e.g. "By purchasing this book, you agree to not reading it, nor allowing anyone else to read it, after December 31st, 2025"?
or even: "You agree to abandoning your ownership by December 31st, 2025"?

And I thougt that DRM was crazy already...

It takes less energy to gas you than it does to let you use gas the rest of your life.

That said, the real crisis is the amount of gaslighting going on.

This about R&A how?

As a former employee of OCP, I think I'll just mention that these forums are regularly and routinely read by the OCP staff.

... and are they doing what as a consequence?
Travel churches to check whether cantors sing a copyrighted responsorial psalm (legal) from a book (that they legally own) which nevertheless (purportedly) constitutes an 'illegal use' prohibited by copyright, so they can sue the parish?
Just asking out of curiosity, what constitutes a 'freest country in the world' in the 21st century.

Rob, what do you suggest to do as a consequence of your reminder?
Move to continental Europe?

Thank you to those who have offered constructive responses. They made for interesting reading.
Bashing various publishers seems to be a preoccupation with a few, without actually addressing the question that was asked.
And yes, Elmar, violations do get reported to the publishers. Cease and desist letters do go out.
The snarkiness has really increased, even during Lent.

violations do get reported to the publishers. Cease and desist letters do go out

"You will be sued for looking in your old book after its expiration date when you sang the responsorial psalm, rather than in a new one with the same content." ???
OK, 'owning' a book is an outdated, pre-21st century concept that still persists in the minds of medieval individuals in old Europe... I even 'own' copies of movies on DVD and store documents locally on my computer until this day.

The Source and Summit license is on a similar model, correct? When my subscription ends next fall, if I don’t renew it, everything I’ve printed off from their online planning service is no longer legal for live-streaming, etc?

The Source and Summit model is actually closer to being a license to use the online content. Once that license has ended, the right to use the content ends. The question with the disposable hymnals is more difficult. Copyright is literally that, the right to make copies. I can buy, sell, trade an original book all I want and not violate copyright as I have not copied the book. The question is whether the publisher (and the law) regards the right to perform the music from the hymnal as a type of license. Perhaps the whole controversy is yet another reason not to use disposable hymnals.

When OCP has webinars, articles or workshops that discuss copyright, it likes to stress that paying for sufficient copies of sheet music is a matter of justice to composers and publishers.

In all fairness, this is indeed true. That's why when one of my hispanic musicians brought me a piece of [OCP] music to play with "PREVIEW PREVIEW" printed all over it, I promptly ordered multiple copies of the real thing.

Someone who posts on this forum jokes now and then that his parish paid for Owen Alstott's vacation home over the decades.

That's me, and it's true, and I made the same joke earlier up this thread lol. It must have been a sweet gig for him after all this time; royalties year over year for the same music composed in the 70's and 80's. More power to him! I'm just jealous, lol! Then again, perhaps OCP paid him a flat fee for it way back when, hence their desire to milk it all this time and reap the profits. In which case, I would rather pity than envy the man.

When OCP has webinars, articles or workshops that discuss copyright, it likes to stress that paying for sufficient copies of sheet music is a matter of justice to composers and publishers.

If we actually gave justice to about half of them we would drag them through the streets then publicly scourge them.

Our apologies to the OP for seeming like we have a one track mind

It's lent, one tract mind... [purple]