In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:


If the work is yours, you are quite entitled to decide to allow
people access for free - just as you are entitled to ask them to pay
if they want a copy. But if the work is not yours, then you are not
entitled to decide on their behalf that they wish to work for nothing.


Surely 'the work is done'? Leaving aside legalese, you're not making a
decision on the author's behalf - it's your decision to plagiarise,
attribute and/or profit. Whichever (unless the plagiarism is undetected)
you take the author to a wider audience.


Sorry. It isn't clear to me what you are talking about as I can't decide
who terms like "your" in your statement refer to.

An author may or may not enter into an agreement with someone else w.r.t.
some of the copyrights of some/all of their work(s). If they do, then they
will be bound by that provided the other party also does so. If they do
not, then they can decide for themself how the work may be used by others.

If someone plagurises, then that is wrong. It is both immoral and illegal.
The UK law gives authors the right to assert that they are the author of
their work. It is illegal to pass off the work of others as your own
without getting specific permission.

[snip]


In the end, there was a steady growth in interest in Barbirolli and
the Halle as a result of the Society re-issuing CDs with the help of
Mike Dutton and others. (I hope my website helped a bit with this, but
can't be sure.) The proven demand probably eventually helped encourage
EMI to do their own-label re-issues in due course. Pleased to say that
a large amount of the back catalogue has been available - in some
cases in really excellent versions that are clearer to enjoy than the
old LPs!


I suspect the LPs capture more of the essence :-) And I think your
anecdote nicely captures the nonsense copyright.

I would put it differently. :-)

I would say that I would prefer the copyright laws to be such that if
someone has 'bought' the right to control/make copies then that right
depends on them actually showing they *are* willing to do so.

In fact, the copyright agreements I have with my old publisher (IoP)
include an equivalent statement. In effect, if they allowed one of books
to go out of print for a period, and declined to reprint, I can take back
the copyright and make other arrangements if I so desire. It would be nice
if a similar arrangement was common or required for musical recordings.
However the point here is that the copyrights involved would then revert to
the authors (composers and musicians) it would *not* simply become a 'help
yourself' for anyone who wanted to make a free copy and pay the authors
nothing.

*Unless* the persons owning the copyrights decided to permit this...

FWIW I have made about as much of my 'work' available on the web (free
access) as I have had published in books. I am also currently negotiating
to get the content of my books on the web for free access. However I expect
anyone who uses the work to do so in accord with some conditions. (Spelt
out on one of the 'Scots Guide' pages.) This is to avoid plagurism or
others simply making money out of other people who could access the work
for nothing.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html