A reader writes:
I majoring in music and I oftentimes get sheet music in my
classes and private lessons. Many of these are of a full song and sometimes
copied straight out of a book. Some are modern songs that aren’t in public
domain. I fear the teachers may not have gotten permission to use these but
I don’t know the law well enough to say whether it is fair use. I know you
probably aren’t an expert on copyright, but being somewhat scrupulous, I’m
not sure how to go about doing my work while fearing that I could be
violating copyright. I certainly don’t want to commit mortal sin just to do
my homework. Should I bring it up whenever I feel it is a problem, or
should I just let the teachers worry about it? May I just ignore it and
give extra to charity? Any advice would be helpful.
I don’t have the background in civil law needed to answer the question of what civil law would say about this situation, so I’ll answer it primarily in terms of moral law, with the caveat that the moral law answer may clash with the civil law answer. If it does then it would be a matter of prudence as to whether you should follow the moral law answer in violation of civil law. As long as you’re doing what’s moral then, by definition, you’re morally safe, and it’s a question of whether you’re willing to take the risks associated with not following the civil law answer. (In this case–that of a student being given fishy sheet music by his teacher–I would say that the risks are small.)
Let’s start with whose responsibility it is to secure rights to the sheet music in question: It’s your teachers’. If they are violating copyright in their production of this material then that is fundamentally their responsibility, not yours. You are only involved to the extent that you are cooperating with the situation, and your cooperation looks to be remote and material only. Remote material cooperation can be morally legitimate when there is a proportionate reason, and your need to get an education is certainly a proportionate reason to go head and play what’s on some shady sheet music that your teacher puts before you (or sends home with you).
The situation of teacher and student is analogous to the situation of employer and employee. If, once you’re out in the workplace, your employer (let’s say it’s a symphony orchestra) puts fishy sheet music in front of you then your need to make a living is a proportionate reason to play what’s on it.
The same goes for people in other fields of employment whose bosses require them–as part of their work–to use things that they haven’t secured the rights to. For example, if you work in an office and your employer hasn’t gotten a software license for the copy of Microsoft Word that is on your computer then you go ahead and use the word processor. It’s your boss’s moral responsibility to get the license, not yours. Your need to earn a living is proportionate to the individual act of piracy that you are (at best) remotely cooperating with.
Of course, to the extent that prudence allows we should encourage our employers (or teachers) to obtain the needed rights or permissions, but our ability to do this prudently is often very limited. People can be denied pay raises or promotions or good grades if they come off as scrupulous troublemakers to their superiors. In extreme cases, they can even end up fired or failed. As a result, significant caution should be exercised in making the decision whether and how to address such matters.
In the case of courses taken at an academic institution, the professor (as opposed to the student) is very much in charge of the classroom, and I generally advise students to keep their heads down, not make trouble, get good grades, and then deal with the situation (if it’s worth dealing with) once one is an alumnus and can no longer be hurt by the institution. There are exceptions to this rule, of course, but erring on the side of caution is my general advice.
In the case of the private lessons you are taking, though, you may have more leeway. The student in such a setting may be in a better position to say, "Hey, why don’t we study this (non-problematic) material?"
One last bit of info, which pertains specifically to educational situations: U.S. copyright law includes fair use provision that allow for academic/educational use of limited amounts of copyrighted material. This is one reason, for example, that professors of various disciplines may make photocopies of individual journal articles or individual chapters of books and distribute them to their students via professor publishing.
At least in some settings this is allowed.
Whether it is allowed in the case of the sheet music you are being given, I couldn’t say–I don’t know enough about the provisions of civil law on this point or your own situation. Whatever the case might be, however, I would seek to avoid scrupling over this issue, and you would not have a moral obligation to give extra to charity, as revealing as that thought is about the good intentions you clearly have.
Maybe it is my blue collar neighborhood upbringing, but I wouldn’t even worry about it.
Not a big deal
Much bigger fish to fry
Having had some experience in music, although I’m not an expert in law, I have some idea of what is allowed in this situation: You cannot use photocopies of sheet music to perform at a concert, but you can use them to practice.
This is often done by Orchestras, where there’s one copy of the printed music for each music stand. When two string players share a stand, one will often photocopy the music, so each player can practice between rehearsals. After the concert, the photocopies are either destroyed, or turned in to the music library with the printed music, for use as practice material the next time the piece is performed.
Another option is to try to obtain a published copy. You can always buy a copy, or you can go to the interlibrary loan office at your college library and try to obtain a copy that way. You won’t be able to mark up a library-owned copy, but you can (legally) photocopy it for practice, as long as you use the published copy for performance.
Based on what you’ve said, though, it doesn’t sound like your teachers are asking you to perform with the photocopies, so you should be safely within the law.
I process requests for use of textbook material. The school/professor will submit a request and be granted permission to make the specified number of copies for that semester. Sometimes permission is denied because of the number of pages requested. Royalties are then paid to the author. However, there is no obligation on the part of the school or the teacher, to post that they have been granted this permission.
With YOUTUBE and NAPSTER and the like a lot of this law has changed.
Thou shalt not steal is not as simple with copyright, intellectual property etc.
Copyright laws and all other intellectual property is a fallacy and unconstitutional.
Property of any kind must be determined on the qualitative characteristic of “scarcity.”
Copying, duplicating, or mimicing something is NOT stealing. Period.
It is my understanding that just because you believe it to be unconstitutional doesn’t mean that it is not against the law. Am I way off base here? I have to ask because I know many homeschoolers who buy one edition of a consumable workbook and make copies of it to use for their multiple children. Then they will turn around and resell it when they are finished with it. I would expect that to be against the law; (the copying, not the reselling) certainly the civil law and probably the moral. Can anyone advise?
Brent, I take it you’ve never actually invested sweat, blood and tears into actually writing a piece of music, have you?
I have to ask because I know many homeschoolers who buy one edition of a consumable workbook and make copies of it to use for their multiple children. Then they will turn around and resell it when they are finished with it. I would expect that to be against the law; (the copying, not the reselling) certainly the civil law and probably the moral. Can anyone advise?
Most publishers would not charge for such a small quantity of material, but to be certain, the request to use the material should still be submitted.
Many home school workbooks have specific instructions regarding copying such as “the author gives limited permission to copy pages for additional practice or homework.” There are many variations on this. I frequently copy illustrations out of the books I’m reading for the kids to color while I read aloud which, I suppose, infringes on copyright law. Dang.
A friend of mine started a website, sharesong.org , so music writers can put their church music there which they allow other people to use, so church bands don’t have to worry so much about copyright.
Brent says:
“Copyright laws and all other intellectual property is a fallacy and unconstitutional.
Property of any kind must be determined on the qualitative characteristic of “scarcity.”
Copying, duplicating, or mimicing something is NOT stealing. Period.”
Any citations to back up your view?
You do not have enough information to know if there is in fact a violation going on. If you are concerned about a violation, you can contact either ASCAP or BMI anonymously and let them review whether this is being handled properly. And believe me, they WILL check out the situation.
“Copyright laws and all other intellectual property is a fallacy and unconstitutional.”
This view can be proved wrong very simply: Patent- and license-granting systems existed both the U.S. Constitution and afterwards. Even the earliest First Amendment cases in the United States took as a matter of fact that people were entitled to profit from their inventions and literary works (sometimes called “the labours of the intellect”).
oops. That should “both before and after”.
Many textbooks allow you to make copies for your own use,but you may NOT sell them. It is always a good idea to check. (My mom was a teacher; I picked these things up more or less by 😉 osmosis).
As far as music is concerned, there is at least a possibility that some (not all!) music may be in the public domain, even though a copyright notice appears on the pages. I am thinking of some of the music we use in the choir at church: The piece was copyrighted in the 1920s or 1930s. It’s still a beautiful piece of music, but its falling apart. In most cases, making copies is perfectly legal. Why? Because the publisher even exist any never renewed the copyright; indeed, that publisher may not exist any more.
Again, someone needs to check, but it is probably not the student.
Copyright laws and all other intellectual property is a fallacy and unconstitutional.
The one time the word “right” is used in the Constitution (as opposed to the amendments) is to specifically state that one power of the feds is
“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;”
Property of any kind must be determined on the qualitative characteristic of “scarcity.”
Yes, and therefore intellectual property is obviously property. If it weren’t scarce, there would be no need to copy it; you would be able to make your own.
I am a music teacher at a college, and I really try to observe the copyright laws. We are allowed to copy excerpts for educational use, but not entire works. We are also allowed to make a copy of a work if an original is on order. My main problem is that the students procrastinate in ordering their own original. Most of them cough up the dough before the semester is up!
“Yes, and therefore intellectual property is obviously property. If it weren’t scarce, there would be no need to copy it; you would be able to make your own.”
This argument is specious. A photocopy multiplies the medium of the information, but not the information itself. The information is more widely disseminated, but not actually increased. Two photocopies don’t contain more ideas than one. There is more food, on the other hand, in two loaves of bread than in one.
“If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.” – Thomas Jefferson
Calling an idea property (intellectual property) is a perversion of the very idea of property. The DMCA act and Sonny Bono act and other are merely logical extensions of the illogical ideal of intellectual property.
Check out http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html for a look at this issue from a few different angles.
A photocopy multiplies the medium of the information, but not the information itself.
But you want a photocopy of the information. If you just got a random photocopy, you would not be happy. That shows that information is scarce, because you need to get it
I realize I am late to the party on this one but let me offer this:
US Code
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 107 Prev | Next
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
How Current is This?
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Ah, I love the quote from Thomas Jefferson. He didn’t think ideas were property, but he thought people could be bought and sold as slaves. 🙂
I do believe that Jefferson was stupid in this instance. It flies in the face of the natural law that a person has a right to profit from his labour. Besides, if you take his statement as it is, then the U.S. had no right to keep the atomic bomb designs from its enemies during WWII. The Chinese should NOT be stopped from making pirated copies of software, Gucci bags, etc.
Heck, I should stop punishing students when they copy each other’s work or plagiarize their essays. After all, they have as much right to that intellectual property as the rest of the world!