View previous topic | View next topic

QI intro music

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

suze
417875.  Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:18 am Reply with quote

At the request of the composer, whose intellectual property it is.

 
QiScorpion
418006.  Sun Oct 05, 2008 3:03 pm Reply with quote

surely it is to the benefit of the composer that people wish to download it?

 
MinervaMoon
418007.  Sun Oct 05, 2008 3:07 pm Reply with quote

How would it benefit the composer if everyone could download it for free?

 
barbados
418015.  Sun Oct 05, 2008 3:32 pm Reply with quote

It's my understanding that someone was a little less than complimentary about it and Mr Goodall exercised his right to withdraw it from the public domain.

 
dianagram
423837.  Thu Oct 16, 2008 2:42 pm Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
It's my understanding that someone was a little less than complimentary about it and Mr Goodall exercised his right to withdraw it from the public domain.


Perhaps we could start a 2nd petition to have the music put back in the public domain?

 
QiScorpion
423848.  Thu Oct 16, 2008 3:09 pm Reply with quote

dianagram wrote:
barbados wrote:
It's my understanding that someone was a little less than complimentary about it and Mr Goodall exercised his right to withdraw it from the public domain.


Perhaps we could start a 2nd petition to have the music put back in the public domain?


I second that motion. Please? I'd love to download that music.

And it benefits the composer because his work is being recognised ergo his fame is spreading.

 
MinervaMoon
423877.  Thu Oct 16, 2008 4:03 pm Reply with quote

You can't start a petition to take the right to withhold his own work away from the person who owns it. Or rather, you can, but it would be rather stupid, like "Petition to make the next Stephen King book free online!" or "Petition to make the latest Fratellis album free for download!"

 
Izzardesque
423893.  Thu Oct 16, 2008 4:19 pm Reply with quote

Not quite - if he allowed it free once and then withdrew becuase of negative comments, an upswell of positive attention could make him change his mind.

 
bobwilson
423983.  Thu Oct 16, 2008 6:14 pm Reply with quote

Hang on - surely if it was released into the public domain Mr G must have relinquished his rights?

 
suze
424006.  Thu Oct 16, 2008 7:06 pm Reply with quote

But it wasn't released into the public domain - Mr Goodall merely chose not to enforce his rights for a time. But for the reason discussed, he then changed his position and now asserts his rights over the tune in the usual way.

 
bobwilson
424016.  Thu Oct 16, 2008 7:39 pm Reply with quote

Well now - there's a fine point of law. I recall an exchange in Private Eye not so long ago which went thusly:

Private Eye reported that a school had been using (pisspoor)Portakabins as temporary accomodation due to the ineptitude of builders.

Portakabin (the company) wrote to Private Eye pointing out that the temporary buildings were actually not Portakabins but of some other make; that PE should use the description "temporary buildings" or similar; and that Portakabin was a registered trademark.

Private Eye published the letter under the heading of "What a sad way to make a living". (And headed every other letter in the same edition with Portakabin no matter what the subject matter).

In the next edition PE published a raft of letters on the subject - including one (I believe from a copyright lawyer) that said (I'm paraphrasing) "actually, it's not a sad way to make a living at all. If Portakabin don't take active steps to protect their intellectual property, the word Portakabin would become a generic term and Portakabin would lose their rights to the name."

That exchange seems to suggest that if you don't enforce your copyright (or at least try to), and you are aware that those rights are being infringed, then you are deemed to have forfeited those rights.

That would seem to imply that since Mr G knew his work was being openly made available he'd implicitly rescinded any copyright in the work. (Possibly unless all the download sites also carried a notice of copyright and a notice stating that making the work available did not imply a rescinding of copyright).

One for Fudgie or another suitably qualified mekanik methinks?

 
barbados
424043.  Fri Oct 17, 2008 1:02 am Reply with quote

Everybody that used the music did need to ask Howard Goodall permission to use it. That permission was never declined. Anyone that used it without his permission was using it illegally. Those that had his permission to use the music were asked to remove it from their sites. And those that sought his permission in the first place understood fully his reasons for wanting it withdrawn. Copyright wasn't rescinded, Howard Goodall always owned the music, he was just kind enough to lend it to us.

 
cabs
424902.  Sat Oct 18, 2008 10:19 am Reply with quote

bobwilson wrote:
One for Fudgie or another suitably qualified mekanik methinks?


Did she tell you she was a lawyer? Oh dear me.

 
Fudgie
425583.  Sun Oct 19, 2008 12:14 pm Reply with quote

Oi Cabs - you and me outside, now! Alternatively I won't make you any more tea when we're at work next.... ;-)

Bob, to use the oh-so-convenient get out clause - "that's not my area". Though my understanding is as Barbados has explained in his latest post on this thread.

 
Michael Young
451671.  Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:10 pm Reply with quote

I'm attempting to learn how to play it on my keyboard.

 

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group