How much for charts?

[Bach5G]

The leader of our band is leaving the country. It might be possible for those of us who wish to continue to buy the charts.

Assuming a new cost of $75/arrangement, what would you pay? Original, commercially available stuff, like, say, a Mintzer chart.

[Kingfan]

Are you buying the originals, or just copies? The guy who sold me the big band I am half owner of had donated all the originals to a local high school for the tax deduction and wanted way too much for just copies. He agreed to 25% of what he originally quoted us. If I somebody was selling a complete original chart on eBay, used, I might pay between 25% and 50% of new. That is just my opinion, though.

[Bach5G]

2nd paragraph.

[ghmerrill]

... wanted way too much for just copies. He agreed to 25% of what he originally quoted us.

He wanted way too much for the sale of copies, but agreed to 25% of the original quote for the sale of something that clearly violates copyright law? What a deal.

[AndrewMeronek]

Assuming a new cost of $75/arrangement, what would you pay? Original, commercially available stuff, like, say, a Mintzer chart.

Commercially available? I would think the cost shouldn't be more than to buy them freshly printed out from a commercial source, unless they have a lot of special notes written in that improve their value.

[Kingfan]

... wanted way too much for just copies. He agreed to 25% of what he originally quoted us.

He wanted way too much for the sale of copies, but agreed to 25% of the original quote for the sale of something that clearly violates copyright law? What a deal.

Yep. That is why we paid $500 for the folders, 16 stand fronts, keyboard amp, mike stands/cables/cheap mikes, wired stand lights, and hand percussion equipment plus the music. We ended up buying the equipment and got the copies of 200 complete charts and another 40 or so that were missing some parts for free. We are working on acquiring originals of what we play. We will keep them in a file cabinet and keep the copies in the books so if a book gets lost we can just make other copies.

[ghmerrill]

But you do realize that those copies you "got" still violate copyright law?

"Just make other copies" is also a violation (except in those circumstances where the publisher has explicitly given that permission). For older (printed) editions, I don't know of cases where publishers grant such permission, and the proper approach to replacing lost parts is to purchase them from the publisher. Even in the case of "out of print" materials, my experience is that it's impossible to get reprint/copy permission from a publisher. There are some thorny legal issues involved, and reasons why they take this approach -- however irritating it may be.

With some publishers and some digital editions nowadays, I've seen permission granted to retain "backup copies", but that isn't close to being universal. In one place you say you bought equipment "plus the music" and in another you say you got the music "for free". From the point of view of copyright, that doesn't really matter since the copies were violations anyway. And retaining "backup copies" of publications that you don't actually own in the first place is incoherent.

Composers and arrangers (in addition to the publishers) tend to get really testy at the idea of people making copies of their published materials. They seem to think its their property that's being taken, and that this is affecting their property rights and income.

At least I'm happy to see that there's been no attempt here to invoke the "fair use" doctrine.

I'm really not meaning to lecture you, but I've spent a lot of time (as an academic many years ago, and then later in both the software and pharma industry, and in community bands) dealing with copyright, patent, and performance license issues. The situations are generally a lot clearer than people like to admit. Whether anything ever comes of them depends on a number of circumstances.

[BGuttman]

Gary, the Copyright Police are not coming after everybody who makes a copy and keeps the original in a safe place. They are really testy when you buy one copy of the arrangement and then make several sets of parts to distribute to different bands. They also get upset when you are a famous band touring to big ticket audiences and making big money from their arrangements. Far and away more music publishers and arrangers prefer you buy several arrangements rather than replacement copies because a part went missing.

[ghmerrill]

So ... (a) Person A buys a set of charts, and (b) later donates that set of parts to a school, and (c) then either "gives" or sells copies of that set of charts to person B. Person A committed outright copyright violations for an entire set of parts (which Person B can't avoid knowing), and person B has received what in the eyes of copyright law and the publishers is stolen property (which he can't avoid knowing). This is really indisputable. All that seems to be in dispute is whether this use of stolen property is okay (in some sense). To pretend that it's not stolen property is to deny the facts and the law.

Sure, you can finesse your decision to accept and use a set of stolen material, but there are two things to be said about that.

The first is that at the end of the day you have to decide what legal and ethical principles you're going to follow -- or not. And that's a personal choice. You may care only about the likely consequences of getting caught at it. That's a personal choice.

Second: If your point is that there are some things you can get away with, then, sure, that has to be conceded. Shoplifters and tax cheats do it all the time -- and we admire them, right? We should equally admire copyright violators for striking a blow for the right of musicians everywhere to have free sheet music.

As for what publishers and arrangers would "prefer", my guess and experience is that they prefer you to honor their copyrights. That's why they have them. Golly, why do you suppose the Tuba Christmas site contains the phrase "NO ILLEGAL PHOTOCOPIES!" standing alone in big capital letters? Wouldn't it be easier to just have people digitize the book and pass it around? You might get more participation in your events and save people a lot of money.

But really: is someone here suggesting that it's okay to run a musical organization based on pirated copies of charts? Really? Or to use pirated copies of charts as long as you aren't the one who did the copying? Really? It gets very tricky to draw those lines once you start trying to. Again, there are personal choices here. Like I told my kids when they were growing up: You have to look at yourself in the mirror every day and be able to say you did the right thing.

[BGuttman]

We are not advocating use of pirated charts. Even Greg (Kingfan) is buying a set of originals to legitimize his copies. Originally he had refused to buy the set of copies from the old band leader but they were included in a sale including a bunch of other goods.

The original post was that someone was going to sell a pile of used originals. Fair market value is probably half the new prices; less if parts are missing.

I can't count on all my digits (21) how many bands I've played with that have folders choked with copies of parts. Often without originals. It's not the way I operate; I generally buy a chart and make a set of working copies. I ran this past Jack Gale and he was OK with it. I ran it past another publisher and he was not (but most of the stuff he published I'd probably never have bought anyway).

I have not experienced a raid of police taking all the illegal copies from the Big Band book. I doubt I ever will.

I am all for protecting the copyright of a person who spent hours creating a musical work. I am not prepared to constantly buy the work in eternity (as the rental agencies seem to prefer).

[ExZacLee]

This isn't about what musicians find acceptable.

It's about fair recompense for work.

Selling your tattered originals is basically the same as selling copies. Bob Mintzer doesn't make a whole lot of money on those charts, but he deserves every penny. If you want a Bob Mintzer chart, buy it. It's readily available.

Everytime I show up on a gig and find stuff I wrote in the book, knowing full and well it wasn't purchased, I seethe.

Do you know why rental agencies exist? Precisely because of this behavior. Sorry you don't like it... but if everyone could be expected to do the right thing, it wouldn't be an issue.

[Kingfan]

I resold my college textbooks when I was done with them. I buy a novel and when done with it I can legally sell it on eBay or at a garage sale. If I am done with a trombone music method book, I can resell it - I see them for sale on this site. If I have a big band arrangement (original) and when I no longer need it, I can resell it for what the market will bear, can't I? I never bought bootleg copies of cassettes or CDs or DVDs, and don't buy bootleg copies of music. I told the guy selling the band to me that the copies he seemed to think were worth something were worth only the paper they were printed on. ExZacLee, if you show up at a gig and find illegal copies of stuff you wrote, you have every right to take it and rip it up in my opinion.

[ghmerrill]

I am all for protecting the copyright of a person who spent hours creating a musical work. I am not prepared to constantly buy the work in eternity (as the rental agencies seem to prefer).

I think we're all in agreement about most of the basic issues, but what you've just said exposes/suggests a fundamental difference in view within the community and also a fundamental difference between the copyright law as written (however out of date it is -- and it is) and what people "think".

So what do you think is the "work" you've bought from a publisher when you buy a printed copy of a piece? You seem to think that what you've bought in that case is a kind of abstract object that's "realized" on a particular set of physical pieces of paper. Or maybe you think you've bought a "right" to reproduce the "work". And since you've bought that abstract object (we can ignore its exact nature at the moment), then you are free to "re-realize" it (or parts of it) -- in particular, to print a copy page, to get a copied page or part from somewhere other than by purchasing it, or maybe even to make a complete "backup copy" of the "work" on paper in case something should happen to the "original copy". You think, perhaps (and I know of others who do), that the original copy is just one copy, indistinguishable from others you might make; and that it's "just a copy" of "the work". This is what's suggested (if not explicit in) your comment that you're "not prepared to constantly buy the work". That remark makes sense ONLY if you think that "the work" you've bought is something different from the set of physical pages the publisher sent you.

This is a completely reasonable view of things, and a lot of people share it. But it's WRONG -- at least in light of current copyright law. What you bought was a SINGLE COPY of a piece of music. THIS (and not some more abstract thing) is "the work". This is VERY clear in copyright law and in case law and court decisions. Don't get me wrong: there are very good reasons for changing this orientation of copyright law, and it is changing slowly. It HAS to change in the digital age because that old model of publication and reproduction is now completely inadequate -- in part because, when you now buy a piece online and take "digital delivery" of it, in fact you HAVE bought an abstract object and not a physical thing. If you do this, you may notice some very careful wording publishers insert concerning if/when/how/under what circumstances ANY copies may be made.

But right now -- certainly for any paper publications/copies, and certainly for "legacy" copies -- the old model is still the law. You bought paper. You own that paper. If you lose it, barf on it, or your dog eats it, then too bad -- that paper is gone. You can buy a replacement for that paper from the publisher, but when you do, you're buying a NEW piece of paper. You are not constantly buying the same work in eternity. The "work" you buy from the publisher isn't an abstract "composition" or "arrangement". It's a piece of paper. That's ALWAYS been the publishing model. In days before copy machines (50s? 60s?), there was no problem -- no confusion. Since then, things have become progressively more problematic with that model, and a newer solution is still being (somewhat painfully) worked out.

I'm perfectly aware that -- regarding the sort of copying and copies we're talking about -- "people do this all the time". That doesn't make it legal, it doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make it wise. It's also possible (I think, and I can do it) to provide pretty solid ethical/pragmatic justifications for making copies under certain circumstances -- and ones that a court might find compelling on grounds of "equity", if it got to that point. And while I'm prepared to do that on a personal basis (in situations of copies for my own private use, for example), I'm not prepared to do similar things in the context of an organization such as a band, orchestra, or other group -- particularly if I'm a member of the administration or management of that group. But we each have to make our own choices in these confusing times.

[Driswood]

How dicey does it get when you have scanned copies of tunes in ForScore on an iPad? The only way to get the tune in the pad is to "copy" it via scanner. Where do publishers stand on that?

[BGuttman]

This is where we really get into a gray area. Technically you are violating copyright. But if you only put it on the one I-pad and don't try to transmit it to somebody else, most folks would say it's OK.

Remember, the intent of copyright laws is to prevent piracy of intellectual property, not to make your life impossible. For the most part, as long as you buy the works you play at least once, you should be OK.

[Matt K]

There are a lot of publishers who are totally okay with it now and even provide parts in PDF for you. I'm in a big band that the bandleader has exclusively been able to buy stuff with PDF available parts from some pretty cool players too but I don't remember who they are off the top of my head.

[Kingfan]

I think they provide charts in .pdf for their own reasons. Supposed I wrote 10 killer charts. If I sold paper copies I would have to print them off and mail them. New charts come on one piece, i.e. a four page chart is one piece of paper with three folds. If my arrangement had a four page drum part, would have to by special paper and printer to do that, or find a local printing company to do it for me. Even if I had a printer do it, where am I going to store all those copies? However, if I sold the charts as .pdf, I could do it in less than a minute sitting in my PJs at my home computer. No printer, no file cabinets full of dusty charts, no runs to the printer and post office. Even some of the big publishers give you the option of .pdf purchases - https://www.lushlifemusic.com/ for one. Dave Wolpe will sell his charts directly as .pdf files http://www.wolpechart.com/pdf.html.

[hyperbolica]

I'm an author of books on software. Music, books, and software are all pirated, and all dealt with differently. Recorded music has gone the way of advertisement, such that end users (listeners) rarely pay for music directly any more. Instead, they stream through a service that advertises or collects personal information, or something, but you wind up paying indirectly one way or another. Software is said to be "licensed", so used software (even on hard media like a disc ) cannot be resold - you have to have a license from the manufacturer to use it. Books, on the other hand, can be resold used. Used book stores are a fixture in culture.

Of these, the licensing thing is the most profitable, but it also generally takes more infrastructure to produce the kind of high-level software I work with (software that costs ~$5k+ per license). There are obvious exceptions, including individuals who can produce software.

Recorded music has a production/distribution machine that identifies new talent and churns content constantly. There are exceptions, including individuals or small groups who can produce recorded music. There is a huge glut of talent, professional and amateur, but only the lucky ones who are picked up by the machine really make a lot of money.

Creative people who produce books and music are ridiculously underpaid, except that top 0.01% who are paid embarrassingly more than everyone else. There's such a glut of talent that no one gets what they deserve. When I write a book, I get paid about $1.65/hr. I imagine even very talented people who write music make even less. Is this wrong? Of course it is. Is it illegal? No. There are so many people willing to write, that you really can't pay authors very much. The people who stock the shelves with the books and run the cash registers make more money on books than authors do.

As I see it, people who create interpreted art - books, music - are always going to be underpaid unless we go back to a patron system from centuries ago, where musicians were kept on staff to produce art. Should the government or universities pay musicians to create? That's a different discussion, but it would be the equivalent of the old system, and one where people who create would really get something fair in return for their contributions to society.

[Driswood]

There were a few companies selling elementary band arrangements that emailed you one PDF of each part, with a letter giving you permission to make as many copies as you need for your band, whether you have 25 students or 125. You have permission to make copies for ONE SCHOOL and ONE SCHOOL ONLY! If you teach at three elementary schools, you have to purchase a separate license for each of your three schools. I don't know if they still do this - I retired 8 years ago!