Dream a little...

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
21 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Dream a little...

erikzachte
Here is a specific one that hopefully would even be possible within our
current budget:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code2000

This is an amazing labour of love by one person, James Kass, and distributed
as shareware for a meagre $5.
As far as I know there is no font file that comes close in breadth of
coverage,
except perhaps for MsArialUnicode, which is a 25 Mb font file from
Microsoft, and not free nor shareware :(

Erik Zachte


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dream a little...

Gregory Maxwell
On 10/15/06, Erik Zachte <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Here is a specific one that hopefully would even be possible within our
> current budget:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code2000
>
> This is an amazing labour of love by one person, James Kass, and distributed
> as shareware for a meagre $5.
> As far as I know there is no font file that comes close in breadth of
> coverage,
> except perhaps for MsArialUnicode, which is a 25 Mb font file from
> Microsoft, and not free nor shareware :(

DejaVu is a truly free (BSDish + PD) collaboratively developed high
quality font which is suitable for system wide use. It is already the
default font on most popular Linux distributions.

http://dejavu.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

The coverages of code 2000 and DejaVu are not identical.

Given that the font is distributed for a small fee it is not unlikely
that we could get it freed fairly cheaply.  However, I believe it
would be foolish for us to spend money freeing a font without
collaborating with the DejaVu folks. As it stands today, code2000 is
not really suitable for use as a system wide font on most desktops: it
doesn't have broad typeface support and doesn't have high quality
hinted latin coverage.


I think this brings up an important issue: If we start paying people
for content which was created mostly not for profit but is distributed
with a nuisance license (cc-by-nc-nd for example, or distributed as $5
shareware to a small market)... Do we not risk creating a situation
where people are rewarded for not completely freeing their content
when they would otherwise without our program?  Where people will
instead lobby their friends with authority in the WMF to kick them
money.. Do we not risk insulting the rest of our contributors who give
us valuable works without an expectation of compensation?

I think that if we get the funding to make an impact we should be
careful to spend it on:

1) Things which further our educational mission the most: I think a
font might qualify, but only if we could reasonably expect people to
accept it as the default font in their browsers...  but on the other
hand, "all of U2's albums" would be nifty but not really furthering
our goals.

2) Things which would be the most difficult to replace without the
funding: A $5 shareware font which has huge overlap with an existing
free content project does not fair well on this criteria.


How about recordings of out of copyright (i.e. classical)  music?  The
only rights holder should be whomever recorded it and whomever they
signed agreements with in order to be permitted to record it.  There
are a number of small record labels such as [[Nimbus Records]] as well
as the concert halls themselves which have large libraries of music.
I think this would only be worthwhile as a funded endeavor if it could
land us a truly massive archive which would enable us to illustrate a
majority of our articles on long-dead composers.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dream a little...

P. Birken
2006/10/15, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]>:

> How about recordings of out of copyright (i.e. classical)  music?  The
> only rights holder should be whomever recorded it and whomever they
> signed agreements with in order to be permitted to record it.  There
> are a number of small record labels such as [[Nimbus Records]] as well
> as the concert halls themselves which have large libraries of music.
> I think this would only be worthwhile as a funded endeavor if it could
> land us a truly massive archive which would enable us to illustrate a
> majority of our articles on long-dead composers.

Classical music recordings are what I would call the classical
copyright nightmare. It might be possible to get solo pieces under a
free licence, but orchestra pieces... I talked to a Conductor of the
local university orchestra about putting some of their recordings
under a free license. You have to get forty people (the recorders) to
put this under a free licence. The next part is that while the music
is free, orchestras usually rent the notes from some music publishing
company (because it's too expensive to buy a complete set of notes for
every piece). These companies in turn put demands on your use of their
notes, most often fees for commercial use, which would in a way apply
if you put this under the GNU-FDL or CC-by-SA.

Nevertheless, it sounds like a good idea to fund a piano player to
record the major Bach, Beethoven and Mozart piano pieces.

Cheers,

Philipp
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dream a little...

Gerard Meijssen-3
P. Birken wrote:

> 2006/10/15, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]>:
>
>  
>> How about recordings of out of copyright (i.e. classical)  music?  The
>> only rights holder should be whomever recorded it and whomever they
>> signed agreements with in order to be permitted to record it.  There
>> are a number of small record labels such as [[Nimbus Records]] as well
>> as the concert halls themselves which have large libraries of music.
>> I think this would only be worthwhile as a funded endeavor if it could
>> land us a truly massive archive which would enable us to illustrate a
>> majority of our articles on long-dead composers.
>>    
>
> Classical music recordings are what I would call the classical
> copyright nightmare. It might be possible to get solo pieces under a
> free licence, but orchestra pieces... I talked to a Conductor of the
> local university orchestra about putting some of their recordings
> under a free license. You have to get forty people (the recorders) to
> put this under a free licence. The next part is that while the music
> is free, orchestras usually rent the notes from some music publishing
> company (because it's too expensive to buy a complete set of notes for
> every piece). These companies in turn put demands on your use of their
> notes, most often fees for commercial use, which would in a way apply
> if you put this under the GNU-FDL or CC-by-SA.
>
> Nevertheless, it sounds like a good idea to fund a piano player to
> record the major Bach, Beethoven and Mozart piano pieces.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Philipp
Hoi,
When it is not possible to play a piece by Haydn Mozart Rossini because
there is no music available, we should SCAN these works and digitize
them. When we have done this, we should make them available. When we
make these works available, it will become easier to perform these
works. As more material becomes easily available, more music will be
played. This in term will stimulate the performance of music.

The performance of music by amateur musicians is imho more important
than to have another performance by an acknowledged master performer. I
think that popular music is popular because it is easy to get a band
together and just play. When it is EASY to get the music, it will become
easy to perform.. Remember Bach was a composer and his compositions were
first and foremost consumables. When it is easy to just have another
piece of music when you decide you do not like the one you have, the
entry level to music will be lowered and music will become less of a
consumable and more participatory.

When you invest money, you have to consider what you want to achieve
with it.. When I buy music I want my violin concerto performed by Maxim
Vengerov or I might buy the latest Patti Smith. When I were to invest
money, I would consider what WE should spend money on, what would help
US. Our success exist because of us cooperating. When we invest, it
should make us stronger. We do not get stronger by paying royalties; we
get stronger by investing in the restoration of the same material and we
should only invest in it when we Free this material at the same time.
When we are to invest in politicking, I would echo Elian and have "Free
Donald and Mickey" be our battle cry.

I would echo Danny where he wants to spend serious money into our
hardware; there are many challenges that can be overcome with ample
funding, I would however spend a lot more money in the development of
our software. So many dreams are not realised because there is nobody
willing to consider it, willing to code it. Much functionality is
unlikely to get coded because it is just too much work.

Yes, we can spend $100.000.000,- but let us spend it in a way that makes
us stronger. When we show that we can spend wisely, it will be the
beginning of something great; the restoration of a participatory
society. When we spend wisely, we will be trusted with much more money.

Thanks,
    Gerard
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dream a little...

Gregory Maxwell
On 10/16/06, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> When it is not possible to play a piece by Haydn Mozart Rossini because
> there is no music available, we should SCAN these works and digitize
> them.

For some orchestral pieces finding scores which are not modern
arrangements can be a challenge. ... for works where unaltered scores
are available there should be little problem in obtaining a legal
recording.

http://www.mutopiaproject.org/  < folks working on score
transcriptions, wikisource style, for works which can be legally
cleared. As you can see, their collection is not that large.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dream a little...

Birgitte_sb
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3


--- Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> P. Birken wrote:
> > 2006/10/15, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]>:
> >
> >  
> >> How about recordings of out of copyright (i.e.
> classical)  music?  The
> >> only rights holder should be whomever recorded it
> and whomever they
> >> signed agreements with in order to be permitted
> to record it.  There
> >> are a number of small record labels such as
> [[Nimbus Records]] as well
> >> as the concert halls themselves which have large
> libraries of music.
> >> I think this would only be worthwhile as a funded
> endeavor if it could
> >> land us a truly massive archive which would
> enable us to illustrate a
> >> majority of our articles on long-dead composers.
> >>    
> >
> > Classical music recordings are what I would call
> the classical
> > copyright nightmare. It might be possible to get
> solo pieces under a
> > free licence, but orchestra pieces... I talked to
> a Conductor of the
> > local university orchestra about putting some of
> their recordings
> > under a free license. You have to get forty people
> (the recorders) to
> > put this under a free licence. The next part is
> that while the music
> > is free, orchestras usually rent the notes from
> some music publishing
> > company (because it's too expensive to buy a
> complete set of notes for
> > every piece). These companies in turn put demands
> on your use of their
> > notes, most often fees for commercial use, which
> would in a way apply
> > if you put this under the GNU-FDL or CC-by-SA.
> >
> > Nevertheless, it sounds like a good idea to fund a
> piano player to
> > record the major Bach, Beethoven and Mozart piano
> pieces.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Philipp
> Hoi,
> When it is not possible to play a piece by Haydn
> Mozart Rossini because
> there is no music available, we should SCAN these
> works and digitize
> them. When we have done this, we should make them
> available. When we
> make these works available, it will become easier to
> perform these
> works. As more material becomes easily available,
> more music will be
> played. This in term will stimulate the performance
> of music.
>

It is also worth pointing out we currently do not have
the capabilty of truly digitizing music.   We can only
host images of sheet music right now.


Birgitte SB

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com 
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dream a little...

Gregory Maxwell
On 10/16/06, Birgitte SB <[hidden email]> wrote:
[snip]
> It is also worth pointing out we currently do not have
> the capabilty of truly digitizing music.   We can only
> host images of sheet music right now.

But for the low price of one Brion proof anti-stabbing jacket we could
be there in no time:

http://www.wikisophia.org/wiki/Wikitex
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dream a little...

Birgitte_sb


--- Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 10/16/06, Birgitte SB <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> [snip]
> > It is also worth pointing out we currently do not
> have
> > the capabilty of truly digitizing music.   We can
> only
> > host images of sheet music right now.
>
> But for the low price of one Brion proof
> anti-stabbing jacket we could
> be there in no time:
>
> http://www.wikisophia.org/wiki/Wikitex
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

I will not pretend to really understand this stuff.
However Wikitex uses Lillypond and brion has marked
Lillypond "wontfix"  because it is inherently unsafe.
But if the Wikitex thing is really something different
please forgive my confusion.


Birgitte SB
I will not pretend


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com 
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dream a little...

Gregory Maxwell
On 10/16/06, Birgitte SB <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I will not pretend to really understand this stuff.
> However Wikitex uses Lillypond and brion has marked
> Lillypond "wontfix"  because it is inherently unsafe.
> But if the Wikitex thing is really something different
> please forgive my confusion.

Wikitex jumps through a **lot** of hoops to make its use of lilypond safe.

The question of the efforts taken being sufficient is a matter which
is open to debate. (It should be, built it's a lot of complexity to
audit).

This is why a stab proof jacket is a hard prerequisite for getting
this support, probably a lot of patience, etc..
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dream a little...

Erik Moeller-4
In reply to this post by Birgitte_sb
On 10/16/06, Birgitte SB <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I will not pretend to really understand this stuff.
> However Wikitex uses Lillypond and brion has marked
> Lillypond "wontfix"  because it is inherently unsafe.
> But if the Wikitex thing is really something different
> please forgive my confusion.

The current status, as I understand it, is that Peter Danenberg is
coming up with a new security model for WikiTeX. He has tentatively
stated that he wants to be done by December 1. Then the WMF tech team
can take another stab at reviewing it (and its components) for
integration.

As you know, I strongly believe we need this and other extension-based
functionality; we just need a general security model for it that makes
sense.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dream a little...

geni
On 10/16/06, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 10/16/06, Birgitte SB <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I will not pretend to really understand this stuff.
> > However Wikitex uses Lillypond and brion has marked
> > Lillypond "wontfix"  because it is inherently unsafe.
> > But if the Wikitex thing is really something different
> > please forgive my confusion.
>
> The current status, as I understand it, is that Peter Danenberg is
> coming up with a new security model for WikiTeX. He has tentatively
> stated that he wants to be done by December 1. Then the WMF tech team
> can take another stab at reviewing it (and its components) for
> integration.
>
> As you know, I strongly believe we need this and other extension-based
> functionality; we just need a general security model for it that makes
> sense.

While this might be useful on wikisource on en it would have the
problem of making the code shown on the editing pages even more
incomprehensible.


--
geni
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dream a little...

Birgitte_sb


--- geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 10/16/06, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > On 10/16/06, Birgitte SB <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > I will not pretend to really understand this
> stuff.
> > > However Wikitex uses Lillypond and brion has
> marked
> > > Lillypond "wontfix"  because it is inherently
> unsafe.
> > > But if the Wikitex thing is really something
> different
> > > please forgive my confusion.
> >
> > The current status, as I understand it, is that
> Peter Danenberg is
> > coming up with a new security model for WikiTeX.
> He has tentatively
> > stated that he wants to be done by December 1.
> Then the WMF tech team
> > can take another stab at reviewing it (and its
> components) for
> > integration.
> >
> > As you know, I strongly believe we need this and
> other extension-based
> > functionality; we just need a general security
> model for it that makes
> > sense.
>
> While this might be useful on wikisource on en it
> would have the
> problem of making the code shown on the editing
> pages even more
> incomprehensible.
>
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________


I am unsure what you mean here.  The code will look
the same at en.WS as it does at en.WP.  It will only
show up where there is a need to display music.  Many
editors will never come across thes edit screens at
all.  However much of a learning curve there is with
this code it will be more efficient than cropping
images from book scans.  I don't understand what you
are advocating here.

Birgitte SB

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com 
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dream a little...

Gregory Maxwell
In reply to this post by geni
On 10/16/06, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> While this might be useful on wikisource on en it would have the
> problem of making the code shown on the editing pages even more
> incomprehensible.

What is more incomprehensible:  a standard language for music notation
which takes about fifteen minutes to learn for someone who already
knows notation,  .. or an opaque image which can either only be edited
by the same language using software most editors do not have installed
OR edited by recreation in an expensive propritary application (which
also outputs copyrighted gliphs)?

We really do need in wiki music notation editing ... right now the
extra steps to create notation offline and upload it are a substantial
discouragement to authoring.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dream a little...

geni
In reply to this post by Birgitte_sb
On 10/17/06, Birgitte SB <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I am unsure what you mean here.  The code will look
> the same at en.WS as it does at en.WP.

Pages at en.WS likely have lower editing rates. New users looking at a
page full of code should be a less of a proble,

> It will only
> show up where there is a need to display music.  Many
> editors will never come across thes edit screens at
> all.  However much of a learning curve there is with
> this code it will be more efficient than cropping
> images from book scans.  I don't understand what you
> are advocating here.
>
> Birgitte SB

I'm suggesting we be careful before adding yet another form of
incomprihensible code to articles.
--
geni
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dream a little...

Alphax (Wikipedia email)
In reply to this post by geni
geni wrote:

> On 10/16/06, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 10/16/06, Birgitte SB <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> I will not pretend to really understand this stuff.
>>> However Wikitex uses Lillypond and brion has marked
>>> Lillypond "wontfix"  because it is inherently unsafe.
>>> But if the Wikitex thing is really something different
>>> please forgive my confusion.
>> The current status, as I understand it, is that Peter Danenberg is
>> coming up with a new security model for WikiTeX. He has tentatively
>> stated that he wants to be done by December 1. Then the WMF tech team
>> can take another stab at reviewing it (and its components) for
>> integration.
>>
>> As you know, I strongly believe we need this and other extension-based
>> functionality; we just need a general security model for it that makes
>> sense.
>
> While this might be useful on wikisource on en it would have the
> problem of making the code shown on the editing pages even more
> incomprehensible.
>
We manage to handle EasyTimelines in articles quite well - we put them
in templates. Why not do the same with WikiTex blocks?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

signature.asc (581 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dream a little...

Birgitte_sb
In reply to this post by geni


--- geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 10/17/06, Birgitte SB <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > I am unsure what you mean here.  The code will
> look
> > the same at en.WS as it does at en.WP.
>
> Pages at en.WS likely have lower editing rates. New
> users looking at a
> page full of code should be a less of a proble,
>
> > It will only
> > show up where there is a need to display music.
> Many
> > editors will never come across thes edit screens
> at
> > all.  However much of a learning curve there is
> with
> > this code it will be more efficient than cropping
> > images from book scans.  I don't understand what
> you
> > are advocating here.
> >
> > Birgitte SB
>
> I'm suggesting we be careful before adding yet
> another form of
> incomprihensible code to articles.
> --
> geni

Please, please tell me that you are not meaning to
imply that en.WP's preferences should be factor in
deciding if development resources are allocated
towards a fucntionality for the Wikisource projects.


Birgitte SB

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com 
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dream a little...

Sam Korn
On 10/17/06, Birgitte SB <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Please, please tell me that you are not meaning to
> imply that en.WP's preferences should be factor in
> deciding if development resources are allocated
> towards a fucntionality for the Wikisource projects.

Well, actually, pretty much "yes".  Not "preferences", certainly, but
the deployment of development resources should always depend on the
demand.

So a project for en.wikisource that was not needed for en.wikipedia
would have lower priority than one for en.wikisource alone.  But a
project for en.wikipedia alone would have lower priority than one
needed by both en.wikipedia and en.wikisource.

--
Sam
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dream a little...

geni
In reply to this post by Birgitte_sb
On 10/17/06, Birgitte SB <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Please, please tell me that you are not meaning to
> imply that en.WP's preferences should be factor in
> deciding if development resources are allocated
> towards a fucntionality for the Wikisource projects.
>

No it would be fairly trivial to have something switched on for
wikisource and switched off for wikipedia.


--
geni
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dream a little...

Andrew Gray
In reply to this post by geni
On 16/10/06, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > As you know, I strongly believe we need this and other extension-based
> > functionality; we just need a general security model for it that makes
> > sense.
>
> While this might be useful on wikisource on en it would have the
> problem of making the code shown on the editing pages even more
> incomprehensible.

Yes, because having math-tex code, which is fairly difficult to grok,
has crippled projects to the point where they can't work. Oh, wait.

If editors don't understand something in an editing screen, they leave
it alone - it's generally not difficult at all to figure out which bit
you're looking at even if you don't comprehend the code. I don't see
why providing for extensions which will be quite rarely used, but
provide definite extra functionality, is a downside.

Yes, other projects will use it more than enwp. But that doesn't mean
that it won't be useful on enwp, or mean that it's somehow an
automatic detriment...

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dream a little...

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by P. Birken
P. Birken wrote:

> Classical music recordings are what I would call the classical
>
>copyright nightmare. It might be possible to get solo pieces under a
>free licence, but orchestra pieces... I talked to a Conductor of the
>local university orchestra about putting some of their recordings
>under a free license. You have to get forty people (the recorders) to
>put this under a free licence. The next part is that while the music
>is free, orchestras usually rent the notes from some music publishing
>company (because it's too expensive to buy a complete set of notes for
>every piece). These companies in turn put demands on your use of their
>notes, most often fees for commercial use, which would in a way apply
>if you put this under the GNU-FDL or CC-by-SA.
>
>Nevertheless, it sounds like a good idea to fund a piano player to
>record the major Bach, Beethoven and Mozart piano pieces.
>
I think that a lot of this material has already been recorded.  Much of
this is already in the public domain in better versions than we could
ever hope to produce cheaply.  We would do better to research this
thoroughly before we start commissioning piano players.

I don't really want to carry on at length about copyrights in the music
industry, but the residual payments that orchestra members receive for
this sort of thing are pitiful.  Well established symphony musicians
would count themselves lucky to get $100 a year for all their musical
rights combined.  This is all to the advantage of the music industry,
and not the artists, not the management of small local orchestras.  I'm
sure that the industry is aware of how difficult it would be to get 40
musicians to agree to anything that would put the industry's "rights" in
danger.  They are not above taking advantage of musicians' ignorance of
copyright law.

The concept of "renting the notes" strikes me as preposterous.  I
suspect that the material is not copyrightable, but could not verify
that without significant further research.  If the material is not
copyrightable it is more likely that the mentioned restrictions are
solely a product of contracts where the orchestra agrees to conditions
that could have been ignored but for the contract.

Going ahead.  Based on what you say it might be more worthwhile to "Free
the notes."  If, for whatever reason, small symphony orchestras can't
afford to buy complete sets of notes our efforts might be better spent
in providing scores that these orchestras can use at no cost beyond the
expense of running a printer.

By making these scores musically editable we could spawn an endless
number of fully GFDL "Wiki-variations on a theme by Bach."

The other point to be made is "Do your research."  It would be a great
waste of money to set about freeing what is already free.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
12