Mozart's works released

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

Mozart's works released

Pat Gunn-2
In case anybody missed it,
Mozart's complete works were recently published on the
internet by the (Austria-based) International Mozart Foundation.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2006-12-11T185118Z_01_L11804081_RTRUKOC_0_US-ARTS-MUSIC-MOZART.xml

I'm not sure what license it's under. If it's a free one
(or PD-equivalent), then it's similar in a sense to several
ideas raised in Jimbo's idea drive sometime back.

A thought:
If it is freely licensed, to what extent should the foundation
consider republishing its content on WMF projects? Should WM
avoid possibly stepping on the toes of other projects, avoiding
duplicating any free conttent they make, or should it try to
collect everything (and possibly give prominent credit) that falls
under its mission? The general question may apply to other groups
like Project Gutenberg's works.

---
Pat Gunn
mod: csna, bmcm, bmco, cooa, cona, clpd, coom
http://dachte.org
"Let's put it this way: if you need to ask a lawyer whether
what you do is "right" or not, you are morally corrupt.
Let's not go there. We don't base our morality on law."
        -- Linus Torvalds
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mozart's works released

Hay (Husky)
Unfortunately they don't seem to be free.

>From the license agreement (
http://nma.redhost24-001.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=41&Itemid=50
):
"Wholesale downloading or reuse of the contents of this website is
prohibited under all circumstances, whether commercial or otherwise. The
works of Mozart should be considered in the public domain. Restrictions may,
however, apply to the scholarly edition as such, the graphic representation,
and the reproduction of images of source materials."

The works presented at the website are the editions from the Neue
Mozart-Ausgabe, published by Bärenreiter-Verlag, which are not PD in any
way.

-- Hay Kranen / [[User:Husky]]

On 12/14/06, Pat Gunn <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> In case anybody missed it,
> Mozart's complete works were recently published on the
> internet by the (Austria-based) International Mozart Foundation.
>
> http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2006-12-11T185118Z_01_L11804081_RTRUKOC_0_US-ARTS-MUSIC-MOZART.xml
>
> I'm not sure what license it's under. If it's a free one
> (or PD-equivalent), then it's similar in a sense to several
> ideas raised in Jimbo's idea drive sometime back.
>
> A thought:
> If it is freely licensed, to what extent should the foundation
> consider republishing its content on WMF projects? Should WM
> avoid possibly stepping on the toes of other projects, avoiding
> duplicating any free conttent they make, or should it try to
> collect everything (and possibly give prominent credit) that falls
> under its mission? The general question may apply to other groups
> like Project Gutenberg's works.
>
> ---
> Pat Gunn
> mod: csna, bmcm, bmco, cooa, cona, clpd, coom
> http://dachte.org
> "Let's put it this way: if you need to ask a lawyer whether
> what you do is "right" or not, you are morally corrupt.
> Let's not go there. We don't base our morality on law."
>         -- Linus Torvalds
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mozart's works released

Magnus Manske-2
In reply to this post by Pat Gunn-2
On 12/14/06, Pat Gunn <[hidden email]> wrote:
> In case anybody missed it,
> Mozart's complete works were recently published on the
> internet by the (Austria-based) International Mozart Foundation.
> http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2006-12-11T185118Z_01_L11804081_RTRUKOC_0_US-ARTS-MUSIC-MOZART.xml

These are the "scripts" only, right? Maybe we should get some
university music groups to play them so we can upload oggs and then
offer all of Mozarts works on commons as sound files.

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

Re: Mozart's works released

Andre Engels
In reply to this post by Pat Gunn-2
2006/12/14, Pat Gunn <[hidden email]>:

>
> In case anybody missed it,
> Mozart's complete works were recently published on the
> internet by the (Austria-based) International Mozart Foundation.
>
> http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2006-12-11T185118Z_01_L11804081_RTRUKOC_0_US-ARTS-MUSIC-MOZART.xml
>
> I'm not sure what license it's under. If it's a free one
> (or PD-equivalent), then it's similar in a sense to several
> ideas raised in Jimbo's idea drive sometime back.


Unfortunately, I went to the website, and you cannot even get into the
website without answering 'Ja' to the statement " Ich erkläre ausdrücklich,
dass ich diese Website nur zum persönlichen Studium verwende und Kopien nur
zu meinem eigenen privaten Gebrauch anfertige." (my translation: "I declare
that I will use this website only for personal studies and only make copies
for my own private use"). In other words, the material is free only as in
beer.


> A thought:
> If it is freely licensed, to what extent should the foundation
> consider republishing its content on WMF projects? Should WM
> avoid possibly stepping on the toes of other projects, avoiding
> duplicating any free conttent they make, or should it try to
> collect everything (and possibly give prominent credit) that falls
> under its mission? The general question may apply to other groups
> like Project Gutenberg's works.
>

I think the latter is too broad and the first too narrow. What I think
should answer the question is: Does copying to Wikimedia give any
substantial gains? I think we should restrict ourselves to two groups of
works in this perspective:
1. What we ourselves need, so that whatever we are already doing (Wikipedia,
Wiktionary and Wikibooks in particular) is done even better. This would for
example include many photographs, because we can use them in articles/books.
2. What can benefit from the specific capabilities and expertise of
Wikimedia. Our main specific capability is community involvement. If there
is a clear advantage of putting the material in a wiki or something similar
to putting it on a 'normal' website or in an FTP directory, then it is
something that would probably be good to put it on Wikimedia. Others (like
Project Gutenberg) are usually better if the main goal is to get existing PD
material onto the web. But when the project involves commenting on parts of
the work, creating some kind of low-level indexing or combining various
works and/or new additions into a new work, then Wikimedia's background is a
great plus.


--
Andre Engels, [hidden email]
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mozart's works released

Alphax (Wikipedia email)
In reply to this post by Pat Gunn-2
Pat Gunn wrote:
> In case anybody missed it,
> Mozart's complete works were recently published on the
> internet by the (Austria-based) International Mozart Foundation.
> http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2006-12-11T185118Z_01_L11804081_RTRUKOC_0_US-ARTS-MUSIC-MOZART.xml
>
> I'm not sure what license it's under. If it's a free one
> (or PD-equivalent), then it's similar in a sense to several
> ideas raised in Jimbo's idea drive sometime back.
>

I think it would be a good use of the million bucks that was being
thrown around to FREE this and other archives of
out-of-copyright-held-hostage works; one the one hand, these people
deserve recognition and reward for making this available, but on the
other they put these illegal and immoral usage restrictions on it.

--
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 (554 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mozart's works released

Birgitte_sb
In reply to this post by Pat Gunn-2

--- Pat Gunn <[hidden email]> wrote:


> A thought:
> If it is freely licensed, to what extent should the
> foundation
> consider republishing its content on WMF projects?
> Should WM
> avoid possibly stepping on the toes of other
> projects, avoiding
> duplicating any free conttent they make, or should
> it try to
> collect everything (and possibly give prominent
> credit) that falls
> under its mission? The general question may apply to
> other groups
> like Project Gutenberg's works.
>

I think you underestimate the superiority of our
format when suggesting we are merely duplicating the
work of others.   Wiki's are truly powerful and
capable of really surpassing what is currently being
done by others.  

I definately like the idea of acknowledging works
based of the work of other projects.  Currently at
Wikisource, Project Gutenburg is usually linked as the
source on the Talk page when it is the source.  The
same is generally true of any source for the text.  In
some cases links are given to places that have scans
online especially as they go through proofreading.  I
would like to see a way of  acknowledging Librox.org
when we attach audio files from there.  Maybe we could
use a different "speaker symbol" in those cases.
However I don't want to have a distracting meta-data
attached to the text off of the talk page.


Birgitte SB


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Have a burning question?  
Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mozart's works released

Gregory Maxwell
In reply to this post by Alphax (Wikipedia email)
On 12/14/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <[hidden email]> wrote:
> these people
> deserve recognition and reward for making this available, but on the
> other they put these illegal and immoral usage restrictions on it.

Just to interject a contrasting view here:

What they have released are modern editions.
These are not the Mozart manuscripts.
These differ in material ways from the manuscripts.

You may not agree that the changes are deserving of a new copyright,
but that they are appears to be reasonably well established and
accepted. So if you're going to rant about immoral activities, don't
single out these people... it's a practice of the entire sheet music
industry at least these people are allowing more liberal availability
of the scores.

If you'd like, I can upload some Mozart manuscript images to commons
tonight. They are difficult to read and, until we have lilypond
support in wikisource, I don't see them as being especially useful.

At least Mozart manuscripts are available and we can make our own
transcriptions (well, once we have lilypond support...). There are
other composers where all the possibly PD copies have been lost or
locked away.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mozart's works released

Elvis(untot)
Quoting Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]>:


> If you'd like, I can upload some Mozart manuscript images to commons
> tonight. They are difficult to read and, until we have lilypond
> support in wikisource, I don't see them as being especially useful.

if there are no copys online in the moment, then please do this. (not  
all but a handfull perhaps)

when we can use them for something other than just illustrations, the  
rest should follow.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mozart's works released

Gregory Maxwell
On 12/14/06, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Quoting Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]>:
> > If you'd like, I can upload some Mozart manuscript images to commons
> > tonight. They are difficult to read and, until we have lilypond
> > support in wikisource, I don't see them as being especially useful.
>
> if there are no copys online in the moment, then please do this. (not
> all but a handfull perhaps)
>
> when we can use them for something other than just illustrations, the
> rest should follow.

Here you go...

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Mozart_Sonate_(manuscript).djvu

If you don't have it already, you'll need the djvu plugin.

For Windows/Mac:
http://www.lizardtech.com/download/dl_download.php?detail=doc_djvu_plugin&platform=win

or the Free Software one for Linux:
http://djvulibre.djvuzone.org/
(or just use your friendly package manager to install djvulibre)

Both plugins are very nice pieces of software.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mozart's works released

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

> On 12/14/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> these people
>> deserve recognition and reward for making this available, but on the
>> other they put these illegal and immoral usage restrictions on it.
>
> Just to interject a contrasting view here:
>
> What they have released are modern editions.
> These are not the Mozart manuscripts.
> These differ in material ways from the manuscripts.
>
> You may not agree that the changes are deserving of a new copyright,
> but that they are appears to be reasonably well established and
> accepted. So if you're going to rant about immoral activities, don't
> single out these people... it's a practice of the entire sheet music
> industry at least these people are allowing more liberal availability
> of the scores.
>
Ahh, the press releases and other hype had failed to make that clear.

> If you'd like, I can upload some Mozart manuscript images to commons
> tonight. They are difficult to read and, until we have lilypond
> support in wikisource, I don't see them as being especially useful.
>
> At least Mozart manuscripts are available and we can make our own
> transcriptions (well, once we have lilypond support...). There are
> other composers where all the possibly PD copies have been lost or
> locked away.
>

Yes, it wasn't /just/ the Mozart Foundation who I was thinking of.

--
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 (554 bytes) Download Attachment