I sing, both in choirs and as a soloist. The sheet music salespeople are well primed to explain copyright issues to choirmasters. Choirmasters in turn explain to choirs that if the choirs are discovered to be singing off unauthorized photocopied music, the choir is liable for thousands of dollars in fines.
People who sell large quantities of text have face-to-face contact with their buyers (choirmasters and academics come to mind). During those visits, they can to explain and threaten (maybe over a nice lunch). Amazon’s and Barnes & Noble’s relationship to their buyers is far more distant; it’s harder for them to stress the copyright issue to us.
Choirmasters and academics are probably more likely to want to cooperate with publishers for another reason: both want to publish before they perish. If they succeed in publishing one day, they don’t want to think that they may lose royalties because somebody thought it was cheaper and easier to use the photocopier than to order new copies.
Handel and Haydn should be in the public domain, right? Maybe. But publishers are businesses. They need reasonably profitable backlists in order to take chances on new composers. One of my favorite choirmasters published a few choral works. I think I’d have heard if they were runaway successes. Probably not. But what a thrill it was for him and for those who knew him to see his success, which was only possible because the publisher was making money from better-established works.
So, yeah, people may wish that sheet music were cheaper, but they don’t begrudge publishers their profits. If Hal Leonard moves into the Fortune 5000, though, let me know. I may change my tune.
An interesting note about musical copyrights: One of the first copyrights in England belonged to composers Thomas Tallis and William Byrd. In 1575, Queen Elizabeth granted them a patent to print and publish music, a decent monopoly, I’d say.
No comments:
Post a Comment