Hans Åberg <haber...@telia.com> writes: >> On 6 Sep 2018, at 03:07, Simon Albrecht <simon.albre...@mail.de> wrote: >> >> of course you are right, I misrepresented that and went too far – >> sorry. A reengraving is no different from a photocopy in that you >> cannot give it to anybody or use it for performing, regardless >> whether parts of that may not be enforcible. But you can do whatever >> you want in your house, so to speak. > > In fact, a few years ago, a guy engraved the very same piece and put > it up on the net, and got a notice from the copyright holder asking > merely to take it down.
That's the nice way of dealing with that situation. A Cease&Desist notice with lawyer fees attached is the neutral way. Suing for statutory and/or estimated damages (based on download numbers, possibly estimated) is the non-nice way. It depends on jurisdictions, public relations, the size and workload of the respective legal department which of those options (and/or others) will be chosen. Also on whether the legal department is budgeted in a manner where it is supposed to contribute to its salaries. In short: it's not a good plan to rely on any particular kind of response. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
