> On 6 Sep 2018, at 10:49, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > > 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 the US, some copyright holders don't know much about it except that it is something that helps them making money, so in the absence of legal checks, they can set their legal department to write something forceful, like a Disease and Cease to Exist letter. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
