Antonio Gervasoni <agervas...@gmail.com> writes: > Hey guys! > > Sorry for not participating in the discussion about the copyrighted material > in Urs tutorial. I'm finishing the music for a film and I have little time > to read posts and make comments. ;-) > > I agree with Joseph's idea: > >> Well, here's what _I_ would do in your shoes: license freely all the parts >> of >> the tutorial that are your copyright, and add a clear exception notice for >> musical examples that are still in copyright. > > However, I'm not a lawyer so I'm sure if this would work. > > All these problems with copyrights are always a real hassle. Copyrights are > good, I mean, the idea itself is good. The problem is that the law has taken > the matter to amazing extremes. Is there any sense in a legislation that > allows someone to be accused of piracy and then sued for billions of > dollars, while a doctor who amputates the wrong leg of a patient is liable > for no more than 250,000? Does this make any sense? Are copyrights more > valuable than someone's leg?
The basis for that is "damages". A doctor accidentally amputating the leg of a professional soccer player is likely in for more than "just" 250000. Is the leg of a professional soccer player more valuable than that of anybody else? In a way, it is. The problem is rather that copyright damages are calculated according to some "maximum conceivable damage" theory not applied to legs (after all, pretty much everybody sufficiently young could become a soccer player), and that copyrights are making too much money, anyway, at the upper end of the scale. There is no other situation where scoring a major hit is supposed to cater for you and some heirs for the rest of your life. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
