Printing off your own copies

[ardcarp]

I am getting quite cheesed off about this. Mrs A and I do quite a bit of 'bumping up' sundry choirs, singing in ad hoc groups and so on. Time was when a nice fat envelope would arrive in the post with proper (i.e. paid for) copies inside. Now it is all too common to get an email attachment
(presumablyy of illegally-made photocopies) which we are expected to print off, hole-punch and stick in a folder. Usually we just do one rehearsal...to which we turn up expecting that maybe some real copies will be on hand. But no. The whole choir is singing from hole-punched photocopies.

I object on two grounds:

1. If the music is still in copyright (which is usually the case) aren't we doing someone out of a fee?

and

2. Why should we be gobbling up our printer ink?

Is this phenomenon now pretty much universal?

[jean]

The ones I get sent are all from Choral Wiki and thus photocopiable by definition.

[underthecountertenor]

I am getting quite cheesed off about this. Mrs A and I do quite a bit of 'bumping up' sundry choirs, singing in ad hoc groups and so on. Time was when a nice fat envelope would arrive in the post with proper (i.e. paid for) copies inside. Now it is all too common to get an email attachment
(presumablyy of illegally-made photocopies) which we are expected to print off, hole-punch and stick in a folder. Usually we just do one rehearsal...to which we turn up expecting that maybe some real copies will be on hand. But no. The whole choir is singing from hole-punched photocopies.

I object on two grounds:

1. If the music is still in copyright (which is usually the case) aren't we doing someone out of a fee?

and

2. Why should we be gobbling up our printer ink?

Is this phenomenon now pretty much universal?

I agree with both your objections. What to do about it is another matter. You could say that you won't take part unless you are provided with legal copies (which will by definition be hard copies, except in out of copyright cases, in which case specify also hard copies) of all the music. The more extreme position would of course be to threaten to shop them to the powers that be.

I suppose in the end it's a matter for you: are you so keen to do the gig that you are prepared to bear the inconvenience and expense and aid and abet a breach of copyright?

[mopsus]

As regards making choir members pay for their own printing costs, it very much depends on the financial model of the choir. When I go singing in Cathedrals with visiting choirs, there seem to be two ways of doing things. In one the choir members often have to pay for music hire and buying or printing their own music, where it can't be borrowed from a choir library; in the other they don't but there is a subscription to pay. I prefer the first method, if only because I am likely already to own some of the music being performed. These choirs don't have income from ticket sales so not much of a reserve of cash. Even my choral society expects members to pay for music hire on top of their subscription.

Perhaps if you have one you should just turn up to rehearsals with the email attachment on the screen of a tablet, and sing from that, though it has the drawback that you can't mark it up!

[Dave2002]

Perhaps if you have one you should just turn up to rehearsals with the email attachment on the screen of a tablet, and sing from that, though it has the drawback that you can't mark it up!

Re the markup issue, I think there are software tools which allow overlays on top of the visible notes, though the terms of use may preclude their use. One way which would very possibly violate copyright would be to copy the visible page as a image file, and use a tool such as PhotoShop (GIMP etc/) to overlay any annotations. That would probably violate the rules because written in the small print it probably also says something about "electronic copies". Of course if the music fits on one sheet, then it would be possible to put an old fashioned overhead transparency sheet over the top and mark that up for each piece. It would be hard to see how that could violate copyright.

I have heard of one professional string quartet running into difficulties because they bought the parts for performances, but then copied small fragments to attach to the parts to help with page turning. I have seen this done quite a lot by many groups. Eventually I think the particular quartet members were advised to buy multiple copies if they wished to take that option. There are eagle eyed copyright enforcers in some audiences.

I have also seen various performers use iPads or similar in performance - with page "turning" done by a foot pedal or some sort of external control - another practice which is becoming more common. I don't know what the copyright situation is for that.

[Richard Barrett]

The ready availability of all kinds of music online (via IMSLP for example) has changed the situation of music publishing beyond recognition, and this industry (together with copyright law as it currently exists) isn't likely to survive for too much longer - almost all the things it used to do can now be done by individuals at home, and this of course includes printing the music out, if necessary, which it might not be for too much longer given the widespread and increasing use of tablets.

[ardcarp]

I agree with both your objections. What to do about it is another matter. You could say that you won't take part unless you are provided with legal copies (which will by definition be hard copies, except in out of copyright cases, in which case specify also hard copies) of all the music. The more extreme position would of course be to threaten to shop them to the powers that be.

I suppose in the end it's a matter for you: are you so keen to do the gig that you are prepared to bear the inconvenience and expense and aid and abet a breach of copyright?

There is nothing I can do about it, of course. I just posted out of a sense of frustration. I'm certainly not going to snitch on people because...well you just don't. And I'm not quite ready to call it a day. I shall (and indeed have already) asked if 'proper' copies can be available on the day, but usually they're not.

As far as reading from an ipad...that's DEFINITELY not for me. I should probably turn a virtual page and find myself playing Angry Birds or something.

[Richard Barrett]

Angry Birds

Isn't that a piece by Eric Whitacre?

[jean]

The ready availability of all kinds of music online (via IMSLP for example) has changed the situation of music publishing beyond recognition...

And CPDL, aka ChoralWiki, which I mentioned above.

When I first sang early music fifty years ago, there was a lot that wasn't availble in printed editions - we sang from laboriously prepared handwritten scores. Now, a great deal is available free and online which has never had a conventionally-published edition. Is ardcarp sure the editions he's asked to print don't come into this category?

[Vox Humana]

And CPDL, aka ChoralWiki, which I mentioned above.

As an aside, I hope that the copies ardcarp is asked to print out have been chosen with due discretion. Many so-called editions on that site are, frankly, dire. Why people feel they need to re-copy music out-of-copyright music, often in a cramped layout with errors and omissions, when they would do choirs more of a favour by just uploading scans of the originals (as is the norm on IMSLP) beats me. There, that's my rant over.

Many musicians do treat copyright with complete disregard. In my neck of the woods I have never, ever, accompanied a solo singer who has given me a printed copy of the songs. They have always been photocopies - invariably single pages prone to the slightest of breezes!

Ardcarp, do you have scope for requesting a modest reimbursement of the printing costs without offending those concerned?

[jean]

As an aside, I hope that the copies ardcarp is asked to print out have been chosen with due discretion. Many so-called editions on that site are, frankly, dire.

Yes, it has to be handled with discretion, obviously. But it is still a great resource.

Why people feel they need to re-copy music out-of-copyright music...when they would do choirs more of a favour by just uploading scans of the originals (as is the norm on IMSLP) beats me.

Although there is a lot of interest now in the study of early scores, they aren't easy for modern amateur choral singers to perform from without more preparation than there is usually time for.

[ardcarp]

In my neck of the woods I have never, ever, accompanied a solo singer who has given me a printed copy of the songs. They have always been photocopies - invariably single pages prone to the slightest of breezes!

I know the problem! We have lots of the solo song repertory at home; and when various members of the family want to sing something I don't see it as hugely 'wrong' to do a photocopy for practice PROVIDED we have a real bought copy or two. It's also quite good when accmpanying to sellotape several sheets side by side to avoid tricky page-turns. However, photocopying a whole choirsworth and using it in public performance is, IMO, cheating.

BTW Jean and others, we hardly ever get given stuff from the internet. It's usually a kosher edition; just scanned and sent to us.

[Vox Humana]

Yes, it has to be handled with discretion, obviously. But it is still a great resource.

Although there is a lot of interest now in the study of early scores, they aren't easy for modern amateur choral singers to perform from without more preparation than there is usually time for.

For very old editions that's true enough, but I was thinking more of the many standard editions still in common use where all the copyrights have lapsed. For example, there is no reason on earth why this old warhorse, from IMSLP, could not also have been uploaded to CPDL (albeit preferably in a better scan). It is infinitely better than the re-copied version uploaded there. It has all the notes for a start.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I'm certainly not going to snitch on people because...well you just don't.

I've tried warning people that they are acting illegally, and that someone might snitch on them. That sometimes works, perhaps because they think I might be the snitch.

[Miles Coverdale]

As someone who makes a very modest part of his income from publishing early music, I echo the view that CPDL can be a bane. As mentioned above, the great majority of the pieces on there are appallingly badly set and edited, but why would groups which run on a shoestring pay for something decent when they can get something bad for nothing? Far too many groups exist on photocopied music, much of it illegal.

That said, the death of the music publishing business is, in my opinion, rather exagerrated. The John Rutters and Eric Whitacres of this world sell in sufficient quantity to make it worhtwhile to publish them, and tablets are sufficiently expensive to make their wholesale adoption some way off.