Lord 8.0 is out

[rockefeller center]

This is mostly off-topic.

All these points just lead to the conclusion that there is definite need for an "open source" project to which people can contribute freely. If needed. that project group would also have to fight off copyright infringement cases brought to court by people who claim the have a copyright although they don't. I have no idea how easy/difficult that might be in one country/various countries.

Technically, it should be more than easy to pull off, but are there any people who have the stamina to do so? Probably not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons

http://creativecommons.org/

The CD extracting software I currently use connects to http://musicbrainz.org/doc/AboutMusicBrainz to get audio-metadata which is a community effort (license). It's possible to access the mb-database in your own software and definitely a good source for tools that get audio files tagged in a convenient way. Sure, it's no discography.

If you attempt to build up a discography in a group effort that consists of info detailed as possible and with a reasonable error-ratio you'd have to limit database-entry to specialists.

[rockefeller center]

And while shamelessly stealing from others, he threatens anyone who uses his work with copyright infringement!

What's meant with "his work"? The content, the software, both?

I can't imagine that anyone can have a copyright on this information:

[artist] [personnel] [instruments] [date of recording] [location] [tracks] [issued as] [bla] [bla]

Edited November 27, 2007 by rockefeller center

[AllenLowe]

"Ja, så må du undskylde"

well, let's leave my mother out of this - it's not her fault that cop was wired - as I told her, "mom, if you can't sell it, sit on it" - and what she DOESN'T know about discography would fill 5 cd roms -

but all seriousness aside, I'm glad that Larry quoted Ed Berger, who I would consider the best objective contemporary source/reporter on discography and its issues - the guy has no agenda, he's nice, honest, and knows the field inside and out -

[Dan Gould]

And while shamelessly stealing from others, he threatens anyone who uses his work with copyright infringement!

What's meant with "his work"? The content, the software, both?

I can't imagine that anyone can have a copyright on this information:

[artist] [personnel] [instruments] [date of recording] [location] [tracks] [issued as] [bla] [bla]

His copyright notice/warning clearly implies that he does think he has a copyright on that same information.

So he steals what others have compiled and then threatens anyone who uses his own compilation of non-copyrightable information.

[rockefeller center]

His copyright notice/warning clearly implies that he does think he has a copyright on that same information.

Can you quote that copyright notice? Thanks.

[Larry Kart]

And while shamelessly stealing from others, he threatens anyone who uses his work with copyright infringement!

What's meant with "his work"? The content, the software, both?

I can't imagine that anyone can have a copyright on this information:

[artist] [personnel] [instruments] [date of recording] [location] [tracks] [issued as] [bla] [bla]

His copyright notice/warning clearly implies that he does think he has a copyright on that same information.

So he steals what others have compiled and then threatens anyone who uses his own compilation of non-copyrightable information.

I assume that Lord's copyright notice/warning is essentially an attempt to scare off anyone who might be tempted to steal from him what he already has stolen. I wouldn't think that he'd actually trouble himself to try to take legal action against anyone who copied and disseminated his work (at least on a small scale) -- the goal of the warning is to discourage people from trying to do unto him as he has done. (Think of Lord as a rustler as who is trying to get away with rounding up and then putting his own brand on most everyone else's cattle.)

[Christiern]

Guess this ain't the good Lord I hear talk about.

[AllenLowe]

it's kinda like stealing mob money - which reminds me of a story Al Haig told me about Harry the Hipster -

[Dan Gould]

His copyright notice/warning clearly implies that he does think he has a copyright on that same information.

Can you quote that copyright notice? Thanks.

Its in Larry's earlier post here.

"Lord's copyright notice includes the standard wording: 'The use of any part of

this publication reproduced, transmitted, in any form by any means... without

prior consent of the publisher is an infringement of the copyright law.' Had

Lord himself heeded this warning, 'The Jazz Discography' would not exist.

Discography, particularly comprehensive discography, is by its nature a

cumulative endeavor, with new works building upon the base of knowledge

established by earlier researchers, a well as by informal networks of current

contributors. But the massive amount of material lifted by Lord verbatim form

other works has crossed a line.... [O]ne may not [according to the U.S.

Copyright Law] copyright 'works consisting entirely of information that is

common property and containing no original authorship.... Applying those

guidelines to the world of discography, one need not credit any particular

source for the recording date of Armstrong's 'West End Blues,' since it is

available in countless works. But Lord has appropriated without attribution vast

amounts of original information, particularly from the more detailed

bio-discographies....

[Christiern]

This Lord only taketh away!

[Bluerein]

Received my copy of 8.0 today. Lord delivers fast that's for sure (ordered last sunday).

[paul secor]

This Lord only taketh away!

[JSngry]

You pay him a large amount of money for other people's work. I guess the current "file sharing" methodology works for you but I hoped for a higher standard.

Not exactly....if this was the "file sharing mentality", it would be available as a free download at any website near you.

This is pretty much old school plagerism-for-profit, period.

Edited November 27, 2007 by JSngry

[rockefeller center]

His copyright notice/warning clearly implies that he does think he has a copyright on that same information.

Can you quote that copyright notice? Thanks.

Its in Larry's earlier post here.

Thanks, Dan. No doubt that some hypocrisy is going on there but since I don't get how discographical information can be copyrighted in the first place, I don't consider it stealing. I guess it's plagiarism (as the Sngry stated) at worst.

It would be nice to extract the records from the Lord disco, dump them in a database, make it available on the web and watch what happens.

[Christiern]

His copyright notice/warning clearly implies that he does think he has a copyright on that same information.

Can you quote that copyright notice? Thanks.

Its in Larry's earlier post here.

Thanks, Dan. No doubt that some hypocrisy is going on there but since I don't get how discographical information can be copyrighted in the first place, I don't consider it stealing. I guess it's plagiarism (as the Sngry stated) at worst.

What is plagiarism, if not stealing?

In the late 1950s, Rudi Blesh sued NBC TV and the producers of a ragtime special for plagiarism. There were two factors that won him the case: they had built a set to represent the "typical" ragtime parlor (if there was such a thing) and listed the ten most important ragtime composers, in order of importance. Well, the set was clearly based on a description that appeared in the Blesh/Janis book, They All Played Ragtime--the problem (for NBC) was that the description was as Rudi imagined such a place would look. The list, too, was Rudi's creation, he had agonized for days before coming up with who he considered to be the top composers.

I realize that a discographical listing is not a matter of anyone's opinion (although there can be some guesswork involved), but the format in which it is presented does, I believe, count. Then there's something called original research, which--even when it deals with historical fact--is different from cut-and-paste plagiarism. Editors who compile dictionaries invariably include a deliberate mistake or made-up word in order to be able to prove the kind of lifting Lord is guilty of. So, there obviously are some rights involved. Perhaps one of our more learned Organissians can tell us more.

[Daniel A]

In my country a collection of data gains a certain degree of protection if a "considerable investment" has been made to put it together. I suppose some other countries may have corresponding laws.

Edited November 27, 2007 by Daniel A

[AllenLowe]

In the late 1950s, Rudi Blesh sued NBC TV and the producers of a ragtime special for plagiarism. There were two factors that won him the case: they had built a set to represent the "typical" ragtime parlor (if there was such a thing) and listed the ten most important ragtime composers, in order of importance. Well, the set was clearly based on a description that appeared in the Blesh/Janis book, They All Played Ragtime--the problem (for NBC) was that the description was as Rudi imagined such a place would look. The list, too, was Rudi's creation, he had agonized for days before coming up with who he considered to be the top composers.

I realize that a discographical listing is not a matter of anyone's opinion (although there can be some guesswork involved), but the format in which it is presented does, I believe, count. Then there's something called original research, which--even when it deals with historical fact--is different from cut-and-paste plagiarism. Editors who compile dictionaries invariably include a deliberate mistake or made-up word in order to be able to prove the kind of lifting Lord is guilty of. So, there obviously are some rights involved. Perhaps one of our more learned Organissians can tell us more.

[AllenLowe]

hope that's ok, Chris - just borrowing -

gotta go now and work on my new Bessie Smith bio -

[Christiern]

That's okay. Allen. I am close to finishing work on a multi-box set of rare vintage recordings. I wrote the essay an hour ago. The set will sell for $10 per volume.

[Big Beat Steve]

In my country a collection of data gains a certain degree of protection if a "considerable investment" has been made to put it together. I suppose some other countries may have corresponding laws.

Since you mention your country, Daniel A, actually Sweden is a case in point as to what could be done if discographies were shared via the web.

That comprehensive Swedish jazz discography that's accessible via

www.visarkiv.se

certainly borrowed from Harry Nicolausson's groundbreaking discography but did Nicolausson's heirs ever sue the Visarkiv discographers/researches/compilers for infringement? Apparently not.

And as for the set-up and layout of an original works being a criterion for it being copyrightable (is there such a word? ), isn't the layout of the discographical entries in this or other discographies (right up to Lord's, from what I have seen) pretty much standardized (basically right back to Jepsen's if not Delaunay's days) so what is there to copyright from the layout? And since a discography basically contains nothing but facts, is there anything that can be copyrighted by anybody but those who collated and published the respective information FIRST?

Or can you copyright a discographical listing by any artist as your own brainchild as soon as you add, say, 2 or 3 or 4 additional reissues in the "record releases" column, though 98% of the overall contents remain unchanged? Hey, almost anybody can do that!

[rockefeller center]

I realize that a discographical listing is not a matter of anyone's opinion (although there can be some guesswork involved), but the format in which it is presented does, I believe, count.

The format in which it is presented is arbitrary and doesn't count, IMO. Who has to right to tell me how to format my data fields/records as long as I'm using not using Lord's software to do so?

Then there's something called original research, which--even when it deals with historical fact--is different from cut-and-paste plagiarism. Editors who compile dictionaries invariably include a deliberate mistake or made-up word in order to be able to prove the kind of lifting Lord is guilty of. So, there obviously are some rights involved. Perhaps one of our more learned Organissians can tell us more.

I'm not sure if there are "obviously more rights involved". Yes, maybe one of our more learned...

[DukeCity]

Editors who compile dictionaries invariably include a deliberate mistake or made-up word in order to be able to prove the kind of lifting Lord is guilty of. So, there obviously are some rights involved.

I've heard that map makers (is that cartographers?) do a similar thing. They'll include a small, sometimes un-named street on their maps to to be able to prove if someone just copied their work wholesale.

[Christiern]

I realize that a discographical listing is not a matter of anyone's opinion (although there can be some guesswork involved), but the format in which it is presented does, I believe, count.

The format in which it is presented is arbitrary and doesn't count, IMO. Who has to right to tell me how to format my data fields/records as long as I'm using not using Lord's software to do so?

Then there's something called original research, which--even when it deals with historical fact--is different from cut-and-paste plagiarism. Editors who compile dictionaries invariably include a deliberate mistake or made-up word in order to be able to prove the kind of lifting Lord is guilty of. So, there obviously are some rights involved. Perhaps one of our more learned Organissians can tell us more.

I'm not sure if there are "obviously more rights involved". Yes, maybe one of our more learned...

You are obviously determined to present a contrary view. Believe what you will.

[AllenLowe]

"The set will sell for $10 per volume."

put me in for 30 copies -

[Christiern]

Perhaps we can swap--30 copies of That Devilin' Tune for 437 copies of Bessie.