Copyright law, version 2

Note: this is simply an edited version of the previous post.

I think we all agree; copyright law can be pretty ridiculous. Exhibit A: It's actually against the law for us to make recordings of copyrighted music and give them to our friends and family without permission from the publisher. So every year, Dad spends hours emailing dozens of publishers so we can make CDs for Christmas gifts. Most of the publishers give him permission, but we've had to exclude several pieces from our recordings because we couldn't get permission, because getting permission was too difficult, or because we couldn't get permission without paying a fee. In fact, there are entire publishers that we don't even bother emailing.

This area of copyright law strikes me as unbelievably stupid. Here's why: first, our recordings do not deprive the publishers of business, and second, our recordings actually promote the publishers' products.

Imagine this scene: My friend gives me a recording of her playing Mr. Smith's arrangement of Hymn X. I really like Mr. Smith's arrangement. What goes through my mind? "Well, I already have this recording. Guess I don't need to buy the sheet music from the publisher!" Of course not! My friend's recording certainly does not obviate the need for the publisher's product.

In fact, I'm far more likely to buy the sheet music for Mr. Smith's arrangement after hearing my friend's recording than I would be if I'd never heard the piece before. If anything, publishers should support the recording of their sheet music as free advertisement!

Our recordings are not just unharmful to the publishers; they're actively beneficial. And they would be even if we sell them.

But we're not selling them. We're giving them as Christmas gifts to our friends and family! That we should need permission to do so is simply ridiculous.