Public Congress

Hi, I have been scouring the world for Czerny’s Piano Concerto in A minor. I found it at California Berkeley’s library and they are charging me to make a microfilm copy which I will then enlarge so I can use. But my problem with this is along with the order form they sent me a piece of paper to sign. Which essentially claimed all intellectual rights to the piece along with claiming any derivative works coming from this piece. They even require written approval from their head of music to perform this piece for profit!? My question is, this has been public domain for hundreds of years!? Do they have any right to claim all these rights to it when they simply own an original publication of the work? It is not like they own the copyright itself. All I simply want to do is create a copy and send it in to the Library of Congress so at least our own nations library has it but I sure won’t tell them that because I am sure they want to retain their super rare materials and keep it rare…. Do I have any way that I can avoid signing the waiver while still being able to purchase the microfilm copy from them? Or is the reality that they won’t give away any of their rare materials unless people sign the stupid waiver? Does that mean if I obtain the original Hofmeister publication that I can claim ownership on any derivative work or recording and make people sign waivers when I distribute it!? It sounds absurd to me that they can do this to public domain music! Help me beat the system for the sake of making rare music common again!
1. This item is to be used for scholarly purposes only.

2. Reproductions in whole or in part of this item must beb authorized by written permission from the Head of the Music LIbrary in every instance.

3. The Music Library, University of California Berkeley, should be cited as the OWNER of this work with each publication or other public use of a part or the whole of the work.

4. Written permission from the Head of the Music Library must be obtained for the following: facsimile or modern editions, recordings for commercial purposes, public performance or publication or research based on one or more of the music library sources, whether in part or whole. In addition, one copy of the article (in off print0< book, edition or other published form in which our title is cited or featured prominently must be supplied to the Music Library gratis.

5. This item may not be passed on, sold, or loaned through interlibrary loan or similar networks.

6. All prospective BORROWERS (SO NOW THEY QUALI
6. All prospective BORROWERS (SO NOW THEY QUALIFY ME AS A BORROWER…) of this item should be referred to the Music Library Berkeley.

7. All costs are borne by the borrower.
True I might be over-hyping it, but my main goal is to get this in other libraries. There is NO WAY I see them letting me do that.

This is a fairly standard form to get whenever using archival materials. Some of the clauses here only really apply if you want to write an academic paper or publish material that you borrow from the library.

Owning the original score does not entitle you to royalties for any subsequent performance and ex-post-facto ownership of recordings. However it does give you limited control of public for profit usage of the specific document.

As long as the item is the property of the library you have to follow their rules if you want to use it. There are a few exceptions to this. If the material is in the public domain you may freely use that (however if what you do is related to specific markings unique to a their copy then you are restricted, i.e. analysis based the composers stray marks). Since the piece is already in the public domain then you may perform it free of charge, the relevant clause is superceeded by public domain.

Item 2 is again standard. They own the document and within the bounds of other applicable laws can control its usage. Item 3 is simply a matter of properly citing your sources and I take no issue with it.

Item 4 is a standard quid pro quo. If you create something as a result of using their materials you agree to give them a free copy.

5 is again not problematic, in plain english you agree not to steal, or be complicit in stealing their documents.

6 to a library a borrower is simply someone who uses the library materials, this is nothing to be concerned about. If you don’t want to be a borrower, look for the materials somewhere else.

7. means if you want to use, you have to pay for it yourself. No free lunches.

All in all I think you’re hyping this too much. In general libraries want their materials used and enjoyed by the public. I don’t see any need to "beat the system" over this.

in adopting faulty procedures, in the eye’s of the learned justice! The Panel had a limited scope to examine the procedures from an earlier period ruled by the opposition party and the UPA. The intention was to suggest that the fault of massive drain of revenue caused by Raja, amid other courrpt practices in the process, was only due to a procedure followed by NDA!

We don’t still have the report in public domain, I think, since I just saw the Indian Express article only!
But it sounded odd that a person of Sibal’s learning plays false to his own conscience! He had forwarded the report to CBI to look into the ”criminal culpability”, according to the news article!

Already whole world had been fully briefed about the low market condition in telecom in NDA period and the boom in UPA period that didn’t justify a blind following of an earlier ”procedure”! Raja saheb just picked it with some ultierior motive, as evident from his rejection of the advice of Raja to PMO or TRAI or law dept advices!

There is not even a logical effort to link the dissimilar scenarios, except to rudely implicate the opponent also in weird ways, to stifle criticism. But would media and public brook such cheap gimmicks?

We did expect some indiction in Patil’s report about NDA procedures, going by the pressures deliberately brought in public, giving opinions on the CAG report by Mr Sibal. But on the face of it the findings are unlikely to indicate any ‘criminal culpability’ in NDA regime, if all the infos provided by media already are correct! But surely a section of the illiterate public are likely to get confused about the word ”culpability” mischievously used by the Minister!

If even a slight indiction of loss or bribe was suspected in NDA rule, as per CAG or media or whoever, congress would have taken full advantage and totally destroyed NDA’s image, as it did with the post Godhra news! So the efforts to equate UPA’s corruption with NDA’s procedures are unlikely to help them much, at least in judicial disposal, in my opinion!

OK, I gave my impressions for your disposal, with your logics. Thanks for your responses in advance!

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/desperate-upa-to-nda-we-were-wrong-on-2g-so-were-you/746179/

What we understand that Congress and DMK still will fight next state election as ally ?

It does not say all the story of 2G scam that who are the big bosses behind the raja !

We know Kapil Sibal is basically a cunning advocate he did these type of work in his all life in court but now he is doing i politics.Why he constitute the committee for just one pinpoint matter where SC already instructed to CBI to do investigation from 2001 ?He can’t dismiss the mount level corruption by ant tricks but can confuse the hole matter, which he trying to do to save his own big lady boss.

How the Judiciary used by Congress we have many examples, e.g. That Judge who ordered to constitute the SIT prob in Gujarat is himself is tainted in case,Our ex-CJI is also now well known by his deeds to save the Raja in another case.See more interested some information about him,which one of our friend posted in a forum ,read it :-

""Kochi : Kerala SC â€" ST federation Advocate K V Kumaran, revealed explosive
information about former Chief Justice of India KG Balakrishnan and his
family. As revealed Balakrishnan is a Crypto Christian planted by Vatican aspart
of their global evangelisation agenda.Now something about the organization. This
started as subservient and obedient one to the Roman Emperor and as the empire
declined the head of this organization who calls himself as the Pope started to
rule the world and became so egoist that he began to excommunicate all and
sundry as if all the world is his subject and he is the monarch of all whom he
surveys. Now read the story of his expansion of his empire which is aided and
abetted by the so called secularists of India and their political parties all
for favours derived from the organization either in cash or kind.

Balakrishnan’s daughter and son in law Sri Nijan was sponsored by WorldCouncil
of Church to complete higher education in law in London . WorldCouncil of Church
is a Vatican sponsored organisation with an annual budget
of 145 Billion Dollars and their aim is global evangelisation.

Balakrishnan’s father was one Mr Lookose who changed his name as Gopinathanto
usurp the benefits of SC-ST Hindus. He later got retired in a high postfrom
Kerala High court. Balakrishnan was a pawn planted by Vatican to take
favourable verdict for converted Christians in a case registered in 2004with
case number 180. A favourable verdict can facilitate convertedChristians to get
all benefits granted by Constitution to SC-ST Hindus.

By this, Vatican can intensify its conversion agenda. The forces who standfor
Ranganatha Mishra report is also sponsored by Vatican and aims to
bringconstitution amendment to extend reservations to converted Christians.
A Memorandum was submitted by Kerala SC-ST Federation in 2006 to IndianPresident
and copy of it were given to Prime Minister and CBI Director withfull evidences
that Balakrishnan is a Crypto christian who grabbed thebenefits of genuine SC-ST
Hindus.Sri Nijan who is now exposed by Asianet was a Congres candidate
inNjarrakkal in a SC-ST reserved seat. Sri Nijan is a practicing Christian
whoeven openly went to worship in Church even on poll day making mockery of
lawof land. These fake name sake Hindus should be exposed and is doing moreharm
to SC- ST Hindus.

Balakrishnan was made High Court judge with special recruitment by
formerpresident K R Narayanan. Balakrishnan’s brother another Crypto
ChristianAdvocate K G Bhaskaran was earlier suspended from practice for taking
bribewhen his wife was Magistrate.Later this suspension was revoked following
the interference ofBalakrishnan. This tainted Advocate K G Bhaskaran was made
Governmentpleader by Achuthanandan Government in Kerala. The complete silence of
CPMover this Balakrishnan episode owe to their links with this tainted family.

Kerala SC-ST federation Executive Member C C Gangadharan was also presentduring
the press meet called by advocate K V Kumaran.

*All of us are aware that the controversial Supreme Court order to
declarenarco- analysis, brain mapping and polygraph tests carried out on suspects
byinvestigative agencies for interrogation as unconstitutional was passed
whenBalakrishnan was the Chief Justice of India.*

Congress is using all the corrupt tactics to "Blackmail" the BJP.

BUT IF BJP WILL DO ANY COMPROMISE THAN PEOPLE OF INDIA WILL NOT FORGIVE THEM ALSO WITH CONGRESS.

there is a lot online and from fairly credible people who say that there are structures on the farside moon. I want to know is there only nasa who can get good satelite images of this or is there private or commercial companys who could see them if they were there??? The word from these nasa employees is that nasa is doctoring all images before releasing into the public domain. They say they are prepared to go in front of congress to say this so it doesnt seem to me like they are lying. If they are, boy are they convincing.

Fact is someone is lying. The government or experts at this. The far side of the moon is said to be 200 + degrees below zero. For there to be structures there.would be debatable. But if there are, you can bet your lunch money the Government knows about them. To the Government we are nothing but Mushrooms. But they tough me a good saying "Believe in 1/10 of what you hear and only 1/2 of what you see.

Your auto insurance mandate argument ignores the federal structure of the United States government. There is no federal auto insurance mandate. These are all state or local level laws. These kinds of laws are unconstitutional in a few ways, including under the 10th Amendment. Since regulating motor vehicles and their operations fall under the domain of the states, the federal government has no authority here. Furthermore, one cannot ever avoid the health insurance mandate like someone can avoid an auto insurance mandate. No one forces people to drive. People are free to choose to walk, use public transportation, carpool, etc. Avoiding the health insurance mandate would require someone to relinquish their United States citizenship.

This isn’t portion isn’t directed at you, but at the peanut gallery in general:
The individual health insurance mandate is not authorized by Congress’ taxation authority because it is not a tax. Tax revenue is paid by taxpayers directly to the government, while premiums paid due to the mandate will go directly to private entities (i.e. insurance companies).
What good is a mandate you can opt-out of? Winning logic!
Wow, so many straw man arguments from the libs! The topic at hand is finding the constitutional authority for the mandate, not to prove its benefits nor its origins.

Learn to argue.

Some do, some don’t.

Most simply point out that it was A REPUBLICAN – Mitt Romney – who developed the model – in which he pointed out that it’s simply a matter of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to purchase Health Care Insurance.

So – he MANDATED it.

But of course – if Democrats do it … it’s called SOCIALISM.

When REPUBLICANS do it – - – it’s sound policy.

LOL … Just goes to show you – Republicans are American Hating Partisan Hacks.

Thanks for providing me the opportunity to prove that.

This was forecasted to happen and guess what its happening. We all know Congresses intentions were legit, but can’t they just pass this on to the States by empowering them to handle this?

http://informe.com/go/?domain=cdrates.bankaholic.com&url=http://cdrates.bankaholic.com&keyword=

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704803604576077971342894228.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The blame lies with the Supreme Court decision in the "Americans United" case.

I am looking for some older maps of the USA which I can use in electronic publishing but concerned about copy rights. I was wondering if anyone has a link to some older maps (images) that I can use?

I was thinking the Library of Congress but their website is a little confusing and can’t seem to find what I want.

Actually, I was going to suggest the Library of Congress site.

If you find it confusing, it is only because you haven’t spent enough time exploring it’s content. I have found plenty of good, fairly high resolution maps going back to some of the earliest explorations by European expeditions.

It is a rich content site, so it has to be somewhat complex to organize and display so much.

1. How do you feel about America’s drug war and it’s unintended consequences? Are we really benefiting from federal drug laws? Does the government really play an effective role in personal choices to take care of one’s self or not to do so?

2. My pastor can legal opt out of the social security program as a conscientious objector on religious grounds by filling out IRS Form 4361. He can then manage his own retirement without the government managing that money for him. Should I be allowed to do the same?

3. What would you cut to balance the budget?

4. Corporations keep going to congress and getting extensions on the copyright laws to keep works from falling into the public domain to the point that even the "Happy Birthday" song is still under copyright. How many years do you think a content rights owner should be allowed to hold on before the work becomes public domain?

For a politician, yes those questions are extremely difficult, because they require the politician to actually go on the record and take a stand (one way or the other) on those issues.
But I don’t think they’re "gotcha" questions; they are fair and intelligent, and important questions to ask. Mind if I use them on the guys running in my area?

Some people act as if the concept of separation of Church and State is handed down from on high. It is not. It isn’t found in the Constitution, explicitly or even implicitly. It comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Baptist Association of Danbury, CT, and even that has been misinterpreted over the years. His letter clearly indicates his desire to reassure the Baptists that the State has no interest in interfering with religious life, not that all vestiges of religious life should be banished from the public domain.

The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Establishing a religion means to make it the official, state-sponsored, taxpayer-funded one, as was done in Britain. I don’t think there are more than a handful of people in this country who disagree with that prohibition, but there are a great many of us who believe activist judges have far overstepped their bounds in misinterpreting the verbiage and intent of the Founding Fathers insofar as the First Amendment is concerned.
ando: I want them separate as institutions, I simply do not believe that Jefferson or the other Founding Fathers had any intention of banning religion from public life as the more vociferous adherents of the (pardon the expression) religion of Separation of Church and State seem to believe.
vito: That is incorrect. We have approximately 75, and even that is if we squint realllllllly hard at the rulings handed down by activist judges. The Bill of Rights didn’t even apply to the States until SCOTUS decided the Fourteenth Amendment made it so. Once again, it’s funny the men who wrote that amendment didn’t say that such was the case, but the courts knew their intentions better than they themselves did…or at least pretended to.
Alex: That’s funny, as I find no such mandate of separation in the Virginia Charter, but I DO find the following: "AND forasmuch as it shall be necessary for all such our loving Subject as shall inhabit within the said Precincts of Virginia aforesaid, to determine to live together in the Fear and true Worship of Almighty God, Christian Peace and Civil Quietness each with other, whereby every one may with more Safety, Pleasure and Profit enjoy that whereunto they shall attain with great Pain and Peril;"

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/charter-of-virginia-1609#ixzz1ADhADEol
mike: I believe that’s pretty much what I said. Nobody is advocating establishment, but a nativity scene at the county courthouse is NOT establishing a religion.
momma: How many times do I need to repeat: I HAVE NO INTEREST IN ESTABLISHING CHRISTIANITY AS A NATIONAL RELIGION. That wasn’t my point, as should be obvious to anyone who reads what I wrote. There’s a chasm of difference between establishment of a religion and allowing tokens of religious life and observance on public property. Jefferson regularly attended Christian church services held within the Capitol Building. I suspect today’s secular left would become apoplectic if that happened today.

Yes, you are correct.

And most Americans agree with you.

who are concerned that eminent domain is being abused?!!

BASED ON BERMAN V. PARKER, JUSTICE DOUGLAS SAID THAT THE POWER TO DETERMINE WHAT VALUES TO CONSIDER IN SEIZING PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC WELFARE BELONGS ONLY TO CONGRESS.

public has rights to market values

They act like these are gotcha or trap questions.

1. How do you feel about America’s drug war and it’s unintended consequences? Are we really benefiting from federal drug laws? Does the government really play an effective role in personal choices to take care of one’s self or not to do so?

2. My pastor can legal opt out of the social security program as a conscientious objector on religious grounds by filling out IRS Form 4361. He can then manage his own retirement without the government managing that money for him. Should I be allowed to do the same?

3. What would you cut to balance the budget?

4. Corporations keep going to congress and getting extensions on the copyright laws to keep works from falling into the public domain to the point that even the "Happy Birthday" song is still under copyright. How many years do you think a content rights owner should be allowed to hold on before the work becomes public domain?

They’re coming and pestering you. You can ask anything you want.