The Poulenc Sonata for Flute and Piano is published by Chester Music Company. You can order this from any music dealer. The current price is $15.95.

As Poulenc only died in 1963 the work will be under copyright for a number of years.

It is illegal to play from a copy or post the music on a web site.

So basically a company gets all the money for a piece that somone else wrote who isn`t even living anymore.
Did you even read the last post? I think we all get that music isn`t free. Someone else is just making copies of it and getting rich off of something they never even wrote. I will continue to copy music for friends because WE are no the ones stealing, the companies are doing that.

Yes, they get the money because they own the rights to it. How would you feel if you composed a sonata and then someone else decided to print it and distribute it freely when you could be making money out of it? Even years after you die there`s no reason why anyone else should make money out of it other than those people you want it to benefit, i.e. your decendents or whoever you leave the rights to. It`s like if you wrote a good novel, you`d get it published and you`d get money from it. If someone was photocopying it and handing it out for free to all their friends you`d be a bit angry about it! There`s no difference with music.

"Yes, they get the money because they own the rights to it."

Yes, they BOUGHT the rights so they could make money. Those companies could care less about the person that wrote the actual piece. I like what Lera is getting at.

don`t forget that those composers have descendants

I`m not a lawyer, but don`t fiction copyrights expire 27 years after the author`s death?

My understanding of copyright is that it encourages publishing by protecting the rights of the author to profit from his own creation, and not be undersold by folks who just copy the work and make a fast buck. (this used to happen hundreds of years ago)

But it seems we`ve taken this a tad too far. Bach died in 1750. Beethoven in 1827. Brahms in 1997. By fiction copyright standards, these copyrights have SO lapsed. What music publishers are now claiming is that their version of the transciption is what`s copyrighted... the layout, the fonts, the notations of the top of the staff. I wonder how many modern music publishers have ANY contractual relationship with classical composers.... sort of like how Penguin Classics has NO contractual relationship with Geoffrey Chaucer.

And yes, composers do have descendants. Well, some of them do, I guess. Do they still get residuals from music sales? And for how many generations should they still get them?

oops...
OK, Brahms died in 1897.

It doesn`t matter if they couldn`t care less about the person who wrote the piece. If a company has bought the rights to a piece of music, or a book or whatever, they`ve paid for it and it`s theirs. Why should anyone else take away that right?

this is a good topic, should recorded music be protected as well? I recently played for a movie that is being released this month and will get royalties based on the number of people that go to the movie and buy the CD, if someone steals it i get nothing

I think the issue here is a balancing of rights... artists royalties vs. freedom of information.

Certainly Patrick should get his royalties for his recording. And certainly Metallica should get theirs. And Paul McCartney. Maybe even Elvis Presley. But what about Al Jolson? Bessie Smith? Caruso?

How far back should we take this before it`s just absurd? And how long should any purchased "right" to unemcumbered publishing last? 10 yrs, 50 yrs, 100 yrs, 500 yrs?

Music is an idea... just squiggles of ink that suggest relative differences in pitch. It sounds totally different depending on the instrument and musician it`s preformed by. It is NOT the same thing as a recording. And it should NOT be possible to possess an idea. Certainly not for centuries.