BOB HAGGART free download

[vitoliuzzi]

Dear Forum,
if yiu like and visit my site, there is the all BOB HAGGART BASS
METHOD as free download.

I hope this can help someone in the Bass Community.

Regards

Vito

[Peck_Time]

Thanks Vito! i'm downloading it now.

[vitoliuzzi]

Originally Posted by Peck_Time

Thanks Vito! i'm downloading it now.

No other words!

It's a pleasure for the bass community.

see you


vito

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by vitoliuzzi

I hope this can help someone in the Bass Community.

But presumably not Bob Haggart or his family?

[bhagiti]

Sadly Bob passed away in 1998 and according to Amazon.com the method is out of print.

Still, the free download does no good for Mr. Haggart's surviving family and does nothing to drive up demand for a new printing of this fine book.

[Paul Warburton]

Hi, Vito.
I've visited your site many times. Great stuff. Thanks.
Since you are Italian, and live in Italy, and maybe a bit confused about what these people are talking about, I'll try and give you an idea.
In the U.S., when someone publishes a book, they have certain legal rights to protect the material, and the money that is due to them when people buy the book.
When someone offers a FREE download of a book, as you might expect, no money is gained for the company that published the book, the author or, in this case, Bob's surviving family.
Being an old friend of Bob's, I personally, feel that he would be thrilled with your offer.
I hope this helps you understand. Musicians are particularly vulnerable in all this, because they usally don't have alot of money to spend on a good lawyer to protect themselves.
Thanks, Vito.
Paul Warburton. Jazz bassist.

[vitoliuzzi]

THANKS to a friend.

The book was originally published and copyrighted by Robbins Music
Corporation in 1941. As I understand it, the 1906 US Copyright law in
effect then made the term of copyright 28 years with a 28-year renewal
that had to be be filed for by the owner.

If the copyright was not renewed by 1969, then the book is in the public
domain and there are no copyright issues.

If, however, the copyright was renewed before 1969, then copyright was
still in effect in 1978 when new US copyright laws went into effect; any
work that was still under copyright protection in 1978 was granted
extended protection until 95 years after creation, which would be 2036.

So unless it is clearly known that the original copyright was NOT
renewed, I would say that third-party hosting sites are acting prudently
to ask for images of the book to be taken down.

I think we can all agree that nothing is to be gained by society by
protecting this particular work, with neither the author nor the
publisher harmed by copying it; but the problem is that the law does not
make such a distinction, and protects all copyrighted works equally.

My best regards

Vito

[bhagiti]

Thanks, both of you (Paul and Vito), for sensitive and informative illumination here. Appreciated

Eric

[Phil Smith]

Originally Posted by bhagiti

Still, the free download does no good for Mr. Haggart's surviving family and does nothing to drive up demand for a new printing of this fine book.

I would argue that since it is "visible" by being available for download that there is more of a chance or demand increasing for a new printing. I also don't see how it harms his surviving family if anything it keeps his memory and legacy "alive".

[bhagiti]

Originally Posted by Phil Smith

I would argue that since it is "visible" by being available for download that there is more of a chance or demand increasing for a new printing. I also don't see how it harms his surviving family if anything it keeps his memory and legacy "alive".

Good points both. I agree.

[Paul Warburton]

Originally Posted by vitoliuzzi

THANKS to a friend.
The book was originally published and copyrighted by Robbins Music
Corporation in 1941. As I understand it, the 1906 US Copyright law in
effect then made the term of copyright 28 years with a 28-year renewal
that had to be be filed for by the owner.
If the copyright was not renewed by 1969, then the book is in the public
domain and there are no copyright issues.
If, however, the copyright was renewed before 1969, then copyright was
still in effect in 1978 when new US copyright laws went into effect; any
work that was still under copyright protection in 1978 was granted
extended protection until 95 years after creation, which would be 2036.
So unless it is clearly known that the original copyright was NOT
renewed, I would say that third-party hosting sites are acting prudently
to ask for images of the book to be taken down.
I think we can all agree that nothing is to be gained by society by
protecting this particular work, with neither the author nor the
publisher harmed by copying it; but the problem is that the law does not
make such a distinction, and protects all copyrighted works equally.
My best regards
Vito

Vito, after reading your post, I hope you don't think I was talking DOWN to you in mine. Since we haven't had the chance to talk together at any length, I wasn't real sure of your English speaking skills. I was trying to make it simple to help you understand. Looking back, it looks like I'm talking to child. I'll not delete it though. I was trying to give you some insight......In the end, it turned out that you gave me (us) most of the insight.
THANKS to a friend.
PW.

[ctcruiser]

I have a copy of this book that I bought back in the late 70's.

I use it from time to time to work on different things.

[relacey]

There are three listings for Haggart Bass Method in the US Registered Copyright database dated 1983. It looks like the original copyright was 1977. From the US Copyright Office FAQ "As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years." Works created before 1978 have different periods of coverage and allow for an extension of the registration, but I think it's safe to assume that the original copyright is still in force.

BTW - a work does not have to be registered to be protected by copyright. Just because it's out of print does not void the copyright. You need an intellectual property lawyer (which I am not) to figure all this out and since the OP is not in the US I have now idea how US copyrights are enforced internationally. I think the OPs intentions are honorable and PW's assertion that Bob probably would have approved may ease our conscience, but unless you get a release from the current copyright holder (possibly the publisher, not Bob's estate), you may be in violation of the law. As much as I love free stuff, I'm going to have to pass on this one.

[Michael Eisenman]

I was going to try to print out the download, and I got to thinking that some used copies might be out there.

I just ordered a copy of the book from alibris.com for $14.99; there are two used copies available on amazon.com: $20.00 and $28.75.

~

[Paul Warburton]

One nice double bassist from another counrty offering something to other double bassists in this strange land =
So much cold hearted bull****.

Sorry, Vito. I'll be in touch. PW.
Moral hazard, indeed.

[Bruce Lindfield]

On reading a bit more I do tend to agree with Paul that the spirit behind this was a generous one....

However, as a point of general principle, I think we should be encouraging people to go out and buy good books put out by Rufus Reid,Ron Carter,Ray Brown ....or for example, our own Ed Fuqua...!

Rather than endorsing what appears to be a growing trend for those beginners to be directed to sources that are free on the net and which give nothing back to those who are looking to make a living...however they can...?

[bhagiti]

Purchasing used copies from 3rd (or 4th or 5th) parties still does not benefit the author or copyright holder (only the seller). Certainly in this economy it's especially important to encourage cash flow but the moral hazard (the intent to remunerate the original source) has only been sidestepped.

Vito's heart is big and in the right place
Michael's too, and puts a few well-needed dollars into the economy
Of course relacey and Bruce are 100% correct and those very laws protect each of us who publish/record our work

Regardless, I never would have become interested in the book without Vito's offer and because of this I wanted to learn more about Bob Haggart (of whom I knew very little outside of "Big Noise From Winnetka") and his contribution to the music and the instrument. Yes, I browsed the book at Vito's site and enjoyed immensely that historic piece of bass pedagogy.

Sadly there are few options for desirable OOP works. Libraries, used book sellers and generous friends are all we got.

[Mark Perna]

The elephant in the room is how outdated the copyright laws are in the digital age. The US copyright laws have always been written to primarily benefit the publisher (i.e. large corporations and I include record companies as publishers) of a work with a bone thrown to the author. Prior to the digital age, the publishers had complete control of distribution. Without distribution, there was no way to sell the work. These same corporations raped and pillaged artists' royalties for nearly a century using "creative" accounting methods. Their pockets were so deep with ill-gotten gain they could afford to hire legions of attorneys to stall or block legal action by ripped off artists, who generally didn't have any resources, until said actions just went away for the lack of funds to continue fighting. I really think this puts the whole concept of "morality", particularly when downloading an out of print work, into a new perspective.

As far as whether or not it is actually illegal to download an out of print copyrighted work, I make no comment other than despite the RIAA having filed upwards of 300,000 lawsuits against file-sharers for sharing currently in print works, not one has been successfully litigated. Most settled or were voluntarily dropped by the RIAA (but only when it looked like were going to lose). The well-known Jammy Thomas case, which was initially found for the RIAA, was declared a mistrial and a new trial is scheduled to start in June. So despite the very public PR campaign the RIAA has been waging against file-sharers, calling them pirates and the scourge of artists, the US courts apparently don't actually agree with them (at least so far). That's US law. The copyright laws in other countries are drastically different. It is very possible that sharing an out of print book copyrighted in the 1940s on-line is perfectly legal in Italy. For a very long time, bootleg CDs were manufactured and sold out of Italy on a relatively mass scale (Red Door records was one of these bootleg labels) and completely within the laws of Italy. I have a couple of Joe Henderson CDs that are pretty killin' that came out on Red Door. I'm pretty sure that loophole has since been closed, though.

I would like to clearly differentiate between actual pirates (those that mass produce works that don't belong to them to sell for actual money like the Red Door folks) and file sharers who are generally people that want to share some cool stuff with their friends. The RIAA and MPAA try to muddy those waters whenever possible because it is in the interest of maintaining their ability to continue massively ripping off artists for their own corporate benefit.

And in case anyone is wondering, I personally don't download music except from clearly authorized sources and I generally prefer to buy CDs over downloads because the quality of mp3s are inferior to most CDs and I even more prefer buying directly from the artists' themselves. I always want to support the artist. In fact, if someone gives me a CD-R of an album, I almost always buy the CD later if it is in print.

As is apparent, I have no love for the large corporations who have been ripping artists off on a massive scale for a century and now portray themselves as the injured, morally superior, saviors of the artist. They are like the big brother who stops a classmate from beating up his little brother while saying to himself, "no one beats up my little brother but me!".

I sincerely hope you guys stop buying into the banana oil the record companies spew in their PR campaigns and see them for what they actually are: soul-less, greedy corporations bent on liberating every dollar possible from you and keeping as much as can get away with to themselves.

Whenever possible, buy directly from the artist and the internet has made that more possible than ever. Artists don't need the record companies anymore and this new paradigm has made the record companies dinosaurs and the sooner they die off, the better.

With respect to the Haggard book, I haven't downloaded it and I probably won't but I see no moral problem downloading it. The book isn't in print and buying a used copy doesn't help the Haggard family in any way. There is apparently virtually no interest in it and even a small slew downloads aren't going really increase that interest so the big soul-less, greedy corporation that owns the copyright isn't going to put any resources into making it available again. The internet has made available a resource to a small number of people who are interested in it and, in my mind, that is a good thing. Whether it is technically legal to do so has not been litigated and so that status is unknown.

[Nathan Parker]

Thanks for posting that, Vito.

I downloaded it yesterday, and just started lookin' over it. Cool stuff.

[vitoliuzzi]

Originally Posted by Nathan Parker

Thanks for posting that, Vito.

I downloaded it yesterday, and just started lookin' over it. Cool stuff.

Thanks a lot, Nathan.

I'm reading all you are writing. I know Italian Right quite well.
I think there are no legal conditions to retire the book.
I let you know.

My best bass regards.

Vito