for the sake of the privacy of the following story, the person concerned is called "John Midifan".
This is an article from a "local" newspaper.

In short:
You have been warned !!!

 

MIDI files are subject to Copyright, Mechanical Copyrights and Intellectual Property Law !

What does it mean ?

As far as legislation is concerned, MIDI files can best be compared to a book or article in a newspaper/magazine.
This may make it a bit easier to understand the following.

A MIDI file contains a number of musical notes played in a certain order. These notes are digitally registered in the file with quite a few parameters. One of the parameters is e.g. the "Velocity".
This value indicates the pressure applied to a key while playing a note.
The velocity of a note is expressed as a value from 0 to 127 and stored in the file as MIDI data.
This applies to every note and every track created in a MIDI file. The parameters can be visualized by loading the MIDI into eg a sequencer program.

Because many parameters depend on how the notes are played, you will understand that a kind of fingerprint is created that is unique for every MIDI file (even if it concerns the same song title).
It is impossible even for arrangers to play a MIDI file twice exactly in the same way (note timing, keystroke hardness, etc.)

Thus, just as letters are recorded in a certain order in a book, MIDI parameters are also registered in a unique order in a MIDI file.
Before a song title is published, it is published internationally at M.C.P.S. (International Mechanical Copyright Protection Society) registered, and the original performing artist(s) and lyricists are reported to BUMA, after which the arranger receives an invoice from BUMA for paying the copyright for the digital reproduction (or copying) of the song title .

After all conditions have been met, you are the 'owner' of the MIDI data (intellectual property right) and you may LEGALLY publish the relevant song title as a MIDI file.
As the owner, you automatically have the exclusive right to publish the MIDI data and third parties may not publish / distribute it without written permission.
Professional producers will of course offer these files for a fee to pay for the work done.
Purchasers of such productions do not acquire ownership of the MIDI data, but only acquire the right to use it.

This automatically means that they are not allowed to distribute the MIDI data because this right is reserved for the owner.
However, a so-called safety copy may be made for 'own' use. When transferring the original file, the right of use is also transferred, so that the original owner must destroy the backup copy.
After all, without being in possession of an original, there can never be a safety copy !!!

If you buy a book in the bookstore, you can read the book, so use it. You can never own the text of the book itself.
The letters in the order in which they are written remain the property of the writer!

NB! So you only own the MIDI data you play and not the song title.
After all, the arranger has only paid the usage fee of the song title for being allowed to reproduce!
This means that other producers may also produce the song title in question if they follow the right path and pay the rights. Even if it's the same song title.
If the MIDI data is compared, it will clearly appear that it is a 'different' MIDI file. If not, it is a copy
and the registration date will show which of the two is designated as an (illegal) copy.

Many books have been written on the same subjects, but the letters will therefore be in a different order in terms of content.

It is illegal to publish / distribute MIDI data without you being able to prove ownership of the MIDI data or having the written permission of the rightful owner.

What are you allowed?

Anyone may publish / distribute a MIDI file if it has been fully recorded by him / her and BUMA rights have been paid before publication for the digital reproduction of an existing song title. 

The latter is not necessary if the original songwriter died more than 75 years ago.

 

Well, that's a long story, but after this explanation everything seems clear to me now.

PROVIDERS DO NOT HAVE TO GIVE DATA TO BREIN

July 14, 2006 - Internet providers do not have to provide customer data to Stichting Brein, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled yesterday. Last year, a judge also ruled that Brein has no right to the data. The Brein Foundation is campaigning against providers of music files on the internet. The organization wanted to find out the address details of 41 internet users because they offered illegal music files on the internet. In order to claim compensation, the organization does need the data of these persons: Brein only has an anonymous IP address of the suspects and needs the help of internet providers for personalization of the suspects.
The internet providers – in this case Essent, KPN, Tiscali, Wanadoo and UPC – do not want to hand over the data to Brein for privacy reasons. The court ruled in favor of the providers. According to the court, an IP address is in principle protected personal data, and asking someone's identity on the basis of an IP address is an unlawful invasion of privacy.

The court also believes that Brein acted incorrectly by looking for IP addresses in the so-called 'shared folders'. These folders open up internet users to share music with each other. The judge: "A user of an IP address opens his computer for a specific purpose, exchanging files with other p2p users, whereby he need not be aware that an organization examines his 'shared folder' for possible copyright infringement."

 

'Authors should get what they deserve'

The VVD parliamentary group, through Charlie Aptroot and Ruud Luchtenveld, has asked questions about the lack of openness and the level of costs at copyright organizations such as Buma/Stemra. The liberals are displeased that a lot of money is left hanging on the bow.

Aptroot: ,,The collecting societies have high costs and reserves. Large amounts of money have been lost through investments. The collecting societies do not want to offer transparency, while we have repeatedly insisted on this. They keep the salaries of the directors and boards secret. Videma even refuses to publish the annual reports. It's been nice now. The VVD wants the ministers of Economic Affairs and Justice to force the organizations to reveal their information."

At the moment, copyrights are fragmented across several bodies, such as Buma/Stemra, Sena, Stichting Reprorecht, Stichting Thuiskopie, Stichting Leenrecht and Stichting Videma. Companies are levied on the number of square meters or employees who may enjoy the radio or television.

An example: a shop of fifty square meters pays Buma/Stemra about two hundred euros annually. The Videma Foundation wants to impose levies even on television programs that are free according to the law, such as the football World Cup. “This is nonsense,” says Aptroot. "I would really like to know what those levies are based on."

According to the VVD, it is therefore a fact that a lot of money flows to the copyright organizations. The lack of will to openness makes Aptroot suspicious.

“Buma/Stemra has an office building for which they pay 1.7 million euros in rent annually. Isn't that way too much?
They have lost 47 million euros on investments.
In my opinion, authors receive far too little and entrepreneurs pay far too much.” 

AMSTERDAM - PvdA member of parliament Martijn van Dam has doubts about the working method of Stichting Brein. Van Dam suspects that the internet police do not always comply with the legal requirements, Breakpunt reports. Van Dam is therefore going to ask questions to the Minister of Justice, Donner.

"The Brein Foundation has announced that it wants to send claims to people who exchange files via the internet (e.g. via Kazaa). I want more clarity from Minister Donner about what Brein is and is not allowed to do on this point. I also want to know whether Donner thinks that Brein violates the fundamental right to freely exchange information," can be read on the website van Van Dam.

 

IP-adres

"Brain must first of all collect data from people. For example, the IP address, but also the files that people offer. That could mean a serious invasion of privacy, since those files are on the hard drive of possible infringers .

"In addition, falsifying an IP address is a piece of cake, so it is by no means certain that the IP address registered by Brein has actually been used by the subscriber who normally uses the address."

Questions to the Minister of Justice:

1. Are you aware that Stichting Brein ("Brein") is sending warning messages to users of online exchange services and is also planning to send claims to these users?

2. Are you aware that Brein uses special software to collect IP addresses of users of exchange services?

3. Was the investigation by the Dutch Data Protection Authority ('CBP') (16 April 2004, z2003-1660) also applicable to the data processing referred to here? If so, do you share the opinion of the Dutch DPA that the data processing by Brein is lawful and fits within the Personal Data Protection Act ('WBP')?

4. Do you believe that the interest of Brein in this case prevails over the interest or the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals to freely exchange information under the protection of privacy, as referred to in Article 8f of the WBP? Could you explain your answer?

5. What other data does Brein collect, besides IP addresses?

6. Can you guarantee that during the collection of data by Brein no other special data, as referred to in Article 16 of the WBP, are collected or can be deduced from the collected data? If not, are you prepared to take measures to ensure that no other special data is collected or can be deduced from the collected data?

7. Are you aware that Brein is dependent on the provision of name and address details by internet service providers for sending claims?

8. Are internet service providers allowed to provide name and address details to third parties, in particular to Brein, without the subscriber's consent?

9. Can the court force an internet service provider to hand over name and address details of a subscriber to Brein? If so, on the basis of which law / which section of the law? Do you believe that in such a case it must be irrefutably established that the subscriber in question has committed an unlawful disclosure within the meaning of the Copyright Act?

10. Are you familiar with the possibility of disguising or forging an IP address? In view of this, can you indicate whether it is possible to establish with certainty that a registered IP address has actually been used by the subscriber who normally uses that IP address?

11. Are you aware that the Dutch Data Protection Authority has ruled that Brein may not pass on personal data to sister organizations in the United States? How will you check whether Brein will comply with the ruling of the Dutch DPA?

 

Stichting Brein is taking legal action against 32 internet users who have illegally shared music on a large scale via the internet. The internet users did not respond to the settlement proposal that Brein recently sent. However, the question is whether the foundation knows how to trace the identity of those involved.

In March, Brein sent 50 demands to providers, instructing them to send them to customers who offer copyrighted material on the internet. Brein cannot do this itself because the foundation only has IP addresses. Seven uploaders have accepted a settlement proposal and have to cough up an average of 2100 euros, Brein says. The others refused to reveal their identities and sign the abstention statement.

Brein now wants to request the name and address details of 32 music sharers from the providers Planet Internet, Het Net, @Home, Wanadoo and Tiscali. Wanadoo has already announced that it will not provide these. XS4All previously stated that it would not cooperate with Brein at all and would not forward progress. This led to a fierce reaction from the chairman of Buma/Stemra on Tuesday: "It's a shame".

Since Brein is a private organization that stands up for the interests of the entertainment industry, providers are not obliged to provide the data, says Kazaa's former lawyer Christiaan Alberdingk Thijm. According to him, internet providers are also not responsible for unlawful behavior of customers. The only way for Brein to obtain the data is the long road of the criminal process, the lawyer explains.

Brein's action is part of an international offensive. In Europe and Asia, eleven local copyright organizations are suing more than a thousand uploaders.