Is copyrighting obsolete?

[hixmix]

With programs like Gnutella, MP3 and Napster already in existence, and even more sophisticated programs on the horizon, is it still worth the trouble to copyright anything?

[dragonworks]

hixmix

Thank you for posting this question. allthough I have no answers I have thought about this myself and have not come around to
copywriting any of my material and am wondering if it is worth the money etc. I am
sure you will get some good feedback on this that we can both benefit from.

[dobro]

There are still loads of people buying CDs, and loads of TV and radio stations paying royalties on the tunes they play, and publishing companies getting wealthy. Registering copyright means you get a crack at all that. Like my daddy always used to say, you can't win the lottery if you don't buy a ticket.

I reckon napster and co. aren't the enemy - if anything napster will help you get your music known if you're lucky enough to catch the attention of the college crowd. The *big* challenge, near as I can tell, is getting your music heard AT ALL. There is just so much music being churned out these days - home recording's got so cheap that anybody can make a CD, and that's what's happening. I mean, you should be so lucky to get napster artists ripping off your stuff. That's just free publicity.

[Rev E]

In an of itself, Napster and the gang pose a minor threat to copyright, because of the current volume of the thieving... I mean "sharing". However, if permission-less, license-free download of copywritten material becomes the norm, there will be a slow and eventual death to copyright.

My stance against Napster (because they did not pay the songwriter/publishers and artist/labels) is for this very same reason. One day it's just a download, the next day music is all free and musicians get paid by selling advertising for another company's "PRoduct". The present rationale that supports the Napster philosophy is "if it's invisible (digital) then it's free game.
It's the precendence that it sets. To me, that precedent is worse that the possible benefit that it could provide (as it exists today). Now if we change the model and Napsters actually pays for a broadcast license and pays royalties to the labels, while still making the service free, then I think you have something there.

[Michael Jones]

Well, I'm with Rev E on the napster deal.
As far as copyrighting goes there was a new law in the US in 1998 I beleive was the year. It states "Copyright protection is automatic". That means: Once you have put your material in a "tangible medium" (ie. something other than an idea in your head, it can be a recorded song, a fully notated score, or scribbled on the back of a cocktail napkin) it is in essence copyrighted. Now the tricky part: If you don't register that copyright, then you have litterally no way of proving that you did it. By all means, YES! Register your material with the copyright office!
You can get tons of info, including forms to register here: http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/

[This message has been edited by Michael Jones (edited 07-24-2000).]

[ME]

REV E,

WOW, you are sooo right! I refuse to participate in the theft along with all of my musician buddies. The old saying is true..."you reap what you sow".

As you stated, if napster had to pay royalties for the music that they post and maybe the people who downloaded had to pay a yearly membership fee or something, then it wouldn't be so bad.

I suppose it wouldn't be a good feeling to find out that my CD on mp3.com sales came to a screeching halt because some dude was posting all my mp3's for free download on his site?

<b>That's one hell-u-va thought...</b>


Sorry hixmix, I got off the subject. By all means COPYWRITE your tunes!!! It's needed more now days then ever before since we all post our music so freely all over the web. Michael Jones gave it in the previous post as well... http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/
http://MichaelErwin.cjb.net

[crEEk]

While the law certainly isn't new, Michael is right that copyright is inherent upon creation of your work. However as dobro pointed out the days are far from over where you couldn't benefit from copyrighting. If you ever needed to prove ownership that documentation would be a much better case.

[bball jones]

What with all the uncertainty and change about us, I think it is wise to protect your own creativity when you can. For my last submission I sent my work in cd format. Had my copyrite in 2-3 weeks.

[crEEk]

It's true. Just fill out form SR and send in a copy of the sound recording.

[ME]

BBall Jones (kewl name!)

You know, I have been forking over that $ via PA forms and it has not dawned on me to do what you suggested (doh!). I will definately do that next time and save the xtra pennies for more toys....THANKS! ME

[LI Slim]

Actually, the notion that intellectual property like music is the property of the creater upon the creation of the work is hundreds of years old; it comes from English common law.

Registering the copyright is not only powerful proof, it's also the only way that you can get into federal court to enforce your rights (otherwise, you have to go into state court, which doesn't have the procedures available under the Copyright Act)

[LI Slim]

By the way, I agree with Rev E. I think the notion that because it's in intangible - digital - form, it belongs to everybody, is ironic at best. (Copyrighted lyric (not registered yet): "When did freedom start to mean the right to steal everything, everything that you can download or uncode?")

Of course, that doesn't contradict the fact that I would at this point be thrilled to have hundreds of people downloading my music for free. The exposure would be payment enough. As long as they don't rerecord it and sell it!

[bball jones]

Hear, hear, LI .

[John Sayers]

I sometimes wonder what all the fuss is about - we've had cassette recorders for years and have been pirating tracks with dual cassette recorders - sony are now bringing out a modern version - the dual CD player with one of them a burner - What's the difference??

cheers

[LI Slim]

I don't think there's much of a difference between a dual cassette player and a dual CD player/burner (aside from sound quality), but there are several important differences between a duplication machine and providing music data files via the internet, including -

1. The MP3 files are essentially original master recordings, equivalent in quality and alterable;

2. Providing the files via the net is an immediate mass publication - it would be like making a million pirated copies of a CD, bringing them to the homes of people known to be interested in music, and asking them if they'd like one;

3. In light of 1. and 2., the artist loses control of the music, which of course is the source of the original question on this thread!


This all has already given rise to some interesting high stakes lawsuits, ultimately over $$$, which is definitely what a lot of the fuss is about.