I would like to reduce the size of a music file.
- Thread starter grh
- Start date
VomitHatSteve
Hat STYLE. Not contents.
MP3 will get you the greatest reduction in file size, but it will also reduce quality. There are a few other algorithms available (AAC, Ogg-Vorbis, wma), but they're all fundamentally similar.
Flac can get you about 50% file size reduction with no data loss.
Flac can get you about 50% file size reduction with no data loss.
TimOD
Active member
Why do you need to make them smaller? For an Mp3 player? Drive space is cheap nowadays--a 4 terrabyte drive will hold a shit-ton of WAV files. I mean, you're still going to have the same amount of songs, right? What difference does it make as to how big the files are? Unless you want them all on a single drive, or the aforementioned Mp3 player.
I was reading about mp3, and oog comparisons, and at this time am going with oog. How does flac compare to oog?
I am a musician, and this all my original music. I need to copyright this music as a collection, and worry I will be rejected by the copyright office if the size is to big.
rob aylestone
Moderator
What Copyright Office? I don't know what country you are in, but to register recordings they just want information - they never ever want the music, but if you distribute it via aggregators to Spotify, apple, iTunes, tiktok etc then they want the best quality you can do.
In the UK - you would submit details of the recording to PPL - they need recording dates, titles, running time, etc
This is the sort of information your tracks must have - I just grabbed a random one of mine - it's released via songtradr, and the copyright in the song is registered with PRS, and the recording with PPL - you need various codes - the ISRC comes from songtradr, while the others get allocated via PRS and PPL. No copyright Office is involved as you automatically have copyright protection once the the tune in your head is committed to a permanent medium - and becomes evidence. The modern version of posting the recording on a cassette to yourself and not opening the parcel.
mp3 is still convenient, but size as said above is unimportant, but quality is. You don't want to upload your music to the streaming platforms in anything other than the best quality you can. They'll accept mp3 but why do it?
PRS and PPL don't care one jot what format your music is in - they just care about spelling your name right. They pick up regional and national airplay - but both pay little attention to online music. Many people don;t even do PRS and PPL. I get far more money from Spotify and the others than via the old dinosaur organisations. It never hurts to register your recordings with them - they collect things like who actually played on the recording - who arranged it etc etc - and if you played on a session for somebody else, PPL let their members register a claim on the recording, in case it earns lots of money by suddenly becoming popular. PRS of course just want to know who wrote the music and the lyrics. They ignore the recording people.
In the UK - you would submit details of the recording to PPL - they need recording dates, titles, running time, etc
This is the sort of information your tracks must have - I just grabbed a random one of mine - it's released via songtradr, and the copyright in the song is registered with PRS, and the recording with PPL - you need various codes - the ISRC comes from songtradr, while the others get allocated via PRS and PPL. No copyright Office is involved as you automatically have copyright protection once the the tune in your head is committed to a permanent medium - and becomes evidence. The modern version of posting the recording on a cassette to yourself and not opening the parcel.
mp3 is still convenient, but size as said above is unimportant, but quality is. You don't want to upload your music to the streaming platforms in anything other than the best quality you can. They'll accept mp3 but why do it?
PRS and PPL don't care one jot what format your music is in - they just care about spelling your name right. They pick up regional and national airplay - but both pay little attention to online music. Many people don;t even do PRS and PPL. I get far more money from Spotify and the others than via the old dinosaur organisations. It never hurts to register your recordings with them - they collect things like who actually played on the recording - who arranged it etc etc - and if you played on a session for somebody else, PPL let their members register a claim on the recording, in case it earns lots of money by suddenly becoming popular. PRS of course just want to know who wrote the music and the lyrics. They ignore the recording people.
gecko zzed
Grumpy Mod
In Australia you register your song with APRA/AMCOS. You supply relevant details, and can also upload an MP3 of the track. You can also apply to be able to assign your own ISRC codes.
rob aylestone
Moderator
When we register a recording here - we get the option to also have it protected in the US, and we have three organisations to choose from - and the rest of the world gets added with just a click!
keith.rogers
Well-known member
I was going to check the US Copyright office, but they are completely offline until Tuesday. An upgrade apparently did not go as planned!
keith.rogers
Well-known member
oog and flac are not in the list of accepted formats (at the US Copyright office).
eCO Help - eCO Acceptable File Types | U.S. Copyright Office
eCO Acceptable File Types
www.copyright.gov
rob aylestone
Moderator
I'm very interested in this copyright office and their fees. In the US, does this mean that copyright is NOT yours until you pay to register it? In GB and the EU - intellectual copyright exists automatically from the moment it is committed to permanent form - so written down as music and lyrics, or hummed into an mp3 recorder, or shot as sound or video on your phone. I'm sure America was using the same system, so what purpose is the copyright office? Is it just a centra point of registration? Does it also mean they actually collect and store every piece of copyright work? That seems a mammoth task - and I guess the reason they charge. Could somebody US side of the water explain how this works? If you don't use the copyright office do you have no protection at all?
keith.rogers
Well-known member
As I always like to preface anything like this, IANAL...
Copyright registration is what the US Copyright Office handles. In the U.S., as s in most of the world, copyright is the owner's as soon as they create the work. But, if your copyright is infringed, and you have not registered it, then the likelihood of getting a court to award damages, or an attorney to take your case, are reduced significantly, from what I've read.
You do have to submit the thing you want to copyright. For music, a "work" can be submitted for a PA (Performing Arts) registration, and that can be done with either something like a score, a chart, or even a music [computer/digital] file, i.e., the "work" is embedded in the recording. You can also submit a music file for a SR (Sound Recording) registration, which is for the actual performance. It gets arcane quickly, as with all things legislative/legal/governmental.
Copyright registration is what the US Copyright Office handles. In the U.S., as s in most of the world, copyright is the owner's as soon as they create the work. But, if your copyright is infringed, and you have not registered it, then the likelihood of getting a court to award damages, or an attorney to take your case, are reduced significantly, from what I've read.
You do have to submit the thing you want to copyright. For music, a "work" can be submitted for a PA (Performing Arts) registration, and that can be done with either something like a score, a chart, or even a music [computer/digital] file, i.e., the "work" is embedded in the recording. You can also submit a music file for a SR (Sound Recording) registration, which is for the actual performance. It gets arcane quickly, as with all things legislative/legal/governmental.
Last edited:
My music consists of many short instrumentals, and I can't find specific information about if there is a limit size for this kind of collection. Check this out. https://ipfilings.net/copyright-guide/copyright-a-collection
Last edited:
I was thinking about converting to mp3 instead of oog, and burning the music on dvd's to mail to the copyright office as a collection.oog and flac are not in the list of accepted formats (at the US Copyright office).
eCO Help - eCO Acceptable File Types | U.S. Copyright Office
eCO Acceptable File Types
Than you for that information, and It is just like keith rogers said. In America most musicians accept you just have to pay if you want a chance at any real protection. I am copyrighting the music itself, and not the way the recording sounds. I am probably going to send an mp3 recording to the United States copyright office, and use wav files for youtube, etc.
keith.rogers
Well-known member
Again, IANAL, but have been through this process, though not in the past year, jeez, almost 2 now.
You want to spend a lot of time reading all the publications on the copyright.gov site.
The physical copy is a requirement only if you are registering a published work, e.g., a CD that you had burnt/replicated and sold at gigs but did not previously register. If you are simply looking for registration of "the work," and not the recording, that is a "PA" (Performing Arts) type of registration (vs. Sound Recording, "SR"), and there is no reason to submit a physical copy.
Some folks do use the SR to try and cover both, but TBH, there's usually no real money at stake in those cases. Pros do both, i.e., a PA registration of the work before they even go into the studio, and then an SR when the CD is finished.
Last I checked, the process is also cheaper if you use the electronic filing process entirely, but I couldn't log in earlier to check the current fees.
rob aylestone
Moderator
I guess you then also register with ASCAP, which is the US version of our PRS I think. In fairness our PRS system is hopelessly out of date and cannot work with streaming services at all it seems. One of the two ABBA fellas gave a scathing review of them last year, accusing them of being dinosaurs. A Reno based friend of mine, who has for years had a steady income from his music has seen it dwindle, but had not even considered the streaming and download system had changed - so he wasn't receiving any of the itunes/Spotify revnue etc - just old fashioned CD sales and radio airplay. It seems broken in the UK and the US?
keith.rogers
Well-known member
They are playing catch-up here as well, though they are new regs in place to at least require the larger streaming sites to identify, manage and distribute the fractions of pennies that can accrue. Unfortunately many of the original artists are unlikely to have had anything contractural that foresaw this. I don’t know if the main PROs, ASCAP/SECAP/BMI (why three???), have moved out of the back room with their green visors and sleeve garters either.
Thanks. I remember reading in the past about form pa vs sr. My music seems to fit the copyright description for collection, but it is going to be such a huge file, and I worry it will be rejected as an electronic filing submission. That is why I wan't to submit the music on dvd's if necessary. If a famous band can copyright a boxed set, then why can't I copyright a few dvd's together as a collection?