
pandamonk
Well-known member
I quite believe it. It definitely doesn't hold up in the US.There actually has been a couple of threads in here, or was it in the cave, where the 'Poor Man's Copyright' did not hold up in court.
I quite believe it. It definitely doesn't hold up in the US.There actually has been a couple of threads in here, or was it in the cave, where the 'Poor Man's Copyright' did not hold up in court.
Sadly if you want to copy-write your songs for real you have to pay the 40 dollar fee and send it in to get copywriten its really not that big of a deal.
The fee is inconsequential since you can copyright groups of musical works. I've done it that way. And it's easy to do online and with their paper form. I mean really easy. Fill out a simple form and submit a recording. Doesn't even have to be a good recording or a definitive version, just one that shows the work's musical details.
Sadly if you want to copy-write your songs for real you have to pay the 40 dollar fee and send it in to get copywriten its really not that big of a deal.
There are two concepts that sometimes get blurred in copyright debates.
1 Copyright is automatically vested in the composer on the creation of a work. You do not need to take any specific action to acquire copyright.
2 However, sometimes you have to prove that you are the composer. In this case, legal registration is a way in which you can prove and secure the copyright you already own.
Copyright varies from country to country, and Australia is no different in that. However, there is useful informatin here (if you are interested or Australian):
http://www.copyright.org.au/information/specialinterest/music.htm
As I've worked through this thread, I've been intrigued by the debate, which consists largely of a series of assertions and counter-assertions. I expect there is reasonable wisdom behind these, but I'm surprised that there was little reference to any supporting legal opinion. Actually, I expect that the body of legal work on this would make it difficult to identify a specific ruling offhand, which brings me to my other puzzlement.
For quite some time the debate has been to-ing and fro-ing, and it seemed evident that it was not going to be resolved here. So I'm puzzled why someone didn't say "hang on a minute, I'll see if I can get a specific ruling on this example".
For quite some time the debate has been to-ing and fro-ing, and it seemed evident that it was not going to be resolved here. So I'm puzzled why someone didn't say "hang on a minute, I'll see if I can get a specific ruling on this example".
Xeries;2935348 Personally said:Hehe . . . I long for the day when someone would consider ripping off my stuff to be worthwhile, so I'm with you on that one!
I referenced.There are two concepts that sometimes get blurred in copyright debates.
1 Copyright is automatically vested in the composer on the creation of a work. You do not need to take any specific action to acquire copyright.
2 However, sometimes you have to prove that you are the composer. In this case, legal registration is a way in which you can prove and secure the copyright you already own.
Copyright varies from country to country, and Australia is no different in that. However, there is useful informatin here (if you are interested or Australian):
http://www.copyright.org.au/information/specialinterest/music.htm
As I've worked through this thread, I've been intrigued by the debate, which consists largely of a series of assertions and counter-assertions. I expect there is reasonable wisdom behind these, but I'm surprised that there was little reference to any supporting legal opinion. Actually, I expect that the body of legal work on this would make it difficult to identify a specific ruling offhand, which brings me to my other puzzlement.
For quite some time the debate has been to-ing and fro-ing, and it seemed evident that it was not going to be resolved here. So I'm puzzled why someone didn't say "hang on a minute, I'll see if I can get a specific ruling on this example".