Funkdaddy,
I wasn't trying to be patronizing. You wewren't trying either - it seems we both succeeded at something we weren't trying for.
I was stating what I do automatically - demonstrating by example - my feelings on the subject are subjective but are consistent with law. Australian law does not separate melody from the "music".
In your second post you seem to equivocate: collaborators should determine the split by agreement. I was making a case for what I felt should be but isn't always the case.
Now, you additional text suggests that perhaps it shouldn't be but could be varied by agreement/negotiation/ or even the demand of the most powerful party involved.
With me the melodic creator gets co-writer credit. Sorry, perhaps I should have stated emphatically that anyone not automatically crediting the melodist is corrupt and should have a good hard look at them selves whilst simultaneously pulling up their socks and holding their head up. I wanted to make the point, in context and without a mallet, that the melody is a significant part of the composition and its creation deserves recognition/acknowledgement/etc.
Arrangements do have copyright status in Australia. I didn't comment in terms of law because THE LAW DIFFERS in some instances from one state to another & at least from one nation to another.
Back to the point I tried to make in the in a previous post. I make sure I give credit. Sorry, perhaps I shouldn't do, shouldn't say, shouldn't comment. Music generally, & popular music in particular, is littered with unacknowledged co-writing credits. I'm just trying to do the right thing - I hadn't factored in your interpretation of my motivations.
Inference and implication are different things I know. I might have commented that FunkDaddy as a name could be seen as patronising, appropriationist, wildly ironic or cool. I don't know enough of you as yet to make that kind of judgement.
However, you do have my thanks for summing up my personal politics so succinctly albiet possibly prematurely.
Oh, the Pistols - band co-writing credit across the board.
Gek, did you read what you alinked to?
"Copyright law in Australia protects musical works, any accompanying lyrics, the published edition and sound recordings...The arrangement of music that is under copyright is protected separately from the
music itself...For a sound recording of a musical work, the rights include copying that recording
and playing it in public."
I read this as music, lyrics, arrangement, performance & recording though not necessarily in the one bundle. The definition of music isn't given but if I were to write a riff & record it it would be covered by copyright. I wouldn't have to transcribe it as a melody to obtain such. (which notes would I use if I were to write a melody of the riff - that would be crucial in a legal case wouldn't it?)
With me, I ride my motorcycle on the left hand side of the road because the safety of other road users is important - oh, wait, that was a little off. I ONLY do it because the coppers will book me if I don't. In NO WAY should my riding on the left be interpreted as me complying with or agreeing to a convention or logical process for any reason other than being legally compelled to do so. Morality, personal ethics and such have no place in a society that sets rules and my claiming to have a position in conjunction with, in advance of, or beyond, those rules can be seen as nothing other that a low act of self aggrandisement by a base born curr commited to self promotion and personal enhancement.
