rjt said:
... I would ask, a number of people have said that the PMC (poor man's copyright) works with a "registered letter" as that is always sealed and the seal is marked with date etc. My guess is that there is no case law regarding this, or you would have mentioned it. However, does it strengthen your claim as opposed to sending the tape to yourself via registered mail?
When I searched, I searched for both registered letters, certified mail, poor man's copyright, and common law copyright. I found no case law utilizing any of those types of evidence. My guess, after such an extensive search, is that those cases don't exist. I could be wrong, but it seems that most of the people who employ the PMC are generally not the type of folks whose music has been stolen and utilized commercially in any significant way ... OR maybe my search results mean that folks who don't have the money or good sense to register their copyrights do not generally have access to lawyers for filing suit against infringers.
If, in fact, a registered letter is sealed it may be better factual evidence of ownership of the copyright at a particular time ... but as I indicated earlier, a registered letter is still technically "hearsay" and cannot (generally) be used as "direct evidence". Such a letter still could be used indirectly in court, but only to jog the memory of the witness as to the date of creation (prior recollection recorded). Consider this example of testimony.
Q: Mr. X why have you filed this suit against YZ Publishing?
A: Because I wrote a work that sounds exactly like the work they said they published.
Q: When did you create your work?
A: I'm not sure?
Q: Is there anything that would refresh your memory?
A: Yes ... I sent myself a copy of the work via registered mail after I created it
[Objection, your Honor... Hearsay. The witness is attempting to introduce hearsay to prove the fact in issue OR Objection. The witness is trying to bolster his testimony by introducing hearsay testimony. Move to strike the testimony concerning the fact that a registered letter was sent and permission to instruct the jury that they cannot consider the fact that the created music was sent to by the creator to himself via registered mail]
Court: Opposing Counsel? Response?
Opposing Counsel: yada yada yada
Court: Granted. The witness may only testify as to when he created the work. Members of the jury, you may not consider the assertion that the witness sent his completed work to himself via Registered Mail. You may only consider the claim by the witness of when he created the work.
Q: Is there anything that would refresh your memory?
A: Yes, I have a dated letter right after I created the work.
[Witness is handed the (registered) letter to look it over. Letter is taken back from the witness]
Q: Is your memory refreshed?
A: Yes.
Q: What date did you create your work that you claim to be infringed?
A: XYZ date.
Q: Do you have any witnesses to the creation of your work?
A: Yes, I played a Dat tape of the work to my writing partner and my manager the day after I made it.
Q: Can you demonstrate how the work sounded on the date of creation?
A: Yes. I can play the Dat tape that I made on the day I created it.
Q: [taking Dat tape] Is this tape is in the same or substantially the same condition as when you made it [it's more likely that an expert would have verified the authenticity of the tape ... no changes ... before trial]?
A: Yes. [or stipulated by opposing counsel]
[Counsel (to the Court). Your Honor, at this time we request permission to play the Dat tape to the members of the jury]
[Play tape] ... etc.
But as you can see, by my scenario, if the opposing counsel is even halfway decent, the fact that the letter was sent via registered mail is no more beneficial given that it is technically hearsay and inadmissible bolstering of the witnesses' testimony. It certainly doesn't hurt, but the fact that the mail was "registered" will not likely be admissible "directly."
