Good to know. I knew it was a bogus think to get people to feel “covered,” but isn’t it still a bonus goodus to have some proof, at least to an RIAA agent that you’re playing an original tune, and therefore a blub isn’t in hock to their eyeballs for an originals-only club (i.e., a club that doesn’t pay ASCAP/SECAP/BMI fees)? I never thought it was good for anything, but just kind of a little hedge.
I’d think patents would be secured by people a little more concerned about their IP – even a garage inventor. Plus, you get covered by patent clerks who presumably vet the designs. Music is more subjective – chord progressions aren’t copyrightable IIRC, but arrangements (like a little horn arrangement) and melody (down to a minimal fragment of melody) are.
At any rate, even though most of my tunes are contrafacts or very nearly so, and the melodies are just some blah blah I bothered to write down, it seems worth the minimal effort.
Of course, the downside is that I can’t find many of my lead sheets, and certainly can’t remember the heads except when I can find the very rare recordings I did in Audacity or something. Basically, they’re lost, which is fine – just write another one (hint – dinner jazz people aren’t that discriminating! and the sidemen just want something to blow over!) except somewhere there are some envelopes.
In matter of fact, I’m more pissed about losing a volume of poems I’d typeset using a typewriter about ten years ago, left in a real cunt of an English"man"'s attic when I left town. Oh well. It will be impossible to recover those, but let;s hope those brain cells grow back stat!
You can register a work with the copyright office if you want.
Mailing something to yourself doesn’t help with copyright or patents.
The idea is that, if somebody else steals something you’ve written and claims it as their own work, you can produced a sealed, postmarked envelope as evidence of when you originally created it.
I’ve certainly heard of the idea before, but I haven’t heard whether it’s actually been used in any real copyright disputes.
Yeah, I know that. But (a) don’t care that much and (b) don’t want to drop coin for legal protection, since my only purpose for music is in the odd events when I need plausibly to claim my works are my own. And if they don’t hold up in court, at least I have some jive “evidence” that I’m not screwing somebody else. I don’t care if someone else claims ownership – just make sure that I have some (even though it might turn out to be crap proof) proof that no one else recorded or wrote it before me.
It’s all academic, since I’m pretty sure no one’s sitting around with staff paper writing down some throw-away contrafact because ZOMG it’s so fucking good. Anyway, I don’t play those tunes except if I’m in a place that doesn’t pay BMI/ASCAP/SECAP licenses – they’re just nostrums for vehicles to jam on. I haven’t played in public for probably 16 months or 2 years – like what’s the point, man? Wait I did some private jobs more recently, but I don’t think the “Happy Birthday” people are after me or whatever else. I’m talking club dates, which are dead – I can buy my own burritos and beer, thank you veddy much!
And if it doesn’t work out, just modify the head melody and arrangement on the fly and Bob’s your uncle – badabing. New tune!
Oh, hey. Jim Hall’s line on “I’ve Got You Under My Skin” from Intermodulation IIRC. Baddabing. New tune. That’s why I like having a good guitar player with me – just use an old thing, make it new, and it ain’t no copyright. Just “easy listening”! More importantly, no rehearsal necessary – just do it on the fly. I miss my man on guitar – he was a genius with that. Not that I had his harmonic sense, but at least I could follow him, and vice versa when I’d give a Richard Tee thing or something.
I read the fucking cite, it says counts are up. You realize that in the digital world, counts includes singles, right? No, of course you don’t. I know that because you keep ignoring the fantastic drop in revenue, which is driven in your opinion by…what? Are you going to tell me that prices of albums have dropped by 45%? Or, I dunno, it’s because people who want whole albums steal them, but casual singles shoppers still pay.
I walked Steophan through all of the details regarding album “units” vs singles “units” in the pit thread about pirate bay, and at the very end when he finally realized his arguments were illogical he openly refused to answer any more questions.
It’s kind of funny actually, but if I were you I would probably only read the last few posts, it took a while to get him into that corner.
These are good points, and maybe my 15 years is too short. I can pretty confidently say that the original 28 years is absolutely long enough, though, and I’m reasonably confident that 15 years is probably long enough given today’s distribution methods, although it may not have been long enough 25 years ago, pre-internet and such.
As far as re-releasing movies with slight changes, I have no problem with that. It wouldn’t change the fact that copyright ran out on the original work, though; if someone wanted to distribute the 1977 version of Star Wars, the fact that a fancy new Blu-Ray edition was released last year wouldn’t stop them, as long as they didn’t try to distribute the new edition with the changes. And if someone wants to use those characters or that setting in their own work, anything that was introduced in the original movie would be fair game for them.
So you did. I’ve reached a conclusion that I’ve been imagining a false dichotomy - stupid and willfully obtuse aren’t mutually exclusive.
I’m going to tell you that the cost of distributing an album, or single, has dropped by way more than 45% if you distribute digitally rather than physically. The cost of recording has also dropped, although probably not by so much, due to technological advances, meaning that a great deal of expensive studio equipment can be replaced by a PC. Therefore, a drop in revenue doesn’t show anything.
I’ve answered your questions repeatedly. I’ve just given the same, factually correct, answer to Maserschmidt. Stop pretending that I haven’t. If you disagree with the conclusions I draw from those facts, argue with them, but denying reality isn’t going to prove you right.
If you hadn’t changed the argument from sales - or should I say “sales”? - to profit midstream in these threads, that might be a useful point.
How does that follow?
Do you mean gross revenue, or profits?
I didn’t change the argument. I showed that sales are up, then other people started talking about revenue. I’ve also shown that a fall in revenue doesn’t prove anything, as profit is what is important, not revenue.
This is a little OT, but this kind of untruth bothers me. Sure there are people using free or cheap plug-ins. In general, studio costs, in my limited experience, have gone up due to using DAWs – since every bit of hardware (mics, preamps, etc) is still needed, in addition to very expensive software, DACs, the man-or woman-hours needed to learn new technology, and people still use tape when their clients want it, which is more expensive now that there’s not that much of it.
I would like to see a new breakout - a new poll, actually: How much copyright do you support? Status quo? Less? Still more? And (of course) are you an IP creator? Or holder?
The question “do you support copyright or don’t you?” is unnecessarily polarizing. But of course, that’s how busy people think these days.
You picked the one definition of “sales” - individual transactions - least related to profit or the health of the industry, and then when multiple people pointed out that revenue was more closely related to profit than “sales”, you said profit was what really mattered.
Oh, ok, then you won’t mind answering this simple question:
If Coca Cola sold 10 six packs and 10 singles, how many units did they sell?
If you won’t, what could possibly prevent you from answering such a simple question? You’re posting a lot so you don’t mind typing.
Assuming they’re using the same method of measuring as the record industry, 20.
That’s not a particularly appropriate method of measuring for Coke, though, as the cost of manufacture and distribution of a 6-pack and a single can aren’t the same, unlike CDs, where it’s identical, and digital downloads, where it isn’t, but the costs are so tiny that it doesn’t really matter.
But to carry on with your ridiculous analogy, if one band sells 1,000 albums that are 75 minutes long, and another 2,000 albums that are 35 minutes long, which has sold more?
What about if another band sells 1000 albums with 18 tracks on, and another 2000 albums with 8 tracks on, which has sold more?