|
How many of you register your songs?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| kopi_luwak |
Guys,
How many of you really have registered your songs? I mean, the copyright, I am worried because I see a lot of very talented producers posting daily and you can know a track it's not registered yet when someone post this:
Hi, this is a new track I just did last night.
Are you dont afraid about a losser could register it to his,her name?
Kopi =o. |
|
|
| Corteoz |
From the moment you create a song you own it and have a kind of copyright on it. No one can just steal your song and make money on it.
What YOU make is YOURS. I think it's a world-wide law that preserves artist's rights.
Correct me if I'm wrong. |
|
|
| dbl |
| quote: | Originally posted by Corteoz
From the moment you create a song you own it and have a kind of copyright on it. No one can just steal your song and make money on it.
What YOU make is YOURS. I think it's a world-wide law that preserves artist's rights.
Correct me if I'm wrong. |
yeah.. but you gotta be able to prove it yours |
|
|
| BOOsTER |
| is proving it a big problem? i don't think so... |
|
|
| kopi_luwak |
I dont know if this works but every time I finish a track I e-mail it to one of my gmail accounts, so I can prove what day was done, also I type copyright, all rights reserved etc, u think that could be enought prove?
Kopi =o. |
|
|
| Crash |
well.... think of it, what jackass would copy your song?
people will find out, and if someone post's his tune here and someone (might be someone big) steal the melody or something major like that and use it in his/hers tune, dont you think they know how much hatred that will cause?
i honestly dont think anyone would dare. |
|
|
| kopi_luwak |
| quote: | Originally posted by Crash
well.... think of it, what jackass would copy your song?
people will find out, and if someone post's his tune here and someone (might be someone big) steal the melody or something major like that and use it in his/hers tune, dont you think they know how much hatred that will cause?
i honestly dont think anyone would dare. |
Well, a friend once had that problem, a dude took someo of his song and claimed were of him :(, dunno in what finished.
Kopi =o. |
|
|
| TranceReality |
If your experienced enough, you wouldn't need to post links to your newly created masterpieces and say what do you think of my new tune !!
I think that would be a very silly thing to do, I doubt very much that tiesto or cosmic gate would ever do a thing that, so why should you ?? Whats yours is yours.....dont give people the chance to take the credit for your creation....I cirtainly don't :toocool:
Just send a demo to a record company and find out what THEY think. |
|
|
| IDarkISwordI |
The simple key to that problem is very easy to explain. Think of it this way, a producer is just starting out composing songs. We've all been there and know what kind of quality we get :). Say this artist releases two tolerable tracks, but ones that are far from professional quality. Then all of a sudden, that artist posts or registers a song that is 10x the quality of thier current potential. Thats all fine and good, until its requested of them that they make another track with similar quality. No output = no deal in most label situations. Copyright is a very funny thing that should really be taken out of the system. Some say you automaticly have a copyright, others say you need to register it. *Technicly* you are supposed to have an automatic copyright on your fresh piece of art for up to one year without registering it, after that, its up for grabs basicly. Even after registering it, you have to keep registering it before it goes to the public as free. I forget the interval and I think there are actually several different levels but this is exactly why youll see a rolling stones greatest hits album come out every couple of years. Sure, its more money, but it also automaticly refiles the copyright. Of course with all of the P2P sharing going on these days, the copyright has been strained to its most extreme limits and the RIAA and BPI arent helping. They see copyrights as strict contracts between consumers/viewers/listeners and the artist but then they enjoy the loophole in the copyright text that allows them to "step in and speak for the artists." Personally, and I think a lot of the scene feels this way, I think P2P has helped us all out a lot. I know if it wasnt for Bittorrent, I would have never recorded a live mix. I think I would enjoy the day that I was searching a P2P network for myself and to my surprise, I would be there. Thats really what I want to strive for, is just the recognition, not the money. So the question as its possed, should you actually file for a copyright to protect your songs? In my opinion, no. In a simple summary of it, the copyright text has basicly gone out the window. Filing for a copyright costs a lot of money because you have to pay for attourney fees (and copyright attourneys generally specialize in only doing copyrights making them extremely pricey). Unless you are a greedy person or just have a lot of money laying around, go for the more liberal and cheaper solution and get a Creative Commons license also known as the Copyleft. Much more open to things like P2P and remixing. Rhere are several levels to the CC. Instead of a straight off with Copyrights, a Copyleft in all intents and purposes would allow people to remix your song freely as long as they arent making money off of it and more importantly it allows *some* free distribution of the track as long as the artist gets due credit (that goes for the remxing as well). Well, this is a huge rample.
Simple: copyrighting, get a CC license if anything.
Cheers,
Zac |
|
|
| kopi_luwak |
| quote: | Originally posted by IDarkISwordI
The simple key to that problem is very easy to explain. Think of it this way, a producer is just starting out composing songs. We've all been there and know what kind of quality we get :). Say this artist releases two tolerable tracks, but ones that are far from professional quality. Then all of a sudden, that artist posts or registers a song that is 10x the quality of thier current potential. Thats all fine and good, until its requested of them that they make another track with similar quality. No output = no deal in most label situations. Copyright is a very funny thing that should really be taken out of the system. Some say you automaticly have a copyright, others say you need to register it. *Technicly* you are supposed to have an automatic copyright on your fresh piece of art for up to one year without registering it, after that, its up for grabs basicly. Even after registering it, you have to keep registering it before it goes to the public as free. I forget the interval and I think there are actually several different levels but this is exactly why youll see a rolling stones greatest hits album come out every couple of years. Sure, its more money, but it also automaticly refiles the copyright. Of course with all of the P2P sharing going on these days, the copyright has been strained to its most extreme limits and the RIAA and BPI arent helping. They see copyrights as strict contracts between consumers/viewers/listeners and the artist but then they enjoy the loophole in the copyright text that allows them to "step in and speak for the artists." Personally, and I think a lot of the scene feels this way, I think P2P has helped us all out a lot. I know if it wasnt for Bittorrent, I would have never recorded a live mix. I think I would enjoy the day that I was searching a P2P network for myself and to my surprise, I would be there. Thats really what I want to strive for, is just the recognition, not the money. So the question as its possed, should you actually file for a copyright to protect your songs? In my opinion, no. In a simple summary of it, the copyright text has basicly gone out the window. Filing for a copyright costs a lot of money because you have to pay for attourney fees (and copyright attourneys generally specialize in only doing copyrights making them extremely pricey). Unless you are a greedy person or just have a lot of money laying around, go for the more liberal and cheaper solution and get a Creative Commons license also known as the Copyleft. Much more open to things like P2P and remixing. Rhere are several levels to the CC. Instead of a straight off with Copyrights, a Copyleft in all intents and purposes would allow people to remix your song freely as long as they arent making money off of it and more importantly it allows *some* free distribution of the track as long as the artist gets due credit (that goes for the remxing as well). Well, this is a huge rample.
Simple: copyrighting, get a CC license if anything.
Cheers,
Zac |
I am not refering about the money dude, just about the certain no one will steal ur work :).
Kopi =o. |
|
|
| IDarkISwordI |
If you read that entire post, you would have read where I talked about that very area of your post. What I was getting at was that the copyright is bunk. It does nothing to protect your songs so why bother. The Creative Commons and thier copyleft ideology is much better suited for protecting you and your recognition by simply requiring people who remix or distribute your songs to keep your artist name and your song title with the track. They look at music as an art form that can be better supported and distributed on the internet rather than copyright advocates who see music as a money maker and the internet and specificly P2P traffic as theft of "thier" songs or rather the artists' songs they "represent." Thats probably what I should have posted in the first place. Sorry for the ramble :).
Cheers,
Zac |
|
|
| kopi_luwak |
| quote: | Originally posted by IDarkISwordI
If you read that entire post, you would have read where I talked about that very area of your post. What I was getting at was that the copyright is bunk. It does nothing to protect your songs so why bother. The Creative Commons and thier copyleft ideology is much better suited for protecting you and your recognition by simply requiring people who remix or distribute your songs to keep your artist name and your song title with the track. They look at music as an art form that can be better supported and distributed on the internet rather than copyright advocates who see music as a money maker and the internet and specificly P2P traffic as theft of "thier" songs or rather the artists' songs they "represent." Thats probably what I should have posted in the first place. Sorry for the ramble :).
Cheers,
Zac |
Now that's clear :), btw dont forget to take a listen to mi skilxflix track if u have the chance :P.
Kopi =o. |
|
|
|
|
