Are copyrights necessary for hobbyists and artists like us putting up original content?

[Aleatoriac]

http://copyright.gov/title17/92chap11.html

My view: I make music because I enjoy it, and I want to send a "musical message." I judge its success or failure on whether or not it conveys to any listener what I intended. And I often learn more than I ever realized I would from what people have to say.

I am so disillusioned about money... It's lipstick painted on the evolutionary pig of survival, it is not true success, and as a representation of wealth it demonstrates only that greed is a virtue and doing a thing because you enjoy it is just not good enough.

Copyright? Sure I guess. Really what could I do about it. It's still my music. I put darkness in it sometimes, and you might not like what you find.

[sqigls]

In USA it is copyrighted the minute you create it.

yes, same as Australia.
I completed a music business course many years ago which covered this topic.
You don't need to do anything for your work to be copyrighted, it's instant.
I was told the thing to do, is to show your works to as many of your good friends and family as possible. If it comes down to it, they can be your witnesses. And in the event of someone infringing your copyright, then in comes the lawyer.

I've heard of all kinds of cases of copyright infringement, in Australia fairly recently, a guy from Melbourne had his drawings pinched by another bunch of Australians who then altered the designs and sold the pictures on clocks and things. It took him a long time and a whole heap of money to stop them. Now he's a shell of a man, the whole affair just took so much out of him. I thought this kind of thing was highly unlikely in Australia, but there you go. Sometimes it just comes down to a court case, and the money to fund the proceedings. Which is something most bedroom producers don't have.

Surely though, if you steal someone's work, and don't have the Cubase project (for example) to prove it's yours, how does that stand up to the artist who can play the track project and prove exactly how the track was made..? Anyway, i'm sure its just a case by case thing… if people have heard your songs before, you've played a few gigs, you have a CD out, they're available on a few places on the net, with upload dates… then it's gonna be tough for someone to prove they didn't steal it.

[Musical Gym]

Also fill in the spaces in properties of the file such as author, date created, etc.

[wonshu]

If you upload a video to YouTube, you click one message declaring that you own all the rights. If you claim the rights on a video you get a threatening text before continuing informing you of all the consequences and damages you may be held accountable for in case you were wrong. As I said, it's backwards.

Well, that does seem contradictory. What also seems contradictory is that you're saying that it's too easy to claim rights and that it's too hard.

No it isn't, but I probably haven't made it clear.

Reality Process / Person A - earlier upload: If you upload a video to YouTube, you click one message declaring that you own all the rights.

Reality Process / Person B - claim after Person A uploaded: If you claim the rights on a video you get a threatening text before continuing informing you of all the consequences and damages you may be held accountable for in case you were wrong

[arkmabat]

DJ S3RL lost a lot of sales to IAMXRAY. But it actually turned out to be great publicity.

[jancivil]

Reality Process / Person A - earlier upload: If you upload a video to YouTube, you click one message declaring that you own all the rights.

Reality Process / Person B - claim after Person A uploaded: If you claim the rights on a video you get a threatening text before continuing informing you of all the consequences and damages you may be held accountable for in case you were wrong

No, I get it. I just noted that the subsequent uploader is shown that "threat" having not been the first uploader, which seems kind of normal to me. In the case where someone uploaded a video that isn't theirs to Youtube that had never been uploaded by the creator or owner of it, this scenario would seem harsh to the surprised real owner. That seems unusual to me.

[wonshu]

No, I get it. I just noted that the subsequent uploader is shown that "threat" having not been the first uploader, which seems kind of normal to me. In the case where someone uploaded a video that isn't theirs to Youtube that had never been uploaded by the creator or owner of it, this scenario would seem harsh to the surprised real owner. That seems unusual to me.

I agree. That's why I said that it's completely backwards. But that's the way YouTube and many (!!) others operate. Which is why I said way up there, that yes, copyrights _are_ still necessary and good even if (or better, especially since) the big dogs (wether it used to be the labels or now the platforms or other media companies) choose to ignore them and exploit the work.

Remember the old saying in Silicon Valley: "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask permission." Except once the damage is done, we (the individual creators) have little to no chance of successfully defending our rights. But that doesn't make it ok to exploit them.

Also: I wonder why we don't get the source code and search algorithm from Google. May that have something to do with ownership and being valuable?

[Katelyn]

What the heck is the point of a copyright if you don't have exclusive right to distribute or sell/give away as you see fit? Someone said it is copyrighted when you make it, but that you can't sue if someone steals it and sells it as their own with out registration.

What the heck is the point then of it being copyrighted without registration?

What if someone register their work every time they make something new (like those who release a lot of tracks all the time) and someone steals a track they uploaded to a site and with that song they make thousands off of it? Are they just helpless even if they can prove that they had the earliest copy and have all of the original work in their possession and that they are in fact the original author? What if that person who stole it registers it as their own I'm pretty sure you have some kind of rights in that case still, but obviously registering is the best way to prove that you are the author and enforce your rights.

[Katelyn]

I'll just leave this here...

http://www.musicbizacademy.com/internet ... yright.htm

[harryupbabble]

I'll just leave this here...

http://www.musicbizacademy.com/internet ... yright.htm

"The filing fee for online song registration is $35."
"The cost to submit the form by mail is $50.00. "

200 songs X $50.00 = ten thousand dollars
The copyright biz must be doing well. Or not? Any research on that?

How many songs do you guys have that you think "someone will steal this"? Do you base that conclusion on how well your songs does at YouTube?

My understanding is that to even just START (no guarantees) to do well at YouTube... one must first become a YouTube partner because then YouTube can attach advertisement to your videos and give you preferential treatment and does its best to expose your videos because YouTube's prime motivation is ads exposure.

And my other understanding is that YouTube only offers partnership if one of your videos get over 25 thousand views.

What is your gauging method of justification of song copyright fees besides YouTube? Just the sole belief of "I've got a great pop song here"?

[jancivil]

What if someone register their work every time they make something new (like those who release a lot of tracks all the time) and someone steals a track they uploaded to a site and with that song they make thousands off of it? Are they just helpless even if they can prove that they had the earliest copy and have all of the original work in their possession and that they are in fact the original author? What if that person who stole it registers it as their own I'm pretty sure you have some kind of rights in that case still, but obviously registering is the best way to prove that you are the author and enforce your rights.

Well, if you make something in a DAW, you have *fixed* it in that form, and in the US at least that is copyrighted. I have zero experience with any case, but a fixed form with a timestamp, and perhaps further MIDI files with a clear date that precedes the theft attempt you would think is a pretty reasonable open and shut case. But here's how it is in general in the world o' law. It's a crapshoot. You cannot necessarily predict what a judge will be thinking, or know s/he isn't on the take. So this whole area of suing _can_ be straight up about clout.

I've been in front of a judge where I owed a nice chunk of money (my argument against paying it not very substantiated, for starters) to a landlord (a well-connected landlord, incl. an in with the mayor) and this whole team of lawyers, who talked such a bold game during arbitration, simply folded because I was never going to budge on my right to a jury trial. They never want a jury trial. It's a crapshoot. What lawyers do when money is really at stake do is do their utmost to form a jury that will work for them. Even in this little suit, I had the opportunity to interview jurors should it come to that, and this whole game is underway. Which they may be better equipped for, but it dawned on them my bluff was not something to call because it would probably cost them more money.

I don't expect anyone to steal my music, even the most accessible bits are just not exposed to where I think anyone would find the opportunity or the ideation. However I wrote one screenplay which is totally worth stealing, in whole or in part, and I did register that sucker. If I was going to take a meeting or pitch it at all, I would join SWG

[jancivil]

YouTube only offers partnership if one of your videos get over 25 thousand views.

I never heard of that; do you mean that Youtube is so impressed by views that they contact someone with an offer?

[harryupbabble]

YouTube only offers partnership if one of your videos get over 25 thousand views.

I never heard of that; do you mean that Youtube is so impressed by views that they contact someone with an offer?

My original comment was "And my other understanding is that YouTube only offers partnership if one of your videos get over 25 thousand views.".

This is only "my understanding" and assumptions of how YouTube functions. It may not be factual.

But it was at around the 25 thousand views of one of my videos that YouTube offered partnership. That timing may have been total coincidence.

But I did notice that when I didn't accept the partnership offer, it seemed like YouTube abandoned my ship. Maybe YouTube moves/moved the decliners or ignorers of partnership offer to the bottom. Or maybe the rest of my videos are not ad-worthy or just totally suck? But golly gee, how can that be???!!!! Impossible!!!!

Anyhoo, that was a few years ago. Maybe YouTube increased the "threshold views" limit to even more now. Or even better, maybe YouTube stopped putting limits altogether and now YouTube partnership is open to all videomakers. But YouTube is always making changes. Changes favoring the advertising companies and less towards the average YouTube user's wants and needs, it seems.

For example, users have less and less choices in customising their channel. All channels pretty much look the same now. YouTube channels used to looked "rainbowish". Now, it has this bright-white uniform look. Advertisers don't want vulgarities? YouTube complied and made it harder for vulgar trolls to post comments, it seems. Freedom of speech was cut. Absence of trolls equals absence of freedom of speech? But you know trolls, not all easily give up, some may be hackers, you put a barrier, they just circumvent it.

Anyhow, obviously, the advertisers are kings from YouTube's point of view. Continued existence depends on it. Hence, I don't see why YouTube would want to attach advertisement to videos that have low viewership. It would be like putting ads in the "Not-So-Super-Bowl". What's the point of having an ad blimp in a stadium containing nine, or worse, nein, spectators? Or events that is being watched on channel 978 as opposed to channel 3.

Anyhow number 3, if my understandings and assumptions are faulty, I'm open to being properly corrected. I am here, among several things, to absorb facts. Factual facts, that is. Hey, uh, this babbling of mine is still on topic, right? OP did use the word YouTube.

[jancivil]

I seem to recall only knowing about this partner with youtube thing via youtube informing me. Yeah, I think that's right, the more I ponder. I clicked on some links out of curiosity. This is an account with just about 6k views lifetime, I'm not pushing at all. I did some spamming of simiIar content - replying with a link to my video - as a kind of experiment and got hundreds of views, not thousands. The masses are never going to flock to see my videos (albeit, it may be that at 500+ for one thing = Warners contacting me with their claim). But I think coincidence is as good as any correlation as to your 25k. If you look at that page, it says nothing at all about how well you're racking up views in their criteria. I'm sure it's open to everyone that meets what that page outlines.

[nineofkings]

I'll just leave this here...

http://www.musicbizacademy.com/internet ... yright.htm

"The filing fee for online song registration is $35."
"The cost to submit the form by mail is $50.00. "

200 songs X $50.00 = ten thousand dollars
The copyright biz must be doing well. Or not? Any research on that?

That's only if you file a new "single work registration" for every song. For slightly more (I think somewhere in the neighborhood of $75?) You can get a more detailed copyright form that considers albums, compilations, etc as single works. If every song you've ever made is entirely owned and published by you, you could conceivably create a compilation called "Harryupbabble's Discography Vol. 1" and file that as a single work. You'd need to somehow mail your entire discography on CDs, but it's not like you have to individually register every single song.