Copyright Issues.

Hey Ichiro, cool it slightly. This thread has enough heat already!

Let's keep talking about this - I think we need to make sure we all understand copyright since we are all musicians and copyright is very close to our hears. And if I'm wrong, I will want to know as well!

My understanding - copyright is the protection of one's intellectual/creative property. That means, when I copyright my materials, nobody can use it without permission from me. Otherwise they infringe on copyright laws. Isn't that what the word mean - copyright = the right to copy? That is not limited to music of course. If one write a book or essay and takes something off somewhere without acknowledging (and if it is a significant chunk), then it's plagiarism or again, infringing on copyright.

Where's the SOFTie lawyer when we need him....
 
all of what u say above is true, notice that u say "copyright = the right to copy".... this means that u r given the rights to demand how much u wan for the object/songs u own.... that does not giv u the right to reject/prevent ppl from getting what they wan..... so juz offer a "price" to it.... if the company does not wan to spend that $$ they will back off.... or rather u say "no" they will start a court case on it base on the "loop" holes....

there is a real example....

ABC company wants to use the song by elvis, but the company that own elvis's work don't wan their work to be involve with that ABC company.... instead of saying no, they offer them 30 or 60million can't rememeber..... to use the song... so the ABC company didn't use the song in the end due to the money factor....

ABC company - "not the real name"

don't worry cheez i am not offended, i juz wan to share what i know.... before i see more ppl fall into tricky of the copyrights law

in fact i wanted to start this topic long ago to clear up and help musician in SOFT to undetrstand the copyright law.... but i haben found the time to committ into this yet.... due to bz shedule..... sad to say
 
Ah ha, but you are assuming that people will actually ASK if they can use the song or part of the song!

In most cases of copyright infringement, as I understand, it's when people just take a part of material and insert into their own work. They don't ask whether they can do it. But they do get sued for it!

When I own something - say a notebook, somebody comes along and steal it - and got caught. That guy goes to jail for stealing. There's a law for that. The problem is with properties that are not tangible (like music, literature, any form of creative arts etc) - the problem comes as to how to protect these "properties" just like my notebook. That's where I understand where copyright law comes in. It is to protect these intellectual/creative "properties" so that anybody takes any part of it without any permission becomes a thief and get into trouble for stealing - just like if that person steals my notebook. Copyright = right to copy = whether the person has the right to use/copy my "property" or not. If he wants to, he pays for it (by royalty). If he doesn't want to, he better not try to steal it. Otherwise he gets into trouble with the law.

For the example you gave, yes it works that way too. That's because ABC is a company that understands copyright law. They know they can't just "steal" it - so they actually asked. The other party can just say "no" - it all amounts to the same thing. 30-60 million sounds slightly exaggerated, but even if so, that critera may still be met, albeit very difficult. ABC don't have to ask at all - and if there's no law to protect Elvis' works, they could just go ahead with it.
 
it is not abt one that is goin to steal the work if that owner is not goin to permit the use.... it is abt one "not allowing ppl to use their work" that is the part that can be court.....

i knaw u can't steal works of others... that is what copyrights abt

u hv to allow ppl to use yr work.... if u don't wan to charge them a hefty sum.... in summary of what i mean....
 
Ichiro, that's exactly the point! Copyright is the protection of one's creative property. Property is something a person owns. If I own it, I also have the right to refuse other's to use it. I still can't see how somebody can take me to court if I refuse to lend him my notebook.

I can't see why I have to let others use my works. If that's so, then the right doesn't belong to me. There's no copyright! The person doesn't even have to ask me! The entire argument and purpose of copyright falls apart.

It's the same as saying - I own my notebook and I have to lend it if somebody ask me. If I don't want to lend it, I have to say "give me $1000." If I just say "no", that person can take me to court so he can borrow my notebook. Not a great analogy, but the principle is the same. I owned the notebook - the right to lend or refuse lies with me. It's my right. Same with creative property. The right to allow others to use it or not lies with the person who owns the copyright (ie the composer, writer etc).
 
Ok let's see ... now it's getting a little grey in that aspect. Let me relate in my own words and understanding.

First of all, from my "dealings" with COMPASS, according to them, the term "copyright" covers everything from;-

1. using - be it in part or in full
2. performing - be it in part or in full
3. broadcasting - be it in part or in full
4. sales or resales - be it in part or in full
5. reproduction - be it in part or in full

In addition, assuming Composer A creates a new track, the copyright in all aspect as above belongs to Composer A "by default" without any doubts. Composer B may wish to do a remix, hence he has to seek copyright clearance from Composer A to using his track in parts or in full. Agree at this point?

If we were ever to bring this up in Court and argue on the "war of words" of copy-right, to me I don't think it will stand. So according to my understanding, the term "copyright" indicates "All Rights" with no exception unless at the approval of the track owner, which in this case is Composer A.

For that $1 suggestion, (no offence to anyone) it sounds more like an unfair demand to use the track.

Correct me if my understanding is wrong.

DD :)
 
i believe that u guys still don't realli understand where i am getting.... i wish i hv more time to clear this up, this matter is not being talk abt alot is because ppl in this industry hv a certain level of "respect' between each other, but there bound to hv ppl form the darker side of this indusrty to make use of these holes...... but if u guys r realli into this, u guys can email me leave me a pm and i will try explain what i meant when i am free or even meet out for a coffee to discuss this issue.....

i will start a thread or update this thread when i learn even more about copyrights from ppl in the industry & doing research in thie area....

however for what i mention, if it is true it is up to u to believe... sometimes precaution is better none.... that's all i wan to say in this thread for now.... as i feel that my interpretations of words to text might not be that gd and it might mislead u guys

so looking forward to discuss this matter more....
 
Ichiro, i think the best way for you to explain is to cite real life examples that you know which reflect what you are getting at? any examples?
 
Hey Ichiro,

No worries about that misintepretations and stuffs. There bound to be disagreements somewhere somewhow but it's all good for something constructive. I'm pretty new professionally because going full-time into this never really cross my mind ... so this area is definitely what I wanna know too.

I'm not prepared to lay myself down for record companies to hook me along by the nose, I still prefer doing the groundwork myself.

You can always drop my a PM here anytime you wish, or when you have something new to share. Coffee sounds good ... coz I'm a coffee addict myself. :lol: :lol: :lol:

DD
 
Let's not convert this discussion into PM. If it's something most of us don't know, then it better remain in the open so everybody can read. Especially if you think there's a loophole in the system.

I agree with James - some real life examples will be very helpful.

And where is our lawyer???
 
friends, copyright is an issue of ownership (of original compositions/ ideas/ etc.). in law, if a copyright issue is contested, proving ownership is everything. this is why, IPOS & other relevant authorities encourage registration of ownership.

i've read through the discussions here, some of the matters brought up are not copyright concerns: eg: lending of notebook, among others.
 
Finally! Waiting for subversion to answer!!! Glad that you're in this discussion. Notebook issue - yeah, a very bad analogy. It will be nice if you can clear up some of the queries re: the "loophole" Ichiro is talking about.

Doubledecker, our SOFTie lawyer has just joined in the discussion...
 
em... i'm not a lawyer, just a civil servant. yes, i have a legal background, that's about it...

caution: please do not treat my inputs here as 'legal advices', only lawyers are in the capacity to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Keyboardist / Producer
Replies
6
Views
3K
aero
A
M
25 with a voice, a poetic lyricist in search of musicians on my wavelength
Replies
0
Views
2K
melancholiac
M
G
WTS: Rane MP 2015 Advanced Sonic Control Rotary Mixer
Replies
0
Views
1K
gui
G
M
25 with a voice, a poetic lyricist in search of musicians & songwriting/producer duo
Replies
0
Views
2K
melancholiac
M
C
Value Recording/Mixing/Mastering/Music Production
Replies
0
Views
1K
cloudevelic
C

Latest posts

Share this page

Back
Top