Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Composer's Lounge ?????????HOW??????????

There are millions of people paying for these services. If you have a thousand people paying for a loaf of bread - I think charging them each $10 is a little overkill.

Besides government is well known for their extravagant waste and fraudulent practices. Not to mention all those people that are allowed to milk the system.

John

I’d rather by-pass them completely.
While you're at it, let's just disband the government all together. Why not? Afterwards, you can always claim, "It seemed like a good idea at the time."

Do often have these memory lapses?
I think this statement ribs itself without any extra help. I just wanted to point out the irony of it (some might call it "poetic justice" :p ) for the benefit of all.

How would I improve the system? Start allowing other means of copyright to be used in court.
1. There is only one means of copyright...upon creation, copyright automatically exists.

2. Understanding item #1, I'd like to see a restatement with some actual ideas, rather than the standard, "Let's just do something else."

Unless your income is very large and are taxed accordingly, you haven't paid for the benefits you receive.
And even then, how do you put a price tag on the safety and security of your nation? (The annual Defense budget is around $260 billion dollars...I'm pretty sure nobody's currently paying that kind of money in taxes on their own.)

Besides government is well known for their extravagant waste and fraudulent practices.
You're really not aware of how the government purchases, are you? (I take statements like this to be "rumored truth" that is not factual...usually spread like a message-board virus.) I beg of you give me one instance of extravagant waste and fraudulent practices that is both provable and was the result of government and not of a singular individual/group later tried and found responsible.

I finally figured it out Derulux. You either work for the government or you’re getting government handouts. BINGO!

Rule #1:
Never get in an argument with a bureaucrat.

John

Ah, I've got it. You're a liberal! (In all honesty, I kind of knew, but this solidifies it.)

Every time a liberal starts losing an argument (which usually happens quickly, because their argument is rarely based on fact in the first place), they try to change the subject, frequently attacking the individual who is undermining their "attempted wisdom" rather than directly addressing the issues.

Rule #1: Never get in an argument with a liberal.

Rule #2: If you must get in an argument with a liberal, see rule number one.

Libertarian – mostly. How you concluded a "liberal" is beyond me. Are you a socialist?

Losing an argument? Only in your mind's kind.

I decided I'll let you have the last word on this debate - since it's not going anywhere.

John

Why all the hostility? I asked you a few questions and you respond with hostility. Does that mean your position can't stand on it's own? I think someone once posted the following on this board:
Apparently that applies to non-adults too.

And yes, I'm an adult. I was under the impression that we were discussing entertainment law. Is that something that only non-adults can understand? Or are you the stereotypical youth that has everything figured out? By the way, I may not be as old as you think...

Since you seem to have the world by the tail, I won't address this to you, but to the others that might be interested:

An attorney's job is to protect his/her client's interests. Therefore, by definition, an attorney retained by a record label, publishing company, etc. is NOT there to protect you, but his/her client. Get your own attorney. Make sure they have entertainment experience. Better yet, get a referral from someone who has been around the block a few times (yes, probably an adult).

"An attorney's job is to protect his/her client's interests. Therefore, by definition, an attorney retained by a record label, publishing company, etc. is NOT there to protect you, but his/her client. Get your own attorney. Make sure they have entertainment experience. Better yet, get a referral from someone who has been around the block a few times (yes, probably an adult)."-Steve

Very well said!!!

Why am I reminded of Islamic outrage at Danish cartoons? There is no reason to be emotional about discussing these issues.

Much as I would like to engage in a political discussion these off topic discussion are not allowed at PW because there have been ugly disputes in the past. Take it to that other forum or the new coffee room.

What we're talking about is a service our government offers to protect intellectual property, copyright. There is no way to privatize this service. The $30 service fee represents an investment in your work. A private business would probably charge several hundred dollars, simply because it could. That's called elasticity of demand and the amount charged would represent the price that would yield maximum profit. It would have nothing to do with the actual cost of providing the service. The way our government is currently operating there would be no competition to drive down the price because only one company would be awarded the "no bid" contract.

As for this argument I'll note that Johnny was the one who started the personal attack by concluding, "You either work for the government or you’re getting government handouts." rather than answering Derulux's specific arguments. Personal attacks will get you banned from this forum, please refrain.

You're absolutely right, Steve. Let's keep it on point.

Actually there have been attempts at this, although I don't know whether these companies are still in business or whether this has ever been tested in court. When I lived in LA in the early 1990's I was aware of a service (called "the vault" or similar), that basically functioned as a secure archiving service should the need ever arise to defend a client's copyright. The service was roughly half of what the government was charging at the time. The whole thing made me nervous as the company's longevity couldn't be guaranteed. I've always opted for the tried-and-true method.

Yes, I've heard of these services, but as Derulux pointed out, the courts don't recognize other means of copyright - and there's the problem. I could go down town and have my manuscript notarized for $5. Why doesn’t the system recognize that as a copyright equivalent?

All the government copyright proves is on a particular date you declared the work to be your property. You can do that just as well using a notary.

John

Derulux is the guy who thinks you don't need an attorney to sign a record deal. I wouldn't put much stock in what he says.

As to your point, I don't think a court has ever ruled that such a service is inadmissable. But again, I wouldn't personally use such a service -- not because of the risk of inadmissability, but because of the risk of the company going out of business.

Yes, I've heard of these services, but as Derulux pointed out, the courts don't recognize other means of copyright - and there's the problem. I could go down town and have my manuscript notarized for $5. Why doesn’t the system recognize that as a copyright equivalent?

All the government copyright proves is on a particular date you declared the work to be your property. You can do that just as well using a notary.
Ever lived in a small town where the notary is a close friend of yours? Well, let's say you and that close friend decide to take it to a copyrighted work, and the notary notarizes a forgery and pre-dates it so that the date is earlier than the filed copyright of the document you're contesting.... This is just one of the reasons there is only ONE way to register your copyright. (Note: You keep saying you're "getting a copyright" from the government. You're not. Copyright exists from the moment of creation. What you're doing is registering that copyright and putting it on file.)

Derulux is the guy who thinks you don't need an attorney to sign a record deal. I wouldn't put much stock in what he says.
That's not what I said. I'll thank you kindly to stop misquoting me.

There are two types of artists who need lawyers when signing a record deal:
1. Those ignorant of contract law, contracts in general, and/or the business into which they are going. (This could very well be a large group, and to them I would recommend that, if they do not trust their agent who brokered the deal, they should get an attorney and a new agent.)

2. Those too lazy to read the damn contract.

As to your point, I don't think a court has ever ruled that such a service is inadmissable. But again, I wouldn't personally use such a service -- not because of the risk of inadmissability, but because of the risk of the company going out of business.

:rolleyes: NONE of you have gone to the website I provided. It's clear you're continuing to argue that which you assume is true, but really don't know what you're talking about. :rolleyes: again

These things (notary, mailing the document to yourself in a sealed envelope, etc.) USED to be allowed in court. Then, when the law was changed (nearly 30 years ago), due to more than just the one reason I mentioned above, these methods were no longer acceptable or admissible in court.

Now, the ONLY WAY you can even go to court to seek compensation (in this country) is if you have registered and filed your copyright with the US Copyright Office. You can go to court anytime you want, and even prove you created the document first (via one of the other methods), but you are not protected so far as to seek compensation until you have registered and filed with the Copyright Office. (This is probably the seventh or eighth time I've said this, and yet it is clear that very few have understood it.)

Prove it.

From the US Copyright website:
Where did I misquote you? Are you not saying that there are some people who do not need an attorney when signing a record deal? Oh, and I haven't seen anything from that could be described as "kindly"...

Have you ever seen an actual record contract? Don't bother responding -- I already know the answer.

You're assuming that those are two different people.

You're so "green" that you don't know what you don't know. And that's too bad, because while others at your stage in life are learning from those who have experience, you're too busy spouting off about things you know very little about. Quite a shame...

Prove it.
Well, this proves that you clearly don't know anything about US Copyright Law, and certainly did not check out the link I offered. Normally, I would not do this, but since you've been rather callous from the beginning, here is the proof you needed, from the source I've already pointed out (the US Copyright Office itself):
US Copyright Office FAQ (specifically queued to your question, so there can be no confusion...hopefully...)

From the US Copyright website:
*laughs* Well, at least you did some homework.... What you have written is correct (and I should certainly hope so, since you copy-and-pasted it), but you clearly don't understand its implications. "Protection" and "ability to seek remedies in a court of law" are NOT the same thing. (This should be cleared up when you check the FAQ link I provided.)

Don't feel bad...about 85-90% of Americans do not understand copyright law at all, or at best, only understand the old copyright laws.

You'll forgive me if I laugh at this. After failing to understand copyright law, I cannot take much of anything you say seriously. And if you consider yourself to be among "those who have experience," well, people are certainly allowed their own delusions. If anybody else considers you among "those who have experience," God help "the rest of us"....

Your link proves nothing. All the FAQ states is that there's no provision in the law for "poor man's copyright". In other words, the law is silent. That means that it's up to a judge to interpret the law in a case brought before him. I don't believe the "poor man's copyright" has ever been tested. You claimed that it was OK until the law changed 30 years ago. Simply not true. It's never been addressed legislatively. That's what I was asking you to prove -- and you haven't.

But that's OK. While you're racking up another 1500+ posts in only 6 months time telling people everything you think you know about the music business, I'll be doing actual work in my studio (yes, the one I paid for from doing music), then coming home to my house (the one I own from doing music). Of course, there's nothing wrong with being active on a forum like this. The tragedy is that in ten years, if you're lucky, you'll start to figure out how ridiculous your behavior was and it will be late in the game for you to get going in a career.

Ok, I'm done being nice. Read the following (taken from the last link I gave you) and get a clue. This is my last post on the subject.

No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics

adventures in missing the point...

I'm done with you.