> From: ADBYTES@delphi.com
> To: rolls@foxtail.com
>
> Subject: Re: Automatic Music Digest 96.01.28
>
> ...... but somehow I feel that sooner or later
> one or more of the numbers will wind up in some software company's
> product!

And when that happens, you take your copyright statement, and your juris-raptor,
and them to court, and you will prevail --- after you prove that the song they
are using bears enough resemblance to yours to be "infringement".  At
$200/hr, or whatever is the feeding charges for juris-raptors, that can wind
up being a very large chunk of change.   Here in the land of the lawyers,
pyrrhic victories are as common as rust.

But, pay attention here,  *** MIDI FILES CANNOT BE REGISTERED FOR COPYRIGHT
***.   Since 1909, music that is only in "machine readable form" is not
suitable for registration.    Branding "copyright 19xx by Joe Blow" does not
do anything for you because the thing you put the "copyright" statement on
was not itself suitable for copyright registration.   The only way (and this
is from the horses mouth) to properly register a MIDI file for copyright (so
that you *will* prevail in court)  is to submit:

    1.  An extracted sheet-music version of the MIDI file (using something
        like ENCORE or FINALE).   Send *two* copies.

    2.  An audio tape rendering of the contents of the MIDI file.

    3.  An application filled out specifying that the submission is unpublished.

Why "unpublished?", because a MIDI is a performance (according to BMI), and
you can't publish performances, only phono-records.   A MIDI file is not a
phono-record. This in itself brings up an interesting question.   What is
the unauthorized distribution of a MIDI file?   An unauthorized
"performance"?   Under copyright that's a lot different than stealing sheet
music, now we get into performance license and the like.

(I know there are committees galore working on this, but it hasn't happened
yet, and given our grand and glorious history for snappy decisions, we may
all be way beyond the benefits of Geritol before it happens.)

> Truth is,  if someone wants to steal it once it's "out on the net",
> there is little anyone can do this point to prevent it or to enforce
> (c) laws.  Any comments?
>

You are free to enforce whatever civil laws you wish in the civil courts.
Those courts will cheerfully grant you as much law enforcement as you can
afford.   If your work is stolen by Sony or Warners or someone in that
strata, then you will surely be besieged by whole herds of hungry
juris-raptors looking for food.   If it's Fred Futz, forget it -- $200/hr
and no guarantees.   A criminal matter?  Only if you are a rock star and the
defendant is a a major record chain.

Personally, I just don't think theft is worth worring about when you put a
MIDI file on the public net.   The copyright laws are very well laid out, so
you shouldn't have to worry about a Hal Leonard stealing anything.   They
don't have to.   Sony and Warners and Yamaha aren't going to either because
it just wouldn't be worth the hassle and bad publicity.  Why steal something
in so blatant and undefensible a manner when you can get a juris-raptor to
pull off the fraud so much more artfully, with contracts and clauses and
microprint and the like?

I strongly urge anybody who has questions about the music business to get
and read a copy of "This Business of Music" by William Krasalovsky.  (I'm
sure I spelled the name wrong, but it sounds like that).   There is also a
companion book called "More About This Business of Music".  There is just
piles of gold there, and it's so cheap.

Yrs,¶
*************************************************¶
George Bogatko - gbogatko@intac.com
                 http://www.intac.com/~gbogatko

[ Editors Note:
[
[ George,
[    I did a Web search and came up with the following from a student
[ at Indiana University:
[
[ This Business of Music
[
[ Ref. ML3790 .S54 1990
[ Shemel, Sidney and M. William Krasilovsky. This Business of Music. Rev.
[ and enl. 6th ed. New York: Billboard Books, 1990. 688 p.
[
[    o Focuses on the popular and commercial music trades.
[
[    o The standard source of information on recording contracts, copyright,
[      clubs, licensing, performing rights, mechanized rights, music
[      publishing, trademarks, and taxation.
[
[    o Includes an appendix of forms for copyright deposit, contracts,
[      and licenses as well a some lists of reference sources. Duckles, 1994
[
[ As for the second book, from Cornell University's Online Alumni Newsletter
[ dated "Spring 95" in a section titled "Books by Alumnae/i":
[
[ M. William Krasilovsky '47 is a lawyer in New York City. More About This
[ Business of Music (fifth edition, Billboard Books, 1994) supplements
[ This Business of Music (which Krasilovsky coauthored). The two books
[ encompass the economics and law of the business of all kinds of music. 
[
[ Thanks for the pointers to these books, as well as your comments.  I have
[ to wonder how often copyright is misused or misunderstood.  Some companies
[ would have us believe (as viewed by their lawsuits) that the "look and feel"
[ of a program _should_ be copyrightable.  (Apple .vs. Microsoft).  With
[ regards to "MIDI Files on the Net" -- if a more generally applicable way
[ of dealing with data in machine readable form doesn't apply, then it would
[ seem that the growth in dissemination of data via the Interenet is likely
[ to be stunted.  I'd love to be able, for instance, to download a book or
[ journal article via the 'Net and pay a royalty for the privilege.  A
[ "Digital Watermark" could be used to identify its source.  For instance,
[ variations in spacing, or some weird punctuation could be used.  The
[ point is that in the Digital Age, "derived works" may become the standard
[ way of tracing infringement.  The derived works need to be covered by
[ the protection and its an impossible task for the Library of Congress (or
[ whomever) to maintain a large enough database to store all such derived works.
[ Comments ?
[
[ Jody