Sorry if I sound clueless, but I'm only 15, and so I don't know that much about this.
I have written several tunes of my own, and I have been told by some people that I should get a copyright for them. I was reading in the pay to play discussion (http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display.php/2296) that copyrighted tunes can't really be played in a session, or in other public settings, without paying a fee. I don't want people to be claim credit for my tunes, although I would like people to be able to play them. Are there any ways to get around this?
Max, if you copyright your tunes, then really no one should play them out at sessions or record them without paying you a fee or at the very least getting permission to use the tune. That's it, no ways around it. So you have a choice -- risk losing credit as the composer of tunes (although most players like to know a bit about the tune they're playing if they can), or let people play them freely.
Well, you *could* disseminate the tunes in sheet music and abcs, always with your name prominently placed as the composer, and with a blurb that says: "I'd be honored if you enjoy playing and sharing this tune, but please give credit to Max ____ as the original composer." No guarantee that the connection to your name won't eventually be lost, but it dramatically increases the likelihood that at least some people will credit you--and that your tunes will get played (if people like them).
You could always incorporate your name into the title of each tune, e.g., Max _____'s Favorite, or Max _____'s Fancy, or simply Max _____'s, or Max from wherever it is you live, or The Day I Met Max _____, etc., etc. Just look through the index of O'Neill's and you'll get lots of ideas!
Seriously, write the tune out or videotape yourself playing it, mail the tape/sheet music to yourself so that it has a postmark date on it, and then put it aside unopened. That way, ten years from now after the tune has worked its way into the tradition and gets recorded by Danu, you can claim credit for it.
Or post it here as your own tune, and then when it shows up a year later in a different key in Denmark, you'll be able to point back to your original post and say, that's one of mine.
How is it that the BMI can list trad tunes in its database, supposedly making some sort of implied claim about royalties. Is it time for those who write tunes for traditional purposes apply a GNU public license to those tunes. It would require the recorder of those tunes to acknowledge the tunes origins and allow no-one to make an attempt to claim royalties or ownership of it. Would this mean that the usual royalty payment to the author would just be pocketed by the record company. Maybe the license would stipulate that any royalty goes ot the performer or to some good cause. But that would sort of defeat the purpose of the exercise.
I believe what BMI claims are the arrangements of traditional tunes.
Taking an easy example, one of O'Carolan's tunes, which we know is out of copyright. Now, if a BMI signatory artist does a full arrangement of it for a recording, that arrangement can (I believe) still be copyrighted, since it adds original content.
That being said, I suspect that BMI doesn't quite get the difference between their rights to the arrangement and rights to claim a fee from any venue that plays other arrangements of the same tune.
PLEASE do not misunderstand me. I am by no means "in this game to 'claim credit'!" Even if it meant that I woudn't get any credit at all for my tunes, I would still keep on writing them, and giving them to the world. I just thought that if there was a way around it, I might take some precautionary steps to avoid others claiming my tunes. After reading what everybody has said in this discussion, I have made up to mind not to copyright any of my tunes. I am just going to play them, and distribute them freely, and hope that everybody feels free to play them all they want. After all, that is how all the traditional songs came into being. I just want to make it clear that:
I am not writing tunes to make a name for myself.
I don't want any trouble to arise over the playing of my tunes, such as all the mess with BMI that was discussed in the pay to play discussion.
I just want my tunes to get into the world and get played, even if I don't get any credit at all.
Max, I'd be the first to encourage you to invent new tunes, and I think there's great value in bringing your personal slant to a tune (new or old). But it's also important to be well grounded in the genre you're writing in, and to strive for quality over quantity. (IMHO, rather than setting out to write 100 tunes before you turn 18, you'll be further ahead if you hit on one really good tune by then.)
It's fairly easy to crank out new combinations of notes in interesting patterns and give them names like real tunes, and some of those might even be fun enough to hang onto. But a great, playable tune does more than that.
In this tradition, a really worthwhile tune takes the same old building blocks and uses them in some interesting, original way. It makes the familiar new again. And since this music is so much about nuance and subtlety, it will do that in a subtle but penetrating way. Of course, to be a playable tune, it also needs a strong internal cohesiveness--an integrity all its own--that makes the parts stick together. At the very least, this is what allows the rest of us to remember the parts and put them in order. At best, a tune's integrity is what makes it sound complete and fully expressive, as though nothing more needs to be said on that particular subject. That's why some tunes stop at two parts, and others have 3, 4, or 5 parts.
One of the difficulties of coming up with "new" traditional tunes is the chance of reinventing the wheel. With so many tunes already out there, it's all too easy to compose redundant tunes. It helps to know most or all of the existing permutations of a musical idea, so you can take that same idea and find a way to make it slightly different without stepping all over all the other tunes that share that motif.
In short, most of the new tunes that get played were composed by players who really know the existing body of tunes in the tradition, and so came up with something that adds to that body, rather than simply duplicating what's come before.
That said, some people are just born quirky, and their imaginations take them places the rest of us would never see or hear without them leading the way. You'll never know who you are until you try. Just realize that the tradition--even this web site (which tolerates new tunes but is geared more toward tunes that actually get played at sessions)--isn't obliged to accept your contributions.
I'm always interested in new tunes and how people compose. In the past, Brad and I and a few others used to swap original tunes by email, in part to get reality checks on whether a tune was worth posting here, in part just to encourage each other and exchange ideas. So send me an email Max, if that sounds like fun (click on my name at the end of this post and then click on "send an email" in my member profile).
Sending yourself a postmarked recording of a piece of music to try to copyright it is an urban legend that doesn't hold up in court. Here's a link with the facts http://www.loc.gov/copyright/ you'll need to spend a little to copyright your tunes.
what you think about a public domain tune pool - all the folks composing tunes more or less frequently put these results into that pdtp.
the basic rule of pdtp is: the use (for sessions/gigs/records) of tunes from this pool is free - every arrangement or other forms of adding new (copyright concerning) aspects to the tunes become part of the free pool as well. and: royalties collected by imro and others from pubs/radio stations/concert managements obviously related to pdtp tools must be payed into the pdtp fund (which might put the money into third worlds kids musical education projects or ... well it is up to you: more ideas?)....
Zina seems to be misinformed on this issue perhaps because she has confused the act of copyrighting a tune with the act of joining a fee collecting organization like BMI. The idea that performers *must* pay you or acknowledge your authorship in order to perform one of your copyrighted tunes is simply not correct, not unless you specifically require it as author of said tune.
Copyright has nothing to do with liscensing fees or royalties. All copyright does is establish authorship. Your financial arrangement in regards to your tunes is up to you and you only. You may wish to join ASCAP, BMI, or the Canadian, UK, or EU evil twin, in which case they will attempt to collect negotiated fees for you thru agreements with venues and broadcast groups. (The fees are not really negotiated because you pretty much have to accept their terms, or NOT.) If you do not join a liscencing organization they will not collect fees for you.
Or you can establish your own fees and try and collect them on your own.
Or you could just not care about fees. That is your choice.
Copyrighting a tune does not list you with ASCAP, BMI or any other fee collecting organization.
Technically the tune is copyrighted the minute you create it. Filing a copyright with the copyright office just officially registers it, making it MUCH easier to defend your claim of authorship in a legal dispute. Once again it has nothing to do with fees or liscencing. It establishes authorship only.
Go ahead and copyright your tunes to establish authorship. Let people play them for free. They are your tunes.
"Technically the tune is copyrighted the minute you create it." Morally, that may be correct. Under law, that is not enough and creates a requirement of burden of proof. Especially in the case of a music in which the tunes stop being yours as soon as another player with the ability to make a tune their own gets a hold of it.
The reason I shorthanded the discussion is because there's no real reason to copyright a tune unless you intend to collect fees.
'Technically' you are incorrect. It has nothing to do with 'morals'. Any dispute will require a burden of proof. The proof can be 'publication' in any number of forms establishing a date of authorship earlier than a contested date of authorship.
As I said, filing a copyright simply registers it with the copyright office making it much easier to defend you authorship, but not automatic. A copyright can be challenged and over-ruled by the establishment of common law copyright at an earlier date by any number of proofs.
Regardless, my main point is that copyright has nothing to do with collecting fees other than establishing who the fees, if any are required, should go to.
You stated that "if you copyright your tunes, then really no one should play them out at sessions or record them without paying you a fee or at the very least getting permission to use the tune. That's it, no ways around it." That statement was very misleading to Max and since no-one else seemed to see the distinction between copyright and liscencing fees I felt that I needed to clear this point up for Max.
He asked "Are there any ways to get around this?" My answer is yes. Copyright your tunes and don't join a liscencing organization. It's that simple.
I am working! Machines are going and everything. No, I don't agree -- because there's still no reason to copyright a tune unless you want to collect fees or renumeration in some form in the future. 'Technically' you are correct, but it would be a waste of time and effort to copyright a tune when what you simply want is credit. And there's no way to guarantee *that* if the tune is a good one and everyone picks it up -- like Will's Dreary Plains of Toil strathspey, which very quickly lost his name, and even Bang Your Frog.
I once asked Matt Heaton when a tune became "traditional" instead of written by someone. He told me it was when whoever was giving you the tune had forgotten who wrote it.
And who was it who told the story on themselves here, writing about the time they played a tune for the teacher of a workshop, only to have them smile and ask what they knew about the tune -- turned out that the teacher had written it.
Beep Beep Beep! The machine needs an actual human now --
Thanks for clearing that up Zina and Tusong200. Hearing what everybody has to say, I still don't think that I should copyright my tunes. If they lose my name as the writer of the tune, that's not really a big deal, as long as the song gets played. And if no one likes the tune, and it doesn't get played, then the copyright would be pointless, as I woudn't have to worry about people claiming a tune that nobody likes.
Crannog, that pdtp sounds like an awesome idea! I'm sure there are lots of other people that would love to do that also. You were thinking of something seperate from the session, weren't you?
Tunes become traditional because "whoever was giving you the tune had forgotten who wrote it."??!! Yikes. I know a lot of musicians with poor memories.
Just because 'someone' forgets who wrote a tune doesn't make it traditional, and certainly doesn't put it in the public domain. I would also ask did that 'someone' forget who wrote the tune or did they just never know. Most players here in Chicago think that "MacArthur Road" is a traditional tune but that doesn't change the fact that it was written, and copyrighted, by Dave Richardson. (Same thing with Calliope House.)
Now if 'everyone' has forgotten who wrote the tune, and 'nobody' truly knows, then that's a traditional tune in the public domain.
My machines are calling and I must obey. They're bigger than me.
... hopefully „traditional“ - or „trad.“ - written on setlists of cds or gigs or sessions will not be mixed up again with the big word „traditional“ (as in irish traditional music or in traditional fiddling) - the „trad.“ here might say something like „author unknown“ ... and yes there are a lot of musicians with poor memory (on some of my cds a tune is „trad.“ while on others the same tune has an author/composer - e.g. according to some sheet music wise maid was composed by john doherty, but the tulla ceili band lists it as „trad.“ ... )
zina is right, copyrighting a tune nowadays is some bureaucratic act - but anyway the copyright exists from the moment you „invent“ and write down the tune (and if you can proof that fact proper somebody else who run properly thru the bureaucratic process with the same/similar tune but later made a bad deal...)
the „hands on your tunes“ argument is very important. when you have no commercial interests with your tunes and want to share them it is a good reason to copyright a tune to keep away commercial interests ...
max, my pool idea was just a faint fog of a thought and really came to no planned to realize status yet. but well, let´s think and talk about it.
Copyright?
Copyright?
Sorry if I sound clueless, but I'm only 15, and so I don't know that much about this.
I have written several tunes of my own, and I have been told by some people that I should get a copyright for them. I was reading in the pay to play discussion (http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display.php/2296) that copyrighted tunes can't really be played in a session, or in other public settings, without paying a fee. I don't want people to be claim credit for my tunes, although I would like people to be able to play them. Are there any ways to get around this?
Thanks in advance!
-Max
# Posted on November 2nd 2003 by Max Becher
Re: Copyright?
Max, if you copyright your tunes, then really no one should play them out at sessions or record them without paying you a fee or at the very least getting permission to use the tune. That's it, no ways around it. So you have a choice -- risk losing credit as the composer of tunes (although most players like to know a bit about the tune they're playing if they can), or let people play them freely.
For another example of this, check out the comments at http://thesession.org/tunes/display.php/2042 !
Zina
# Posted on November 2nd 2003 by Zina Lee
Re: Copyright?
Well, you *could* disseminate the tunes in sheet music and abcs, always with your name prominently placed as the composer, and with a blurb that says: "I'd be honored if you enjoy playing and sharing this tune, but please give credit to Max ____ as the original composer." No guarantee that the connection to your name won't eventually be lost, but it dramatically increases the likelihood that at least some people will credit you--and that your tunes will get played (if people like them).
# Posted on November 2nd 2003 by Will Harmon
Re: Copyright?
You could always incorporate your name into the title of each tune, e.g., Max _____'s Favorite, or Max _____'s Fancy, or simply Max _____'s, or Max from wherever it is you live, or The Day I Met Max _____, etc., etc. Just look through the index of O'Neill's and you'll get lots of ideas!
Seriously, write the tune out or videotape yourself playing it, mail the tape/sheet music to yourself so that it has a postmark date on it, and then put it aside unopened. That way, ten years from now after the tune has worked its way into the tradition and gets recorded by Danu, you can claim credit for it.
Aimee
# Posted on November 2nd 2003 by print o' the wave
Re: Copyright?
Or post it here as your own tune, and then when it shows up a year later in a different key in Denmark, you'll be able to point back to your original post and say, that's one of mine.
# Posted on November 2nd 2003 by Will Harmon
Re: Copyright?
I think I will start to post them here on the site. Thanks for all your ideas! My goal is to write 100 tunes before I turn 18.
-Max
# Posted on November 2nd 2003 by Max Becher
GNU tune copyrite
How is it that the BMI can list trad tunes in its database, supposedly making some sort of implied claim about royalties. Is it time for those who write tunes for traditional purposes apply a GNU public license to those tunes. It would require the recorder of those tunes to acknowledge the tunes origins and allow no-one to make an attempt to claim royalties or ownership of it. Would this mean that the usual royalty payment to the author would just be pocketed by the record company. Maybe the license would stipulate that any royalty goes ot the performer or to some good cause. But that would sort of defeat the purpose of the exercise.
# Posted on November 2nd 2003 by NeilBarr
Re: Copyright?
Well, I did it! I just posted my first tune in the tunes directory on this site. I hope you like it! http://www.thesession.org/tunes/display.php/2112
-Max
# Posted on November 2nd 2003 by Max Becher
Re: Copyright?
"How is it that the BMI can list trad tunes in its database, supposedly making some sort of implied claim about royalties."
Ask Paddy Moloney.
# Posted on November 2nd 2003 by coyotebanjo
Re: Copyright?
Max, if you're in this game to "claim credit", you're in the wrong game.
# Posted on November 2nd 2003 by llig leahcim
Re: Copyright?
I believe what BMI claims are the arrangements of traditional tunes.
Taking an easy example, one of O'Carolan's tunes, which we know is out of copyright. Now, if a BMI signatory artist does a full arrangement of it for a recording, that arrangement can (I believe) still be copyrighted, since it adds original content.
That being said, I suspect that BMI doesn't quite get the difference between their rights to the arrangement and rights to claim a fee from any venue that plays other arrangements of the same tune.
And of course, I Am Not A Lawyer.
--Dave
# Posted on November 2nd 2003 by Dave Weinstein
I am not out for for credit!!!
PLEASE do not misunderstand me. I am by no means "in this game to 'claim credit'!" Even if it meant that I woudn't get any credit at all for my tunes, I would still keep on writing them, and giving them to the world. I just thought that if there was a way around it, I might take some precautionary steps to avoid others claiming my tunes. After reading what everybody has said in this discussion, I have made up to mind not to copyright any of my tunes. I am just going to play them, and distribute them freely, and hope that everybody feels free to play them all they want. After all, that is how all the traditional songs came into being. I just want to make it clear that:
I am not writing tunes to make a name for myself.
I don't want any trouble to arise over the playing of my tunes, such as all the mess with BMI that was discussed in the pay to play discussion.
I just want my tunes to get into the world and get played, even if I don't get any credit at all.
Sorry about the confusion.
-Max
# Posted on November 3rd 2003 by Max Becher
Correction
Sorry. I meant to say: "I have made up MY mind"
-Max
# Posted on November 3rd 2003 by Max Becher
Re: Copyright?
Max, I'd be the first to encourage you to invent new tunes, and I think there's great value in bringing your personal slant to a tune (new or old). But it's also important to be well grounded in the genre you're writing in, and to strive for quality over quantity. (IMHO, rather than setting out to write 100 tunes before you turn 18, you'll be further ahead if you hit on one really good tune by then.)
It's fairly easy to crank out new combinations of notes in interesting patterns and give them names like real tunes, and some of those might even be fun enough to hang onto. But a great, playable tune does more than that.
In this tradition, a really worthwhile tune takes the same old building blocks and uses them in some interesting, original way. It makes the familiar new again. And since this music is so much about nuance and subtlety, it will do that in a subtle but penetrating way. Of course, to be a playable tune, it also needs a strong internal cohesiveness--an integrity all its own--that makes the parts stick together. At the very least, this is what allows the rest of us to remember the parts and put them in order. At best, a tune's integrity is what makes it sound complete and fully expressive, as though nothing more needs to be said on that particular subject. That's why some tunes stop at two parts, and others have 3, 4, or 5 parts.
One of the difficulties of coming up with "new" traditional tunes is the chance of reinventing the wheel. With so many tunes already out there, it's all too easy to compose redundant tunes. It helps to know most or all of the existing permutations of a musical idea, so you can take that same idea and find a way to make it slightly different without stepping all over all the other tunes that share that motif.
In short, most of the new tunes that get played were composed by players who really know the existing body of tunes in the tradition, and so came up with something that adds to that body, rather than simply duplicating what's come before.
That said, some people are just born quirky, and their imaginations take them places the rest of us would never see or hear without them leading the way. You'll never know who you are until you try. Just realize that the tradition--even this web site (which tolerates new tunes but is geared more toward tunes that actually get played at sessions)--isn't obliged to accept your contributions.
I'm always interested in new tunes and how people compose. In the past, Brad and I and a few others used to swap original tunes by email, in part to get reality checks on whether a tune was worth posting here, in part just to encourage each other and exchange ideas. So send me an email Max, if that sounds like fun (click on my name at the end of this post and then click on "send an email" in my member profile).
# Posted on November 3rd 2003 by Will Harmon
Re: Copyright?
Sending yourself a postmarked recording of a piece of music to try to copyright it is an urban legend that doesn't hold up in court. Here's a link with the facts http://www.loc.gov/copyright/ you'll need to spend a little to copyright your tunes.
# Posted on November 3rd 2003 by Mad Baloney
Re: Copyright?
what you think about a public domain tune pool - all the folks composing tunes more or less frequently put these results into that pdtp.
the basic rule of pdtp is: the use (for sessions/gigs/records) of tunes from this pool is free - every arrangement or other forms of adding new (copyright concerning) aspects to the tunes become part of the free pool as well. and: royalties collected by imro and others from pubs/radio stations/concert managements obviously related to pdtp tools must be payed into the pdtp fund (which might put the money into third worlds kids musical education projects or ... well it is up to you: more ideas?)....
# Posted on November 3rd 2003 by crannog
Re: Copyright?
Zina seems to be misinformed on this issue perhaps because she has confused the act of copyrighting a tune with the act of joining a fee collecting organization like BMI. The idea that performers *must* pay you or acknowledge your authorship in order to perform one of your copyrighted tunes is simply not correct, not unless you specifically require it as author of said tune.
Copyright has nothing to do with liscensing fees or royalties. All copyright does is establish authorship. Your financial arrangement in regards to your tunes is up to you and you only. You may wish to join ASCAP, BMI, or the Canadian, UK, or EU evil twin, in which case they will attempt to collect negotiated fees for you thru agreements with venues and broadcast groups. (The fees are not really negotiated because you pretty much have to accept their terms, or NOT.) If you do not join a liscencing organization they will not collect fees for you.
Or you can establish your own fees and try and collect them on your own.
Or you could just not care about fees. That is your choice.
Copyrighting a tune does not list you with ASCAP, BMI or any other fee collecting organization.
Technically the tune is copyrighted the minute you create it. Filing a copyright with the copyright office just officially registers it, making it MUCH easier to defend your claim of authorship in a legal dispute. Once again it has nothing to do with fees or liscencing. It establishes authorship only.
Go ahead and copyright your tunes to establish authorship. Let people play them for free. They are your tunes.
# Posted on November 4th 2003 by Tusong200
Re: Copyright?
"Technically the tune is copyrighted the minute you create it." Morally, that may be correct. Under law, that is not enough and creates a requirement of burden of proof. Especially in the case of a music in which the tunes stop being yours as soon as another player with the ability to make a tune their own gets a hold of it.
The reason I shorthanded the discussion is because there's no real reason to copyright a tune unless you intend to collect fees.
# Posted on November 4th 2003 by Zina Lee
Or keep someone else from making money off your tune without your getting a share, too...
# Posted on November 4th 2003 by Zina Lee
Re: Copyright?
'Technically' you are incorrect. It has nothing to do with 'morals'. Any dispute will require a burden of proof. The proof can be 'publication' in any number of forms establishing a date of authorship earlier than a contested date of authorship.
As I said, filing a copyright simply registers it with the copyright office making it much easier to defend you authorship, but not automatic. A copyright can be challenged and over-ruled by the establishment of common law copyright at an earlier date by any number of proofs.
Regardless, my main point is that copyright has nothing to do with collecting fees other than establishing who the fees, if any are required, should go to.
You stated that "if you copyright your tunes, then really no one should play them out at sessions or record them without paying you a fee or at the very least getting permission to use the tune. That's it, no ways around it." That statement was very misleading to Max and since no-one else seemed to see the distinction between copyright and liscencing fees I felt that I needed to clear this point up for Max.
He asked "Are there any ways to get around this?" My answer is yes. Copyright your tunes and don't join a liscencing organization. It's that simple.
Now Zina, go back to work
# Posted on November 4th 2003 by Tusong200
Re: Copyright?
I am working! Machines are going and everything. No, I don't agree -- because there's still no reason to copyright a tune unless you want to collect fees or renumeration in some form in the future. 'Technically' you are correct, but it would be a waste of time and effort to copyright a tune when what you simply want is credit. And there's no way to guarantee *that* if the tune is a good one and everyone picks it up -- like Will's Dreary Plains of Toil strathspey, which very quickly lost his name, and even Bang Your Frog.
I once asked Matt Heaton when a tune became "traditional" instead of written by someone. He told me it was when whoever was giving you the tune had forgotten who wrote it.
And who was it who told the story on themselves here, writing about the time they played a tune for the teacher of a workshop, only to have them smile and ask what they knew about the tune -- turned out that the teacher had written it.
Beep Beep Beep! The machine needs an actual human now --
# Posted on November 4th 2003 by Zina Lee
Re: Copyright?
Thanks for clearing that up Zina and Tusong200. Hearing what everybody has to say, I still don't think that I should copyright my tunes. If they lose my name as the writer of the tune, that's not really a big deal, as long as the song gets played. And if no one likes the tune, and it doesn't get played, then the copyright would be pointless, as I woudn't have to worry about people claiming a tune that nobody likes.
Crannog, that pdtp sounds like an awesome idea! I'm sure there are lots of other people that would love to do that also. You were thinking of something seperate from the session, weren't you?
-Max
# Posted on November 4th 2003 by Max Becher
Re: Copyright?
Tunes become traditional because "whoever was giving you the tune had forgotten who wrote it."??!! Yikes. I know a lot of musicians with poor memories.
Just because 'someone' forgets who wrote a tune doesn't make it traditional, and certainly doesn't put it in the public domain. I would also ask did that 'someone' forget who wrote the tune or did they just never know. Most players here in Chicago think that "MacArthur Road" is a traditional tune but that doesn't change the fact that it was written, and copyrighted, by Dave Richardson. (Same thing with Calliope House.)
Now if 'everyone' has forgotten who wrote the tune, and 'nobody' truly knows, then that's a traditional tune in the public domain.
My machines are calling and I must obey. They're bigger than me.
# Posted on November 4th 2003 by Tusong200
Re: Copyright?
... hopefully „traditional“ - or „trad.“ - written on setlists of cds or gigs or sessions will not be mixed up again with the big word „traditional“ (as in irish traditional music or in traditional fiddling) - the „trad.“ here might say something like „author unknown“ ... and yes there are a lot of musicians with poor memory (on some of my cds a tune is „trad.“ while on others the same tune has an author/composer - e.g. according to some sheet music wise maid was composed by john doherty, but the tulla ceili band lists it as „trad.“ ... )
zina is right, copyrighting a tune nowadays is some bureaucratic act - but anyway the copyright exists from the moment you „invent“ and write down the tune (and if you can proof that fact proper somebody else who run properly thru the bureaucratic process with the same/similar tune but later made a bad deal...)
the „hands on your tunes“ argument is very important. when you have no commercial interests with your tunes and want to share them it is a good reason to copyright a tune to keep away commercial interests ...
max, my pool idea was just a faint fog of a thought and really came to no planned to realize status yet. but well, let´s think and talk about it.
# Posted on November 4th 2003 by crannog
Re: Copyright?
OK.
-Max
# Posted on November 5th 2003 by Max Becher