I agree with slartabartfast. Regardless of the exact odds of winning a case fili g versus not filing, hard to believe someone can simultaneously feel they have work good enough to steal but not good enough to spend $35 on.

Btw, the whole mail yourself a copy has no more impact than being able to prod
uce the original copy. A postmarked package is not likely to prove what was in that package. As pointed out, you hold copyright regardless of whether you register , but it's a much easier path to claim when you spend the $35.

slartabartfast
Can we agree that, given the expense of the legal proceedings that might be required to settle that issue, anyone anticipating using the copyright law as a remedy to infringement would be well advised to spend $35.00 to register their work prior to filing suit.

Of course. That $35.00 is way cheaper than retaining an attorney for a risky lawsuit.
 
As for that mailing it to yourself stuff... the infringer could do that also. Heck, the infringer could register the works. I think a hard drive with all of the original dated tracks and other files would be better evidence than the registration alone.

Mailing yourself a copy, posting to YouTube, providing your hard drive for forensic analysis, deposing your landlady who heard you singing your song in the shower etc. come under the heading of evidence to establish that the copyright claimant is indeed the original author. If that becomes an issue in a lawsuit, it is likely that you are engaged in a lying contest, and god help you if you are contesting an established songwriter or record company.  While anyone could register the work before the author gets around to it or later, if they are willing to commit perjury, the author is in a unique position to win the registration race, since he can apply for registration prior to publication or other release of the work. Still first registration is not irrefutable proof of authorship. But registration will at least get you to trial without having to present convincing evidence beforehand. "410(c) In any judicial proceedings the certificate of a registration made before or within five years after first publication of the work shall constitute prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate."
 
Even irrefutable evidence of original authorship does not constitute timely copyright registration, which imparts special benefits.
 
 
 

ELsMystERy
 I think a hard drive with all of the original dated tracks and other files would be better evidence than the registration alone.

 
Not true.  Dates can be easily changed and the thief would claim that all you did copy his (actually yours), changed the date on your computer then saved the files.

Startabartfast: I know. It's a law where a piece of paper satisfies the burden of proof, but people perjure themselves all the time and get away with it because no one can prove, or is willing to prove otherwise. That's one reason why I don't reveal "previews" of things I am working on. I came close to learning that lesson in the 80s, when I recorded some stuff at a rather "shady" studio. Fortunately, I had an attorney involved early on and all I had to do was get the tapes and walk away.
 
Whether it is needed, or not, I will always believe that tangible proof would be more satisfactory than nothing more than a registration. I am not really talking about what is required, but what should be.

MarioD

ELsMystERy
 I think a hard drive with all of the original dated tracks and other files would be better evidence than the registration alone.

 
Not true.  Dates can be easily changed and the thief would claim that all you did copy his (actually yours), changed the date on your computer then saved the files.

The thief would have to prove how you had access to the files in order to do that. Besides, the thief would need access to ALL of the files (originals, backups, etc...) in order to convince a judge of that claim. That's one reason (edit: that would be one reason, if it even mattered) for having secure, even encrypted backups in different locations (such as a password protected archive on a removable hard drive in a safe deposit box) other than with your computer, aside from protecting the originals from being destroyed in a disaster.
 
As for my statement not being true: It certainly is not a lie. I said "I think", meaning that is what I believe would be a better way of showing evidence until I am convinced of something better. I did not say it was an indisputable truth. I have been recording music for over 30 years and have learned some tough lessons. Not to mention the years of dealing with copyright issues as a professional programmer and photographer. I have had allot of time to consider all of this.

ELsMystERy

MarioD

ELsMystERy
 I think a hard drive with all of the original dated tracks and other files would be better evidence than the registration alone.

 
Not true.  Dates can be easily changed and the thief would claim that all you did copy his (actually yours), changed the date on your computer then saved the files.

The thief would have to prove how you had access to the files in order to do that. Besides, the thief would need access to ALL of the files (originals, backups, etc...) in order to convince a judge of that claim. That's one reason (edit: that would be one reason, if it even mattered) for having secure, even encrypted backups in different locations (such as a password protected archive on a removable hard drive in a safe deposit box) other than with your computer, aside from protecting the originals from being destroyed in a disaster.

Maybe, but if the thief registered the work then he could claim that the real composer pirated the work from his computer.  After he registered the work he could say that either he had a HD crash or he deleted all of his backup because he needed the space.  I don't know for sure. The safest way to go is to spend the $35 or so to protect yourself. 

You missed all of my edit.
 
Anyhow, the creator of the works would have to prove that the thief is a liar. I don't disagree that CURRENTLY the safest way is to register the works, I am simply saying that an intelligent infringer could potentially make that process pointless. If the infringer did file before you, then a wise judge would have to consider further evidence to settle the dispute. If the infringer could not produce the files then he has nothing.
 
In order for someone to change the dates, then they have to have access to those files. If he doesn't know where they are kept and has no access to them, then he has nothing. Besides, anyone who really wants to protect their work should not keep all of it in one place. I make copies of my projects on external drives (while the project is still underway) that will never get deleted for more space and then I delete everything from the project drive to make room for the next project. You can't hack what's not connected to the computer and no common infringer is going to access a studio computer, or secure location (safe deposit box, or safe stored in a secret location) to steal the files on a hard drive. If he even tried he would be facing much stiffer penalties than copyright infringement.

If someone wanted to steal my files to claim they created them first, they would first have to disable the alarm system, the security cameras, my pet black widow spider, the neighbors and the local sheriff and that's only if I am not home, which is rarely the case. All I can say is I hope he has fun trying.
 

Well, I'm 41 now and at the age of 19 when I started producing www.soundtraxxmusic.com I made the decision not to copyright my music because to me all these organizations are money hungry conglomerates from europe (no offense europeans! CHEERS!!!) I just don't believe that these companies and have your best interest in mind, they say they protect you but all I see is limitations on how you can sell your own product and more costs.  I treat my music as any product....produce a great product at a fair price and get it to market first and you will be rwewarded.  So far theft hasn't really been a problem, a couple incidenses (in Europe by golly) but I am to this day verry happy with my decision. CHEERS! - Shawn