[Fmpro] Retitling -- Fraud

[Mark Northam]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmpro-bounces+markn=gmocorp.com at nxport.com [mailto:fmpro-
> bounces+markn=gmocorp.com at nxport.com] On Behalf Of Josh Silver
> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 12:58 AM
> To: fmpro at nxport.com
> Subject: [Fmpro] Retitling -- Fraud
> 
> Gael,
> Fraudulent to whom?
> If all parties involved are aware of the situation then who is being
> deceived, where is this fraud happening?  Who will be claiming the
> fraud and seeking legal action?
> 

Hi Josh -

To start with, perhaps fraudulent to ASCAP and BMI, as duplicate copies of
music would tend to overstate their "inventory" they negotiate with with
music users. Since we know that the size of their catalogs comes into play
in broadcaster negotiations (from Willard Hoyt, head of the local TV
broadcasters negotiating group), this certainly could be an issue. Plus,
title registration rules at ASCAP require that all "alternate titles" of a
piece of music registered be included with the title registration - how is
one library with their own made-up title supposed to know what every other
library with their own made-up titles calls a single piece of music? 

One can only wonder how the catalogs of the PROs have been inflated by
duplicate made-up names for the same piece of music... I wonder if that's
why we've heard no complaints from them, even though in theory this
"cloning" of music would seem to have the potential to play havoc with their
databases...  Also, from what I know, it's very unclear as to who owns the
copyrights to the cloned copies of the music, or if separate copyrights,
perhaps derivative copyrights, even exist for the cloned copies, or whether
the original copyright is somehow "extended" to cover these clones. 

Finally, there's the issue of cloning the clones - possibel with digital
technology, of course. If indeed the libraries do own "copyrights" in the
cloned copies under new names, that would give them, as the copyright owner,
the right to do anything they want to with those clones, including clone
them again under new names and sell those clones (or give them) off to other
libraries, distributers, music users, etc. And what accounting would be due
the composer for those cloned clones under yet another set of new names for
each successive cloning?

Of course digital watermarking could solve this once and for all, and I will
say it again that I belive it's absolutely outrageous that the PROs have
refused to establish a digital watermarking standard so that music could be
protected before it enters the digital domain where limitless, lossless
copying is routine. Such a basic protection for music with obvious benefits
for composers and songwriters would seem to have at least some people,
somewhere, very scared. 

Best,

Mark Northam