$7.4 Million Blurred Lines Verdict Likely To Alter Music Business 386
HughPickens.com writes The Washington Post reports that the $7.4 million verdict that Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke copied Marvin Gaye's music to create their hit song "Blurred Lines" could ripple across the music industry, potentially changing how artists work and opening the door to new copyright claims. Howard King, lead attorney for Thicke and Williams, said in closing arguments that a verdict for the Gaye family would have a chilling effect on musicians trying to evoke an era or create an homage to the sound of earlier artists. Williams contended during the trial that he was only trying to mimic the "feel" of Gaye's late 1970s music but insisted he did not use elements of his idol's work. "Today's successful verdict, with the odds more than stacked against the Marvin Gaye estate, could redefine what copyright infringement means for recording artists," says Glen Rothstein, an intellectual property attorney. King says record labels are going to become more reluctant to release music that's similar to other works — an assertion disputed by Richard Busch, the lead attorney for the Gaye family. "While Mr. Williams' lawyer suggested in his closing argument that the world would come to an end, and music would cease to exist if they were found liable, I still see the sun shining," says Busch. "The music industry will go on."
Music copyright trials are rare, but allegations that a song copies another artist's work are common. Singers Sam Smith and Tom Petty recently reached an agreement that conferred songwriting credit to Petty on Smith's song, "Stay With Me," which resembled Petty's hit "I Won't Back Down." Other music copyright cases include Former Beatle George Harrison's 1970 solo song "My Sweet Lord" which had a melody heavy with echoes of "He's So Fine," the 1962 hit from The Chiffons. The copyright owner sued Harrison. A judge said that while the tunes were nearly identical, Harrison was guilty only of "subconscious plagiarism." Harrison would eventually pay out $587,000. Probably the most bizarre case of musical infringement was when John Fogerty was accused of stealing from John Fogerty. The Creedence Clearwater Revival frontman was sued for his 1985 solo song "The Old Man Down the Road" because his former label thought it sounded too much like the 1970 Fogerty-penned "Run Through the Jungle," a song it owned the rights to.
Music copyright trials are rare, but allegations that a song copies another artist's work are common. Singers Sam Smith and Tom Petty recently reached an agreement that conferred songwriting credit to Petty on Smith's song, "Stay With Me," which resembled Petty's hit "I Won't Back Down." Other music copyright cases include Former Beatle George Harrison's 1970 solo song "My Sweet Lord" which had a melody heavy with echoes of "He's So Fine," the 1962 hit from The Chiffons. The copyright owner sued Harrison. A judge said that while the tunes were nearly identical, Harrison was guilty only of "subconscious plagiarism." Harrison would eventually pay out $587,000. Probably the most bizarre case of musical infringement was when John Fogerty was accused of stealing from John Fogerty. The Creedence Clearwater Revival frontman was sued for his 1985 solo song "The Old Man Down the Road" because his former label thought it sounded too much like the 1970 Fogerty-penned "Run Through the Jungle," a song it owned the rights to.
Rock and Roll wouldn't EXIST without "stealing" (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither would Blues, or pretty much any major iconic genre. Depending on how this case is construed it's basically going to kill homages and the like. FUN paying tribute to 99 luftballoons with a line in the lyrics? Better get that contractually approved.
Re:Rock and Roll wouldn't EXIST without "stealing" (Score:5, Insightful)
Apply the same logic to writing and 90% of the fantasy fiction genre owes Tolkien's estate some big bucks.
Re:Rock and Roll wouldn't EXIST without "stealing" (Score:5, Insightful)
Heck, 95% of the MMORPG market, a good percentage of fantasy video games.
Re:Rock and Roll wouldn't EXIST without "stealing" (Score:5, Insightful)
And Tolkien's just the first well-known derivative work of various northern European mythologies and histories. Copyright is for dullards who add a few more man-hours to a few million man-hours of cultural development then mix in an egomaniacal sense of entitlement.
If you don't want people building on your work, don't work - there are billions of people to take your place. Have a nice day!
Re: (Score:3)
Those mythologies and histories are in the public domain though having passed into it long before we started making copyright eternal by extending the length anytime something was about to enter the public domain. So they're fair game.
Re:Rock and Roll wouldn't EXIST without "stealing" (Score:5, Interesting)
Copyright has been extended in such a way as to re-copyright works that had entered the public domain.
Perhaps we should be lobbying for copyright to be extended further backwards so all those dead people will be more motivated. At least it might show the stupidity of endless copyright if anyone using stories based on Shakespeare had to pay his estate.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You mean like this [uspto.gov]?
Disney has copyrighted Snow White, a character that existed before even Walt Disney himself!
Re:Rock and Roll wouldn't EXIST without "stealing" (Score:5, Interesting)
No. The concept of something expiring into the public domain originated in France.
Re: (Score:3)
"Copyright is for dullards who add a few more man-hours to a few million man-hours of cultural development then mix in an egomaniacal sense of entitlement."
If you can help shrink this idea down to fit on a t-shirt, I'll send you the first t-shirt I sell with it.
Re:Rock and Roll wouldn't EXIST without "stealing" (Score:5, Informative)
JK Rawlings' Harry Potter an JRR Tolkien (Score:3)
Look at how much JK Rawlings borrowed themes and story lines from JRR Tolkien [baheyeldin.com].
Re:Rock and Roll wouldn't EXIST without "stealing" (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe they can "steal," or more accurately, derive their song from others, in which case, they owe royalties of 10%-30% of sales to the original song owner. I've noticed a lot of uncreative rap musicians directly copying tunes from music from other countries and just adding boring rap lyrics and bass on top of that. Maybe they should get sued next.
Re:Rock and Roll wouldn't EXIST without "stealing" (Score:5, Insightful)
The right to sue to wrong a grievance or unsafe condition is a foundation of free Western society, often allowing the little guy to challenge a behemoth.
Unfortunately, not unlike many grand and beneficial social systems, it is ripe for abuse by the unscrupulous.
Re:Rock and Roll wouldn't EXIST without "stealing" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Rock and Roll wouldn't EXIST without "stealing" (Score:4, Insightful)
Not getting caught is completely different than ensuring that when the laws are written (or if you screwed that up when they are interpreted) whatever it is you do isn't illegal.
Re:Rock and Roll wouldn't EXIST without "stealing" (Score:4, Funny)
Didn't Jesse James also have some honour?
Re:Rock and Roll wouldn't EXIST without "stealing" (Score:5, Informative)
Good luck with that - those original artists will have to register for copyright in the U.S. first, if they want to have any chance at preventing it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org]
Of course even if they do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org]
And that's in a case of pretty blatant copying colloquially known as sampling. Never mind if an artist copies 'the feel of' some existing track.
There's a few reasons why the Marvin Gaye estate won, and one of the main reasons is due to the 'estate' part. Guy himself has been dead for over 30 years.
Re:Rock and Roll wouldn't EXIST without "stealing" (Score:5, Interesting)
Good luck with that - those original artists will have to register for copyright in the U.S. first, if they want to have any chance at preventing it:
In other words, nothing has changed in the (almost) one and three quarters centuries since Charles Dickens complained that US publishers could (re)publish his works without having to pay him one penny.
Re: (Score:3)
Does matter, really? I've stopped listening to music, more or less, because there is so little that is original. But I agree, it is stupid to fight over, especially for the music industry, because it is ALL just a grey mass of assembly line noise.
I find that I increasingly listen to music from the very fringes - at one end of the scale, it is stuff like renaissance lute music, Chinese classics, Arabic classics etc, and at the other end, it is weird, new, alternative music that I can't put a name to. Or thin
Re:Rock and Roll wouldn't EXIST without "stealing" (Score:4, Funny)
then back to the barroque period
Nothing doing. I ain't going back to the baroque period until they fix it.
Look and Feel case of the music industry (Score:5, Informative)
Blues are especially hosed. The fact that someone can say the phrase "twelve-bar blues" and be immediately understood almost to the note, just demonstrates that this is the musical equivalent of a design pattern.
Even more hosed is anyone who dares to write a four-chord song. For those not familiar, Canon in D by Johann Pachelbel is the start of one such design pattern. Some songs that use it are: Forever Young by Alphaville, Let It Be by the Beatles, With or Without You by U2, Don't Stop Believin' by Journey, Barbie by Aqua, Down Under by Men At Work . . . the list goes on and on and on. If you want to see a better example than I can cite here in print, google for "Axis of Awesome Four Chord Song" and watch the videos that come back.
However, in all of those cases, along with the case of Ghostbusters copying I Want A New Drug and of Ice Ice Baby copying Under Pressure etc., there are actual notes copied.
This, on the other hand, is the "Look and Feel" case of the music industry.
Re:Look and Feel case of the music industry (Score:5, Interesting)
Since I don't have Mod points ... I want to confirm you made your point with the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] Axis of Awesome Four Chord Song.
More perfect ( and a good mix of laughter ) presentation of the point could not have been done.
I did like the lady gaga song, I would have never guessed it was 4-cord
Re:Look and Feel case of the music industry (Score:5, Interesting)
this is a fantastic video that demonstrates how stupid this court case is. when debating music originality with people, I often make them watch that video and this TED talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
There may be only 12 notes on on the western scale, but only certain combinations of those notes actually sound good.
Re: (Score:3)
Joey Ramone.
Re:Look and Feel case of the music industry (Score:5, Interesting)
Technically Canon in D is I-V-vi-iii-IV-I-IV-V and all of those other ones are a shortened version I-V-vi-IV (and yes, I've seen Pachelbel rant). You can throw in P!nk (like every hit), U2 (With or Without You), Taylor Swift (at least two), Of Monsters and Men (Little Talks), Lady Gaga (like ever hit), Nickelback (like every hit) just to name a few more.
Still, I-V-vi-IV and its inversions (particularly the "sensitive singer songwriter" vi-IV-I-V) probably have been around long enough to be able to cite prior art. Kinda like the 12 bar blues. We probably can find examples of the 50s progression of I-vi-IV-V (to name a few songs, Crocodile Rock [Elton John], D'yer Mak'er [Led Zeppelin], The Man Comes Around [Johnny Cash], Every Breath You Take [the Police], Heart and Soul [Larry Clinton], Lollypop [Ronald and Ruby], Earth Angel [the Penguins]), that predate the 50s too (in fact, Heart and Soul was recorded in the 1930s and covered multiple times, especially in the 1950s).
Re:Look and Feel case of the music industry (Score:5, Interesting)
, and if every song using four chords is a derivative work
Alternatively, you could just argue that 4 chords by itself is not sufficient to make a copyright claim.
The 4 chords in a '4 chord song' are G, C, F, A
And yes, if you play them in sequence at the right tempo, and then sing, you can do 100 pop songs. Big deal. The fact that songs as different sounding as Poker Face and No Woman No Cry rest on them just argues to what small degree the chord sequence is to the whole song.
Go ahead grab a guitar or a piano and just play G, C, F, A over and over again. You aren't playing anything. Not even the intro to Journey's Don't stop believing is as simple as that.
Its harmonic; and you can play along with Journey or a 100 other songs as compatible accompaniment; but you aren't playing the songs, anymore than you would be than if you were just keeping time by tapping your feet.
Re: (Score:2)
And neither would the The Rutles [amazon.com]. Although in the Rutles case, stealing could be deemed "fair use" in the form of paraody. Then again, what does "Piggy in the Middle" really have to do with "I am the Walrus?" (.tekram ot tnew yggip elttil sihT)
Re:Rock and Roll wouldn't EXIST without "stealing" (Score:5, Insightful)
That's more than sufficient "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." If the ROI of a work is based on more than 28 years of copyright revenues, it won't be created at all or is being created for reasons independent of what copyright provides.
Disney, a constant proponent of extended copyrights, built its business by copying the works of others. Where would they be if the Brothers Grimm, Carlo Collodi (Pinocchio), Joel Chandler Harris (Uncle Remus/Song of the South), Robert Louis Stevenson (Treasure Island), etc. were still copyrighted. Extended copyright terms serve no public good, quite the opposite, they cause our culture to be stolen from us.
Re:Rock and Roll wouldn't EXIST without "stealing" (Score:5, Insightful)
Culture is stolen because of extended terms on original works. Others should be free at this point to make new works featuring Mickey Mouse, which was originally created in the 1920's. Disney made use of original works with expired copyrights, but now wants to protect their own works by extending copyright forever. Relevant to the article, why shouldn't a Marvin Gaye song from 1977 be freely available for use as the basis of a new work?
I will add that copyright terms should be even shorter for software. Copyright is offered as a trade to encourage the creation of new works. The author gets exclusivity for a limited time, after which the the public is supposed to benefit from the work. But, that doesn't work for software - why is MS-DOS, software which has very limited current value to the public, still under copyright? By the time the copyright expires (if ever), it will be essentially worthless - it almost is now. Even with the original 14/14 year term, how much software from 28 years ago (1987) still has significant value? Lotus 1-2-3? Wordstar? Aldus Pagemaker? What are you even going to run it on? In order for the bargain to be fair, a single 14 year term for software would be more reasonable. And, a requirement that source code be filed and archived before registration was allowed, so the public could actually benefit.
Re:Rock and Roll wouldn't EXIST without "stealing" (Score:5, Interesting)
On Owning Ideas (Score:5, Insightful)
Jefferson on intellectual property: [uchicago.edu]
It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. . .If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.
I highly recommend reading the entire letter; if nothing else Jefferson was an excellent writer. Then if you would oblige us with a counter-argument, I am sure it would be gratifying.
Re: (Score:3)
Where to draw the line? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Where to draw the line? (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, maybe it means that when a band creates a new sound, they can license it out....
I threw up a little saying that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pacelbel's estate is going to be filthy rich (when copyrights go back that far, should be any time now): https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That, and the fact that a lot of popular music already sounds the same. Even the famous composers would borrow themes and techniques from earlier composers, from popular folk music around them, from liturgical pieces, etc., etc.
Music is not created in a vacuum. It is impossible for a modern musician not to be influenced by other music.
Now waiting for those "River Sounds With Birds Singing" CDs to be sued by some animal rights organization on behalf of the wildlife...
It's kind of just math, right? (Score:2)
Drum breaks, chord progressions, melodies, and of course tempo...aren't they all just functions of math? And the ones that we find most pleasing, tend to be the ones that make sense mathematically.
Re:It's kind of just math, right? (Score:5, Funny)
I don't know if they make mathematical sense but music theory has standards for composition that are and have been used for generations and are present in everything from classical music to blues to hardcore death metal whether the artist realizes that's why it sounds good or not is another question.
My younger brother plays in a melodic metal band, they once called me to analyze a piece of music because the two guitarist were fighting over what key it is in.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid the difference between "inspired", "derived" and "copa&paste" will have to be decided on a per case base.
The logic behind this verdict (expert says too similar to be original work) is basically ok, too. It becomes a problem when the US punitive damage comes into the mix. As mentioned in the summary "subconscious plagiarism" may sound strange, but that's how creative minds work. Artists always worked with inspirations and derivations. Sometimes subconscious, sometimes on purpose. (Like when D
Re: (Score:2)
So take the usual cut or fee it costs to cover an existing song, double it for the additional work due to "forgetting" or "not realizing", and that's it.
Say some developer composes music for an open source video game, and then something like this happens. Where will the revenue to cover "the usual cut or fee" come from?
Re:Where to draw the line? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
"My Sweet Lord" was nine notes, as the "really wanna see you" part was also copied.
End copyright and all kinds of IP protection too (Score:4, Insightful)
Music and movies are an art form, like painting or literature. All works should be free as in beer, and revenue should come from live performances and donations. Let the public decide what they want to hear and how.
Fuck you RIAA / MPAA.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should they be free as in beer? Will spending 99cents or $10/month bankrupt any consumer? Why should you get to use someone's work without payment? Let's hear some rational arguments.
Re:End copyright and all kinds of IP protection to (Score:4, Funny)
I go to concerts.
I still buy CDs and concert BluRays
I subscribe to 2 music streaming services
But that's MY choice. I shouldn't be REQUIRED to part with money to listen to music. We have the technology available that allows anyone to download any song they want for free. Streaming services offer free options.
RIAA should just stay out of the way.
Re: (Score:3)
What if it's cheap to copy? Didn't it cost time, effort and money to create the song the first place? It takes almost a decade of training, and the person must be talented. You are paying for the benefit of listening to music, the cost to deliver the goods to you is only marginally important. If a song benefits 1 million listeners, the listeners need to pa
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How about you start making free music
I would, but first please answer this question: How should I go about doing so without running the risk of losing a lawsuit from one of the incumbents?
Re: (Score:3)
Then let me rephrase: How should I go about ensuring my music is original?
This Song? There's Nothing Tricky About It (Score:5, Informative)
I don't get the hoopla about how this will change the "industry". This was a case of blatant infringement, much like the Tom Petty issue. If you could not hear that for yourself, then perhaps you should be following another "industry" for your entertainment needs.
I always love the George Harrison case. That "changed the industry" too and was 40 years ago. In that case, it was not so obvious. You really had to be told what to listen for and then it was like, "oh, I get it". And George had to take it from He's So Fine and the Hare Krishna's for god's sake. OK, yeah, the Hare Krishna's sort of had a point because he copied their mantra in the song word for word.
But, George turned it into lemonade by letting the experience inspire "This Song", which was sweet revenge as it more than paid the bills from the "My Sweet Lord" injustice. Look it up, kids, its on the Internet! And while your at it, listen closely to "This Song" and read what the lyrics mean. Heck, it has voice overs from some of the Monty Python crew.
Re: (Score:3)
This was a case of blatant infringement, much like the Tom Petty issue.
Even if that's true, what steps should a songwriter take to avoid a situation like the George Harrison case, the Tom Petty case, or the present case? Other than quit, that is.
You obviously have no idea about music (Score:3)
... which was probably also the problem of the jury. I don't have much musical training, but I can easily pick up parts of songs that are "borrowed". And there was no specific part of this song that was "borrowed", try to identify a specific sequence and tell us which one it is. It is the same "style" so there was obvious inspiration to such songs, but that was the whole point. If you lower the bar for plagiarism that much, then I am afraid at least half of the music production would have to pay for rights
Re: (Score:3)
Informative post yes. But your first paragraph opinion is absolutely nuts. Infringement? No. Blatant infringement? What are you smoking?
I would love to hear you go into more detail about how this constitutes infringement.
Who's good? (Score:5, Funny)
Proportionally (Score:3)
Re:Proportionally (Score:4, Informative)
No, this has nothing to do with fair use.
Fair use is generally meta. I can use snippets of your work for comment, criticism, indexing, archiving. That sort of thing. I'm not making a new work derivative of your work, I'm making a new work that references your work, or is making comments about your work.
So if you've got a song and I'm making a documentary about music, I can play a clip of your song and talk about it. The copy I'm making is for educational and critical purposes.
But if I'm making a documentary about tigers, and I want to play your song in the background of my awesome tiger footage, that's a no-no. I'm just using your work to make a derivative work, without permission or compensation. My tiger documentary has nothing to do with your song, and I'm not using it fairly.
Make sense?
(Note: I'm not making any comment on this case, just explaining fair use. I'm also not advocating for or against US copyright law or the application of fair use concepts therein. I'm not making a statement about how I think things should be, just explaining how they are).
4 chords (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you're technically correct. However, language usage will cause this to change, just like it changed "hacker", and "drone". You're welcome to continue the good find, and beat your head against the pavement though.
Not sure if it alters anything. (Score:2)
This is what happens... (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, listened to both musics and the "collision" is much less obvious than many other two-musics I heard in the past ; the older song being probably less watched and a claim less profitable.
Re: (Score:2)
"Blurred lines" was made within a few hours. The collision with an existing older music is likely
It sounds like you're claiming that rapid production is a poor practice. What are the best practices to avoid a collision?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly I was surprised by how little money the Blurred Lines song was said to have made. I think the article I read cited $16 million and change. Which for the hype sounds like peanuts to me.
Oh noes! But I need my new-but-similar songs! (Score:3)
... record labels are going to become more reluctant to release music that's similar to other works...
But... but... how will civilization survive?
It's all in the cow bell - only the beats are same (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm no musicalologist, but I just don't see a massive resemblance. I carefully listened to both songs. The beats are substantially similar. For instance, the pattern of the cow bell (if that's the name of the instrument) is basically the same. However, Blurred Lines layers a bass line and melody on top of it that are completely different. There's also some similarity in the high singing voice.
So, if stealing a percussion pattern is copyright infringement, this is going to cause all sorts of trouble, because artists rip off melodies and guitar riffs all the time.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I hadn't listened to the comparison before now. Just wow. They're completely different songs. They do use the same instruments (as you mentioned: cowbell, bass, and vocals), which does give them a similar feel.
I bet musicians feel about this like us software guys (for the ./ers who are software guys) feel about so many of those patents.
Re:It's all in the cow bell - only the beats are s (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly this. I have done percussion, and the cowbell (you're right there) is similar but the hi-hat work is not the same at all. So even the percussion line is not even identical.
When you're learning percussion, you drill books of STANDARD PERCUSSION LINES! The rhythms are *standardized*. This is worse than copyrighting QuickSort!
Jesus, next time just copyright chord progressions [youtube.com] and have a government judge kill off music once and for all! Guess what? All blocks of code flying by on a screen on a movie *look the same* to a non-programmer. But they're clearly not to an expert, which is all that actually matters.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm no musicalologist, but I just don't see a massive resemblance.
Thats because there isn't one.
Somehow, someway, a combination of complete idiots on the jury and expert lawyering have convinced the aforesaid idiots there is a resemblance.
Spider Robinson warned us 30-odd years ago... (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a story that I wish had served SF's goal "not to predict the future, but to prevent it":
Melancholy Elephants, by Spider Robinson [spiderrobinson.com]
...but then again, if a significant percentage of politicians read Spider Robinson (or a significant percentage of Robinson fans went into politics), the world would be a very different place.
The day the music died (Score:5, Insightful)
And the great irony is that, although the whole purpose of IP is to give inventors and artists their due, Marvin Gaye gets no benefit whatever from this decision. Instead of living off the talents of others, his kids need to go out and get jobs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except Thicke and Williams went and
1) wrote new lyrics,
2) wrote new music (only certain parts of it were deemed infringing),
3) performed and recorded the song,
then 4) marketed the hell out of it.
That's 4 entirely "new" tasks that were performed in the making and distribution of their song that the Gaye-wads can't claim at all.
It's really high time to start slut-shaming the copyright leeches. I'm calling this family the "Gaye-wads" from here on out.
Asonishing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cover versions have a well-established mechanical licensing [wikipedia.org] regime. However, it applies only to exact covers, not to new songs based on parts of an old song.
Re: (Score:2)
Ice Ice Babby (Score:2)
And this kids, is why you should pirate all music (Score:3)
This is an abhorrent verdict. It will make indie composing basically impossible since no small musician alone can just check his songs for "resemblance" with previous titles, and worst, we will be always in danger of having a devastating lawsuit against him at any given time just because some record labels thinks that is music "resembles" something they produced before.
Seriously, don't pay for music, it's time to send a message to these people. Go see your favorite bands on stage, but when it comes to listen at home... just find a way not to buy the music.
Re: (Score:3)
Great.
Thanks a goddamn lot. Big help, dude.
How come guys like you can never think past the idea of music that's played by a 4 or 5 piece band in some club somewhere? What about orchestral compositions that would require hiring a 40 piece orchestra to perform live in concert? What about texture/underscore music used
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Guess I didn't know as much Gaye as I thought (Score:2)
Everything is derivative. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Property is property. Property does not vanish when someone dies. It is transferred to a new owner.
No. There is a certain point when all works (music, movies, inventions, etc) should become public domain.
Why? Because if what you're saying is true, we'd all be paying Leonardo da Vinci's kin licensing fees to using ball bearings, or Jack Kilby/Robert Noyce's kin for every piece of modern electronics or some random cave man's family for the use of fire.
Re: (Score:3)
or some random cave man's family for the use of fire.
*I* am a descendent of some random cave man, you insensitive clod!
Fogerty's Case (Score:3)
Fogerty's was a very sad case, indeed. It probably had less to do with a faintly similarly sounding song than with a perceived insult the president of of CCR's former record company felt over a solo song Fogerty wrote about how the president basically stole CCR's music catalog. It's why Fogerty didn't perform those old songs for so long, he didn't want to put money in that guy's pocket. Fogerty won all those cases against him, and later started doing CCR songs again.
Copyright Act of 1790 (Score:3)
Nirvana vs. Killing Joke proves copyright is joke (Score:4, Interesting)
Nirvana clearly stole Come as You Are's bassline hook from Killing Joke's Eighties. Eightie's was written in 84 and I heard it frequently on college radio before 1991's Come As You Are. In fact, I just suspected that the band was high when they wrote the song since the bassline is so much slower and drawn out. However, they made a shitload more money and had better lawyers, so Nirvana prevailed in court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Nirvana vs. Killing Joke proves copyright is jo (Score:5, Interesting)
and THIS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
shows how many fucking songs ripped off Pachabel's Canon in D. I still hear the same opening 4 chords in pop music all the time.
Ridiculous! (Score:4, Interesting)
Reagan was president when I started.
I think I have a pretty good ear and can usually pick up songs pretty quick.
I don't have a degree in music, but have taken many music classes and played some classical and jazz pieces on guitar and bass in college.
Though my reading skills have diminished, I can play bass very proficiently, guitar pretty good, and a little piano and drums.
I can sing ok on some things and not bad on others...
I listen to a very wide variety of music, though at the moment its mainly ambient-trance, 70's hard rock or whatever they play on the Jazz station at night.
When I first started hearing the "buzz" about Pharell, etc I wasn't too impressed.
"Happy"? It should be called "Boring"...
Regardless, I think this ruling is a complete fucking joke.
If you think that song sounds like the Marvin Gaye tune, you've got your head way up your ass.
Ridiculous!
Rhythmically there is some resemblance, but that is a reach.
I imagine if you sit and listen long enough and try to rationalize a close enough resemblance to award some douche bags some money though they didn't do a fucking thing to deserve it(except the lawyers of course) then go ahead and award them.
The jury here are complete idiots IMHO.
copyright 101 - edx course on the music business (Score:3)
BerkleeX: BCM-MB110x Introduction to the Music Business - goes into great detail on the in's and out's of proving copyright infringement (taught by John P. Kellogg, Esq - you might be able to access the archived course)
Basically you need to satisfy three requirements 1. actually have a copyright (easy if you filed correctly), 2. prior access to the work (harder to prove), and 3. substantial similarity (one for the musicologists and then the jury).
most copyright infringement claims are settled out of court (e.g. "I Want a New Drug" vs "Ghostbusters"). A big factor in so many settlements is that you can be ordered to pay court costs if you lose and that juries are never a sure thing (but that is just my opinion)
I don't have an opinion on this specific case - but I will defend the concept of the copyright as crucial to the "creative" industry
in the "duck and run" category this case has my attention ... [npr.org]
Creativity Boost (Score:3)
similarity BAD...variety good. (Score:3)
> record labels are going to become more reluctant to release music that's similar to other works
This is stated like it's a bad thing.
This is NOT a bad thing.
Re:Weird Al.... (Score:5, Informative)
Weird Al is safe for two reasons:
1) He gets permission from every artist prior to doing a parody, despite the fact that he doesn't really need to because...
2) US Copyright law makes specific mention of parody as fair use. Some parody is subtle, but Al's is broad and obvious. I would like to see a lawyer try to argue his works are not parody.
Re:Weird Al.... (Score:4, Informative)
Gaye v. Yankovic (Score:3)
He gets permission from every artist prior to doing a parody
Yankovic got permission from Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke for "Word Crimes", not from the Gaye estate.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks Pharrell.
Re: (Score:2)
Then he's leaving a lot of money on the table. The theory is an infinite number of monkeys, not 1000.
of course it was (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
except his (IMHO utterly horrible) animals track copied about 3 other tracks. Electronic music in general would completely dissappear since everyone takes little bits and pieces from everyone else. House(funky especially) has been my goto genre for 15 years or more now, but they really just cant sue each other or they would all go down in flames. Hell 1/3 of all songs relesed in the past 5 years could be taken down by eric prydz for sampling his pryda snare hit straight from his track (it would be a straig