Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music The Courts

'Music Copyright Lawsuits Are Scaring Away New Hits', Argues Rolling Stone (rollingstone.com) 132

Posted by EditorDavid from the can-stop-the-music dept.
A new article in Rolling Stone argues that the forgotten 2013 hit song "Blurred Lines", which a court later ruled infringed on a 1977 song by Marvin Gaye, turned copyright law into "a minefield" -- for the music industry.
While copyright laws used to protect only lyrics and melodies (a prime example is the Chiffons' successful suit against George Harrison in 1976 for the strong compositional similarities between his "My Sweet Lord" and their "He's So Fine"), the "Blurred Lines" case raised the stakes by suggesting that the far more abstract qualities of rhythm, tempo, and even the general feel of a song are also eligible for protection -- and thus that a song can be sued for feeling like an earlier one. Sure enough, a jury in 2019 ruled that Katy Perry owed millions for ostensibly copying the beat of her hit "Dark Horse" from a little-known song by Christian rapper Flame, stunning both the music business and the legal community. "They're trying to own basic building blocks of music, the alphabet of music that should be available to everyone," Perry's lawyer Christine Lepera warned in the case's closing arguments.

That case, which Perry's team is currently in the process of appealing, suggests a second point: Plaintiffs in copycat cases are largely targeting megahit songs because they've seen where the money is, and the increasing frequency of those court battles in headlines is causing an avalanche effect of further infringement lawsuits.... While some record labels may have the budget to hire on-call musicologists who vet new releases for potential copyright claims, smaller players who can't afford that luxury are turning toward a tried-and-true form of protection: insurance. Lucas Keller -- the founder of music management company Milk and Honey, which represents writers and producers who've worked with everyone from Alessia Cara and Carrie Underwood to 5 Seconds of Summer and Muse -- recently began encouraging all his songwriter clients to purchase errors-and-omissions insurance, which protects creative professionals from legal challenges to their intellectual property. "We all feel like the system has failed us," Keller says. "There are a lot of aggressive lawyers filing lawsuits and going ham on people." (He's particularly critical of publishers whose rosters are heavier on older catalogs than new acts: "Heritage publishers who aren't making a lot of money are coming out of the woodwork and saying, âWe're going to take a piece of your contemporary hit....'â") Artists are understandably reluctant to publicly disclose that they have copyright insurance, which could open them up to an increase in lawsuits. But music attorney Bob Celestin, who's helped represent acts like Pusha T and Missy Elliott, says it is safe to assume that the majority of artists who show up in Top 10 chart positions are covered in this way...

The popularity of cheap music-production software, which offers the same features to every user, has added another layer of risk. "Music is now more similar than it is different, for the first time," says Ross Golan, a producer and songwriter who has released songs with stars like Ariana Grande and Justin Bieber. "People are using the same sample packs, the same plug-ins, because it's efficient."

Then there's the issue of the finite number of notes, chord progressions, and melodies available...
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Music Copyright Lawsuits Are Scaring Away New Hits', Argues Rolling Stone More

'Music Copyright Lawsuits Are Scaring Away New Hits', Argues Rolling Stone

Comments Filter:

  • Live by the sword, die by the sword. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bistromath007 ( 1253428 ) on Sunday January 12, 2020 @11:51PM (#59614328)

    I hope the music industry continues to be forcefed its own bullshit for many years to come.

    • Re:Live by the sword, die by the sword. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Freischutz ( 4776131 ) on Monday January 13, 2020 @03:04AM (#59614574)

      I hope the music industry continues to be forcefed its own bullshit for many years to come.

      The music industry?The music industry, whatever its other problems may be, isn't ruling in these cases, the courts are. Is there a more litigious nation out there than the USA? The problem here is that the US court system allows for people to turn the practice of launching a blizzard of frivolous lawsuits into a business model and the cost of appealing these cases all the way up the chain to some high court is not helping. The courts and the lawyers can go choke on their own bullshit. How the hell can the "general feel of a song" be eligible for copyright protection? How do you quantify and measure "general feel"? ... the last time I looked courts were about facts.

      • American courts never really cared about facts, only the presentation of said "facts" matters. If you can use your "facts" to paint the other guy as a criminal, you win. Case in point, every wrongfully accused person put in jail ever.
        • If some lawyer convinced the supreme court that pi is 3 then as far as every court in the US is concerned pi is 3.

          • If some lawyer convinced the supreme court that pi is 3 then as far as every court in the US is concerned pi is 3.

            If the Supreme Court were to rule that the Constitution says that 1+1=3 or that black people are property, then that's the law of the land without any appeal or argument. There is no check on anything the Supreme Court says, aside from future Supreme Court rulings or impeachment. Why does the Supreme Court have such unchecked powers? Because they ruled that the Constitution says so.

            • If some lawyer convinced the supreme court that pi is 3 then as far as every court in the US is concerned pi is 3.

              If the Supreme Court were to rule that the Constitution says that 1+1=3 or that black people are property, then that's the law of the land without any appeal or argument. There is no check on anything the Supreme Court says, aside from future Supreme Court rulings or impeachment. Why does the Supreme Court have such unchecked powers? Because they ruled that the Constitution says so.

              Technically, the US Bill of Rights provides for unspecified rights "retained by the people" under the 9th Amendment, and "reserved to the people" under the 10th Amendment. By definition, such rights can not be taken away by ANY entity of government, individually or collectively, including the Supreme Court - and all government executives, lawyers, and law enforcement personnel sworn oaths to recognize this.

              The problem is that the US legal profession has a massive ethical conflict of interest with respect to

              • If some lawyer convinced the supreme court that pi is 3 then as far as every court in the US is concerned pi is 3.

                If the Supreme Court were to rule that the Constitution says that 1+1=3 or that black people are property, then that's the law of the land without any appeal or argument. There is no check on anything the Supreme Court says, aside from future Supreme Court rulings or impeachment. Why does the Supreme Court have such unchecked powers? Because they ruled that the Constitution says so.

                Technically, the US Bill of Rights provides for unspecified rights "retained by the people" under the 9th Amendment, and "reserved to the people" under the 10th Amendment. By definition, such rights can not be taken away by ANY entity of government, individually or collectively, including the Supreme Court - and all government executives, lawyers, and law enforcement personnel sworn oaths to recognize this.

                I might agree with you, and the Founding Fathers might agree with you, but our opinions about what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights mean are trumped by what the Supreme Court says. The words in the Constitution including amendments are clear in terms of their spelling. However, the meanings of the words are different for different people. Only the opinions of the nine Supreme Court justices (actually only the ones in the majority on a particular ruling) carry enough weight to trump all other opini

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sjames ( 1099 )

        The Music industry is the bratty children that think everything is theirs and the courts are the over indulgent parents that have long neglected to give them the sorely needed "NO!".

    • Change to 13 notes per octave. That way, all new music will be different.

      • And someone will pretend it's their original idea and sue everyone once it starts being used.

        I am curious what it would sound like though. Are there some examples available?

        I found this article interesting "How did Western music settle on a 12 note scale" ( https://microtonal.miraheze.or... [miraheze.org] ) It says, "You can compose in any number of equal notes per octave."

        • The harmonic sequence is pretty funamental. Interestingly, it contains the flat 7. The universe wants us to play the blues, apparently.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Mal-2 ( 675116 )

            The harmonic 7th doesn't align well with the 12-ET scale at all. C to Bb = 1000 cents, but a harmonic 7th = 959 cents. That's a massive discrepancy, and the simplest option would be to grant limited use of quarter-tones. This wouldn't screw up any music that exists and doesn't expect them to be there, but provides a reasonably good harmonic 7th.

            Or you can do adaptive tuning, as I have [bandcamp.com], and compromise purity of melodic intervals to achieve harmonic purity.

    • The music industry is just fine. The problem is the *recording* industry.

    • > I hope the music industry continues to be forcefed its own bullshit for many years to come.

      So we'll have to wait for this government to collapse to have good music again? I don't want to wait nine years.

    • the industry created the issue but it is perpetuated by the copyright and patent systems.

  • Snake Eating its Tail (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dayze!Confused ( 717774 ) <slashdot,org&ohyonghao,com> on Sunday January 12, 2020 @11:51PM (#59614330) Homepage Journal

    So the industry has finally began to collapse on itself. It sniffed out what it thought was food and is now the snake eating its own tail.

    • Re:Snake Eating its Tail (Score:4, Insightful)

      by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Monday January 13, 2020 @12:31AM (#59614396) Journal

      No, this is working as planned.

      No need to seek out exciting new artists before the competition finds them. Just keep on publishing the same old dross.

      Especially in the new world where people only rent music (streaming services), it's much cheaper to keep pushing out the same old dross and not worry about new dross.

      The whole idea of new artists bypassing traditional publishers using cloud services to make their names and bring in money just got dealt a huge blow.

      • When we factor in the news from earlier this month that works produced by an AI are copyrightable, it becomes straightforward to have a copyright on a few good chords and then start autogenerating music -- the frequencies that humans can hear are rather finite -- and eventually, someone will have an indefinite claim on all music. I'm betting on Disney.

      • Re:Snake Eating its Tail (Score:5, Insightful)

        by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Monday January 13, 2020 @03:15AM (#59614594) Journal
        Yes... snub the music companies and you can expect to deal with lawyers instead, if you dare to hit it big without them.
        Copyright needs to be brought to serve the goal for which it is ostensibly being sold to us: to foster abundance. And yes, that includes rules to ensure that creators can make a buck... but that's only a means, not an end.

    • I'm gonna copyright the key of Emin while it's still up for grabs, that'll make me a fortune!

      It seems like we're working our way there at this rate. As a musician, I certainly get the need for copyright, but it's gone off the rails with litigation.
      We need to slap some restrictions on litigation in this country (US); music isn't the only thing it's ruining.

  • Writing (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dog-Cow ( 21281 ) on Monday January 13, 2020 @12:08AM (#59614374)

    If authors were subjected to these kinds of suits, whole genres of fiction would dry up overnight.

    • Re:Writing (Score:4, Interesting)

      by war4peace ( 1628283 ) on Monday January 13, 2020 @02:30AM (#59614546)

      Here's an interesting thing, happened to me personally.
      25 years ago when I was in college, I wrote short SF stories, 50-ish of them. I never thought about publishing them, I was just writing for my own entertainment, because I felt like creating some literature. Years later I was reading Isaac Asimov short stories and realized one of them was strikingly similar to one I had written. The number of characters (three plus one), the place where the story took place (in a bar), even the writing style (humor-fantasy), they all were the same. I had previously read Asimov books but not that short story specifically. It was a weird moment, made me think of how literary influence could prompt someone to unknowingly write something that had been written before.

      I also saw this in music, but on the other side of the spectrum, several times I was listening to metal songs which had parts with great similitude to, say, popular Romanian children's songs or traditional music. I don't believe it was intentional plagiarism, more likely freak coincidence. One example is a song by MONO, Inc, which has parts similar to Gary Schiman's "Praan" song, which itself is a Westernized adaptation of "Bojre Tomar Baje Bashi". Now, I don't believe MONO, Inc actively attempted to plagiarize anything, most likely the tune stuck in Martin Engler's head and made its way into the song itself without them realizing.

      So should they be sued, for example, in this case? I don't think they should, but it's why I haven't named the MONO, Inc. song here. Don't want anyone to get ideas.

      • Re:Writing (Score:5, Insightful)

        by The1stImmortal ( 1990110 ) on Monday January 13, 2020 @03:40AM (#59614628)

        As I understand copyright, independent creation isn't a copyright violation. In theory, your story's similarity to Asimov's is a mere coincidence. Same with music.
        If there's any kind of traceable link from one to the other though, then you can be held for copyright violation. The sheer mass-media prevalence of popular music leads to a defacto presumption of prior exposure. That is, because corporate music is absolutely everywhere, the burden to prove a composer had heard the track they're accused of infringing before is really quite low.

        • As I understand copyright, independent creation isn't a copyright violation. In theory, your story's similarity to Asimov's is a mere coincidence. Same with music.
          If there's any kind of traceable link from one to the other though, then you can be held for copyright violation.

          That's the catch... how do you reliably separate the former (coincidence) from the latter (plagiarism)?
          Say I would have published my short stories, and then someone would have said "hey, that story is plagiarized from Isaac Asimov", would anyone have believed my explanation?
          Most times there is no traceable link except similarity. This songs sounds like that song, this piece of writing has similarities to that piece of writing. Inferring plagiarism is easy if you got to that point.

          • how do you reliably separate the former (coincidence) from the latter (plagiarism)?

            Well, really, you can't. However, lawyers have their own ideas of what such things entail, their own tests and standards and rules for working it out.
            As for whether you'd be believed, I have no idea.

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by syn3rg ( 530741 )

              how do you reliably separate the former (coincidence) from the latter (plagiarism)?

              Well, really, you can't. However, lawyers have their own ideas of what such things entail, their own tests and standards and rules for working it out. As for whether you'd be believed, I have no idea.

              LAWYER: If I can get paid it's plagiarism. Otherwise it's coincidence.

          • "...how do you reliably separate the former (coincidence) from the latter (plagiarism)?..."

            Document everything. When I write or do computerized artwork I backup daily files separately. So by the end I have every single step I took to make the story/artwork. This way I have a timeline showing the process I went through to achieve the final piece.

            If something does inspire me, I keep a reference of it (picture, article, whatever). So if there is any question I can say, "Here's how I got from here-to-here."

            When

            • I fail to see how it would work for my example above. The very idea is similar. No matter how much I would have documented it, one could have argued I took it from Asimov's short story, which was published decades before I wrote mine.

              • True, except it would show your line of thinking while creating the work. This would go a long way to proving you actually put some of your own thought into the story.

                In fact, a good example of what I'm talking about is from the movie Working Girl. At the end Griffith and Ford show a whole folder full of clippings which helped explain how Griffith was the one who came up with an original idea. Rather than Weaver who tried to take credit but couldn't explain where her supposed inspiration came from. Here's t

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by sjames ( 1099 )

              And it all goes out the window when the plaintiff claims "sub-conscious influence" and that while your early drafts were quite different your final draft was definitely copied from more famous (and richer) artist.

              And due to legal fees, even if you win, you lose.

          • That line of ambiguity costs a non-trivial amount of $$$ to defend. It is in this line that Katy Perry, et al find themselves defending their creativity because as was earlier pointed out, and is expounded upon in much literature

            there's nothing new under the sun.

            Human creativity is fueled by the experiences of human history. People I've never interacted with, never read, nor even heard of are influencing my authoring of this post. Regardless of how far removed these people are from my personal experience, a line can be drawn from me,

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sjames ( 1099 )

          The problem is that the courts and well paid lawyers are more than happy to entertain any wild theory of a traceable link including mere probabilities without evidence That leaves the defendant trying to prove a negative (good luck with that!).

      • ... Years later I was reading Isaac Asimov short stories and realized one of them was strikingly similar to one I had written...

        If you were a music company you'd be tring to sue the Asimov estate for preemptive damages or some shit, and you'd probably win.

        As for the music thing check out this song (Full Scale - Feel it) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] and tell me thats not the bass line from dr who. I said about it on their forums years ago and they were like.....shit, we never realised. So it doesn't have to be obscure stuff

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Mal-2 ( 675116 )

        When Rush (RIP Neil Peart) incorporated "Powerhouse" into "La Villa Strangiato", they eventually got sued -- and lost. Raymond Scott is now listed as a co-composer of, and gets royalties from, "La Villa Strangiato". They didn't realize at the time that the tune was anything more than an old meme, basically. That doesn't matter, they still quoted it and were still liable for it. This was understandable, as "we didn't know it was still under copyright" could very easily be gamed if it was an excuse. But the p

      • Just out of curiosity does the date appear in any of your writing? If so you have a fun case on your hands.

  • Science Fiction called it (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PSVMOrnot ( 885854 ) on Monday January 13, 2020 @12:08AM (#59614376)
    See: Melancholy Elephants by Spider Robinson [spiderrobinson.com]

    • While at university studying computer science and engineering I took piano lessons to fulfill a general education requirement. As this was my first real exposure to playing any instrument I got a quick lesson on music theory and history before starting hitting keys. This started with the keys on the piano, there are 88 keys, 7 octaves, 12 notes per octave, and how they were indicated as notes on a page. The concept of chords was touched on but that really came later in the course.

      As a bit of an aside the

      • I recall hearing a sample of ancient Greek music in school and it sounded... Bad. And this is coming from someone that listens to a lot of "weird" music.

        "Just Intonation" also sounds very interesting, (look it up on Wikipedia) and not as grating as the ancient Greek. I haven't heard much music made using it, but certain Aphex Twin has incorporated it at times. I'd be interested in hearing more if anyone can recommend some.

        Claude Debussy's compositions sound very interesting to me but he's using the classica

  • Not like it all isn't already.

    Weird Al didn't seem to have any problems.

  • It happens because we learn by rote (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AxisOfPleasure ( 5902864 ) on Monday January 13, 2020 @12:16AM (#59614384)

    In order to learn to play music you have to learn how it's made, you have to learn lots of previous songs in order to expand your repatoire before you begin to see how it works and start writing your own music. It's inevitable that with all that copying while you learn how music works, that some of it is going to seep back into your own work.

    The problem is that now the line between blatent copying and inadvertant strong influences is now so blurred that lawyers, being the vultures they are, have just poured in and started milking it for all they can. Some of the cases are reliant on such subjective and flimsy evidence that it's worth the risk for the huge payoff that might result if they win.

    The world of commercial music has been in decline for many years but pretty soon I can imagine songwriters in the mainstream pop world will simply be raiding the public domain libraries for riffs and hooks they know they can't be sued for using, watch out for a dozen different variations of "Twinle Twinkel Little Star", which itself was ripped of by Mozart from an original French song from the 1600s.

    • Well. Time to start listening to the garage band down the street and maybe making your own. SoundCloud has a lot of independents as well. Not much money in suing them.
       
      Thank God there's still one... ONE independent FM station I can pick up (I live in one of the 5 most populous cities in the US)... and an almost endless trove of 50s thru early 2000s back catalog to go through...

  • Except (Score:4, Funny)

    by presearch ( 214913 ) on Monday January 13, 2020 @12:46AM (#59614410)

    Nobody is copying Rush songs.

  • Only so many songs we can write (Score:3)

    by Rick Schumann ( 4662797 ) on Monday January 13, 2020 @12:53AM (#59614422) Journal
    The TV and movie industry has seen this too: only so many new ideas. With music, only so many ways you can write a song. Someone who never heard another song their entire life is at measurable risk of writing something that someone will come along and say "sounds like such-and-such that so-and-so wrote".
    • Alternatively, TV and movie people who hear a story or a song they like and steal it have been put on notice that they can't pull that crap any more. One of the things we've realized is just how un-creative the powerful ones at the top are. They can't live except by parasitism.

      • Re:Only so many songs we can write (Score:5, Interesting)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 ) <slashdot AT worf DOT net> on Monday January 13, 2020 @04:34AM (#59614706)

        Alternatively, TV and movie people who hear a story or a song they like and steal it have been put on notice that they can't pull that crap any more. One of the things we've realized is just how un-creative the powerful ones at the top are. They can't live except by parasitism.

        It's already happened. There's a reason why no one accepts unsolicited submissions anymore. They all require you to go through approved channels if you want to submit a script, screenplay, treatment or anything. Unsolicited works get returned still sealed. So TV and movies will only "pull" solicitations through authorized channels - either through sites and places where people can submit works, or through approved agents.

        Incidentally, you know those really short descriptions you see on TV listings and such? They're called loglines, and basically in around a tweet's worth of characters (you usually get between 100-200 characters), you have to describe your work. They're important, because when you submit your work (either through a broker, agent or aggregation site), that logline is all the studios get to see if they want to see your work. There's an art to writing those to appeal and succinctly tell your story - you want to stick out as an interesting story to produce, but you also don't want to give it all away (they are effectively viewable to everyone and must be generic enough that someone else who sees it can't write the same story you wrote).

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by dryeo ( 100693 )

      Read a short story whose name escapes me, set in the fucked up future. Main character was tested positively for musical talent at birth, put in a cabin in the bush with basically no contact with others and a keyboard to make sure he didn't infringe copyright. Someone heard him and played some commercial music to him. No more playing music for him and the rest of the story was society making sure he didn't play music,lost his tongue, fingers and eyes eventually.

  • The fashion industry eclipses the music industry by more than a magnitude (that's more than 10x ). Sources: https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com] https://www.statista.com/outlo... [statista.com] How can that be? Fashion has NO copyright protection! That's the reason why e.g. Louis Vuitton prints their logo (which is a trademark) on all their goods. How it works, see here: https://www.ted.com/talks/joha... [ted.com] In conclusion: Ask your lawmakers to end copyright for music! It works for fashion, it will work for music. Keep the la

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dryeo ( 100693 )

      I thought there was a movement to expand copyright to fashion,
      The copyright office calls it design protection and it is sort of under consideration and has been for quite a while, https://www.copyright.gov/docs... [copyright.gov] Here's the copyright alliance's take on it, some things can be copyrighted, sketches, designs on the clothes, other things can get a design patent like Apple did with its rounded corners and other things are not copyright-able like colour or cut. https://copyrightalliance.org/... [copyrightalliance.org]

      • Of course the lawyers will want to expand the size of the pie...

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dryeo ( 100693 )

          Traditionally it has been the publishers that have lobbied for expanding the pie, always arguing it is for the artists even though they usually rip the artists off. Not sure how publisher translates into the fashion industry, likely poorly which is the reason that they don't have copyright already.

    • You also can't copyright a recipe. But companies have found a way around that and call them 'trade secrets'.

    • That's the reason why e.g. Louis Vuitton prints their logo (which is a trademark) on all their goods.

      Jason Derulo uses the same technique in his music.

  • Don't have to tell me it's out of control (Score:4, Funny)

    by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Monday January 13, 2020 @01:22AM (#59614454)

    A year or two ago I was destroying an old rotten piano with a sledgehammer. A week later, I received a "cease and desist" from the estate of Olivier Messiaen!

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by MrKaos ( 858439 )

      A year or two ago I was destroying an old rotten piano with a sledgehammer. A week later, I received a "cease and desist" from the estate of Olivier Messiaen!

      The difference between a banjo and a trampoline is that you take your shoes *off* to jump on a trampoline.

  • WTF.. E&O used to be a necessary insurance for notary publics and attorneys. It covered errors or omissions that were not obvious or short of obvious due diligence.

      How the heck would an insured expect an insurer to protect marketing of derived content that's copyrighted. There's never an error, it's always an overt act. I bet it's even more difficult to get them to pay a claim that to provide the derived content isn't protected.

  • Listen carefully (Score:3)

    by johannesg ( 664142 ) on Monday January 13, 2020 @02:15AM (#59614530)

    ...and you'll hear the world's smallest violin, playing the world's saddest song.

    I can't wait for copyright to be extended to 210 years. Suddenly all those Disney movies will be infringing copyright of the brothers Grimm. I'm sure there must be some descendants kicking around still...

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Agreed. A little known part of the last copyright fiasco which extended Disney's copyright... A provision saying copyright holders who sold their rights within the past five years would still get royalties.

        This was because, seeing the writing on the wall, a lot of companies were buying properties left and right. Thinking little used properties could be bought dirt cheap. And it would be theirs for eternity.

        These contracts clearly said royalties would be paid, "as the law allows." Meaning: If the law changed

  • there's a finite number of chord progressions you can fit in a reasonable beat and 3 minutes running time. even less because what you're looking for is just a block of 10 seconds and how it goes with the beat.

    so when is someone just going to make a program that iterates through them and uploads them into youtube as prior art ?

  • Copyright has to die (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nospam007 ( 722110 ) * on Monday January 13, 2020 @03:33AM (#59614620)

    It has gone too far.
    I watched Youtube videos this weekend and several of them (some in-car videos and living-rooms) and when visitors wanted to turn on the radio, the voice-over said they couldn't do that, because otherwise the video would be removed by the content mafia.

    • Mafia is an apt analogy. They have the highest profit margins imaginable yet they can't be arsed to hire people to manually review each video to determine whether it's real violation or someone just had a radio on. Instead they automatically takedown or capture monetization based strictly on automated matching, no review. For "industry" that makes billions that looks like blatant laziness combined with greed.

    • Funny idea: Someone mentioned if you ever make a sex tape to have the radio blaring.

      This way if it's uploaded the music company will make sure it's removed. :D

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Pikoro ( 844299 )

      I had a video like that. Recording a product demo, and there was a radio running in the background, almost inaudible. The video was flagged and the "copyright holder" of the song on the radio decided to monetize MY video because it contained about 10 seconds of their audio. I disputed the infringement and it was denied. I therefore removed the audio from that portion of the video. Fuck them.

  • Oh... I though the ones who said that were "The" Rolling Stones... those who stole "Better Sweet Symphony" and all the money it generated and removed the original lyricist as creator and the original creator...

    Sure thing, Rolling Stone (newspaper) you must congratulate current music industry to "The" Rolling Stones.

  • Make all music free, strip it of all value, problem solved.
    I'm sure they'll find other interesting way to steal money from out wallets instead.

    • Sure thing, all the musicians who spent years learning and practicing their instrument and thousands of dollars on their gear, often sacrificing creature comforts or job security for their art, well, screw them, I guess?
      Granted, that doesn't describe every musician out there, it's a more romantic notion, but in many cases it's accurate. Lot of bands lived out of vans or dives for years before making it big. Take this out on the record label execs if you want, but stop asking for free shit.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sad_ ( 7868 )

        make the music free, get your income from somewhere else.
        t-shirts & other merchandize, concerts, etc.

  • People keep saying this shit but when pressed, it's revealed they listen to coke fiends like Whitney Houston, or shitheads like Beyonce, who just shakes her tits at a camera and shrieks "ALL THE SINGLE LADIES ALL THE SINGLE LADIES" which is cleaned up in editing. The music industry is selling pretty faces, not lyric and rhythm. If it relies on a pretty face, don't give it your attention, and the problem will solve itself.
  • The world is fucked if you can't make a song without being sued. Fuck a world like that. Do you want to live in a world like that? What would you do if you found yourself living in a world like that? Nothing? OK. That's why we live in a world like that.

  • Singer Songwriter here (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MrKaos ( 858439 ) on Monday January 13, 2020 @08:04AM (#59615150) Journal

    I've got 18 songs with my band and they're all originals.

    Between trademarks, massive contracts and people in the music industry it's hard to look at it and not think the whole thing is self destructing. When I read the contracts they want you to sign I can't help thinking how fucked musicians usually are if they don't understand how to read them. Consider that, contractually, when a musician records on a music industry advance they don't own the recordings they produce, yet they have to pay back all of the money. Now I can understand paying back the money, but not owning the rights to something you end up paying to produce, how is that fair? Imagine having to pay back someone for the computer you wrote some game on and then they own your source code. It looks like a lot of musicians didn't defend their rights by negotiation seeing how bad things are getting.

    A few years ago the record industry wanted a cut on that artist's merchandise sold at shows, which was traditionally the way musicians made some money. If you bought a Tee Shirt, you really were supporting the band but not any more, the label wants a cut. Musicians are still being contractually ripped off for a label *NOT* printing *CD* inserts and all sorts of craziness I saw in these contracts. There is a huge amount of legal contracts you have to get your head around if you don't want to get ripped off.

    The music industry is again muscling in on Artist revenue, this time they're going directly for royalties, the money the artists get paid - if they get the success they were working for all along, that is. No word on if the music industry will refund all the punters for a copy right infringing song they made a wad of cash on. No wonder they evoke despise, that's how they reward people that created the music they build their careers on.

    So musicians have to become experts in copyright law as well as music if they want to be successful. It would seem that the music industry has a problem with bringing original music to be enculturated, so what is their purpose now? Culture squatting banal legal and insurance fees out of every original thought an artist has?

    I hope this is the thing that makes them all collapse.

  • "publishers whose rosters are heavier on older catalogs than new acts: "

    Because there is a lot more older music than newer music...

    Hard to pick a side in this argument, everyone involved is trying to take full advantage of the others. And us.

  • Symptom of a bigger issue (Score:4, Insightful)

    by VeryFluffyBunny ( 5037285 ) on Monday January 13, 2020 @10:11AM (#59615532)

    This is a symptom of a bigger issue, i.e. new intellectual property laws, biased interpretation of old laws, & governments promoting the idea that ideas can be owned in perpetuity by an elite "rentier class": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org],

    This is being coordinated & forced upon us on a global scale by WIPO: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

    If you're a critical thinker, this signals the beginning of the end of creativity &, according to Nietzche, when we kill off creativity, we kill off our futures.

    If you like a good read, I recommend this book. "The Corruption of Capitalism: Why rentiers thrive and work does not pay": https://www.bitebackpublishing... [bitebackpublishing.com]

    If you're one of those Looney Christian Capitalist(TM) types, perhaps this will persuade you:

    "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." -- Ecclesiastes 1:9

    i.e. It's impossible to be truly original. All creativity is born out of what has come before. If we don't allow people to be influenced by prior ideas & use them, then no new ideas can be created.

    More specifically to music, in the UK they have a saying in the music business, "Where there's a hit, there's a writ." i.e. As soon as you put out a successful song, you'll get legal claims against it. It's much easier to sue musicians than to write popular music.

  • It seems to me that the music industry should go back to finding creative music rather than resting on its laurels and 'manufacturing' music based on the same old formula. Human ingenuity has been taken out of the mix and music is written more and more based on the 'do what worked before' method.
  • couldn't you just write a computer program that made every possible song possible? Sure, it'd be huge, but it seems doable. Seems I wasn't the first to have the idea [spiderrobinson.com]. Guess I'll get sued for copyright infringement now...

Slashdot Top Deals

One good suit is worth a thousand resumes.

Close