Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 08-01-2019, 10:32 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odesio View Post
When was the standard ever that there was direct proof that a musician ripped off another song?
Copying must be proven in order to establish copyright infringement. Proof can be direct or indirect, but the law requires a finding of copying.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #52  
Old 08-01-2019, 10:34 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Translucent Daydream View Post
So am I, I am also a ASCAP member and publisher. and I also am a part owner of a record label. This is bad news IMHO. If the burden of proof isn't there that it was directly plagiarized
This is a copyright infringement case. Plagiarism is not an issue.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.

Last edited by Acsenray; 08-01-2019 at 10:35 PM.
  #53  
Old 08-01-2019, 11:14 PM
Go_Arachnid_Laser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by enalzi View Post
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I have no idea what the "whoop whoop whoop" is you're referring to.
Right, so you know where there's background singers gong "Hey! Hey! Hey!" in Dark Horse, perticularly in the rapped segment?

https://youtu.be/0KSOMA3QBU0?t=143

Same thing happens with Joyful Noise.

blob:https://youtu.be/QCcW-guAs_s?t=37

I don't know if there's a name for this. I call it "Whooping".

And again, going "Hey!" is not original in either song. But coincidences are starting to pile up here.

Last edited by Go_Arachnid_Laser; 08-01-2019 at 11:16 PM.
  #54  
Old 08-02-2019, 05:39 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
Cite? Your link doesn't discuss plagiarism.
Well, OP? Are you capable of addressing this?
  #55  
Old 08-02-2019, 05:41 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Crime pays: So she'll use the money she got from this crime to fight being held responsible for this crime.

What an awesome justice system the US has!
None of what you describe or quote is a "crime".
  #56  
Old 08-02-2019, 06:05 AM
Go_Arachnid_Laser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go_Arachnid_Laser View Post
And again, going "Hey!" is not original in either song. But coincidences are starting to pile up here.
And now that I've linked those parts of the song, I just noticed a fourth "coincidence". The part in Dark Horse where they suddenly lower Juicy J's pitch when he says "There's no going back? Well, guess who also ends up a phrase by doing exactly that.

Again, I'm sure there's hundreds of songs using that particular audio trick... but there you go.
  #57  
Old 08-02-2019, 06:18 AM
Richard Pearse is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 10,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go_Arachnid_Laser View Post
And now that I've linked those parts of the song, I just noticed a fourth "coincidence". The part in Dark Horse where they suddenly lower Juicy J's pitch when he says "There's no going back? Well, guess who also ends up a phrase by doing exactly that.

Again, I'm sure there's hundreds of songs using that particular audio trick... but there you go.
Try comparing a couple of blues songs and see how you get on.
  #58  
Old 08-02-2019, 06:26 AM
Go_Arachnid_Laser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Pearse View Post
Try comparing a couple of blues songs and see how you get on.
Oh, bluesmen copied each other all the time. Like constantly. And they were basically just a guy and a guitar, and still kept copying musical tricks from each other.

You... you think they all made so much similar stuff independently? That it all was a giant coincidence?
  #59  
Old 08-02-2019, 06:45 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go_Arachnid_Laser View Post
Oh, bluesmen copied each other all the time. Like constantly. And they were basically just a guy and a guitar, and still kept copying musical tricks from each other.

You... you think they all made so much similar stuff independently? That it all was a giant coincidence?
The question is what parts of a song are considered the protected creative element and what parts are considered the common tools of music craft and genre.

In the link given above to Rick Beato’s Vlog, he puts forth the common belief that “the song,” that is, the thing you can’t copy, is the melody and lyrics.

In this case, the plaintiff’s song has no melody, because it’s a rap, so the only thing that’s left is the lyrics, which’s aren’t similar to the accused work.

This is actually a big deal in the music world—where do you draw the line and still give songmakers enough leeway to participate in the market for new songs and use musical elements in the ways that they’re accustomed.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #60  
Old 08-02-2019, 06:52 AM
Go_Arachnid_Laser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
The question is what parts of a song are considered the protected creative element and what parts are considered the common tools of music craft and genre.

In the link given above to Rick Beato’s Vlog, he puts forth the common belief that “the song,” that is, the thing you can’t copy, is the melody and lyrics.

In this case, the plaintiff’s song has no melody, because it’s a rap, so the only thing that’s left is the lyrics, which’s aren’t similar to the accused work.

This is actually a big deal in the music world—where do you draw the line and still give songmakers enough leeway to participate in the market for new songs and use musical elements in the ways that they’re accustomed.
Which is a very interesting discussion. Should Doctor Luke or Max Martin or whoever have the right to take the beat and several elements from Joyful Noise and do a song with them? That's a great subject.

But not the point I was making. The point I was arguing was in whether they did take those elements, or whether it's all a coincidence, like they claimed it to be in court. And I'm saying, there are more common points than just the beat, making it a simple coincidence impossible.
  #61  
Old 08-02-2019, 06:58 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Pearse View Post
Try comparing a couple of blues songs and see how you get on.
Bluesmen weren't making a million bucks, either. (Let alone Katy Perry money) Borrowing/sharing standard structures was no big deal. Try to make a bunch of money off of someone else's stuff, a la Led Zeppelin, and find yourself sued.
  #62  
Old 08-02-2019, 07:03 AM
Go_Arachnid_Laser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
In this case, the plaintiff’s song has no melody, because it’s a rap, so the only thing that’s left is the lyrics, which’s aren’t similar to the accused work.
By the way, there is a "melody" in the song Joyful Noise. In the last part of the song there's a terrible nu-metal band doing a few verses.

It's just not the part that was reused, because who would want to do that?
  #63  
Old 08-02-2019, 08:07 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,051
There are a heck of a lot more similarities than that, Go_Arachnid_Laser. Like, in both songs, all of the frequencies used are some power of the 12th root of 2, times 440 Hz. Out of all of the uncountably large number of possible frequencies, what are the chances that they'd both just happen to choose those? And both songs produce those frequencies through the vibrations of human vocal cords. All of the possible ways to produce sound frequencies, and they just happen to choose the same method?
  #64  
Old 08-02-2019, 08:18 AM
Go_Arachnid_Laser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
There are a heck of a lot more similarities than that, Go_Arachnid_Laser. Like, in both songs, all of the frequencies used are some power of the 12th root of 2, times 440 Hz. Out of all of the uncountably large number of possible frequencies, what are the chances that they'd both just happen to choose those? And both songs produce those frequencies through the vibrations of human vocal cords. All of the possible ways to produce sound frequencies, and they just happen to choose the same method?
So what you're saying is that you do believe it's a coincidence?
  #65  
Old 08-02-2019, 08:34 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
Well, OP? Are you capable of addressing this?
I should have just called them thieves. Is that better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
None of what you describe or quote is a "crime".
Oh, I should have used the word "offense".

Feel better now?

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 08-02-2019 at 08:36 AM.
  #66  
Old 08-02-2019, 08:39 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,051
Part of it is coincidence, and part of it is both songs working from the same structure of artistic conventions that nearly all songs in the Western world work from.
  #67  
Old 08-02-2019, 05:34 PM
Tinker Grey is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Greenville, Texas
Posts: 652
Adam Neely has posted a video (a good channel for music theory): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ytoUuO-qvg
  #68  
Old 08-02-2019, 06:01 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,580
And in that video, very early on, there are multiple works with snippets that are just as similar.

And again the lyricists were found liable. And others who would have had nothing to do with the riff. They literally couldn't have copied it, as they had nothing to do with it.

Thee are just opportunistic lawyers taking advantage of the fact that jurors cannot be experts on the subject matter. No evidence of actual copying was presented: it was inferred by taking advantage of the jury's lack of musical knowledge.

Horrible case, and it shouldn't matter if it was against someone you don't like. I'm not defending Dr. Luke, but the ability to write music. The copyright system is bad enough as is for music.
  #69  
Old 08-02-2019, 06:06 PM
Yookeroo's Avatar
Yookeroo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: San Clemente, California
Posts: 5,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go_Arachnid_Laser View Post
Which is a very interesting discussion. Should Doctor Luke or Max Martin or whoever have the right to take the beat and several elements from Joyful Noise and do a song with them?
Yes.
  #70  
Old 08-02-2019, 06:12 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,580
And note that my stuff about the jurors was said before watching the part at the end, where Adam instead goes after the Musicologist who made some very obviously false claims.
  #71  
Old 08-02-2019, 06:14 PM
Go_Arachnid_Laser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yookeroo View Post
Yes.
Right. So if you, for instance, made a song, and some rapper or EDM Dj took a riff from it and made another song with it, without giving you any credit, let alone any part of the royalties, you would be fine with that.
  #72  
Old 08-02-2019, 06:16 PM
Go_Arachnid_Laser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
And note that my stuff about the jurors was said before watching the part at the end, where Adam instead goes after the Musicologist who made some very obviously false claims.
I found that part actually intellectually dishonest. The musicologist wasn't claiming that Flame invented anything new: he was claiming that there were similarities between the two songs.
  #73  
Old 08-02-2019, 06:45 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yookeroo View Post
Could be. But even if they "stole" those similarities, give them a small piece of the songwriting credit. Like you would for using a small sample. At worst they took a couple small pieces of an existing song and incorporated it into a new song.
Sasmpling is theft; this was settled in the late '80s/early '90s. In most cases that are settled, the thief does have to credit the person they stole from, as well as pay them for the use of their work. This lawsuit ensures that both of those things will happen for this Katy Perry song as none of the people involved, or the giant mega-corporation that owns them all, was going to do it on their own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yookeroo View Post
This has been going on for hundreds or thousands of years.
That's a terrible metric to use to determine whether or not something is okay; would you like a list of things that were or have been going on for hundreds or thousands of years that are objectionable today?

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 08-02-2019 at 06:49 PM.
  #74  
Old 08-02-2019, 06:50 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go_Arachnid_Laser View Post
Right. So if you, for instance, made a song, and some rapper or EDM Dj took a riff from it and made another song with it, without giving you any credit, let alone any part of the royalties, you would be fine with that.
It's interesting that you say "took a riff." I would think that almost all songwriters and musicians would agree that a riff is a basic unit of music, and particularly certain genres of music, and no one that claim ownership of a riff.

Riffs are part of the building blocks of music. No one should be mad about someone else using a riff, any more than someone should be mad that another song also uses a major scale.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #75  
Old 08-02-2019, 06:54 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
It's interesting that you say "took a riff." I would think that almost all songwriters and musicians would agree that a riff is a basic unit of music, and particularly certain genres of music, and no one that claim ownership of a riff.

Riffs are part of the building blocks of music. No one should be mad about someone else using a riff, any more than someone should be mad that another song also uses a major scale.


That's crazy talk. You think you could play the main riff from, say, Smoke On The Water over and over in your song and not have everyone call you a thief?

Go dig up Greg Ham and ask him about that kind of thing.
  #76  
Old 08-02-2019, 06:54 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go_Arachnid_Laser View Post
Right. So if you, for instance, made a song, and some rapper or EDM Dj took a riff from it and made another song with it, without giving you any credit, let alone any part of the royalties, you would be fine with that.
Actually, when I read this again, I'm wondering if you are talking about sampling a recording rather than taking a riff from a song.

To be clear here, when we talk about music copyrights, there are two separate protected works--an underlying composition, which is called the "musical work," and a recording of a particular performance of a musical work, which is called a "sound recording."

This case was about infringing a musical work, a composition, not sampling a sound recording. Those are two different things.

Sampling a recording is infringing--it's a much easier case. Someone else's recording is not one of the basic building blocks of music. You can use a riff--just play it on your own instrument with your own hands. You can't swipe a piece of someone else's recording.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #77  
Old 08-02-2019, 07:03 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post


That's crazy talk.
Is it really?

Yes, some riffs are quite recognizable. Perhaps you might recognize the riff from ZZ Top's "La Grange." Do you think it would be crazy for someone else to use that riff?

How about If I told you that ZZ Top didn't come up with that riff? It goes back at least as far as John Lee Hooker's "Boogie Chillun."

It's been used in dozens and dozens of songs-- Norman Greenbaum's "Spirit in the Sky," Foghat's "Slow Ride," Chris Isaak's "Baby Did a Bad, Bad Thing," Goldfrapp's "Ooh La La," and on and on.

It would be crazy talk to take such a basic figure of music and give ownership to a single person.

I'm not a scholar of music, but I would expect that a musicologist could come up with more than one song that used the "Smoke on the Water" riff.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #78  
Old 08-02-2019, 07:04 PM
Go_Arachnid_Laser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
It's interesting that you say "took a riff." I would think that almost all songwriters and musicians would agree that a riff is a basic unit of music, and particularly certain genres of music, and no one that claim ownership of a riff.

Riffs are part of the building blocks of music. No one should be mad about someone else using a riff, any more than someone should be mad that another song also uses a major scale.
Oh, riffs are usually short, but that doesn't mean they can't be complex and unique combinations of a lot of notes.

Let me put it another way. A while back Portugal the Man had a fairly big hit with Feel it Still.
The chorus uses a variation of a fragment from 1961's Please, Mister Postman, by The Marvelettes. About ten notes.
Gourley did that on purpose because he liked the way it sounded. So he did "the right thing", told the record company to obtain the permissions and now the five writers of Please Mr. Postman are credited as co/writers of Feel It Still.
And I'm fine with that. I don't see why they shouldn't.
  #79  
Old 08-02-2019, 07:12 PM
Go_Arachnid_Laser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
This case was about infringing a musical work, a composition, not sampling a sound recording. Those are two different things.
Except they aren't that different, really.

Since the concept of the DJ as a creator in the late eighties, a lot of modern music is made of samples from other songs. Daft Punk, for instance, make their songs by sampling from old funk records. Sure, they lose some money to royalties, but that's what they like to do. Right? You use a sample from a record, you pay for it and that's that.

But then, there's the DJ's who think, 'Hey, why don't I recreate this sample in the studio with some minor variations? That way I don't have to give credit or pay squat.' And then it's not that simple.

Last edited by Go_Arachnid_Laser; 08-02-2019 at 07:13 PM.
  #80  
Old 08-02-2019, 07:35 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go_Arachnid_Laser View Post
Except they aren't that different, really.

Since the concept of the DJ as a creator in the late eighties, a lot of modern music is made of samples from other songs. Daft Punk, for instance, make their songs by sampling from old funk records. Sure, they lose some money to royalties, but that's what they like to do. Right? You use a sample from a record, you pay for it and that's that.

But then, there's the DJ's who think, 'Hey, why don't I recreate this sample in the studio with some minor variations? That way I don't have to give credit or pay squat.' And then it's not that simple.
You’re not saying much here. Sampling a recording is infringing. Period. easy case.

Taking elements from a song without sampling is a musical work infringement case. You have to figure out what exactly is the protected work. It’s the same as any other musical work case.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #81  
Old 08-02-2019, 07:45 PM
Go_Arachnid_Laser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
You’re not saying much here. Sampling a recording is infringing. Period. easy case.

Taking elements from a song without sampling is a musical work infringement case. You have to figure out what exactly is the protected work. It’s the same as any other musical work case.
Sure. But in this particular case, we're talking about a DJ (That would be Doctor Luke, in this particular case) using samples to create a song... and then "disguising" the fact that they used those samples.

In the recent case of Pharrell and Robin Thicke being found guilty of infringing upon the copyright of Marvin Gaye's Got to Give It Up, subpoenaed communications between Williams and Thicke talking about how they did use samples from Gaye's song to make Blurred Lines- and then recreated a similar.. what was the word...? a similar ostinato.

In the case of Dark Horse there was no such smoking gun- but there's striking similarities even beyond that riff to make it clear to me that the same exact thing happened.
  #82  
Old 08-02-2019, 07:49 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go_Arachnid_Laser View Post
Sure. But in this particular case, we're talking about a DJ (That would be Doctor Luke, in this particular case) using samples to create a song... and then "disguising" the fact that they used those samples.

In the recent case of Pharrell and Robin Thicke being found guilty of infringing upon the copyright of Marvin Gaye's Got to Give It Up, subpoenaed communications between Williams and Thicke talking about how they did use samples from Gaye's song to make Blurred Lines- and then recreated a similar.. what was the word...? a similar ostinato.

In the case of Dark Horse there was no such smoking gun- but there's striking similarities even beyond that riff to make it clear to me that the same exact thing happened.
I don’t know what point you’re trying to make here. If their recording didn’t sample the prior recording then they’re off the hook for sampling. That’s all there is to it.

If their recording doesn’t have actual samples in it then you’re back to the usual musical work analysis. Is what they’re using part of the protected content of the other work? “Disguised sampling” isn’t a thing in that analysis.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.

Last edited by Acsenray; 08-02-2019 at 07:51 PM.
  #83  
Old 08-02-2019, 07:57 PM
Go_Arachnid_Laser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
I don’t know what point you’re trying to make here. If their recording didn’t sample the prior recording then they’re off the hook for sampling. That’s all there is to it.

If their recording doesn’t have actual samples in it then you’re back to the usual musical work analysis. Is what they’re using part of the protected content of the other work? “Disguised sampling” isn’t a thing in that analysis.
I don't know what point YOU're trying to make. They haven't been sued for sampling.

I was talking about the musical process.
  #84  
Old 08-03-2019, 07:38 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
I should have just called them thieves. Is that better?
Oh, I should have used the word "offense".

Feel better now?
It's not theft.
  #85  
Old 08-03-2019, 07:53 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,051
But they're not "sampling but disguising that they're sampling", because they're not sampling at all.

For point of comparison: Suppose that I make a recording of Elton John playing scales on a piano. I then write my own song, completely from scratch, and I "perform" that chord by picking out notes that Elton John played, and playing those notes back one at a time. In that case, I am sampling, even though the song was my own original composition.

"Sampling and disguising it" would be something like taking the recordings and putting them through some sort of digital filter.

But using your own instrument or voice to produce the same notes as someone else isn't sampling, at all, in any form.
  #86  
Old 08-03-2019, 08:43 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
It's not theft.
Yes, it is.
  #87  
Old 08-03-2019, 09:27 AM
Go_Arachnid_Laser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
For point of comparison: Suppose that I make a recording of Elton John playing scales on a piano. I then write my own song, completely from scratch, and I "perform" that chord by picking out notes that Elton John played, and playing those notes back one at a time. In that case, I am sampling, even though the song was my own original composition.
No, the right comparison would be that you are a DJ. You are used to making EDM tunes, building them by layering samples of existing music.

One day, you listen to an Elton John song, you enjoy a short part he plays on his piano, and use that as the basis for a cool new song.

Now, you made a song using a sample of somebody else's work. You feel it's going to be a big hit. However, you realize that Elton John's lawyers are going to ask for the correct attribution to their client. That means less money for you.

So you change a couple notes from the original, and have a studio pianist play them. Bam, now you will happily claim that the sample you're using to make the song is yours, written exclusively by yourself and nobody else. Elton Who? Never heard of the fella.

Which is what I mean with "disguised sampling".
  #88  
Old 08-03-2019, 09:40 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go_Arachnid_Laser View Post
So you change a couple notes from the original, and have a studio pianist play them. Bam, now you will happily claim that the sample you're using to make the song is yours, written exclusively by yourself and nobody else. Elton Who? Never heard of the fella.

Which is what I mean with "disguised sampling".
The question is why are you talking about it? What do you think the legal significance of it is?
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #89  
Old 08-03-2019, 09:51 AM
Go_Arachnid_Laser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
The question is why are you talking about it? What do you think the legal significance of it is?
So, in this case, the question was: did Luke, Martin, Perry, J (but let's face it, more than probably just Luke) made a song with those similarities to Joyful Noise by sheer accident, or did they infringe copyright?

And what seems to me, having heard the song and the similarities, is that what happened was that Luke literally made a song with the riff from Joyful Noise, and even kept several of the hooks. And he would be hardly the only one doing it, if he did. And then tried to pretend he didn't.
  #90  
Old 08-03-2019, 11:35 AM
pulykamell is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SW Side, Chicago
Posts: 47,915
Adam Neely’s sensible take on the lawsuit. (Another very skilled educator, jazz and rock musician, composer.)
  #91  
Old 08-03-2019, 11:46 AM
Go_Arachnid_Laser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by pulykamell View Post
Adam Neely’s sensible take on the lawsuit. (Another very skilled educator, jazz and rock musician, composer.)
I've seen it. I find it profoundly dishonest. He makes absolutely zero effort to give any merit to the opposite point of view... more like he openly attacks the plaintiff's expert musicologist Todd Decker, accusing him of nothing short of ruining the music industry for money, with the predictable result of Reddit starting a campaign of email harassment, since he's the villain du jour...

And worse, he makes some bad faith points, like when he says "you convinced a juror that the idea of quarter-notes descending in a minor scale from the third degree originated in 2008.... with Christian rapper Flame." No he didn't. He convinced a juror that said quarter-notes were one of the many similarities between the two songs. But of course, saying that sounds too reasonable.
  #92  
Old 08-03-2019, 11:54 AM
Go_Arachnid_Laser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,471
*jury
  #93  
Old 08-03-2019, 11:59 AM
Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Yes, it is.
Copying is not theft, as nothing is taken.

This case is another one that shows that the sooner copyright is written off as a failed experiment, the better. The purpose of copyright is to ensure that works of art get created so that others can be inspired by them, but it is currently being used to do exactly the opposite of that.
  #94  
Old 08-03-2019, 12:24 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go_Arachnid_Laser View Post
So, in this case, the question was: did Luke, Martin, Perry, J (but let's face it, more than probably just Luke) made a song with those similarities to Joyful Noise by sheer accident, or did they infringe copyright?
Sampling, or "disguised sampling" is irrelevant to this question.

Quote:
And what seems to me, having heard the song and the similarities, is that what happened was that Luke literally made a song with the riff from Joyful Noise, and even kept several of the hooks. And he would be hardly the only one doing it, if he did. And then tried to pretend he didn't.
Maybe he did and maybe he didn't.

But you seem to be focused on this as if it's the only question when it comes to infringing a song copyright.

Here are the questions:

1. Does the plaintiff hold rights in an original and creative work of expression that is protected by copyright?

2. What portions or aspects of that work constitute the protected work? <-- This is the important question that is being disputed in cases like this and "Blurred Lines" -- when it comes to a song, what exactly is protected?

Rick Beato and others like him would say "melody and lyrics." The reason that the world of musical composers is up in arms over the "Blurred Lines" case is that it seems to be giving protection to something a lot broader, something that might swallow up a whole genre or style of music, which definitely is not a good thing for songwriters.

For songwriters to be able to work as songwriters at all, they have to be free to use the tools and elements that are used to create, say a blues song, or an R&B song, or whatever. Can you imagine a musical marketplace in which no musician is allowed to sound like another musician?

3. Did the defendant copy any of the protected expression without authorization? <-- Your speculation about "disguised sampling" misses this point. It doesn't matter if the defendant engaged in the process you described unless what was copied is part of the protected work as identified in No. 2.

That someone copied a riff or a portion of a major scale isn't infringement unless that riff or portion of a major scale is itself protectable expression. If a particular melody is protected expression, it's not true that any part or portion of that melody is also necessarily protected.

At some point you cross the line between protected expression and the tools that are used to express oneself in a particular medium. In a written medium, for example, letters of the alphabet, typefaces, single words, names, and short phrases are not protectable elements by themselves, even though they might be part of a larger work that is protected.

And copying is copying. It doesn't matter whether it happened through "disguised sampling" or some other way. What you're missing is that the issue of sampling is relevant only when the plaintiff's expressive work at issue is a sound recording. You can't sample any portion of a sound recording.

So if this was a case about infringing a sound recording, then the question would be whether the defendant's work actually samples the recording. "Disguised sampling" would be irrelevant.

But this isn't a sound recording infringement case. It's a musical work (composition) infringement case. So, the question is whether the defendant copied or not. The mechanism ("disguised sampling"?) by which that copying happened doesn't matter.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #95  
Old 08-03-2019, 01:34 PM
Go_Arachnid_Laser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Rick Beato and others like him would say "melody and lyrics." The reason that the world of musical composers is up in arms over the "Blurred Lines" case is that it seems to be giving protection to something a lot broader, something that might swallow up a whole genre or style of music, which definitely is not a good thing for songwriters.
Ah, but it is precisely Blurred Lines what makes the idea of covert sampling relevant. Because that's essentially what the Marvin Gaye State accused Pharrell of doing.

(And let's be honest, he probably did.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Can you imagine a musical marketplace in which no musician is allowed to sound like another musician?
I can imagine a musical marketplace where musicians "borrow" constantly from other musicians and give them the right attribution. Because that's what most musicians do right now. In any case, let's not get Slippery Slope here, you can have perfectly reasonable copyright laws without it descending into a dystopia where you have to give half the profits to any rock song to Chuck Berry's descendants.
  #96  
Old 08-03-2019, 01:48 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
Copying is not theft, as nothing is taken.
Wrong; ideas and methods are taken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
This case is another one that shows that the sooner copyright is written off as a failed experiment, the better. The purpose of copyright is to ensure that works of art get created so that others can be inspired by them, but it is currently being used to do exactly the opposite of that.
This comment is not even close to reality.

Why is it so hard to give credit and pay the artist you took something from? Thousands of artists do this every day; now Katy Perry et. al. will too.
  #97  
Old 08-03-2019, 03:06 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Why is it so hard to give credit and pay the artist you took something from? Thousands of artists do this every day; now Katy Perry et. al. will too.
For instance:
Quote:
“Joyful Noise” itself began with a beat that Gray heard on MySpace and bought from a man who would later be listed as a co-writer.

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 08-03-2019 at 03:07 PM.
  #98  
Old 08-03-2019, 03:50 PM
Gorsnak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Saskaboom
Posts: 9,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Why is it so hard to give credit and pay the artist you took something from? Thousands of artists do this every day; now Katy Perry et. al. will too.For instance:
Because there's no evidence that they actually took the riff from "Joyful Noise." If they did, then sure, they ought to give credit. If they wrote the riff independently, then why the hell should they retroactively give anything to someone who happened to have produced something similar earlier. So far as I can tell, the only "evidence" that has been presented that the Dark Horse authors had heard Joyful Noise is that the two contain a similar riff.

But it's not like this is some complicated riff. The elements that are actually the same consist of a single note repeated four times followed by a note one full step lower repeated twice. There is no reason to think that the only way to play those two notes in succession like that is to have heard the earlier song. In the absence of any real evidence that they copied the riff rather than coming up with it on their own, the presumption ought to be that it was an independent creation.
  #99  
Old 08-03-2019, 04:06 PM
Go_Arachnid_Laser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorsnak View Post
In the absence of any real evidence that they copied the riff rather than coming up with it on their own, the presumption ought to be that it was an independent creation.
But there is way more than just the riff. There's the guys going, "Hey! Hey! hey!", there's the "Y'all know what it is", there's the line said in a sudden pitch drop, and I'm sure that an expert can find a lot more similarities.
  #100  
Old 08-03-2019, 05:23 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go_Arachnid_Laser View Post
Ah, but it is precisely Blurred Lines what makes the idea of covert sampling relevant. Because that's essentially what the Marvin Gaye State accused Pharrell of doing.

(And let's be honest, he probably did.)
This is gibberish. Either “Blurred Lines copied protected expression or it didn’t. The “disguised sampling” bit is irrelevant.

Quote:


I can imagine a musical marketplace where musicians "borrow" constantly from other musicians and give them the right attribution. Because that's what most musicians do right now. In any case, let's not get Slippery Slope here, you can have perfectly reasonable copyright laws without it descending into a dystopia where you have to give half the profits to any rock song to Chuck Berry's descendants.
Copyright law is about exclusive rights. Except in a very narrow set of circumstances, It’s not about “giving credit” (unless the person licensing es exclusive rights demands it).

I have no interest in converting copyright law into a “giving credit” regime. What I want is to be more certain about what exactly is covered by those exclusive rights, and I don’t want them extended to the basic building blocks of music.

This is why I’m harping in the difference between copyright infringement and plagiarism. Giving credit is a plagiarism issue, not a copyright issue.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.

Last edited by Acsenray; 08-03-2019 at 05:25 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017