Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but I have no idea what the “whoop whoop whoop” is you’re referring to.
Another video by a musician/producer/educator explaining why it’s a bad result.
Psst. Post #28.
:smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack:
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!
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, then any bozo that I have never heard of can sue me because I have a song that goes from minor to major to minor to major for example. Most lay people have a hard time detecting a specific key, but they can pick out a minor or a seventh pretty easy from a major.
I am in a band that is represented by my own label (we do other bands too) but what is to stop someone that had a song is 1963 that nobody heard of that goes Am C9 Dsustained2 G Major from suing me when I have a song that goes in a similar arrangement, albeit different keys?
Or even the same chords? They sound like complicated chords to the average joe, but any half rate guitarist is well versed in these so called “cowboy chords” because they are easy to hop around on each other. Most of our country acts know seven chords, they just move a capo up and down the neck to keep the album from sounding like the same long song.
The only people winning here are lawyers.
If you make it big enough that one of the people involved in a 1963 song that nobody heard of sues you, it’s obvious that you’ll have more than enough money to pay them off AND fight back with what’s left over.
If you don’t make it big, how would anyone hear your song to know to sue you?
The more likely event, as this case shows, is that your obscure band finds itself being copied by a more popular artist. And now, as this case shows, at least you’ll get compensated somewhat for the theft.
Stop worrying about how something might adversely affect you if you become a zillionaire. You’re not going to be one; you’re the underdog.
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. This has been going on for hundreds or thousands of years.
When was the standard ever that there was direct proof that a musician ripped off another song?
I was going to post that. Kudos.
Copying must be proven in order to establish copyright infringement. Proof can be direct or indirect, but the law requires a finding of copying.
This is a copyright infringement case. Plagiarism is not an issue.
Right, so you know where there’s background singers gong “Hey! Hey! Hey!” in Dark Horse, perticularly in the rapped segment?
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.
Well, OP? Are you capable of addressing this?
None of what you describe or quote is a “crime”.
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.
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.
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.