Members davd_indigo Posted February 18, 2016 Members Share Posted February 18, 2016 I went back and forth several times and could hear the similarity. I continue to believe that that copyright should be on the melody and chord changes. Arrangements, in my mind, should not be copyrighted material. I'm not a lawyer, I'm just using my common sense and intelligence. I think this is scary as far as using influences creatively. No artist is an island. Everyone is influenced by someone else's music, writing, painting, whatever. Of course lawyers don't know or care - they're just looking for litigation opportunities. http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/justin-timberlake-accused-copying-song-article-1.2535241 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mandolin Picker Posted February 19, 2016 Members Share Posted February 19, 2016 With copyright now lasting well over a hundred years you will see more of this as very little is entering the public domain. Given that the copyright on Mickey Mouse will expire again in a few years, look for an even longer extension of copyright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted February 19, 2016 Members Share Posted February 19, 2016 So if I was the judge: "Defendant, please play the song on piano and sing it.""Plaintiff, please play the song on piano and sing it. Or if there aren't vocals, hum it" ...listens... "Case dismissed.: Where does it stop: A microphone company saying the distinctive drum sound is due to their microphone? And if you use the same preset someone else used, is that a problem? Granted, the organ riff is really similar, if not identical in spots. But is that what made the song a hit? If plaintiff wins the lawsuit, will they share some of the bucks with the organ player, the engineer who miked the drums, and whoever did the mix to make the drums sound like that? Look, I'm in favor of intellectual property having value. But once I asked Quincy Jones if Michael Jackson was upset about the people sampling him. Quincy said "He doesn't care, he knows no one can sample his soul." Good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AlamoJoe Posted February 19, 2016 Members Share Posted February 19, 2016 I think a heckuva lotta people owe a heckuva a lotta dead bluesmen a heckuva lotta money. "Nothing you can sing that can't be sung" Nothing you can play that hasn't been played either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members workstation M.I Posted February 19, 2016 Members Share Posted February 19, 2016 Well for openers, the NY Daily News needs to get something right.It's JC Davis and NOT JD Davis, as stated in the article. And that organ riff sounds a little "Secret Agent" if you know what I mean. Yet people will persist........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted February 19, 2016 Members Share Posted February 19, 2016 Well for openers, the NY Daily News needs to get something right. It's JC Davis and NOT JD Davis, as stated in the article. And that organ riff sounds a little "Secret Agent" if you know what I mean. Yet people will persist........ Society has become way too litigious. And if you disagree, I'll sue you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members workstation M.I Posted February 19, 2016 Members Share Posted February 19, 2016 Society has become way too litigious. And if you disagree, I'll sue you That is of a surety about society, especially in light of the "Blurred Lines/Got To Give It Up" caper. I guess there's no "Statute Of Limitations", just a "Statue of Imitations." *guffaw!* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members davd_indigo Posted February 20, 2016 Author Members Share Posted February 20, 2016 In BlurredLines/GotToGiveItUp I remember hearing party noises, some cowbell and a bass line. Can you copyright that combination of musical sounds ? How about a reverby electric guitar combined with a surf rock drum beat ? How far do you go back with these combinations that are considered to be copyrighted ? That Bo Didley beat? If he indeed did create it. Or maybe some funeral parade drummer in New Orleans (the BoDidley beat)? These are musical ingredients - not the musical work. It can get cuckoo going back in recorded musical history finding precedents. Back when the Pharrell/Marvin Gaye was in the news, I searched around and was unable to find anyone saying "hey, this is not right!". I was incredulous. A friend in the UK said that people over there didn't think the Blurred Lines verdict would hold up in appeal. I still don't understand why no one's speaking out in the media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members davd_indigo Posted February 20, 2016 Author Members Share Posted February 20, 2016 I just searched and (thankfully) found a Slate piece on the disasterous "Blurred Lines" verdict. I don't know if this is an unrealistic stretch, but I had thoughts of a free speech issue here. Maybe if no one else will step in, maybe the ACLU ? http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...fringe_on.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted February 20, 2016 Members Share Posted February 20, 2016 I just searched and (thankfully) found a Slate piece on the disasterous "Blurred Lines" verdict. I don't know if this is an unrealistic stretch, but I had thoughts of a free speech issue here. Maybe if no one else will step in, maybe the ACLU ? I think society at large has already established that not a whole lot of people care about protecting music as intellectual property...I agree the verdict for Blurred Lines is not good for anyone, but now it has established a precedent, which makes it even more problematic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted February 20, 2016 Members Share Posted February 20, 2016 In BlurredLines/GotToGiveItUp I remember hearing party noises' date=' some cowbell and a bass line. Can you copyright that combination of musical sounds ? How about a reverby electric guitar combined with a surf rock drum beat ? How far do you go back with these combinations that are considered to be copyrighted ? That Bo Didley beat? If he indeed did create it. Or maybe some funeral parade drummer in New Orleans (the BoDidley beat)? These are musical [i']ingredients - [/i]not the musical work. It can get cuckoo going back in recorded musical history finding precedents. Back when the Pharrell/Marvin Gaye was in the news, I searched around and was unable to find anyone saying "hey, this is not right!". I was incredulous. A friend in the UK said that people over there didn't think the Blurred Lines verdict would hold up in appeal. I still don't understand why no one's speaking out in the media. Actually, a lot of music biz oriented articles and op-ends pointed out the lack of basis for the Gaye family suit, since 'traditionally,' musical/song identity has been seen to be tied to only two aspects: melody and lyric, as Craig hinted at above. The fact that the Gaye family prevailed in that suit was deeply disturbing to many music biz watchers because not only did the court turn precedent on its head, it opened the floodgates for more overreaching, ill-founded suits. Like this one. As we've seen, the actual MUSICIANS in these cases probably never would have pursued them because they understood how music evolves and where the traditional lines of proprietary ownership have been drawn. But then the FAMILIES of the dead musicians get involved with skanky, bottom-feeding nuisance-suite lawyers, there's no professional pride or respect for other musicians -- instead, it's all about hoovering as much money up from whatever successful project some sort of tenuous connection might be drawn to from the 'original' work. =/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members davd_indigo Posted February 21, 2016 Author Members Share Posted February 21, 2016 Back when the verdict was announced in the BlurredLines case, I must have not given enough time for reaction in media opinion. I found a New Yorker magazine piece that gets it - the dangerous implications for creativity. This piece also draws illustrations of other musical influences on other musical artists. The piece says that the judge in the case should have thrown it out before the trial based on musical baselessness. I wonder how many lawyers will make how many tens of thousands more dollars in the process of getting this right. Did I mention I believe our legal system is written by the lawyers for the lawyers? It's an archaic holdover from when people believed the planet was something like 7,000 years old. And all the species of the planet had survived floods thanks to a guy named Noah. http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cul...-be-thrown-out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bookumdano4 Posted February 22, 2016 Members Share Posted February 22, 2016 oh man, I just took a listen to the original JC Davis single. william and timberlake completely ripped it off. And in such a blatant way. The song could have been effectively used with any number of well thought-out deviations that wouldn't have crossed lines. What a shoddy, lazy approach for Timberlake and W to have taken. I hope the settlement makes a huge dent in their pockets cuz there ain't no way those two are gonna want this one to get into an actual court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members davd_indigo Posted February 22, 2016 Author Members Share Posted February 22, 2016 oh man' date=' I just took a listen to the original JC Davis single. william and timberlake completely ripped it off. And in such a blatant way. The song could have been effectively used with any number of well thought-out deviations that wouldn't have crossed lines. What a shoddy, lazy approach for Timberlake and W to have taken. I hope the settlement makes a huge dent in their pockets cuz there ain't no way those two are gonna want this one to get into an actual court.[/quote'] He ripped off the combination of a cheesy sounding organ playing a chord progression and a specific drum beat in the intro. Listen to the whole songs. The melody in "Damn Girl" is just a short repeated little riff sung by Justni up till the chorus. So it's a drum beat and a cheesy organ chord progression. The organ chord progression was ripped off from the James Bond theme, most famously. But ripped off from many other songs if you looked hard enough. But a 3 or 4 chord progression from the James Bond theme (and many other sources) doesn't constitute a song. They sound similar in the intros, but the melody of each is completely different. The James Bond Theme: [video=youtube;ye8KvYKn9-0] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bookumdano4 Posted February 22, 2016 Members Share Posted February 22, 2016 I do copyright cases. The entire focus may well center in on those two intros and never get any further. Doesn't matter. As an outsider, I predict a fast settlement rather than this going to trial. So blatant. Amazing. imo of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members davd_indigo Posted February 22, 2016 Author Members Share Posted February 22, 2016 We musicians need a "Dummies Guide To Copyright Law". The lawyers and judges need a "Dummies Guide To What Constitutes A Song" . My own opinion is that mass music has been dummed down to the point that many people think that the 4 or 5 chords (repeated over and over and over) in an EDM or New Age song are a composition - i.e. a song. You can't copyright a Farfisa organ and a drum beat (oh yeah that chord progression too). Maybe this reflects a lack of music education these days. As was stated earlier in this post, lawyers don't need to care what is right/wrong or correct/incorrect . They only need to win their flimsy case. If you read the New Yorker opinion piece posted earlier, I can't imagine how you'd agree with the Blurred Lines verdict. The law needs to be changed to specify how many ingredients in a song have to be similar to be plagiarism. In this case I hear 3. Nothing as far as the melody and chord changes after the intro vamp. And again, those chord changes were NOT original to this song. I was equally outraged by the Supreme Court ruling that corporations had "personhood" and they could donate freely to political campaigns as free speech. Common sense has been turned on its head by the legal industry. This isn't the same as the cases being discussed. But it's fun. [video=youtube;XiA8FRH6nQc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiA8FRH6nQc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.