Katy Perry loses plagiarism lawsuit

[Phil O'Keefe]

 

I can understand the logic behind that. As jurors, you're supposed to judge the case only on what is presented in court. Not on what the juror believe he/she may personally 'know' better than the witnesses.

 

If you have such training and experience that could influence the jury, then you should probably be called as a witness, not be a member of the jury.

 

So basically, anyone with even a fundamental musical education shouldn't be on a copyright infringement case jury?

 

IMO, that's a bit too exclusionary.

 

And what says that a musically educated person couldn't base their decision as a juror exclusively on the evidence presented in the courtroom? Should people with a basic understanding of the constitution be prohibited from sitting on the jury for a case where someone's constitutional rights were allegedly infringed?

 

 

[Phil O'Keefe]

I get the thinking the jury should have some musical knowledge to better understand these cases. But the flip side of that is having jurors with preconceived notions of what should constitute a protected piece of music.

 

IMO, that should be easily covered by the jury instructions from the judge. They can explain exactly what the law says is infringement and what isn't (according to the statutes), and instruct the jury to make their determination based strictly on the law, and the evidence / testimony presented in court.

 

 

[Vito Corleone]

 

So basically, anyone with even a fundamental musical education shouldn't be on a copyright infringement case jury?

 

IMO, that's a bit too exclusionary.

 

And what says that a musically educated person couldn't base their decision as a juror exclusively on the evidence presented in the courtroom? Should people with a basic understanding of the constitution be prohibited from sitting on the jury for a case where someone's constitutional rights were allegedly infringed?

 

 

I don’t know that anyone with a fundamental knowledge should t be excluded. But you don’t want “experts” on the subject either.

 

If you and I are both selected for the jury and if we come in with differing opinions on what should or shouldn’t be a copyrighted piece of music, then our bias should exclude us.

[Vito Corleone]

 

IMO, that should be easily covered by the jury instructions from the judge. They can explain exactly what the law says is infringement and what isn't (according to the statutes), and instruct the jury to make their determination based strictly on the law, and the evidence / testimony presented in court.

 

 

Yes. And that testimony should include why the copyright was infringed. You really shouldn’t have to know anything about music to figure that out.

 

If the defense wasn’t able to convince the jury that a simple drum beat isn’t infringement under the law, then they probably had bigger problems than no musicians on the jury.

 

Edited July 30, 2019 by Vito Corleone

[Zooey]

If the defense wasn’t able to convince the jury that a simple drum beat isn’t infringement under the law, then they probably had bigger problems than no musicians on the jury.

 

It was never just about the drum beat. Here's a description of what the expert witness testified to:

 

https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8522201/katy-perry-dark-horse-trial-musicologist-backs-up-copyright-claim

 

 

This is the same kind of thing that we saw with Blurred Lines. The jury got to hear two productions that sounded similar, then an expert witness came in and pointed out all the little similarities that by themselves should not even be considered copyrightable.

 

The Billboard article uses the word "beat" to refer to the whole track, not the drum beat. Probably because that's the terminology that was used at trial.

[Hoddy]

I'm so glad I'm not in the music industry any more.

[Vito Corleone]

 

It was never just about the drum beat. Here's a description of what the expert witness testified to:

 

https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8522201/katy-perry-dark-horse-trial-musicologist-backs-up-copyright-claim

 

 

This is the same kind of thing that we saw with Blurred Lines. The jury got to hear two productions that sounded similar, then an expert witness came in and pointed out all the little similarities that by themselves should not even be considered copyrightable.

 

The Billboard article uses the word "beat" to refer to the whole track, not the drum beat. Probably because that's the terminology that was used at trial.

 

So how hard should it have been for the defense to show those things aren’t copyrightable?

 

It shouldn’t even be about music, per se. If a certain element of something isn’t protected under the law, it shouldn’t matter whether that element is a guitar riff or a pattern on a piece of cloth.

 

 

 

 

[Grumpy_Polecat]

What I find ironic is the suggestion that a rapper actually did something original which might be subject to copyright protection. AFAIC they all owe royalties to the Estate of Woody Guthrie.

[nedezero1]

I'll admit it, I like to look at Katy Perry (she was awesome in the banned Sesame Street video). The little bit of her music I've heard I can not stand.

 

But apparently she's been sued for stealing a "beat" from a Christian rapper and the jury decided on behalf of the rapper. Lotsa money is about to change hands.

 

I read the article and was curious about the stolen beat. I listened to both tracks and what I hear is "boom boom clap" for both songs. What?

 

If you care here's a link to the CNN page where both music vids are posted. Am I missing something? What is in the rap song that has been stolen for the Perry song?

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/30/entertainment/katy-perry-dark-horse-verdict/index.html

 

And if you don't listen to the tracks I don't blame ya a bit!

 

Zip

 

Okay you just made me go look up that Sesame Street video.

 

[Vito Corleone]

 

Okay you just made me go look up that Sesame Street video.

 

 

[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-attachmentid":"32561816","data-size":"thumb"}[/ATTACH]

 

Edited July 31, 2019 by Vito Corleone

[arcadesonfire]

 

 

[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-attachmentid":"32561816","data-size":"thumb"}[/ATTACH]

 

I should watch Sesame Street more often.

[nedezero1]

 

 

[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-attachmentid":"32561816","data-size":"thumb"}[/ATTACH]

 

Wait a minute....wait.....wait......okay......

 

Thanks!

 

[Zooey]

 

I should watch Sesame Street more often.

 

Pretty sure that was from SNL.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Pretty sure that was from SNL.

 

 

 

 

 

[arcadesonfire]

 

Pretty sure that was from SNL.

 

Oooh, now I remember.

 

That makes a hell of a lot more sense.

[Opposite Day]

Gotta give props to Christian rappers. Propitiation and substitutional atonement are not easy to rhyme!

[Zipperhead]

Wow, three pages already! I didn't expect that. As I read through the replies I'm pretty sure nobody here has actually listened in detail to the two tracks. I tried to...

 

If it's a direct lift of another recording that should be easy enough to prove. If it "sounds like" the original track that's a different standard.

 

I'm just glad I copyrighted the 12 bar blues progression years ago.

 

Zip

[Phil O'Keefe]

Actually, I did click and listen to both tracks, at least for a minute.

 

I should probably do so again, but my initial impression was... I didn't hear a significant similarity. At least not one I'd consider to be up to the level of a copyright infringement. YMMV.

 

 

[davie]

The Sesame Street episode is banned? I watched that on PBS with my kids!

 

Anywho, for purposes of rap music, "beat" doesn't mean the drums or percussion. It means the entire instrumental track. If Katy Perry's producers used the actual sound recording of that beat without a license, then I am not surprised at the verdict. That's an easier case to make than proving Katy Perry plagiarized the composition.

 

For this very reason. When people say that they like "the beat".. I don't really know what they're referring to anymore..

[blue2blue]

Rick Beato has a vid where he breaks down the supposed similarities between the two songs and takes a look at some of the issues...

In the wake of the Blurred Lines case, I figured we'd see a lot of bogus lawsuits coming up on 'sound and feel' and trying to exploit the manifest ignorance of the general public who fill jury boxes and the non-musicians who typically fill the judge's robes.