|
Copyright / sues
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MSZ |
| Ok obviously this doesnt apply to us, just the rich folk after the other rich folk with their jewish lawyers but I cant get over this nonsense of a judge and jury deciding whether or not a track is plagiarising based on strong influence or a using a common natural chord progression. The most recent one, the Lana del ray track copying the chord progression from creep(a track that was sued for copying another track...the irony). The phharel one with the strong influence(I get it, rhythm aesthetic x length of time etc.) but come on plagirism? I feel its just going to be a tool going forward to gain exposure/drama and making sure these artsists lawyers have something to do while they're employed as musical possibilities get more saturated. Just some more bs thats grinding my gears, maybe I have it wrong though; interested to hear any thoughts. |
|
|
| Mr.Mystery |
Del Rey made the mistake of offering partial compensation to Radiohead, which is basically admitting guilt. But yeah, the copyright trolls in the music business (and others) are a ing cancer.
The Verve's Bittersweet Symphony has to be the most infamous example of this. They used a string sample with permission and then got sued anyway, and lost all the rights to the song. |
|
|
| tehlord |
Cases like this should be resolved with a blind poll.
Ask 100 people 'does this song sound like another song?'
If 50 or more of them say yes, then fair cop.
If not, case closed. If case closed, the claimant pays the defendant 50% of the perceived loss.
Music theorists will just wank over the technicalities. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
I couldn't agree more; the Blurred lines case literally made me go what the .
Firstly, the tracks don't contain the same chords or note progressions. It was based on "atmosphere" and "aesthetic". How in the name of can you be accused of plagiarism because there's crowd/party noise in the background and you use similarish sounds like cowbells and shakers? The only thing that was a bit close was the bassline, but you can't copyright a bassline (see Tall Paul's Camisra - Let me Show you and Deep Dish - Make the world go round, for more info).
I honestly think that case was one of the most dangerous precedences in music law history.
Having said that, it really wasn't helped by the fact that Pharell's answers were apparently a bit evasive in court, and when they got around to Thicke's testimony, he basically said I was super high at that period, missed all the production stuff and I have no idea because I just sang on it. |
|
|
|
|
