Topic: The end of copyright and patent is where we should be headed - OPEN SOURCED :) (Read 927 times)

'Blurred Lines' verdict strikes fear into songwriters


New York (AFP) - A ruling that pop stars Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams stole from Marvin Gaye threatens to create -- in the words of their smash hit -- even more blurred lines for songwriters who could increasingly be hauled to court over their artistic inspirations.


A jury in Los Angeles on Tuesday awarded more than $7 million to Gaye's family after finding similarities between the late Motown legend's 1977 hit "Got to Give It Up" and "Blurred Lines" by Thicke and veteran songwriter Williams, which was the top-selling song in the United States in 2013.

Gaye's heirs hailed the verdict as justice. But many music professionals voiced dismay, saying that non-specialist jurors confused the influences that lie in all artists with outright theft.

"It's just a huge nail in the coffin for an already six-foot-under music industry. Now none of us have any idea what's going to win a lawsuit," said songwriter Greg Wells, who has co-written with superstars Adele and Katy Perry.

"It reaffirms to me that for most ordinary people, music sounds like Japanese to them if they're not Japanese. This just takes the fear knob and cranks it to 11 for people who do what I and Pharrell do for a living," he told AFP.

E. Michael Harrington, a composer and expert on music law at SAE Institute, Nashville, said that the ruling, if it stands, would mean that "plenty of plaintiffs can go crazy and sue everyone."


"I've never seen a decision that is this poor -- the melody wasn't taken, there were no lyrics taken, there was no chord progressions taken," he said. "If this is the standard, it's below floor level it's so low."

- 'Fine line' -

The case technically involved not the recording of "Got to Give It Up" but the sheet music, which Gaye's family owns. Recordings of the two songs have similar atmospherics, including background noise from a party.

In evidence highlighted by Gaye's team, Thicke himself had said in media interviews that he wanted to write a song like Gaye's. He backtracked in court and said he was not sober when speaking to the press.

Whatever the idiosyncracies of the case, many musicians openly cite their influences. Music industry promotional campaigns, although often not crafted by the artists themselves, routinely compare new bands to well-known stars.

The songwriter busbee, who has worked with a diverse array of artists including Shakira and Garth Brooks, said that melody infringement was a real problem but that professionals were careful.

"It's a fine line because you obviously have to be responsible as a creative person. I can't go repaint the Mona Lisa and say it's my inspiration. Equally, though, if you're second-guessing every creative move you make, that's a little bit tricky," he said.

Many songwriters say that they are regularly barraged by claims that they copied other artists, often obscure works that they had never heard of.

"No one knows every single song ever and you would basically have to submit every song to a musicologist, which wouldn't be very cost-effective," busbee said.

One prominent case emerged this year over British soul singer Sam Smith's smash hit "Stay With Me." After growing chatter about similarities between the song and Tom Petty's 1989 hit "I Won't Back Down," Smith quietly added Petty and the US rocker's collaborator Jeff Lynne as co-writers.

Smith, who was born in 1992, said he had never heard "I Won't Back Down" and Petty agreed that he believed the similarities were coincidental.

- Rising lawsuits -

A different legal framework is already in place for intentional sampling. A US federal appeals court in 2005 ruled that gangsta rappers N.W.A. violated copyright rules by sampling a two-second guitar riff from George Clinton's band Funkadelic.

That case had an international impact because it was cited by Germany's top court, which supported electronic music pioneers Kraftwerk in a suit over a sample by a German hip-hop act. Artists now generally seek licensing for samples.

The rise in complaints comes at a time that the fast-changing music industry's revenues are dwindling. The money earned by Williams and Thicke for a year's top-selling song is a fraction of what an actor would earn from a Hollywood blockbuster.

Sandy Wilbur, a musicologist who testified on behalf of Thicke and Williams, said that she has seen a major increase in music copyright litigation in the past two years.

"Songwriters and composers will think twice before mentioning any others who might have inspired them. Still, inspiration is not infringement," she said.


http://news.yahoo.com/blurred-lines-verdict-strikes-fear-songwriters-233941179.html

My sincere apologies if I hurt your feelings. I can be a little blunt sometimes, and other times a downright asshole. It's a flaw, I'm human after all. But seriously, ifyyou're that thin-skinned, an adult Internet forum might be the wrong place for you. I've heard Christian forums set up for children are much less tolerant of meanies like me.

Listening to others is a tiresome business indeed... We are all on equal footing here, no one is more popular than others. Only ideas are...


 

But I am not a mind reader. Are you? I can't talk for others, real minders and psychics in this forum  . I just stated what I stated.

To me the future is a cross with creative commons and some kind of a blockchain solution. Maidesafe seems to built into this. We shall see...

Tired already - so unwatching - enjoy your topic (I think you'll find that I am not so popular so this topic will die pretty soon).

The concept of having a true understanding of what open source is.. Is to not ask for permission. You just do it, with respect to others from arming them, etc, etc...


 

Hmm... okay - how about I just "unwatch" from now on then (so you can't tell) ?

(thus no "agenda" you can talk about)

Basically you guys seem to think you have the right to "bully people" but sorry - "you lose" (you have no such right).

So feel free to "bitch about me behind my back" but it isn't going to bother me at all.

You have an agenda. I have an agenda. We all do. Once you realized that, the concept of locking a thread will feel so... 21st century technology...

 

I replied but did not answer any question (as I said I would not).


Again with the insults - do I insult you?

If you have anything to offer to discussion then can't you do it without resorting to being a child?

(this is generally why I don't bother engaging with a lot of people on this forum because they can't help but to carry on like children)

You might think that you have "won some sort of victory" when I lock a topic or unwatch it - but actually I never think anything further about it after that (so you *victory* is only in your own mind).

I might be more polite when you stop being a hypocrite. And you replied anyway.

I regard all my fellow non-millionaires as the peasants we are. If this bothers you it's because you've been Indoctrinated into a politics that serves the Interests of your masters, like all the other temporarily embarrassed millionaire peasants. If it doesn't bother you, good for you. But you're still a brainwashed
Disenfranchised peasant.

But you're right about copyright/patent. Technology will be the death of them, just as the rapidly developing compassion-politics of the information age will spell the end of capitalism.

So I think the important changes we are seeing are things like Open Source and Creative Commons.

These are ideas that challenge the traditional models of paying "fees for use" and reduce friction to creating new things (and that is IMO the key thing).

I hope we could focus more on that than on "my supposed agenda" (or the fact that I live in China).

It is not a go at you, but a go at trying to apply your construct to its fullest. My threads get derailed all the time. If some here make a few bucks while replying to my threads good for them. Maybe one day I'll set a Wilikon bitcoin address too 

Open means open.

You might try and be a bit more polite if you want someone to actually reply to your questions (and "peasant' doesn't really work that well as an insult to me so you also might want to try a bit harder if your point is to try and upset me).

Those rules are excellent at serving the interests of the rich fucks that make the rules.

You think the rules are made for your benefit,  peasant?  You probably believe in the legitimacy of modern "representative" democracy,  too. The one where the reps are all millionaires and billionaires and those being "represented" are overwhelmingly poor and middle caste.

Okay - this is a good point (and it's actually flattering that someone would bother to fork a topic of mine to even make such a point).

I have not advocated that no-one has rights over things at all.

It is a question of *rules* and the rules about copyright and patents are not good ones (IMO).

The rules of a "topic" (such as being able to lock it) are not in conflict with my thinking whatsoever. I recently made a topic stating that "no ad sig posters" are welcome to post.

Did they respect that? (no) So that is why I had to lock that topic (and others due to a general lack of respect that I don't care for).

So I have no problem with you creating this topic (have a go at me and enjoy it) but if you respect "freedom" then of course you would respect my right to lock any topic any time I want to.

Okay - well - thanks for being honest (I'll just unwatch now then should I?).

I really don't need to fork your thread but... How can you call for the end of ownership while claiming being known to lock threads if the people participating do not follow your rules?... Do you own your threads?


 

It's going to be about your intellectual cowardice and disdain for open discourse.

And about how capitalism is a living nightmare for billions of human beings,  and a torture + death sentence for hundreds of millions of children who starve each year. And anything else I feel like educating you privileged fuckwits about.

Okay - so is this going to be actually about the concepts or about me locking the other topic?

(if you've seen the various topics I've raised about ad sig posting you might get an idea why I have locked recent topics I've started)

My point was that simply the concepts of Intellectual Property make very little sense in the 21st century (and that great projects such as Bitcoin itself have arisen out of this new thinking).