Appeals Court Says It's Okay to Copyright an Entire Style of Music
techdirt.com
techdirt.com
This ruling has nothing to do with saying “it’s okay” and everything to do with the scope of potential judgments available to the appellate court.
Not a lawyer, but this seems like it’s for the best in terms of the functioning of the law, and a similar trial would likely not reach the same verdict.
It appears to have been ruled narrowly on the basis of what the court was allowed to consider in the matter and does not make a judgment on the merits of the song similarities as a matter of law.
Yes, that seems to be what the majority is saying. But could you or someone explain more? What's the point of appealing a jury decision if it can't be overruled??
Appeals courts can word their decisions broadly or narrowly, in an attempt to control how much their decision can be applied to future cares.
Marvin Gaye - Got to give it up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fp7Q1OAzITM
Robin Thicke - Blurred Lines ft. T.I., Pharrell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyDUC1LUXSU
If this ruling stands no one will ever be able write another reggae song, nor even a new piece of classical music, without running afoul of someone's copyright.
They have a similar beat.
They both have a similar style of walking bass line.
They both feature a male falsetto singer as the main melodic instrument.
The both feature a decent amount of random banter in the background.
The both feature the use of the chorus effect. This means that it is very fluidly changing back and forth between sounding like a single voice singing a single note, and multiple recordings of the same voice singing the same note, but with some minute and random time shifting, which is what actually gives the effect.
I don't know much of either of the two artists catalogs to any comprehensive degree. But if a single artist had two songs with all of the same qualities listed above, there would be no disagreement at all that those qualities defined that particular artist's style.
Thus, if we can argue that "style" is a consistent accumulation of specific musical qualities, at the expense of incorporating others, these two songs are by definition of a similar style.
Which steps should I take to patent an acoustic guitar?
But as a software developer, I have developed a sense of exploring the arguments people use, to inspect their underlying mechanisms of convincing other people with those arguments.
Pleas to emotion, followed by extreme forecasts of the slippery slope, are usually the province of concern trolls and people who would generally just stop the conversation. People who truly experience those emotions, and accurately predict such a slippery slope don't resort to conflating all dissent with ignorance. They provide context that differentiates their arguments from concern trolling.
The very fact that the lyrics are completely different should absolutely disqualify this from even remotely touching copyright:
https://genius.com/Marvin-gaye-got-to-give-it-up-lyrics https://genius.com/Robin-thicke-blurred-lines-lyrics
Just like most court cases where the losers frame a ruling against them the worst case scenario of a problem existing on a singular axis, there are extenuating circumstances in each of these that add far more complexity to an issue than the infringers want you to believe. In the case of sampling "The Last Time", there was an agreement in place where The Verve had gone through all of the proper channels to secure the rights to use samples. However, it was ruled they used too much of the sample, as the iconic string section playing the four root notes of the melody in the song is that sample. I don't have the actual agreement to reference, but suffice to say, the ruling took into consideration that the agreement described a far more limited use of the sample, instead of looping through the entire duration of the song, which is what happened.
Then, just to wave the whole complexity of it in your face as something that is impossible to nail down to any simple rules, there are the cases in the far opposite direction that seemingly should be infringing, but for whatever reason haven't found to be, or at least are specious enough given previous litigation by the offenders.
Neil Young sings in "Borrowed Tune": "I'm singing this borrowed tune, I took from the Rolling Stones. Alone in this empty room, too wasted too write my own"
Huey Lewis successfully argued that "I want a new drug" was infringed upon by the theme to "The Ghostbusters". I don't know the order of operations in regards to his suit, but Huey Lewis also released "Do You Believe in Love?", which is strikingly similar in musical nature, AND has nearly identical lyrics to Electric Light Orchestra's "Sweet Talking Woman":
ELO: "I was searching on a one way street, I was hoping for a chance to meet..."
HL&TN: " "I was walking down a one way street. Just a lookin' for someone to meet"
Most damningly, one would think, is that at various times in each song, there are three part harmonies that echo the verb of each stanza.
For any Godel Escher Bach fans out there, the application of copyright law seems to adhere to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.
So do thousands of other songs.
> They both have a similar style of walking bass line.
So do thousands of other songs.
> They both feature a male falsetto singer as the main melodic instrument.
No, that's not true. The lead vocal in GTGIU is falsetto throughout but BL isn't. It only has a few short falsetto phrases at the beginning. The rest is Robin Thicke's normal voice.
> The both feature a decent amount of random banter in the background.
No. The banter in BL is not random. It is very tightly orchestrated to fit in with the rest of the song, in stark contrast with GTGIU where the integration is much looser.
> The both feature the use of the chorus effect.
So do thousands of other songs.
So you hit three out of five. For any song you give me I can find you literally thousands of other songs that share three features with it.
You first promoted this fallacy when you exclaimed "Wow. Those two songs are not even remotely similar." You then firmed up your misdirection by jumping to the conclusion that all music containing elements that can be construed as similar to elements of other songs will imminently become illegal under this interpretation.
Spotting this obvious farce, I decided to refute your fallacious argument in just the isolation of similarity, at which point you interpreted all of my points as my arguments as to why Blurred Lines violated copyrights.
I rest, assured that you will continue to promote this fallacy.
Nor is the concept of "style", because it has no recognisable legal or musical definition.
Musical copyright exists primarily in lyrics and melody for the writing ("publishing") component, and in a specific reproducible recording for the mechanical distribution component (which can include the entire song, or a small sample).
Elements that cannot usually be copyrighted include: vocal stylings, bass lines, production and engineering tricks, chord sequences, rhythms, arrangement structures.
Sometimes, very rarely, any of these can be considered distinctive enough to be the primary element that defines a song. But that's a very tough case to argue, and most suits that try it fail spectacularly.
In fact a lot of pop is made by knowingly and deliberately copying elements from various source songs and mixing them up to create a new song.
So there is absolutely no practical way this ruling can stand. If it did, it would open the industry to a wave of law suits that would reduce it to chaos.
One of the defining characteristics of "pop" music is the reuse of major structural elements like the primary harmonic progression (e.g. the infamous "4 chords"[1]). Listeners that do not have a lot of music theory knowledge and experience can still follow along with the "plot" of the song because it reuses simple structures they already know.
Appreciation of more complex harmonic structure and other unique features requires a lot more experience with complex types of music theory. As with all art/writing, knowing your intended audience is important. If the audience includes people without music experience/training, limiting the "vocabulary" top what they know is absolutely necessary.
For a very good explanation of this that includes examples, see this[2] video essay.
That doesn't prove causation on it's own, but it does seem to blur the lines of such absolutist statements as those you have made.
I could not disagree more. Again, we're talking about copyright, and copyright covers a specific expression of an idea. The fact that Pharrell was listening to an earlier, similar work is irrelevant, because listening to an earlier work around the time you wrote a new work doesn't mean your work is the same as the earlier work, any more than eating pizza around the time you wrote a new work means your work is literally a pizza.
> That doesn't prove causation on it's own
I think you're using the wrong framework here; this isn't a reverse engineering case. We don't need to prove that the authors of "Blurred Lines" had been exposed to "Got To Give It Up"; it's so popular and influential we can just assume it. What needs to be proven is that "Blurred Lines" contains copywritable elements from "Got To Give It Up". And contrary to the majority opinion of the appeals court, it seems quite clear it doesn't.
Where this idea meets stiff resistance is when it is contrasted with all of the precedent set by high profile infraction cases, such as George Harrison/The Chiffons, The Verve/The Rolling Stones, Ray Parker Jr./Huey Lewis.
Each of these, in its own way, demonstrates that there is always more context involved than people making simple absolutist statements would have you believe.
Queen would beg to differ.
There are lots of big differences though, enough that I wouldn't call it a "rip off".
This concept has literally infected our general political discourse in the United States. Everything has been boiled down to SAT style analogies that essentially accumulate to the point where large groups of people have moved the goal posts of political discourse from "finding common ground" to "burning and salting each others ground as somewhere only an obvious fool would choose to stand"
The idea that copyright is there to help copyright owners make money seems to have gotten deeply ingrained in the nation's psyche. That idea really needs to be dislodged or we are headed for a world where no one can create anything without paying a ransom.
Unfortunately, those are just words, and they can be interpreted any way judges want. They could simply say that "Progress of Science and useful Arts depends on genres being copyrightable and copyright owners making money."
Judges are great at coming up with arguments to justify their positions, no matter how specious such arguments are. It's just their opinion, but their opinion is the one that counts.
Ultimately anybody can bring a suit against anybody and this suit wouldn't even be a thing if that dumb blurred lines song wasn't a hit and there wasn't money to be made.
That also being said that song is a straight ripoff of Got to give it up. Everybody who was a fan of Marvin knew it instantly, but if you wrote out the score on a page and compared, the two songs wouldn't match up. Also if you objectively compared the audio files you wouldn't find any samples of the former song in the latter either. I thought they found a clever way around the copyright using the former track as inspiration. perhaps borrowing heavily, but if this is the precedent we really are headed toward a world where nobody can create something without paying a ransom to another copyright holder.
No, it's not. The two songs are not even remotely similar. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16669049
> if you wrote out the score on a page and compared, the two songs wouldn't match up
That's because they are not even remotely similar.
> if you objectively compared the audio files you wouldn't find any samples of the former song in the latter either
That's because they are not even remotely similar.
Actually copyright should be the 14 years + a one time extension of 14 years which can only be applied for by the living original creator
Copyrights by corporations are 14 years only, no extensions
As a fan of neither, I youtubed both songs when I heard about this ruling. If Blurred Lines is a rip off, then a lot of bands should be very worried.
How many times has someone told you "If you like X, you should listen to Y." I was listening to Triple J a couple days ago and a caller requested some song specifically because it reminded them of some other song. Pretty sure it was on Bridgette's program, but could have been Gen and Lewis[1].
The Constitution says explicitly that the purpose of copyright is to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". I'm pretty sure that letting someone copyright a whole genre will have the exact opposite effect.
A reasonable person could argue the opposite: that allowing a person to copyright a genre would provide a terrific incentive to create entirely new genres, opening up far more modes of expression than a single new song would do.
But, no new incentive to create new genres as a means of creative expression will exist, that don't exist already. Genre uniqueness, itself, has little value as a creative endeavor - most of the genres that exist build on prior work, and are similar to the genres they transformed.
Once companies have laid claim to all existing musical genres, styles, themes, beats, feels, etc., The purpose of genre will become the manufacture of legally distinctive identities, rather than meaningful forms of creative expression.
Cite?
I'm sure Rayiner is right, since he went to school for this, but I doubt Heller gets us there.
And, no, the limits suggested by Heller are, in Scalia's opinion, entirely related to the purpose of the amendment. His decision starts with a discussion of what a militia was at the time of the founders and ends with (paraphrased) "the people have a right to those weapons that would normally be borne by a civilian militia".
I'm not arguing that Heller "doesn't count"; it's the law of the land. I'm saying that it's a bad example of the principle Rayiner is talking about.
The problem with giving prefatory clauses force of law is that such clauses will almost certainly be exteremely general, leaving a court in the position of trying to decide whether a specific law furthers some abstract goal. That is policymaking, not adjudication.
Also, we wouldn’t stand for it if the shoe were on the other foot. If the first amendment said: “robust political debate being necessary to a free state, the freedom of speech shall not be abridged,” would we treat “political debate” as a limiting clause, allowing restrictions for non-political speech?
Really I think I'm just coming from a place of, Heller is usually a bad example for any kind of legal argument premised on universal principles. It was an extremely divisive opinion and a split-the-baby result, at that.
I realize USA has a precedent based system, but how long do things like that usually hold over there; before another judge rules something more sane?
As this was a circuit court decision, its precedent is only binding within that region of the country. The best chance of this being overturned within the court system is for a judge in a different circuit to create conflicting precedent there, which will make it more likely for the Supreme Court to take the case and unify the rulings.
Alternatively, Congress can amend the law which will force the courts to base their decisions on the new text.
I don't care if you make micro tonal music but otherwise..pay me.
The purpose of copyright law is to protect the profits of greedy companies. This court should know better. Do they not consider recent changes to the law? And how can law have a purpose other than what it actually achieves? No one could possibly read the minds of legislators or the founding fathers on this issue. The purpose of the law cannot be something it never achieves anymore. Of course, going by legal definitions of "reasonable" it's not surprising they reach such an unreasonable, illogical decision. And people wonder why lawyers and judges are so despised with this type of illogical thinking.
The purpose, as stated in the constitution, is "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
This often means protecting the profits of the IP owners, but not always, for example see "copyright misuse".