6 ms·

As I understand, they refused to overturn the case mostly on procedural grounds. I find this somewhat reassuring.

lisper 9y ago
Yeah, except they passed up on a golden opportunity to overturn it on Constitutional grounds. 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. 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.
- pmoriarty 9y ago
  "The Constitution says explicitly that the purpose of copyright is to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"." 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.
- baseten 9y ago
  It's kind of ironic that Marvin is dead and his particular brand of art is no longer progressing. He is silent on the matter and his estate brought the suit. 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.
  - lisper 9y ago
    > that song is a straight ripoff No, it's not. The two songs are not even remotely similar. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16669049 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.
  - syshum 9y ago
    This is why copyright should end at death, 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
    - colejohnson66 9y ago
      The problem with ending it at death is that it gives an incentive to kill the author if you want to rip off their work. The 14+14 (as it originally was) is what I think it should be.
      - acjohnson55 9y ago
        That doesn't seem like a real concern.
    - gkya 9y ago
      Copyright is a menace to the society. Authors should maybe have a right on their work similar to what 2-clause BSD licence gives: if you reuse or distribute this, mention me please. The complex web of influences on each word spoken and each gesture made, let aside artworks altogether, is so complex that a consistent and just enforcement of copyright is just impossible. It serves no other purpose than making some companies and some greedy agents like the suers here rich, exploiting artists worldwide.
  - 2muchcoffeeman 9y ago
- gamblor956 9y ago
  There were no Constitutional grounds to overturn the lower court ruling. There were, however, numerous procedural grounds to do so. 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.
  - krapp 9y ago
    >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.
- rayiner 9y ago
  The "purpose" clauses of laws and constitutional provisions are explanatory, not limiting. (Sorry gun control advocates.) Judge's don't get to decide what "promote[s] the Progress of Science and useful Arts"--that is background policy to inform Congress how to write the law.
  - bjt 9y ago
    "The "purpose" clauses of laws and constitutional provisions are explanatory, not limiting." Cite?
    - IAmEveryone 9y ago
      Heller v <Whoever was the Mayor of Washington DC at the time>
      - tptacek 9y ago
        That's not a good cite: it was a 5/4 decision, and the majority explicitly rejected unlimited firearms rights despite no limit on them residing in the text of 2A. I'm sure Rayiner is right, since he went to school for this, but I doubt Heller gets us there.
        rhino369 9y ago
        5/4 decisions don't matter. Just as good at 9/0. No rights are unlimited. And the limits suggested by Heller are totally unrelated to the purpose clause.
        tptacek 9y ago
        A 5/4 decision means that essentially half the court disagrees in some form with the logic used by the other half. It has the force of law, but (a) not as much rhetorical force in discussion (because I can cite almost as many qualified legal scholars that disagree as agree) and (b) not as much precedential force --- the close decisions are the ones that tend to get revisited by later courts. For a recent case, you're talking about a decision that is essentially one change of justice away from being reversed. 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.
Natsu 9y ago
That's great until a future court wants to expand this and ignores that part of the case to cite it as precedent.
ocdtrekkie 9y ago
From my understanding, appeals courts aren't supposed to decide if the jury was wrong, even if they believe they are. They have to uphold the decision if the case was conducted properly... Even if the jury made a freaking stupid decision.

Yeah, except they passed up on a golden opportunity to overturn it on Constitutional grounds. 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. 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.

pmoriarty 9y ago
"The Constitution says explicitly that the purpose of copyright is to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"." 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.
baseten 9y ago
It's kind of ironic that Marvin is dead and his particular brand of art is no longer progressing. He is silent on the matter and his estate brought the suit. 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.
- lisper 9y ago
  > that song is a straight ripoff No, it's not. The two songs are not even remotely similar. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16669049 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.
- syshum 9y ago
  This is why copyright should end at death, 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
  - colejohnson66 9y ago
    The problem with ending it at death is that it gives an incentive to kill the author if you want to rip off their work. The 14+14 (as it originally was) is what I think it should be.
    - acjohnson55 9y ago
      That doesn't seem like a real concern.
  - gkya 9y ago
    Copyright is a menace to the society. Authors should maybe have a right on their work similar to what 2-clause BSD licence gives: if you reuse or distribute this, mention me please. The complex web of influences on each word spoken and each gesture made, let aside artworks altogether, is so complex that a consistent and just enforcement of copyright is just impossible. It serves no other purpose than making some companies and some greedy agents like the suers here rich, exploiting artists worldwide.
- 2muchcoffeeman 9y ago
gamblor956 9y ago
There were no Constitutional grounds to overturn the lower court ruling. There were, however, numerous procedural grounds to do so. 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.
- krapp 9y ago
  >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.
rayiner 9y ago
The "purpose" clauses of laws and constitutional provisions are explanatory, not limiting. (Sorry gun control advocates.) Judge's don't get to decide what "promote[s] the Progress of Science and useful Arts"--that is background policy to inform Congress how to write the law.
- bjt 9y ago
  "The "purpose" clauses of laws and constitutional provisions are explanatory, not limiting." Cite?
  - IAmEveryone 9y ago
    Heller v <Whoever was the Mayor of Washington DC at the time>
    - tptacek 9y ago
      That's not a good cite: it was a 5/4 decision, and the majority explicitly rejected unlimited firearms rights despite no limit on them residing in the text of 2A. I'm sure Rayiner is right, since he went to school for this, but I doubt Heller gets us there.
      - rhino369 9y ago
        5/4 decisions don't matter. Just as good at 9/0. No rights are unlimited. And the limits suggested by Heller are totally unrelated to the purpose clause.
        tptacek 9y ago
        A 5/4 decision means that essentially half the court disagrees in some form with the logic used by the other half. It has the force of law, but (a) not as much rhetorical force in discussion (because I can cite almost as many qualified legal scholars that disagree as agree) and (b) not as much precedential force --- the close decisions are the ones that tend to get revisited by later courts. For a recent case, you're talking about a decision that is essentially one change of justice away from being reversed. 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.

Natsu 9y ago

That's great until a future court wants to expand this and ignores that part of the case to cite it as precedent.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

From my understanding, appeals courts aren't supposed to decide if the jury was wrong, even if they believe they are. They have to uphold the decision if the case was conducted properly... Even if the jury made a freaking stupid decision.