7 ms·

Good video breakdown: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ytoUuO-qvg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ytoUuO-qvg

TheRodsterz 7y ago
Came here to post this.. was too late!
libria 7y ago
Well where the hell was this guy when Perry's team was building their defense? It's apparent what his position is, but he presents well, sounds sincere, and AFAICT has better evidence.
gregmac 7y ago
The video is absolutely worth watching, but one of the more relevant bits is this: > [...] in Dark Horse it's just the background texture for one of the verses. It has the same musical function as a chord progression or a drum groove: it serves to highlight the melody but it's not the song itself. Up until this point it seemed like only melodies could be copyrighted in the composition of song, however the recent court decisions surrounding Robin Thicke's Blurred Lines and Marvin Gaye's Got To Give You Up has thrown all of this into question. > This is why the lawsuit demanded a trial by jury: because they wanted to confuse non-musician non expert jurors with fancy music theory jargon. He also specifically calls out the expert witness, saying: > You're doing it in a fairly intellectually dishonest manner because I sincerely doubt you would make the arguments that you made in court at [an] academic conference for example, or you wouldn't write them down in a scholarly article, because your academic peers would absolutely eviscerate you for saying some of those things -- and yet in front of a jury of your peers you said them.
- sitkack 7y ago
  I don't understand why a Jury of Peers [1] wouldn't be comprised of domain experts and not just random people off the street. And it seems like having domain knowledge is likely to get one NOT selected for jury duty. Can any lawyers chime in on this (even armchair hn lawyers)? [1] https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/what-is-a-jury-of-peers.html https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/what-is-a-ju...
  - ModernMech 7y ago
    I always assumed it's peers as opposed to superiors. I.e. Your jury is not the king and queen but other commoners like you.
    - srfilipek 7y ago
      A peer of the defendant? Because the defendant was a musician in this case.
      - sarah180 7y ago
        The standard of "substantial similarity" in copyright law depends not on how an expert would see things, but on how a reasonable average person would see things. Juries are not perfect, but a jury of random people is probably the most qualified way to determine the question "would average people see these two things as substantially the same." Leonard French—a YouTuber and actual copyright attorney—does a good job covering the legal standards and issues here: https://youtu.be/t-tsw6Z4eHc https://youtu.be/t-tsw6Z4eHc.
        srfilipek 7y ago
        > a jury of random people is probably the most qualified way to determine the question "would average people see these two things as substantially the same." A jury of random people can be confused and then convinced by lawyers. That's the way they like it, and that's the problem with jury selection - they chose people specifically because they are not knowledgeable.
        fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
        Whats better? Experts that can be purchased? Elected or appointed judges who owe favors to those who elected or appointed them?
        srfilipek 7y ago
- mc32 7y ago
  But most of the people listening to his arguments are also not experts. I’d rather see him arguing with an expert who could have counter arguments. I’d like to believe him but right now I have to take his word for it.
- nominated1 7y ago
  What, if any, blow-back can Todd Decker expect from this? Didn’t he just put his reputation in jeopardy?
hajile 7y ago
Rather horrible breakdown IMO. The "prior art" from 1984 he mentions is radically different in the note pattern used which alone defeats that entire line of argument. Similarly, reaching back to classical music to talk about modern synth beats is a red herring. All he succeeded in doing here was showing that there wasn't actually prior art. He does a bit on how the pagan aspects of the lyrics and video are irrelevant, but proving harm is crucial to a legal case. If the music is indeed copyrighted, then he could easily be harmed by the associations that would negatively affect his own song (and most in the US would recognize pagan themes as decidedly at odds with Christian ones). The final blow is recognition and feel. A huge number of people would recognize Dark Horse exclusively by the playing of that short set of notes much as they could instantly recognize Billie Jean by its opening rift (or any number of other songs). This alone indicates that the notes in question are more than superficial. Likewise, would the song have been successful without their support? It's doubtful as they try to add a crucial layer of sound over the otherwise very drab and forgettable (if not outright distasteful) melody. If the notes are derivative and add substantially to the new work, then there is a case here. EDIT: I say this as someone who doesn't like the current copyright system (either its interpretation or length)
- coldtea 7y ago
  >The "prior art" from 1984 he mentions is radically different in the note pattern used which alone defeats that entire line of argument. It's not radically different at all. I'm a musician, but even for a lay person, this is as close as it gets without it being 100% the same. >Similarly, reaching back to classical music to talk about modern synth beats is a red herring. This doesn't even make sense. It's like saying that referring to a 18th century invention to invalidate a 2019 patent is a red herring. Music is music. >The final blow is recognition and feel. A huge number of people would recognize Dark Horse exclusively by the playing of that short set of notes much as they could instantly recognize Billie Jean by its opening rift (or any number of other songs). This alone indicates that the notes in question are more than superficial. No, it only indicates that these persons have a limited repertoire.
  - hajile 7y ago
comboy 7y ago
I recommend this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4MuhPqfIk4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4MuhPqfIk4 The whole channel really. If you ever felt like taking something apart to see how it works, in some of his videos he does that with songs. I didn't know people had access to stems of popular songs. And then there's music theory. It's like neuroscience. You push some piano keys (or what have you) and certain feelings appear. It's like programming but your whole work is presented to the user and there are no security issues. Really fun stuff.
sarah180 7y ago
I strongly recommend this one: https://youtu.be/t-tsw6Z4eHc https://youtu.be/t-tsw6Z4eHc I like Adam Neely, but Leonard French is an actual copyright attorney. He meanders a bit, but does a good job explaining the law here, including why this decision is narrower and more defensible than a lot of musicians might think.
drcongo 7y ago
This _is_ a good video, thanks. This whole thing reminds me of bullshit software patents.

Came here to post this.. was too late!

Well where the hell was this guy when Perry's team was building their defense? It's apparent what his position is, but he presents well, sounds sincere, and AFAICT has better evidence.

gregmac 7y ago

The video is absolutely worth watching, but one of the more relevant bits is this: > [...] in Dark Horse it's just the background texture for one of the verses. It has the same musical function as a chord progression or a drum groove: it serves to highlight the melody but it's not the song itself. Up until this point it seemed like only melodies could be copyrighted in the composition of song, however the recent court decisions surrounding Robin Thicke's Blurred Lines and Marvin Gaye's Got To Give You Up has thrown all of this into question. > This is why the lawsuit demanded a trial by jury: because they wanted to confuse non-musician non expert jurors with fancy music theory jargon. He also specifically calls out the expert witness, saying: > You're doing it in a fairly intellectually dishonest manner because I sincerely doubt you would make the arguments that you made in court at [an] academic conference for example, or you wouldn't write them down in a scholarly article, because your academic peers would absolutely eviscerate you for saying some of those things -- and yet in front of a jury of your peers you said them.

sitkack 7y ago
I don't understand why a Jury of Peers [1] wouldn't be comprised of domain experts and not just random people off the street. And it seems like having domain knowledge is likely to get one NOT selected for jury duty. Can any lawyers chime in on this (even armchair hn lawyers)? [1] https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/what-is-a-jury-of-peers.html https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/what-is-a-ju...
- ModernMech 7y ago
  I always assumed it's peers as opposed to superiors. I.e. Your jury is not the king and queen but other commoners like you.
  - srfilipek 7y ago
    A peer of the defendant? Because the defendant was a musician in this case.
    - sarah180 7y ago
      The standard of "substantial similarity" in copyright law depends not on how an expert would see things, but on how a reasonable average person would see things. Juries are not perfect, but a jury of random people is probably the most qualified way to determine the question "would average people see these two things as substantially the same." Leonard French—a YouTuber and actual copyright attorney—does a good job covering the legal standards and issues here: https://youtu.be/t-tsw6Z4eHc https://youtu.be/t-tsw6Z4eHc.
      - srfilipek 7y ago
        > a jury of random people is probably the most qualified way to determine the question "would average people see these two things as substantially the same." A jury of random people can be confused and then convinced by lawyers. That's the way they like it, and that's the problem with jury selection - they chose people specifically because they are not knowledgeable.
        fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
        Whats better? Experts that can be purchased? Elected or appointed judges who owe favors to those who elected or appointed them?
        srfilipek 7y ago
mc32 7y ago
But most of the people listening to his arguments are also not experts. I’d rather see him arguing with an expert who could have counter arguments. I’d like to believe him but right now I have to take his word for it.
nominated1 7y ago
What, if any, blow-back can Todd Decker expect from this? Didn’t he just put his reputation in jeopardy?

hajile 7y ago

Rather horrible breakdown IMO. The "prior art" from 1984 he mentions is radically different in the note pattern used which alone defeats that entire line of argument. Similarly, reaching back to classical music to talk about modern synth beats is a red herring. All he succeeded in doing here was showing that there wasn't actually prior art. He does a bit on how the pagan aspects of the lyrics and video are irrelevant, but proving harm is crucial to a legal case. If the music is indeed copyrighted, then he could easily be harmed by the associations that would negatively affect his own song (and most in the US would recognize pagan themes as decidedly at odds with Christian ones). The final blow is recognition and feel. A huge number of people would recognize Dark Horse exclusively by the playing of that short set of notes much as they could instantly recognize Billie Jean by its opening rift (or any number of other songs). This alone indicates that the notes in question are more than superficial. Likewise, would the song have been successful without their support? It's doubtful as they try to add a crucial layer of sound over the otherwise very drab and forgettable (if not outright distasteful) melody. If the notes are derivative and add substantially to the new work, then there is a case here. EDIT: I say this as someone who doesn't like the current copyright system (either its interpretation or length)

coldtea 7y ago
>The "prior art" from 1984 he mentions is radically different in the note pattern used which alone defeats that entire line of argument. It's not radically different at all. I'm a musician, but even for a lay person, this is as close as it gets without it being 100% the same. >Similarly, reaching back to classical music to talk about modern synth beats is a red herring. This doesn't even make sense. It's like saying that referring to a 18th century invention to invalidate a 2019 patent is a red herring. Music is music. >The final blow is recognition and feel. A huge number of people would recognize Dark Horse exclusively by the playing of that short set of notes much as they could instantly recognize Billie Jean by its opening rift (or any number of other songs). This alone indicates that the notes in question are more than superficial. No, it only indicates that these persons have a limited repertoire.
- hajile 7y ago

comboy 7y ago

I recommend this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4MuhPqfIk4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4MuhPqfIk4 The whole channel really. If you ever felt like taking something apart to see how it works, in some of his videos he does that with songs. I didn't know people had access to stems of popular songs. And then there's music theory. It's like neuroscience. You push some piano keys (or what have you) and certain feelings appear. It's like programming but your whole work is presented to the user and there are no security issues. Really fun stuff.

sarah180 7y ago

I strongly recommend this one: https://youtu.be/t-tsw6Z4eHc https://youtu.be/t-tsw6Z4eHc I like Adam Neely, but Leonard French is an actual copyright attorney. He meanders a bit, but does a good job explaining the law here, including why this decision is narrower and more defensible than a lot of musicians might think.

drcongo 7y ago

This _is_ a good video, thanks. This whole thing reminds me of bullshit software patents.