2 ms·
But is this the entire thrust of their argument? That melodies constitute to smaller component of song to be copyrightable. Them “copyrighting” every possible
by avianlyric 7y ago
But is this the entire thrust of their argument? That melodies constitute to smaller component of song to be copyrightable.
Them “copyrighting” every possible melody using a purely numerical method is just a way of showing how absurd some copyrights are. They’re abusing the mechanics of the copyright system to demonstrate its flaws.
- snisarenko 7y agoSure. I've glossed over the fact that this is a legal stunt. But you can read my comment from the perspective of a devil's advocate arguing against them in court. Their argument in front of a court boils down to - "counting from 1 to 68 billion is creative effort worthy of copyright". My counter argument is that its not. And that its obviously so. I am not saying copyright law is great in it's current state. I am sure the LETTER OF THE LAW is ambiguous and ever changing for the worse (see Disney). And I am sure THE INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW has been arbitrary in a lot of court cases. BUT, if you believe in THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW - that a person can reap financial benefits for a certain period of time if they have produced something "uniquely creative". Then you should agree that this legal stunt doesn't contribute much of anything to the legal debate.