9 ms·
Ed Sheeran’s filming of his creative process for legal purposes hints at a world where it doesn’t matter if you can improvise a great melody in the moment out o
by strogonoff 5y ago
Ed Sheeran’s filming of his creative process for legal purposes hints at a world where it doesn’t matter if you can improvise a great melody in the moment out of nothing—if they happen to overhear you playing it, any plagiarist with a camera can record a convincing sequence of iterations leading up to your brilliant riff and successfully sue you into oblivion.
I wish for a world where musicians make music because they like it more so than to profit; a world where improvising on someone else’s musical idea is considered homage, not theft. (That said, I imagine many bands whose music I like were in fact inspired by fame and riches of rockstars before them.)
- _fat_santa 5y agoThe problem as I see it, when you get that famous, you look like a piggy bank to some people. Say you were walking down the street and tripped over someones foot, most likely you apologize and move on. But if Ed was walking down the street and tripped over the wrong persons foot, that person would quickly turn it into "I'm suing", "you hurt my foot", "I will need therapy", "I think I need to go the hospital". Now none of those things may be true but they are all in service of one goal: "I just had an interaction with someone super famous and super rich, let me see how much I can extract from them for my own gain".
- alan-hn 5y agoThat's because the US (and many other 'westernized' locales) have this shitty ideology where the individual matters more than other individuals or the collective. It's why the US has so many scammers and fraudsters. Edit: this is from my perspective living in the US. I'm not saying that the US has more scammers than other places, just a ton due to this western ideology. My comment about the ideology includes places such as Europe and possibly even China now
- smitty1e 5y agoOnce one asserts that the plural precedes the singluar, fresh vistas of tyranny open to whoever is in control.
- alan-hn 5y agoAnd we experience tyranny of the individual at the expense of everyone else currently. This is why businesses destroy the environment, to save individuals money (corporations are individuals as well in this context). This is just one example and not all-inclusive Balance is what's needed, not extremism
- smitty1e 5y agoStrong concur. Questions: 1) Which is the greater danger: the group, or the individual? (In the long run, clearly the former.) 2) What is the difference between a public sector group and a private sector group? 3) How is the balance maintained?
- alan-hn 5y ago1: I don't know if either are a greater danger necessarily. Numerous laws or regulations that are overall harmful could be enacted on the behalf if individuals the same as the group although one could assume that the group has greater power in their numbers. But on the same hand, there are a same number if individuals so that seems difficult to judge to me 2: the more I think about this, the less I know how to answer 3: Currently in the US, the balance seems to be derived through voting and lobbying but large groups seem to have more power in that case, although it could be said that many of these groups aren't working for the greater good (what I refer to as the society or collective) but instead serve individual or private interests of a few It seems that we need more robust mechanisms to ensure balance in society from my perspective
- dntrkv 5y agoBoth ideologies have their pros and cons. Take a look at Shanghai right now to see the downsides of when the collective matters more than the individual.
- alan-hn 5y agoThe ideology in China has become arguably 'westernized'
- gloryjulio 5y agoI agree with US has so many scammers and fraudsters part. But don't agree with the reason. There are tons of scammers and fraudsters in Japan too. Look at those new religions, elderly scammers, the copyright situation in Japan is not any better. It doesn't matter whether the society is collective or individualistic.
- mrjangles 5y ago>have this shitty ideology where the individual matters more than ... the collective You do realize that the 20th century gave us very good reason to feel this way right?
- lupire 5y agoThe collective is not the same thing as an all-powerful state.
- mrjangles 5y agoTwo things: 1) An all powerful state is the logical conclusion of anyone who believes the collective is more important than the individual. 2) There were many benevolent all powerful states during the 20th century, but every single powerful state that believed in collectivism turned into a murdering hell hole filled with poverty and suffering where the poorest people risked their lives to flee to countries that believed the individual is more important than the collective.
- alan-hn 5y ago>1) An all powerful state is the logical conclusion of anyone who believes the collective is more important than the individual. That is an absolutely massive assumption not based in reality. Its possible to care about the system as a whole without thinking that there needs to be a centralized authority.
- strogonoff 5y agoIndeed, caring for the society more than the individual and all-powerful governments are at best orthogonal, at worst inversely correlated. Take Hong Kong for example. Citizens are mindful and care about the collective a lot, while having individual business to take care of. In daily life they are conscious about following the rules not because they are forced to but because if they didn’t the dense city would come to standstill within minutes. HK was never under a communist dictatorship. Similar with Japan and Korea, which are not dictatorships and thus the case for an all-powerful government is very tough to make (a government that is democratically elected to enforce the will of the people is hardly an all-powerful government—it’s the people who are all-powerful in that scenario). Meanwhile, over in the mainland China you get selfish drivers speeding through red lights, giant interchanges full of cars at standstill (presumably, due to such behavior), organized scam mafia employing trafficked children to “sell flowers” on subway stations, etc. I’d argue that all-powerful government is in fact the supreme (but hidden) example of individualism where power-hungry individuals on top do everything to ensure they reign forever and cannot be replaced, everybody else be damned; and the rest of the country (whether consciously realizing it or not) follows the example set by their leaders. A factor that might correlate with societies being less individualistic is ethnical homogeneity. I hope there are examples to the contrary, though.
- educaysean 5y agoYou really think US has so many scammers and fraudsters? You obviously have no idea how rotten outwardly-civilized societies such as South Korea are. The scale of investment frauds and various other scamming operations taking place there are a constant plague, and the regulators are comically unprepared to deal with it time after time. South Korea is also a notoriously group minded society built on Confucius ideals and a strong sense of nationalism / ethnocentrism. I've no idea how you arrived at your theory, but it just sounds incredibly adsurd to me.
- alan-hn 5y agoWhataboutism is poor form How has South Korea changed in terms of culture and ideology over the last 100-200 years? Most places are adapting 'westernized' ideas because they appear profitable economically
- educaysean 5y agoMy post is not whataboutism. It's pointing out the absolute dearth of evidence linking higher scamming rates to societies that value individualism. A more proper name for this would be a "counter example", and it's something you should absolutely expect as a response when you put forth statements online.
- alan-hn 5y agoYour "counter example" does nothing to address the westernization of business and corporate operations in SK
- educaysean 5y agoI see where the disconnect is. I have a hard time placing your bar for being considered "westernized". Can you cite me the names of some nations that you regard as falling below the threshold?
- 5y ago
- azinman2 5y agoYou’re acting like the equivalent of patent trolls were trying to shake him down. But that’s not the case: it was other singer-songwriters. And if it really is a coincidence it’s quite the coincidence: https://youtu.be/8OrT52ZToUk https://youtu.be/8OrT52ZToUk (Ignore the title of that video and just listen/watch the content). Now there are obviously many common chord progressions in pop music, but that is a bit different than a much longer melody. Enough so that the courts agreed. You also have to wonder if the success of that melody was already imprinted on his subconscious. What I don’t know is if him having original thought versus attempting to copy matters. If I publish a poem, and then you try to publish the same words even if you didn’t intend it to be a copy, then you’re still committing a copyright violation regardless of intent.
- hansvm 5y ago> What I don’t know is if him having original thought versus attempting to copy matters. If I publish a poem, and then you try to publish the same words even if you didn’t intend it to be a copy, then you’re still committing a copyright violation regardless of intent. That's the case for, e.g., patents, but it is explicitly not how copyright works. Clean-room reproductions are valid defenses.
- after_care 5y agoI'm unsure "clean-room defense" can apply to a melody from a top 10 song.
- hansvm 5y agoThe court just has to weigh all the evidence. A lot of people have heard top-10 songs, so it would be hard to prove true independence. At an extreme though, if you could prove that somebody was perfectly isolated (e.g., if they had video evidence of not being exposed since that top-10 song was produced), a clean-room implementation from that individual would satisfy copyright law (mostly, give or take the as-of-yet mostly legally untouched minefield of deep-fakes). The only real question is where courts would draw a line between that kind of conclusive evidence and some random Joe pinky-swearing they produced the latest Taylor Swift hit in their garage and that it's accidentally kind of similar.
- oneoff786 5y agoThe majority of musicians likely play music because they like to and not because it’s profitable. It usually isn’t.
- s1artibartfast 5y agoBut most musicians don't do it on demand night after night for consumers.
- oneoff786 5y agoI don’t see why that matters
- s1artibartfast 5y agoI was getting at the fact that most musicians are not professionals. it is fine to wish I wish for a world where musicians make music because they like it, and as you added, many do make music just for fun. However, the musicians that that sing and dace on command even when they don't feel like it are a different category. I think it is weird to expect someone to work when and where the customer wants, but also do it for fun and not for money
- oneoff786 5y agoBut who expects that?
- s1artibartfast 5y agoFans who go to shows, and most who listen to live music. People don't go to a venue and hope someone they like shows up. They want want to know beforehand, and are willing to pay the artist to show up even if they wouldn't want to otherwise.
- jakear 5y agoMajor respect to Elvis Costello going this route [0] in the recent Olivia Rodrigo media frenzies. "It’s how rock and roll works. You take the broken pieces of another thrill and make a brand new toy. That’s what I did." [0]: https://twitter.com/ElvisCostello/status/1409567943520931847 https://twitter.com/ElvisCostello/status/1409567943520931847
- Geonode 5y agoI wish for a world where programmers code because they like it more so than to profit.
- whimsicalism 5y agoI don't make my money from copyright
- strogonoff 5y agoThis happens a lot already. Probably the best program code was written without compensation. There’s also that infamous OS that started as a hobby project and reportedly runs 70% of public servers on the Internet these days. People who contribute to OSS have jobs to support themselves, but they also program outside of work, they enjoy doing it and they give away the results of their work for free. It’s puzzling but it turns out above certain point people don’t really care about making more and more money and start being motivated by purpose and desire to do something good. Unlike music, there’re no money-hungry middlemen between those who enjoy writing software and those who want to run it.
- stavros 5y agoSo open source software?
- Arainach 5y agoFolks have to pay the rent somehow. Careers of passion are ripe for exploitation and burnout. Look at (American) teachers and game developers. That's not the model I want everyone to follow.
- strogonoff 5y agoI believe it’s similar in music-related jobs. There’re always opportunities to earn money doing work for hire (scoring, mastering, arranging, performing), but they tend to not pay too well.
- schwartzworld 5y agoI wish for a world where carpenters hammer nails because they like it more so than to profit
- awb 5y ago> I wish for a world where musicians make music because they like it more so than to profit You could say this about any profession. Doesn’t seem compatible with capitalism though.
- tut-urut-utut 5y agoStar Trek economy could be a solution here.
- batch12 5y agoFor this we would need replicators and massive energy sources. Federation economy works because all basic needs can be met with technology. Even then, there are races that use money and some items are rare. For instance, not everyone has access to a star ship-- so that has value as a commodity. Another example is latinum which can't be replicated.
- dontlaugh 5y agoThe basic needs of everyone on earth can already be met with today’s technology and resources. We would however need a rational and equitable allocation, which is impossible with production motivated by profit.
- JoeAltmaier 5y agoPerhaps some hyperbole there. Profit is feedback. It all depends on how the profit is calculated. 'How many people benefit' would be a productive profit-motive.
- dontlaugh 5y agoYou’re describing production motivated by need.
- shukantpal 5y agoIt is compatible − capitalism doesn't require you to profit more than you want.
- amelius 5y agoNot sure if it matters. Soon, the creative process will be replaced by some algorithm by OpenAI, anyway, and you just type "catchy song in the style of Ed Sheeran".
- rectang 5y agoI wish for a world where people who would deny others the opportunity to profit from their creations are themselves denied. Let programmers sell t-shirts.
- strogonoff 5y agoOpen-source software aside—if I publish a paid app, and later someone else borrows my idea and publishes a differently-branded paid app that does the same thing, and it becomes popular enough for me to notice, can I sue them? IANAL but pretty sure it’s a loud “not unless you have a patent that they violated”. In music business, if person A publishes a song, and person B borrows that idea[0] and publishes a song that uses it or even alludes to it, and that song becomes popular, there’s a clear lawsuit against B. It’s like there’s an implicit patent of sorts on every melody. Isn’t it at least somewhat mind-boggling? [0] Bonus points if person B actually wrote the song independently and/or earlier than person A, but wasn’t running cameras to film the process.
- kristianc 5y ago> Open-source software aside—if I publish a paid app, and later someone else borrows my idea and publishes a differently-branded paid app that does the same thing. This isn’t analogous to the Ed Sheeran situation though. The analogy to the Ed Sheeran situation wouldn’t be someone copying software wholesale (obviously wrong) but another Twitter client using the ‘pull down to refresh timeline’ mechanism on an iOS app.
- rectang 5y agoTwitter was granted a patent on "pull down to refresh". Patent law is a different areas of intellectual property law from copyright. The songwriting case is a copyright case. The analogy for Twitter would be copying source code, but not with full fidelity. If it's not "obviously wrong" that's because it's not verbatim; it's up to the court to decide whether there is enough similarity between the two for infringement to have occurred.
- rectang 5y ago
- HWR_14 5y ago> any plagiarist with a camera can record a convincing sequence of iterations leading up to your brilliant riff and successfully sue you into oblivion. Except 1) The lawsuit failed. 2) It's not enough to show prior art. Ignorance of the other creation is a defense against copyright infringement. 3) Iterations are irrelevant. > it doesn’t matter if you can improvise a great melody in the moment out of nothing No one can. All great musicians are inspired by earlier performances.
- cushychicken 5y ago> I wish for a world where musicians make music because they like it more so than to profit Wish granted: that's the world you live in. The vast majority of musicians don't profit from their art. Ed Sheehan was sued in part because he's part of the tiny, tiny percentage of musicians who do profit from their art. The problem described here is so niche among musicians as to be irrelevant to most of them. It's only a problem for those at the very, very top of the musical earning scale. I'd wager that less than a thousandth of a percent of the musicians on earth have to realistically worry about this.
- gnopgnip 5y agoCopyright prohibits copying. It doesn’t cover independent creation. Recording the creative process helps to show the songs we’re created independently.
- golemotron 5y agoIt would be nice to see courts make that judgment affirmatively.
- otterley 5y agoThis is an incorrect oversimplification of copyright’s protections. Copyright is a bundle of exclusive rights, among them, the creation of derivative works. (IAAL but this is not legal advice. Please consult a licensed attorney if you need legal advice, NOT HN.)
- nullc 5y agoA derivative work is a work based on another work. If you can, indeed, prove independent creation-- you should be clear of copyright. But even recording your development can't prove independent creation, after all you could have heard the other work off camera and merely be faking it.
- School-Cotton 5y ago> I wish for a world where musicians make music because they like it more so than to profit Plenty of people still do this. Probably more than ever before. Megastars like Ed Sheeran are outliers.
- asiachick 5y agoInfamous interview with Gene Simmons where he says the made a rock band, KISS, to get rich and get laid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNxuL-uIaTo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNxuL-uIaTo