4 ms·

You keep saying "patented" and it keeps being wrong. This is the realm of copyright. And yeah, if nobody violated any copyrights, patents, or trademarks of yo

You keep saying "patented" and it keeps being wrong. This is the realm of copyright. And yeah, if nobody violated any copyrights, patents, or trademarks of yours, you can't sue them. The analogy in music is: if nobody violated any copyright, patents, or trademarks of yours, you can't sue them. In other words, there is no difference. The fundamentals are exactly the same. Yet you're trying to equate a situation where you explicitly spell out that no infringements of any kind occurred, with a situation where copyright infringment is alleged to have occurred.

strogonoff 5y ago
Exactly. The situation is the same fundamentally, yet copyright gone wild makes music business behave like software business would if everything was patented all the time. If you literally clone HN or LinkedIn (but call them something else), no one can sue you without having to prove you violated a patent or stole the source. No copyright violation occurred despite two identical products. If you compose a harmonic progression that bears semblance to one in a song by a famous pop star, you can and will be sued. You are guilty of violating copyright because your music sounds similar. Even if you call your song something else and the lyrics, the arrangement, the instruments used, everything is different. Even if no one can prove you stole any intellectual property. Etc. And the icing on the cake, now apparently even if you were first and they were inspired by your melody they still win if you did not bother to record your creative process while they faked a convincing recording of how they “came up” with your tune “on their own”.
- rectang 5y ago
  > If you compose a harmonic progression that bears semblance to one in a song by a famous pop star, you can and will be sued. You are guilty of violating copyright because your music sounds similar. You are only liable for copyright infringement if a court decides there is sufficient similarity. Similarity of harmonic progression on its own is highly unlikely to be enough to persuade a court unless that harmonic progression is highly distinctive — there will probably need to be other contributing characteristics in order to persuade the court. This test is exactly the same as with copyright infringement for the written word. In both situations, a court must make a judgment call, and persuading a court that infringement has occurred is nowhere near as trivial as you are suggesting. It is hypocrisy to deny musicians the right to defend their intellectual property that others in different industries enjoy, on the bogus basis that infringement is different for music.
  - strogonoff 4y ago
    Lawsuits we’re talking about involve incredibly common harmonic and melodic progressions[0], but that’s besides the point. Key aspects of software—the way it looks and works—aren’t auto-copyrighted (right?), even if they are quite original and unique. Many common UI (timeline, photo grid, etc.) or API patterns arise because they spring to multiple minds because they simply make sense in given moment in given shared context; just like that arbitrary melodic progressions spring to mind as you play, and yes who’s there to say it didn’t spring to someone else’s mind before. As someone both into music and software production, I personally will continue finding the notion of harmonic progressions or melodies as automatically copyrighted (or even copyrightable) as weird. There’s just so much more than that to any song or music piece, and making a field of creative passion a legal minefield doesn’t seem conducive to its thriving. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Fh_fc80KMs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Fh_fc80KMs (this was apparently settled out of court)

strogonoff 5y ago

Exactly. The situation is the same fundamentally, yet copyright gone wild makes music business behave like software business would if everything was patented all the time. If you literally clone HN or LinkedIn (but call them something else), no one can sue you without having to prove you violated a patent or stole the source. No copyright violation occurred despite two identical products. If you compose a harmonic progression that bears semblance to one in a song by a famous pop star, you can and will be sued. You are guilty of violating copyright because your music sounds similar. Even if you call your song something else and the lyrics, the arrangement, the instruments used, everything is different. Even if no one can prove you stole any intellectual property. Etc. And the icing on the cake, now apparently even if you were first and they were inspired by your melody they still win if you did not bother to record your creative process while they faked a convincing recording of how they “came up” with your tune “on their own”.

rectang 5y ago
> If you compose a harmonic progression that bears semblance to one in a song by a famous pop star, you can and will be sued. You are guilty of violating copyright because your music sounds similar. You are only liable for copyright infringement if a court decides there is sufficient similarity. Similarity of harmonic progression on its own is highly unlikely to be enough to persuade a court unless that harmonic progression is highly distinctive — there will probably need to be other contributing characteristics in order to persuade the court. This test is exactly the same as with copyright infringement for the written word. In both situations, a court must make a judgment call, and persuading a court that infringement has occurred is nowhere near as trivial as you are suggesting. It is hypocrisy to deny musicians the right to defend their intellectual property that others in different industries enjoy, on the bogus basis that infringement is different for music.
- strogonoff 4y ago
  Lawsuits we’re talking about involve incredibly common harmonic and melodic progressions[0], but that’s besides the point. Key aspects of software—the way it looks and works—aren’t auto-copyrighted (right?), even if they are quite original and unique. Many common UI (timeline, photo grid, etc.) or API patterns arise because they spring to multiple minds because they simply make sense in given moment in given shared context; just like that arbitrary melodic progressions spring to mind as you play, and yes who’s there to say it didn’t spring to someone else’s mind before. As someone both into music and software production, I personally will continue finding the notion of harmonic progressions or melodies as automatically copyrighted (or even copyrightable) as weird. There’s just so much more than that to any song or music piece, and making a field of creative passion a legal minefield doesn’t seem conducive to its thriving. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Fh_fc80KMs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Fh_fc80KMs (this was apparently settled out of court)