5 ms·

> There is no world imaginable where the concept of owning ideas should be protected. Copyright does not apply to ideas, it applies to specific expressions/imp

> There is no world imaginable where the concept of owning ideas should be protected. Copyright does not apply to ideas, it applies to specific expressions/implementations of those ideas, which is what it seeks to incentivize. The fact that many companies (particularly Disney) sued people who only copied the ideas and not the expressions shows a failure of the legal system, not copyright.

dcow 4y ago
Why, then, is one artist even able to bring a case against another artist for composing a song with a similar riff as one they published? It seems it's not so simple. Perhaps I should have been more specific to say that copyright law as it exists in society today is rather broken so as not to disparage the original intent of copyright as a concept. But, I feel like we're just talking semantics, really. The point remains that the implementation is broken, copyright as we know it.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- kevingadd 4y ago
  Because riffs aren't ideas, they're expressions of ideas. This seems pretty obvious? The concept of a riff is not copyrighted, but a specific one apparently can be. Obviously copyright overreach is a problem today, but you're attacking the wrong problem. Musical works can be plagiarized by other musicians and it does happen, sometimes by accident (due to modern technology and attribution problems), sometimes on purpose. The developer of a notable mobile game had to pull some music from their title a couple years ago because the composer they hired blatantly plagiarized some other works, for example.
  - dcow 4y ago
    > but you're attacking the wrong problem No, I am not. I do not believe it is possible to accidentally plagiarize something (it cannot be by definition). I do not wish to live in a society where you can face legal consequences for picking up a musical instrument and simply expressing what's on your mind. Or as another commenter put it, dropping bricks on a piano. It's insane but it's rather familiar, sadly. It's in fact you who are falling victim to the common misconception that copyrighting the performance of a riff by recording it grants you rights to attack others' performance of the same riff. And that if I perform the same riff you performed I have somehow plagiarized it. To use your words, if you copyrighted the expression of one idea, then how can you possibly attack someone else's expression, that is not your expression, of the same idea, hmm? I am lamenting the fact that it's even possible to become so confused with the current state of copyright law (and juries do). And that it's even possible to bring a case against someone in the first place (it is). That is a problem and that's what I'm attacking. As a thought experiment, consider: https://libraryofbabel.info https://libraryofbabel.info. Should the author be entitle to copyright over every combination of characters imaginable simply because they wrote them down?
    - kevingadd 4y ago
      "Accidental plagiarism" is cases where you heard it before and are imitating it without intent. Intent does matter, but copying is copying! This is not a "common misconception". It's how the system works! I'm not saying it should work that way, but that's how it works. A series of notes is not an idea, it's a composition. That's just how it is. You can have the idea for a composition, perhaps even for a note progression you want to work into it in your head, but once you've made a composition, it is no longer just an "idea". Obviously there has to be a line somewhere, you shouldn't be able to copyright a sequence of 3 notes, but that's a question of law. Are you a lawyer? If so, I'll defer to you on this. > Should the author be entitle to copyright over every combination of characters imaginable simply because they wrote them down? Writing down a series of characters is kind of the definition of authoring a work, yeah. So I would expect they have the copyright if they wrote it down, unless someone else wrote them down first. Should it work that way? Maybe not.
      - dcow 4y ago
        > A series of notes is not an idea, it's a composition. You're missing the nuance. You should watch Adam Neely's latest video on music and copyright. To elaborate slightly, there's the idea of the series of notes, and there's the actual composition of the series of notes, and there's a performance by some artist of the series of notes. 1. The idea of the series of notes is not copyrightable. If it was somehow an invention it might actually be patentable, but intellectual property is not exactly what we're discussing. 2. The composition of the series of notes, written down or fixed to some media in some form, is copyrightable. And the author of the composition owns the copyright as soon as they generate the work. 3. The performance of the composition, if recorded, is copyright of the person making the recording. Now here's my commentary. On 1: some people think that the idea of the series of notes is what you copyright when you write the notes down. This is false. But society is incredibly confused on this topic, as the existence of multiple copyright cases regarding this topic demonstrates. This may be the fault of outdated legal doctrine, influence from large publishing conglomerate, etc., and in reality probably all of the above. But that's besides the point. On 2: you compose some music and print it out. This is your work. I am not entitled to take that sheet of paper and run it through a copy machine. I must obtain your permission. Even if I buy that sheet of paper from you, I am not entitled to make copies of it unless I have sufficiently licensed the work form you for that purpose. I am allowed, however, to create an identical composition. I am even allowed to create an identical composition after having seen yours or heard a performance of it. The law doesn't say I can't plagiarize. Society generally does not value plagiarized works, though, because they lack any sort of creativity. I am further allowed to sell the piece of paper you sold me. You don't own the item for which you hold the copyright after the first sale. This is how used book stores work and it's getting fucked up as we make things digital. I am also allowed to rent the piece of paper out, sharing your work with someone else. This is how libraries work. I own the paper. On 3: the record of a performance is the property of the entity that recorded it. I'm sure there are plenty of clauses regarding who is allowed to record performances for popular artists and you probably waive certain rights when you purchase tickets and enter into an agreement with the venue, but that's not exactly copyright law either. I am allowed to listen to F.U.N.'s Carry On in concert and then belt it out in the car on the way home, even if there are passengers and my windows are rolled down and I'm driving through a crowded public street. I can cover the performance of a copyrighted work. I am not generally considered to be plagiarizing because I am creating a derivative work by performing my own rendition of the song. Now there are formal agencies that try to govern the performance rights of a composition and try to rent seek on all aspects of the copyrighted work and govern how the work may or may not be used in derivatives. And they are successful in doing so. I don't have the legal training to know how much of this is legal vs how much of it is simply "good" manners, but I do know that, to keep the machine oiled, artists generally acquire mechanical use licenses from other artists before covering one of "their" songs. That's the extent of how the "system" is specified to work today, as I understand it. > Obviously there has to be a line somewhere, you shouldn't be able to copyright a sequence of 3 notes, but that's a question of law. The law deliberately does not specify where this line is. Probably because it's impossible to do so. So the things I'm fussing over: a) interested parties construing the idea of copyright to include the, well, idea of the copyrighted work, not just the actual manifestation. This is poisonous and the fact that people are confused is an indication to me that the current system is not clear and specific enough and needs work. As a society we cannot thrive when people have been convinced that a sequence of 8 notes is inexpressible and cannot be repeated simply because someone else did it, or simply thought of it, first. This goes against everything beautiful about creating art in the first place and it is beyond silly that we are wasting legal resources entertaining the folly of large record labels and publishing organizations. b) it stems from (a), the idea that a copyright holder is entitled to full creative control over the use of a fairly acquired copyrighted work. Even if we conceed the unadulterated original spirit of copyright is perfectly fine and the "system works", it does not extend any sort of authority to the copyright holder to govern how their work should be derived, expressed, interpreted, etc. It is insane that the industry norm right now is such that artists feel they need to obtain a special license of some copyrighted work in order to create a derivative work that incorporates it, or even just to perform their own rendition of it. I don't personally find any reason to fundamentally or axiomatically bestow this sort of creative authority upon people who simply come up with ideas and write them down. c) finally, an attack on copyright itself. It's a dated concept from an age where copying was hard and doing it was a meaningful function in society. We have generated all text strings and melodies that ever were and can ever possibly be. Our tools have advanced to a point where someone can actually write everything imaginable and claim copyright. Our culture has advanced beyond sheets of paper and the media we use regularly makes copies of data all the time in order to even operate. We have developed algorithms that remix content and generate new content that is at times indistinguishable from the original. Is it a copy? That's the question of the article. I suspect we all agree that humans who pursue creative endeavors are valuable to society and should be supported. I am simply saying that copyright is a very poor implementation of how our current society might do that, not least because it doesn't actually end up supporting the content creators very well in the first place and has since been coopted by self-serving publishing companies for profit. But also because it doesn't fit with our current understanding of a digital society nor does it mesh with the technology we've developed (the web, computers, and content generating algorithms). I don't really wish to see society stifle the possibilities we unlock with "AI" generated content because of dated notions that we need to protect original creators ability to dictate the copying of their work.
  - aidenn0 4y ago
    And you end up with $7.4M in damages and 50% of songwriting credits for a song that the melodies, chord progressions and rhythms are completely different (Blurred Lines and Got to Give It Up) because the song as a "similar feel."
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  You can bring such a case, but cases I'm aware of that were brought over two songs having similar riffs were cases that were lost.
  - deadpannini 4y ago
    "Blurred Lines" versus "Got to Give it Up"? > On March 10, 2015, a jury found Thicke and Williams, but not T.I., liable for copyright infringement. The unanimous jury awarded Gaye's family US$7.4 million in damages for copyright infringement and credited Marvin Gaye as a songwriter for "Blurred Lines". In July 2015, the judge rejected a new trial and the verdict was lowered from US$7.4 million to US$5.3 million https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blurred_Lines https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blurred_Lines
    - heavyset_go 4y ago
      I was thinking of the Ed Sheeran and Martin Gaye lawsuit.

dcow 4y ago

Why, then, is one artist even able to bring a case against another artist for composing a song with a similar riff as one they published? It seems it's not so simple. Perhaps I should have been more specific to say that copyright law as it exists in society today is rather broken so as not to disparage the original intent of copyright as a concept. But, I feel like we're just talking semantics, really. The point remains that the implementation is broken, copyright as we know it.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kevingadd 4y ago
Because riffs aren't ideas, they're expressions of ideas. This seems pretty obvious? The concept of a riff is not copyrighted, but a specific one apparently can be. Obviously copyright overreach is a problem today, but you're attacking the wrong problem. Musical works can be plagiarized by other musicians and it does happen, sometimes by accident (due to modern technology and attribution problems), sometimes on purpose. The developer of a notable mobile game had to pull some music from their title a couple years ago because the composer they hired blatantly plagiarized some other works, for example.
- dcow 4y ago
  > but you're attacking the wrong problem No, I am not. I do not believe it is possible to accidentally plagiarize something (it cannot be by definition). I do not wish to live in a society where you can face legal consequences for picking up a musical instrument and simply expressing what's on your mind. Or as another commenter put it, dropping bricks on a piano. It's insane but it's rather familiar, sadly. It's in fact you who are falling victim to the common misconception that copyrighting the performance of a riff by recording it grants you rights to attack others' performance of the same riff. And that if I perform the same riff you performed I have somehow plagiarized it. To use your words, if you copyrighted the expression of one idea, then how can you possibly attack someone else's expression, that is not your expression, of the same idea, hmm? I am lamenting the fact that it's even possible to become so confused with the current state of copyright law (and juries do). And that it's even possible to bring a case against someone in the first place (it is). That is a problem and that's what I'm attacking. As a thought experiment, consider: https://libraryofbabel.info https://libraryofbabel.info. Should the author be entitle to copyright over every combination of characters imaginable simply because they wrote them down?
  - kevingadd 4y ago
    "Accidental plagiarism" is cases where you heard it before and are imitating it without intent. Intent does matter, but copying is copying! This is not a "common misconception". It's how the system works! I'm not saying it should work that way, but that's how it works. A series of notes is not an idea, it's a composition. That's just how it is. You can have the idea for a composition, perhaps even for a note progression you want to work into it in your head, but once you've made a composition, it is no longer just an "idea". Obviously there has to be a line somewhere, you shouldn't be able to copyright a sequence of 3 notes, but that's a question of law. Are you a lawyer? If so, I'll defer to you on this. > Should the author be entitle to copyright over every combination of characters imaginable simply because they wrote them down? Writing down a series of characters is kind of the definition of authoring a work, yeah. So I would expect they have the copyright if they wrote it down, unless someone else wrote them down first. Should it work that way? Maybe not.
    - dcow 4y ago
      > A series of notes is not an idea, it's a composition. You're missing the nuance. You should watch Adam Neely's latest video on music and copyright. To elaborate slightly, there's the idea of the series of notes, and there's the actual composition of the series of notes, and there's a performance by some artist of the series of notes. 1. The idea of the series of notes is not copyrightable. If it was somehow an invention it might actually be patentable, but intellectual property is not exactly what we're discussing. 2. The composition of the series of notes, written down or fixed to some media in some form, is copyrightable. And the author of the composition owns the copyright as soon as they generate the work. 3. The performance of the composition, if recorded, is copyright of the person making the recording. Now here's my commentary. On 1: some people think that the idea of the series of notes is what you copyright when you write the notes down. This is false. But society is incredibly confused on this topic, as the existence of multiple copyright cases regarding this topic demonstrates. This may be the fault of outdated legal doctrine, influence from large publishing conglomerate, etc., and in reality probably all of the above. But that's besides the point. On 2: you compose some music and print it out. This is your work. I am not entitled to take that sheet of paper and run it through a copy machine. I must obtain your permission. Even if I buy that sheet of paper from you, I am not entitled to make copies of it unless I have sufficiently licensed the work form you for that purpose. I am allowed, however, to create an identical composition. I am even allowed to create an identical composition after having seen yours or heard a performance of it. The law doesn't say I can't plagiarize. Society generally does not value plagiarized works, though, because they lack any sort of creativity. I am further allowed to sell the piece of paper you sold me. You don't own the item for which you hold the copyright after the first sale. This is how used book stores work and it's getting fucked up as we make things digital. I am also allowed to rent the piece of paper out, sharing your work with someone else. This is how libraries work. I own the paper. On 3: the record of a performance is the property of the entity that recorded it. I'm sure there are plenty of clauses regarding who is allowed to record performances for popular artists and you probably waive certain rights when you purchase tickets and enter into an agreement with the venue, but that's not exactly copyright law either. I am allowed to listen to F.U.N.'s Carry On in concert and then belt it out in the car on the way home, even if there are passengers and my windows are rolled down and I'm driving through a crowded public street. I can cover the performance of a copyrighted work. I am not generally considered to be plagiarizing because I am creating a derivative work by performing my own rendition of the song. Now there are formal agencies that try to govern the performance rights of a composition and try to rent seek on all aspects of the copyrighted work and govern how the work may or may not be used in derivatives. And they are successful in doing so. I don't have the legal training to know how much of this is legal vs how much of it is simply "good" manners, but I do know that, to keep the machine oiled, artists generally acquire mechanical use licenses from other artists before covering one of "their" songs. That's the extent of how the "system" is specified to work today, as I understand it. > Obviously there has to be a line somewhere, you shouldn't be able to copyright a sequence of 3 notes, but that's a question of law. The law deliberately does not specify where this line is. Probably because it's impossible to do so. So the things I'm fussing over: a) interested parties construing the idea of copyright to include the, well, idea of the copyrighted work, not just the actual manifestation. This is poisonous and the fact that people are confused is an indication to me that the current system is not clear and specific enough and needs work. As a society we cannot thrive when people have been convinced that a sequence of 8 notes is inexpressible and cannot be repeated simply because someone else did it, or simply thought of it, first. This goes against everything beautiful about creating art in the first place and it is beyond silly that we are wasting legal resources entertaining the folly of large record labels and publishing organizations. b) it stems from (a), the idea that a copyright holder is entitled to full creative control over the use of a fairly acquired copyrighted work. Even if we conceed the unadulterated original spirit of copyright is perfectly fine and the "system works", it does not extend any sort of authority to the copyright holder to govern how their work should be derived, expressed, interpreted, etc. It is insane that the industry norm right now is such that artists feel they need to obtain a special license of some copyrighted work in order to create a derivative work that incorporates it, or even just to perform their own rendition of it. I don't personally find any reason to fundamentally or axiomatically bestow this sort of creative authority upon people who simply come up with ideas and write them down. c) finally, an attack on copyright itself. It's a dated concept from an age where copying was hard and doing it was a meaningful function in society. We have generated all text strings and melodies that ever were and can ever possibly be. Our tools have advanced to a point where someone can actually write everything imaginable and claim copyright. Our culture has advanced beyond sheets of paper and the media we use regularly makes copies of data all the time in order to even operate. We have developed algorithms that remix content and generate new content that is at times indistinguishable from the original. Is it a copy? That's the question of the article. I suspect we all agree that humans who pursue creative endeavors are valuable to society and should be supported. I am simply saying that copyright is a very poor implementation of how our current society might do that, not least because it doesn't actually end up supporting the content creators very well in the first place and has since been coopted by self-serving publishing companies for profit. But also because it doesn't fit with our current understanding of a digital society nor does it mesh with the technology we've developed (the web, computers, and content generating algorithms). I don't really wish to see society stifle the possibilities we unlock with "AI" generated content because of dated notions that we need to protect original creators ability to dictate the copying of their work.
- aidenn0 4y ago
  And you end up with $7.4M in damages and 50% of songwriting credits for a song that the melodies, chord progressions and rhythms are completely different (Blurred Lines and Got to Give It Up) because the song as a "similar feel."
heavyset_go 4y ago
You can bring such a case, but cases I'm aware of that were brought over two songs having similar riffs were cases that were lost.
- deadpannini 4y ago
  "Blurred Lines" versus "Got to Give it Up"? > On March 10, 2015, a jury found Thicke and Williams, but not T.I., liable for copyright infringement. The unanimous jury awarded Gaye's family US$7.4 million in damages for copyright infringement and credited Marvin Gaye as a songwriter for "Blurred Lines". In July 2015, the judge rejected a new trial and the verdict was lowered from US$7.4 million to US$5.3 million https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blurred_Lines https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blurred_Lines
  - heavyset_go 4y ago
    I was thinking of the Ed Sheeran and Martin Gaye lawsuit.