4 ms·
> Another artist that takes and uses and resells that work (without consent), is stealing that work. Another artist accidentally uses a melody from another son
by wvenable 4y ago
> Another artist that takes and uses and resells that work (without consent), is stealing that work.
Another artist accidentally uses a melody from another song (because it's a finite set) and are sued for all their income is a horrible system. The winners aren't the people producing value, it's the people who got there first and are now profiting off other people's work.
- greysphere 4y agoIf I grew up under a rock, somehow became a self taught musician, and ended up authoring a song that had recognizable components from Happy Birthday, then even still the author of Happy Birthday, having established that melody so successfully in the public zeitgeist, reasonably should benefit. This is so common the recording industry itself has established rules for sampling and licensing and covers and what not. Are there some folks out there abusing the system, for sure. But overall its goal is to maximize the value produced by the recording industry, which very much includes the people who 'got their first' who built foundations for future artists. To me, this all seems basically reasonable.
- wvenable 4y agoCopyright is supposed to promote the creation of new works. You just described a system where a song written well over 100 years ago is preferred over over a new artist creating a new work.