3 ms·

There are legendary Prodigy tracks reconstructions by Jim Pavloff, see: 1. "Smack my bitch up" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU5Dn-WaElI https://www.youtube.

by xpl 2y ago

There are legendary Prodigy tracks reconstructions by Jim Pavloff, see: 1. "Smack my bitch up" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU5Dn-WaElI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU5Dn-WaElI 2. "Voodoo people" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZYLp5uX9Yw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZYLp5uX9Yw Those pieces sound exactly the same as the original, but it does not violate copyright because they've been produced by hand. Mind blowing!

rowanG077 2y ago
They definitely don't sound the same, very similar yes but far from the same. Besides was it proven in court or otherwise by some legal entity that these songs aren't considered copyright violations? Just because it has not been legislated doesn't prove it isn't copyright violation. Anyway I'm definitely not a copyright expert but I just found this argument extremely weak.
codedokode 2y ago
In Prodigy's defense, the samples were very creatively transformed so that the final result does not resemble the originals. It is more like cutting a small patches from paintings to make a new painting (rather than drawing a similar painting), and it is not what ML model do today.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
cthalupa 2y ago
That is not how copyright works. Music in the US and many similar legal systems has a compulsory license provision that allows for anyone to produce and distribute covers of music as long as all licensing requirements are met. With the long history of covers in music, how much enforcement there is around the meeting the licensing requirements bit varies pretty wildly. If you are not complying with the licensing terms, however, and the rights holder comes after you, no amount of having copied the song by hand will protect you from copyright claims. Similarly, I can't draw a batman cartoon with pencil and paper and avoid copyright claims when I try to sell the episodes. Please do not go around infringing on copyright and thinking it's OK because you recreated whatever it was by hand.
throw_m239339 2y ago
> Those pieces sound exactly the same as the original, but it does not violate copyright because they've been produced by hand. Mind blowing! Jim Pavloff was never sued by Prodigy or the right owners. On the other hand: https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/case-study/blurred-lines-copyright https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/case-study/blurred-lines-... > Marvin Gaye’s Estate won a lawsuit against Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams for the hit song “Blurred Lines,” which had a similar feel to one of his songs Which refutes your assertion of no potential copyright violation.
paulddraper 2y ago
A. These were never taken to court. B. They don't sound exactly the same as the original. C. That they were produced by hand or automation is irrelevant.

by xpl 2y ago

rowanG077 2y ago

They definitely don't sound the same, very similar yes but far from the same. Besides was it proven in court or otherwise by some legal entity that these songs aren't considered copyright violations? Just because it has not been legislated doesn't prove it isn't copyright violation. Anyway I'm definitely not a copyright expert but I just found this argument extremely weak.

codedokode 2y ago

In Prodigy's defense, the samples were very creatively transformed so that the final result does not resemble the originals. It is more like cutting a small patches from paintings to make a new painting (rather than drawing a similar painting), and it is not what ML model do today.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

cthalupa 2y ago

That is not how copyright works. Music in the US and many similar legal systems has a compulsory license provision that allows for anyone to produce and distribute covers of music as long as all licensing requirements are met. With the long history of covers in music, how much enforcement there is around the meeting the licensing requirements bit varies pretty wildly. If you are not complying with the licensing terms, however, and the rights holder comes after you, no amount of having copied the song by hand will protect you from copyright claims. Similarly, I can't draw a batman cartoon with pencil and paper and avoid copyright claims when I try to sell the episodes. Please do not go around infringing on copyright and thinking it's OK because you recreated whatever it was by hand.

throw_m239339 2y ago

> Those pieces sound exactly the same as the original, but it does not violate copyright because they've been produced by hand. Mind blowing! Jim Pavloff was never sued by Prodigy or the right owners. On the other hand: https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/case-study/blurred-lines-copyright https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/case-study/blurred-lines-... > Marvin Gaye’s Estate won a lawsuit against Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams for the hit song “Blurred Lines,” which had a similar feel to one of his songs Which refutes your assertion of no potential copyright violation.

paulddraper 2y ago

A. These were never taken to court. B. They don't sound exactly the same as the original. C. That they were produced by hand or automation is irrelevant.