> Yes, but you're confused about the meaning of "actual copying". Any method that substantially reproduces the original constitutes actual copying. Nope, you'r

> Yes, but you're confused about the meaning of "actual copying". Any method that substantially reproduces the original constitutes actual copying. Nope, you're flat out wrong and I'll stake my bar license on it. Actual copying requires that "the defendant actually used the plaintiff’s work in order to create his or her own work."[1] Courts typically require proof of "access to the copyrighted work" in addition to substantial similarity between the results.[2] Substantial similarity can help constitute circumstantial evidence of copying but does not indicate infringement in and of itself.[3] --- >> That doesn't mean you can get around the Happy Birthday copyright[2] by simply randomly generating six note sequences until you get the one you want. > That is absolutely false, and I am shocked that you would post this nonsense in a public forum. The result is the only issue -- if it's a copy of a protected work, no one asks how the copy was generated. Read my original quote again. I think you missed the "doesn't" in my statement. We're in agreement that randomly generating content until it resembles a copyrighted work will get you in trouble, albeit for different reasons. --- >> On the other hand, let's say you somehow never heard the Happy Birthday song and somehow just came up with them on their own. That's fine -- no copying, no infringement. > Also false, as much case law demonstrates. The difference in the case of simultaneous invention is the severity of the punishment, not the judgment that it's a violation. Can you point out a single case where that's true? There's at least one appellate level case saying the opposite (albeit with 3 notes, not 6): '''[D]efendant submitted affidavits by experts analyzing the two compositions and showing that the only similarity between them is a recurring three note sequence found also in the works of Johann Sebastian Bach. The evidence presented clearly does not raise a question of fact as to whether the two compositions were so strikingly similar as to preclude the possibility of independent creation.'''[4] You may be confusing patent law with copyright. Under patent law, independent invention is no defense (except as to damages). But copyright law != patent law (unfortunately IMHO -- some semblance of an independent invention requirement would make patent trolling less profitable). --- Citations: [1] http://www.americanbar.org/groups/young_lawyers/publications/the_101_201_practice_series/elements_of_a_copyright.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/young_lawyers/publications... [2] See, e.g., Sid & Marty Krofft Television v. McDonald's Corp., 562 F. 2d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir. 1977), available at http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16740683432222862864 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1674068343222286.... [3] See, e.g., Donald v. Zack Meyer's TV Sales and Service, 426 F. 2d 1027, (5th Cir. 1970), available at http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17910748788979780235 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1791074878897978..., and Orgel v. Clark Boardman Co., 301 F. 2d 119 (2d Cir. 1962), available at http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9525184415609798342 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9525184415609798.... [4] Ferguson v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc., 584 F. 2d 111, 114 (5th Cir. 1978), available at http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17910748788979780235 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1791074878897978...