I'll say this about the Sam Smith case. 1) I think he ripped off Petty* 2) But I didn't know it until I heard about the case 3) And so I don't think he should have to pay him any money I mean, isn't that the main idea? If I listen to something and I can't tell immediately tell you that he ripped off somebody else's song, then it's a new song. And I don't care whether he used Petty's song as a template for his own. And Copyright Law shouldn't care either. *ETA: see the last paragraph where I expound upon that. "ripped off" was a poor choice of words. I think he actively used Petty's song in the construction of his own.
They've "ripped off" artists in a way I'm cool with and that I do not believe constitutes copyright infringement. And, actually, the way they've "ripped off" old blues artists is similar in a lot of ways to the Blurred Lines case.
1) They are too strong 2) This decision should get reversed on appeal. If it doesn't, then Thicke has the world's worst lawyer. Which is something I'm already suspicious of, given that he lost the case in the trial court. That just isn't a case you lose. 3) If it isn't reversed, major recording studios are going to have to move da funk out of California, because that would be a really bad 9th circuit precedent.
As long as you are creating something, even if riffing off of an existing work, I don't think that should be considered infringing. I hate patent laws too. Too many patent trolls these days.
Eh, patent trolls get a bad rap. I have no issues with it whatsoever. There's never been a time where inventors of subject matter were required to be making/selling products/services that cover that subject matter as a pre-requisite to suing somebody who's infringing the same. And there's always been patent trolls, but the term "patent trolls" just hadn't been invented yet. It's an effective term, I suppose, because people are really misled on the topic. Companies that complain about patent trolls are in fact patent trolls. themselves. Large companies decide not to do business in many areas where they have patent protection. This happens every single day of the week. Hell, Thomas Edison was a massive patent troll. It was his business model.
I know all of this. It only holds back technological development. There needs to be a revamping of the system.
I agree. I probably should have said heavily influenced rather than ripped off but I love me some Led Zeppelin.
There are a finite number of notes, so it's safe to come to the conclusion that there are a finite number of ways of arranging those notes. Even fewer ways to arrange them melodiously.
There's not a lot of point to arguing with KB. One could argue it is infinite in the sense that you could just keep adding notes to any given song or play them infinitely slower or faster, but yes there is a finite number of distinct melodies possible and a finite number of enjoyable or even perceptible ways for them to be.
There are definitely a finite number of melodies, and unquestionably an infinite number of possible songs. come on guys, step it up.
Don't think so. The sounds, volumes, and words combos are limitless. Pure math finite is debateable. Limitless in terms of what any individual might hear over a life.
But a recording of a bunch of dogs howling isn't music. Ear pleasing melodies are very finite as the video points out. If I figure one of those out, though, I should be rewarded. I do think there should be some sort of time limit for me to capitalize though --maybe 25 years after the composer's death until it enters the public domian.
