Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday September 08 2019, @03:19PM   Printer-friendly
from the Gets-worse-before-it-can-get-better dept.

How low can copyright law go? Much further if the current lawsuits being flung around are any indication. Ed Sheeran is taking a hiatus to deal with a copyright claim from Sam Chokri against his song Shape Of You. The suit accuses Sheeran of stealing the Chorus from the song Oh Why after Chokri voluntarily submitted it to Sheeran's management. The resemblance between the tracks is said to be 'very slight', but this is not the first time Sheeran has been challenged in this matter, with the previous accusation being resolved by adding songwriting credits for parts borrowed from TLC's No Scrubs. Sam Smith caved in to Tom Petty's claim that his song Stay with me was in some way related to I Want Back Down, which must take a musician to spot, while Katy Perry lost a suit filed by a Christian hip hop artist who claimed that her song Dark Horse infringed on Joyful Noise due to that they both have "a slightly similar sharp stabbing synth and a basic trap beat" which resulted in Petty's lawyer commenting that “they’re trying to own basic building blocks of music, the alphabet of music that should be available to everyone.” With these big names being taken down by claims of similarity of the "feel" of the music this may be the beginning of the end of the music industry shooting itself in the foot.

Money better spent on hookers and blow.

See also, the short story Melancholy Elephants by Spider Robinson.


Original Submission

Related Stories

Five Years Later, Led Zeppelin’s “Stairway to Heaven” Copyright Lawsuit Is Still Going 32 comments

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2019/09/20/led-zeppelin-stairway-to-heaven-copyright-lawsuit-resumes/

The latest battle has been over their classic song "Stairway to Heaven," and amazingly, court proceedings are now in their fifth year. On September 23rd, the battle continues — once again — in federal court.

That's when the full 'en banc' panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the copyright infringement lawsuit that the descendants of Randy Wolfe initially filed against Led Zeppelin. The descendants insist that the opening cords of "Stairway to Heaven" were stolen from a song that the late guitarist wrote called "Taurus," which was performed by the band Spirit.

[...] In August, more than 120 music artists filed an amicus brief in support of the band. The artists have said that if the lawsuit against Led Zeppelin succeeds, it could seriously hamper creativity in music. Even more impressively, the U.S. government also filed an amicus brief on behalf of Led Zeppelin, citing the need to "foster innovation and creative expression."

Previously:
Led Zeppelin Appear in Court Over Stairway to Heaven Vs Spirits Taurus Dispute Music Copyright Laws Worsen as Artists Give Up


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Sunday September 08 2019, @03:25PM

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday September 08 2019, @03:25PM (#891323)

    Melancholy Elephants: http://www.spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html [spiderrobinson.com]

    Live long enough, and you really have seen most of it before - it gets boring pointing out the "novel inventions" that are just ignorant copies of previously disclosed work.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @03:43PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @03:43PM (#891324)

    Sam Smith caved in to Tom Petty's claim that his song Stay with me was in some way related to I Want Back Down, which must take a musician to spot,

    Huh. Guess I'm a musician now. Can't play an instrument, read music, or even sing worth a nickel, but I can hear the same phrase at two different speeds and still realize it's the same. Apparently that's a rare talent now?

    (Not supporting the idea that copyright law should punish this level of similarity, in fact I'm a copyright abolitionist. Just shocked people are unable or unwilling to notice the similarity at all.)

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Booga1 on Sunday September 08 2019, @04:22PM (3 children)

      by Booga1 (6333) on Sunday September 08 2019, @04:22PM (#891337)

      Hmmm, the sounds are familiar you say? Have a listen to the Pachelbel Rant. [youtube.com](low quality upload, but it's the original)
      Some of it's a stretch, but it really puts things in perspective.

      • (Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @06:54PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @06:54PM (#891365)

        C'mon, Eds! The Petty song is " I Don't Want Down Back"! Sheeesh! Basic facts, people!

    • (Score: 2) by Chocolate on Tuesday September 10 2019, @03:26AM

      by Chocolate (8044) on Tuesday September 10 2019, @03:26AM (#892040) Journal

      No, I can't. You must have a good ear.
      What of it?
      Are they two different songs? Or not?
      Maybe someone should go through the Petty catalogue to see if he ripped anyone off.

      --
      Bit-choco-coin anyone?
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @03:57PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @03:57PM (#891327)

    Not music industry. Record industry. With MBAs and lawyers running and profiting for the most part. The musicians are merely the exploited employees with a fortunate few that scapegoat for the industry abuse. Sorta like pointing at the one lottery winner or athlete in a mining town to say they're all winners. And for the record industry, old contracts pay more dividends so it's profitable to have dead artists' relatives sue contemporary musicians. More importantly, it creates a dependency on big labels that can afford litigating so even when they've long passed any productive business model, they can still maintain a level of income through legal fees.

    The ideal for the record industry is for every single possible song to be copyrighted so nothing new could be written without paying some royalties to them just like in Melancholy Elephants. One man's dystopia is another utopia and all that.

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Sunday September 08 2019, @04:19PM (33 children)

    by jmichaelhudsondotnet (8122) on Sunday September 08 2019, @04:19PM (#891335) Journal

    I am a musician. I would like not to be rich but just to be able to work every day as a musician with as few lawyers and marketing people as possible.

    The internet and government should make this possible, but instead it is creating an atmosphere so fraught with bullshit even some of our greatest artists can barely deal in this case mr sheeran, mr chappelle also talks about it in his latest. Copyright is only a part of it it but it is a big part.

    The weight of the old culture is stifling the new, the suits are smothering the environment that allows art to be created at all. The rich can just steal the soundcloud riffs of the poor. Any sockpuppet account can start a campaign against someone. A population that has doubled has half as many earning artists but quadrupled actual artists all competing for service jobs to survive.

    Representatives should be proposing new laws, but as I have said before, there is a real force to all of these non-artist office types who are camping out the work of dead geniuses for eternity, and all of that wealth is being directed to the wrong people due to a system that has always been unfair and corrupt.

    Plus the pressure to have all of this regulated by bizarro international agreements that superceded local government....

    thesesystemsarefailing.net

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Bot on Sunday September 08 2019, @05:28PM (2 children)

      by Bot (3902) on Sunday September 08 2019, @05:28PM (#891340) Journal

      I think the best course of action is considering music to be a discovery and not a creation, enforce copyright only for the sound file, that is the production, like math books can be copyrighted but math cannot. Plus have a similarity algorithm run on any publication and have the author forced to embed the list of similar songs in the file, and give people the opportunity to redirect the amount spent to any previous potential copy. But copyright is not about art, is about control, so it is not gonna happen.

      --
      Account abandoned.
      • (Score: 2) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Monday September 09 2019, @07:46AM (1 child)

        by jmichaelhudsondotnet (8122) on Monday September 09 2019, @07:46AM (#891578) Journal

        Something like this might work, but no matter how well the rules are thought out, a system of non-artists counting the pennies is going to always twist it against the artists.

        What I am getting at is that the copyrights of art needs to by an institution that respects artists, which I don't think will happen until artists themselves make their own institutions to regulate the money.

        And then make sure it doesn't turn into a cult like nearly everything else tends to.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09 2019, @02:37PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09 2019, @02:37PM (#891691)

          This reminds me of the comments surrounding Mr Clete in Pratchett's book Soul Music.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @05:30PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @05:30PM (#891341)

      You need to vote for Yang, 1000/month may make the difference
      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cTsEzmFamZ8 [youtube.com]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @05:43PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @05:43PM (#891346)
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09 2019, @12:05PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09 2019, @12:05PM (#891630)

          Sorry but his rebuttal is rehashing old arguments, even using the example ‘oh look what happened when cars replaced horses’. Anyone who utters the word ‘buggy whips’ just doesn’t understand the cut he current situation. It is the human mind itself being replaced this time.

    • (Score: 4, Funny) by EEMac on Sunday September 08 2019, @05:49PM (2 children)

      by EEMac (6423) on Sunday September 08 2019, @05:49PM (#891350)

      "I am a musician. I would like not to be rich"

      Done!

      • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @09:11PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @09:11PM (#891400)

        I too would lile to not be rich. How much did you charge the last guy? Cause I want a better deal!

      • (Score: 2) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Monday September 09 2019, @07:27AM

        by jmichaelhudsondotnet (8122) on Monday September 09 2019, @07:27AM (#891573) Journal

        yeah i like the way the entire sentence sounds but that first part doesn't sound right

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 08 2019, @05:52PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 08 2019, @05:52PM (#891352) Journal

      the work of dead geniuses

      Not only the geniuses, but the mediocrities and the could-have-beens and the want-to-bes as well. Not every artist is a genius, but if it has ever been written down or recorded, someone holds a copyright, or wants to hold the copyright.

      Remember the "Happy Birthday" song? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You [wikipedia.org]

      People who had zero claim to the song started making claims almost 100 years after the song was published in at least one book, that was introduced as evidence. If Warner didn't already suck ass for hundreds of other reasons, they would suck ass for this one claim alone.

      "Happy Birthday", and the song it was derived from, "Good Morning To You" weren't exactly "genius" works, IMO. It's just a nice, simple little tune that children can pick up easily.

    • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Sunday September 08 2019, @06:51PM (14 children)

      by RamiK (1813) on Sunday September 08 2019, @06:51PM (#891364)

      I am a musician. I would like not to be rich but just to be able to work every day as a musician with as few lawyers and marketing people as possible.

      The internet and government should make this possible, but instead it is creating an atmosphere so fraught with bullshit even some of our greatest artists can barely deal in this

      That's your core fallacy right there. The government represents the public interest so unless you can explain why anyone other than yourself has anything to benefit from you writing and performing, the laws and their execution will naturally skew towards protecting the people who can sell CDs and books for $30 and pay enough taxes to afford the government's copyright protections.

      Copyrights aren't there for you. The internet can't help you as much as it can a large label so you're always at a disadvantage when relying on social media. What you should be asking for is a municipal ban on playing recorded music in public venues and businesses like pubs and restaurants. Explain to the city that while they can no longer collect any taxes from the record industry now that there's no Tower Records, they can still get income taxes off working musicians and fine wedding venues, hotel, reception halls and cafes by enforcing such a ban.

      --
      compiling...
      • (Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Sunday September 08 2019, @10:36PM (13 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 08 2019, @10:36PM (#891431) Journal

        The government represents the public interest

        Poorly. That's why

        the laws and their execution will naturally skew towards protecting the people who can sell CDs and books for $30 and pay enough taxes to afford the government's copyright protections

        Moving on:

        The internet can't help you as much as it can a large label so you're always at a disadvantage when relying on social media.

        Are you sure about that? Sure, the internet can't help you make a billion dollars as easily as a multibillion revenue company with a massive marketing department and distribution chain. But then you don't need it to in order to achieve good ROI.

        • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Monday September 09 2019, @08:50AM (12 children)

          by RamiK (1813) on Monday September 09 2019, @08:50AM (#891592)

          Are you sure about that?...achieve good ROI

          I used to hang in the same circles* as many working musicians so I'm just repeating what I hear. I admit you can get decent returns on tiny investments but I strongly doubt those are sustainable as a professional full time musician unless you're one of a lucky few (popular streamers). That is, if you keep a youtube channel up and regularly upload samples from your gigs, it will serve as fairly accessible advertisement that a prospective client might find you through or at least call you back after checking out. But from what I can tell, the vast majority of musicians doing as much in youtube have 9-5 jobs. Some work in studios. Some teach at music schools. Most work in other trades. Those waiting to get discovered won't generally find social media useful unless they're really lucky. Those trying to just make a living will only have very little benefits. For most, booking gigs still means going to venues, giving a card - now with a link to their youtube channel as a form of resume - and hoping to get a call back. And since the venues are more comfortable talking to managers as those can connect them with multiple different musicians, they'll generally call those first.

          That said, there are hire-a-musician type services that cut the manage off which many venues like to use in some regions. But those aren't related social media.

          * helped out setting up a web site... another was a teacher... another was a real-estate dealer... another was a web dev... A dozen or so in total. All saying the same with the exception of one of them that got his then-current job via youtube. though it was in the sales department of an equipment manufacturer... :D

          --
          compiling...
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday September 09 2019, @03:33PM (11 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 09 2019, @03:33PM (#891716) Journal
            You're not actually describing any problems with the approach. The economics is the problem, not groups which have advantage under those economics. Let us keep in mind that there is a vast oversupply of great artists out there. We shouldn't expect them to have huge pricing power as a result whether by their own websites or by the much more scarce traditional mass distribution channels (the large labels).

            And since the venues are more comfortable talking to managers as those can connect them with multiple different musicians, they'll generally call those first.

            Managers aren't large labels. Instead, that's a second similar problem which also comes from good managers in the area being more scarce (due to competition for their services outside of the field, if you can manage a bunch of poor musicians, then you probably can manage something that pays better) than good musicians. Thus one shouldn't expect every good musician to have their own good manager.

            But from what I can tell, the vast majority of musicians doing as much in youtube have 9-5 jobs. Some work in studios. Some teach at music schools. Most work in other trades.

            And that's typically the solution to the oversupply. Most do work in other areas where their services are more valued.

            • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Monday September 09 2019, @07:21PM (10 children)

              by RamiK (1813) on Monday September 09 2019, @07:21PM (#891830)

              The economics is the problem...there is a vast oversupply of great artists out there

              The economic of the record industry is one of an obsolete business model that's completely relies on government regulation (music copyrights) to sustain itself at a time via streaming royalties when you can technically download music CDs by the thousands for free. So, when regulation is already what's keeping the industry going, supply (of artists) and demand (for records) is largely immaterial.

              This is the whole premise of banning public playback of recorded music. The record industry isn't benefiting society as much as their bottom line and tax statement suggest. They're concentrating wealth out of the hand of the creative and skilled artists into the hands of the middlemen. They're poisoning Washington with lobbies demanding weakened encryption, DRM, DMCAs, campaign funds, ISP level filtering etc... Their current "success" is youtube, spotify and iTunes: Highly centralized services that are doing more for the label's talents then they are for unsigned, private artists trying to break through the recommended lists.

              good managers in the area being more scarce

              That's where an Uber for musicians should kick in.

              And that's typically the solution to the oversupply. Most do work in other areas where their services are more valued.

              But again, if copyrights weren't there, all supply would be oversupply since no one would buy recorded music at all. So, we're not talking about regulating an otherwise successful unregulated market. We're talking about reforming a failed market that does nothing to compensate its workforce and everything to deprive consumers.

              Overall, this is a choice between the artists and the middlemen. And between existing regulations and laziness, the tech industry and society as a whole made the wrong choice.

              --
              compiling...
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 10 2019, @03:53AM (9 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 10 2019, @03:53AM (#892056) Journal

                supply (of artists) and demand (for records) is largely immaterial.

                Except, of course, that's not true and the parties with the least pricing power are the ones in greatest supply - as one would expect.

                But again, if copyrights weren't there, all supply would be oversupply since no one would buy recorded music at all.

                Because? I'll note that people pay for SoylentNews even though it's free.

                • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Tuesday September 10 2019, @11:12AM (8 children)

                  by RamiK (1813) on Tuesday September 10 2019, @11:12AM (#892162)

                  Because? I'll note that people pay for SoylentNews even though it's free.

                  Because we've already seen it happen when MP3s became available. Because albums aren't social but youtube / story comments are. Why do people play MMORPGs over single player RPGs? Why do kids buy cosmetics in Fortnite? Why do people post all the music, books and comics they buy on their social posts? Socialization and status signaling. When you go to a pub and pay 3 times for a vodka shot, you're not being ripped off. You know it's too expensive. That's the point. The price gauging is you sending a message: I can afford paying 3 times for luxuries for the privilege of associating with similarly well-to-dos. People want a barrier between themselves and lower social classes to feel reassured and secure about themselves. At the very least, they're satisfied to converse and be around like-minded people.

                  Except, of course, that's not true and the parties with the least pricing power are the ones in greatest supply - as one would expect.

                  But that's the whole point. The consumers are the people buying albums. The true suppliers are the artists. The record companies are only there because the government decided it. They have no pricing power of their own without government regulation. Back when booking venues, recording and distribution justified large corporations, the public benefited from the arrangement. But nowadays it's an outdated model. Rappers are producing albums in their bedrooms. Youtube is doing all the lucrative distribution. It's technically viable to replace the managers with an online service.

                  Understand, you're not advocating for deregulation. You're advocating for old, outdated regulations. in this case, the corporations are the horse and buggy people while the individuals craftsmen are the car people. And right now, the laws and practices you're defending are saying each buggy has to have a horse, a license for the horse, a groomer certificate, an 1st and 2nd party insurance and a lawyer on retainer. It's really is that much of a disparity between what technology should be enabling for both the public and artist's benefits, and what the pro-corporation regulations are providing.

                  --
                  compiling...
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 10 2019, @03:39PM (7 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 10 2019, @03:39PM (#892240) Journal

                    The record companies are only there because the government decided it.

                    No, that's incorrect.

                    Back when booking venues, recording and distribution justified large corporations, the public benefited from the arrangement.

                    Understand, you're not advocating for deregulation. You're advocating for old, outdated regulations.

                    Like what? This isn't about Disney-length copyright or suing someone because their song sounds remotely like yours did. It's about the fact that large labels still provide services that you acknowledged occurred in the past. There are still economies of scale to various activities in this industry that large labels can provide.

                    It's technically viable to replace the managers with an online service.

                    Managers != large labels. This is a different role than what large labels do.

                    • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Tuesday September 10 2019, @08:02PM (6 children)

                      by RamiK (1813) on Tuesday September 10 2019, @08:02PM (#892334)

                      This isn't about Disney-length copyright

                      Yes it is.

                      It's about the fact that large labels still provide services that you acknowledged occurred in the past. There are still economies of scale to various activities in this industry that large labels can provide.

                      Wait, what beneficial, relevant services are they still providing? My whole argument is that they have out grown and out lived their usefulness. That there's no economic of scales on their part at all if you take away their hard-lobbied protections. That the whole thing should have been redone around streaming for private homes and live shows in public without any labels and record companies at all.

                      Managers != large labels. This is a different role than what large labels do.

                      Some musicians need someone to negotiate venues, advertising and copyrights. Managers, labels and record companies all took those different roles depending on expected sales and personal relations. Nowadays however, there's just no scale at the top justifying labels and record companies. What lends them economic of scales is the ability to negotiate copyrights in bulk thanks to having so many signed artists and how venues want to be able to book a whole month without having to worry about the details. But, if you'd remove the venues issue through an Uber-like service and put massive amount of musicians into the "workforce" through the playback rule I've mentioned, you'd be taking off their whole legitimacy off the table since the artists are just getting so little from the copyrights and the advertising doesn't justify such a big specialized operation.

                      Look, I don't think you realize how damaging this "to-scale" IP policy has been to the US economy. The current trade war where Trump is complaining about a trade deficit over the Chinese not paying enough for IP is the natural result of the US persistently inflating the value of IP for over a century to justify it. The whole nation gone Micky Mouse with Hollywood accounting to devalued labor and innovation in favor of outsourcing, trading in ideas and paper-pushing. This isn't just about a few musicians getting paid. This is about the inflation in America's top exports. It's about smartphone companies being valued at $1trillion since they own an MP3 store with lots of exclusives and patents for rounded corners. Too many minimum wage artists and scientists isn't the problem. The problem is too many middlemen skimming off the top to the point the customer is unwilling to pay and you're spending more money on enforcing the inflated prices than you are at actually innovating. That's what this whole thing is about.

                      --
                      compiling...
                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 11 2019, @04:07AM (5 children)

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 11 2019, @04:07AM (#892520) Journal

                        Wait, what beneficial, relevant services are they still providing? My whole argument is that they have out grown and out lived their usefulness.

                        Ok, how do you go platinum from a website? How do you market your songs to foreign countries? There's well-developed infrastructure here that you're ignoring.

                        Some musicians need someone to negotiate venues, advertising and copyrights. Managers, labels and record companies all took those different roles depending on expected sales and personal relations.

                        They still do. Again managers aren't large labels nor would it ever make business sense to do so. There's too much conflict of interest there.

                        Look, I don't think you realize how damaging this "to-scale" IP policy has been to the US economy. The current trade war where Trump is complaining about a trade deficit over the Chinese not paying enough for IP is the natural result of the US persistently inflating the value of IP for over a century to justify it. The whole nation gone Micky Mouse with Hollywood accounting to devalued labor and innovation in favor of outsourcing, trading in ideas and paper-pushing. This isn't just about a few musicians getting paid. This is about the inflation in America's top exports. It's about smartphone companies being valued at $1trillion since they own an MP3 store with lots of exclusives and patents for rounded corners. Too many minimum wage artists and scientists isn't the problem. The problem is too many middlemen skimming off the top to the point the customer is unwilling to pay and you're spending more money on enforcing the inflated prices than you are at actually innovating. That's what this whole thing is about.

                        This has nothing to do with your assertion that regulation explains why the little guy gets little revenue. I've already acknowledged that there's big problems here. But when your product is something that any kid with a guitar can produce after a few years of hard core practice, then it's not the labels standing in your way.

                        • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Wednesday September 11 2019, @06:15PM (4 children)

                          by RamiK (1813) on Wednesday September 11 2019, @06:15PM (#892845)

                          Ok, how do you go platinum from a website? How do you market your songs to foreign countries? There's well-developed infrastructure here that you're ignoring.

                          How is going platinum beneficial or relevant? That's just pointing on the one lottery winner and saying lottery pays. Take all the album sales and profits and now subtract the true costs of copyright litigation and enforcement that the tax payers cover indirectly. Also note just how much geopolitical capital the US spends on getting its IP legislation matched and enforced globally. Did you forget how the last couple of trade treaties fell apart? Or maybe where the US currently stands versus China in the trade talks? This a very convoluted form of the broken windows fallacy where all the loses are absorbed by the public and all the profits are sent to the top with little to nothing going to the artists.

                          This has nothing to do with your assertion that regulation explains why the little guy gets little revenue.

                          Yes it does. Regulation that act as a barrier for entry shift costs to the point where little guys can't compete and become dependent on large entities that can, and do, pay them as much as they'd like. Pharmaceuticals... Automobiles... Infrastructure and Energy... In many industries it's necessary due to safety and public health concerns. Even the regulation I suggested to ban public playback would have shifted costs to business owners to pay salaries for the musicians performing which would have shifted costs to the people visiting those establishments. What it comes down to is whether the end result is sustainable and whether the public befits sufficiently from it. And I'm confident in saying another salary in every McDonald's and Starbuck would hardly make a difference when compared to the costs associated with litigating and enforcing music copyrights.

                          --
                          compiling...
                          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 11 2019, @11:04PM (3 children)

                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 11 2019, @11:04PM (#892945) Journal

                            How is going platinum beneficial or relevant? That's just pointing on the one lottery winner and saying lottery pays.

                            Because that's what a lot of people want, just like that's the reason that a lot of people play the lottery. Not any point to the rest of your paragraph because that's not the services offered by the large label.

                            Regulation that act as a barrier for entry shift costs to the point where little guys can't compete and become dependent on large entities that can, and do, pay them as much as they'd like.

                            You just assured me that going platinum (and other such things) wasn't relevant. Now there's barrier to entry for these irrelevant things?

                            Even the regulation I suggested to ban public playback

                            It's grotesquely anti-democratic and violates the right of free speech. Remember you were complaining about how the large label depended on regulation and law to sustain their business model? You're doing the same here.

                            • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Friday September 13 2019, @06:46PM (2 children)

                              by RamiK (1813) on Friday September 13 2019, @06:46PM (#893805)

                              Because that's what a lot of people want, just like that's the reason that a lot of people play the lottery.

                              So those people should pay for it. Not the public. The state lottery is justified as an illegal gambling to deny criminals a revenue source and because it being profitable means the money is then used to fund public projects. The subject was debated and tested repeatedly before it got the wide adoption it has now. Copyrights aren't there.

                              wasn't relevant. Now there's barrier to entry for these irrelevant things?

                              Relevant to whom? Under what conditions? You keep taking everything I say out of context and expect serious replies. Making platinum records is irrelevant to the public interest. It's irrelevant to the musicians as a group. It's only relevant to the record companies and a few musicians. And to get there, there are barrier of entries.

                              It's grotesquely anti-democratic and violates the right of free speech.

                              1. Copyrights are a limitation on free speech by definition so of course anything discussed regarding them and their execution is going to violate one definition or the next of free speech. The only question is whether it's limiting political discourse.
                              2. You're already required to get a "performance license" from the copyright holder if you want to playback works in public. The state can just tax such licenses by a factor of a million. Nothing illegal there.
                              3. This isn't about speech. It's about playback of speech in public. Music specifically. Try blasting music via your speakers on the street and you'll be arrested for some disturbance of the peace or something. There's already time tested laws working in that domain from rallies and demonstrations putting demands for permits and such. If you want to playback something in a political convention, go ahead.

                              Remember you were complaining about how the large label depended on regulation and law to sustain their business model? You're doing the same here.

                              That's not what I was complaining about. All industries depend on the government for protection in form or the next and regulations are just that. My complain was that they depend on regulations to sustain a business model that doesn't benefit the public. When businesses need the public to pay to police downtown, it makes sense. When book authors need copyrights to be able to keep writing, it makes sense. When musicians need(ed) copyrights to make a living, it made sense. But that's not the case anymore. The musicians aren't living off the recordings. They only use them to promote their performances. So the protection is no longer required.

                              Regardless, you seem to refuse to read anything I write in the context it was written forcing me to repeat myself without raising any new arguments. So, I'm out.

                              --
                              compiling...
                              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 13 2019, @10:36PM

                                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 13 2019, @10:36PM (#893884) Journal

                                Copyrights are a limitation on free speech by definition so

                                Sorry, I don't buy that the limitations copyrights create on free speech are equivalent to the limitations provided by "ban public playback". After all, copyright only applies to the works of the owner, and they can choose to waive their copyright. One can't waive a ban on public playback.

                                Remember you were complaining about how the large label depended on regulation and law to sustain their business model? You're doing the same here.

                                That's not what I was complaining about. All industries depend on the government for protection in form or the next and regulations are just that. My complain was that they depend on regulations to sustain a business model that doesn't benefit the public. When businesses need the public to pay to police downtown, it makes sense. When book authors need copyrights to be able to keep writing, it makes sense. When musicians need(ed) copyrights to make a living, it made sense. But that's not the case anymore. The musicians aren't living off the recordings. They only use them to promote their performances. So the protection is no longer required.

                                Except of course when the musicians are living off of the recordings. Not everyone performs as well as they record. In fact, most don't. And it's very possible to create music that simply can't be performed (unless of course your idea of performance is playing a recording in public with flashing lights and whatnot). Then what?

                              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 14 2019, @12:31AM

                                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 14 2019, @12:31AM (#893929) Journal

                                This isn't about speech. It's about playback of speech in public. Music specifically. Try blasting music via your speakers on the street and you'll be arrested for some disturbance of the peace or something. There's already time tested laws working in that domain from rallies and demonstrations putting demands for permits and such. If you want to playback something in a political convention, go ahead.

                                [...]

                                Regardless, you seem to refuse to read anything I write in the context it was written forcing me to repeat myself without raising any new arguments. So, I'm out.

                                Sorry, you wrote that first paragraph. When someone says "This isn't about speech. It's about playback of speech in public.", then they're missing something really big. The context that you wrote that in is that you don't have a fucking clue what you just wrote nor of the freedom of speech. Of course, playback of speech is speech. It's insane to start picking and choosing what expressions and implementation of speech are or aren't actually speech when it's obvious that they all are speech. It's speech if you say it. It's speech if you sing it. It's speech if you type it out with a computer or reading it on a remote computer connected by a wired-based network apparatus. And it's speech if you are playing it back in public. Getting something so fundamental to our exercise of freedom of speech so wrong is a strong indication just on its own of how much else you are getting wrong in this thread.

                                And it's funny how the people complaining that I'm putting words in their mouths are the same ones with these massively dysfunctional beliefs. A huge part of the context of what you write is what you write. Take better care of that, if you want the context to be sound.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @09:24PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @09:24PM (#891406)

      It turns out that when most of the hits are written by a small number of writers and where most music is intended to be familiar that you wind up with many copyright suits.

    • (Score: 2) by inertnet on Sunday September 08 2019, @10:18PM

      by inertnet (4071) on Sunday September 08 2019, @10:18PM (#891424) Journal

      I guess the name of the game [youtube.com] is still the same.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @11:52PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @11:52PM (#891456)

      The solution is dead simple.

      "I am musician." says nothing about how original you have to be. That dog-faced guy (Pit Bull) made a pretty nice living off copying songs, with permission, I assume. Ditto Weird Al.

      Now, if you really want to be "original" -- "Stay with me" vs. "Don't back down" style, you have a perfectly good defense in the mountain of work called the Public Domain. Take an old Stephen Foster song, dress it up and make it fresh. C'mon, you're creative, right? Then let them sue you. Demonstrate to the court that your plaintiff also copied it, then counter sue for the big fat hassle they caused you.

      Hey, it worked for all those four chord songs (Pachelbel's Canon derivatives). Fur Elise? The Can Can? Etc... It's ALL derivative to a degree. Just get a lawyer who understands that and work with him to prove prior art.

      Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet was a knock off of an earlier story. If it's good enough for him, it's good enough for you.

      You're welcome.

      • (Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Monday September 09 2019, @12:22AM (1 child)

        by fido_dogstoyevsky (131) <axehandleNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday September 09 2019, @12:22AM (#891463)

        Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet was a knock off of an earlier story. If it's good enough for him, it's good enough for you.

        The big difference is that Shakespeare had freedoms we in the 21st century don't.

        --
        It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09 2019, @11:28AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09 2019, @11:28AM (#891623)

          I think you missed his point. Everyone knows the laws were different in Shakespere's day. They had both more and less freedom than we have. Try being a homosexual Jew in the 1600s.

          His point was that even someone revered as Shakespeare didn't consider himself too good to do derivative work. Besides, your point is moot because the story Romeo and Juliet was based on was a few hundred years old by Shakespere's time anyway. It was public domain (by today's standards -- don't get huffy and accuse me for being ignorant that they didn't have PD back then.)

          I was in a business that got sued for patent infringement. Our lawyers managed to find older patents that had all the bits and pieces in our product. We were stunned to discover how "unoriginal" our product was. When the other lawyers saw the pre-existing versions of both our products, the suit was dropped. What I learned is that MOST of these kinds of lawsuits are fishing expeditions, hoping someone doesn't know how to fight back.

          If there truly are such a limited amount of notes and arrangements, then they're already out there in the older works too. Before you publish your song, do a little research and document the public domain instances of every measure. Keep it in a file. When they sue you, have your lawyer tell their lawyer (using their secret magic word sauce) that you're prepared and armed for the fight. They'll drop the suit in a hurry. (Don't dare try to be the lawyer yourself. You can very easily commit a felony by "tampering with a witness" if you even try to apologize to someone or have a casual conversation. Our ENTIRE legal system is truly fucked up.)

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Monday September 09 2019, @01:23AM (2 children)

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Monday September 09 2019, @01:23AM (#891479) Journal

      The weight of the old culture is stifling the new, the suits are smothering the environment that allows art to be created at all. The rich can just steal the soundcloud riffs of the poor. Any sockpuppet account can start a campaign against someone. A population that has doubled has half as many earning artists but quadrupled actual artists all competing for service jobs to survive.

      You're already modded to 5, so I'll reply. You put that in an excellent, succinct way: "The weight of the old culture is stifling the new."

      I think that's true of many of our other systems right now. It's true in finance, it's true in business (conglomerates stifling startups), it's true in research & development (to wit: the patent wars), it's true in politics (witness how geriatric the crop of Democratic presidential candidates is). It's not a constant rate of clamp-down, though, but rather accelerating. The pattern reminds me of the concept in economics of the "velocity of money," where the rate at which money changes hands accelerates as a harbinger of inflation. All these systems clamping down on the new at increasing velocity is a harbinger of something I can't quite put my finger on, but its aura is a vague horror.

      Your post has crystallized a notion that has been tumbling around my subconscious for months. When the weight of the old culture is stifling the new, what is one to do? When absolutely every economic transaction becomes a form of progressive entrapment, how does a person live? Karl Marx described a phenomenon in Das Kapital of alienation, whereby workers on production lines become drones producing empty objects, and it seems the same notion would map pretty well to every aspect of our lives as consumers now. Instead of every acquisition enriching us and empowering us, each diminishes us and entangles us. Creating music is not now bringing something new and joyful into the world to celebrate life, but the first step on an enslavement to a rapacious recording industry, with its agents and MBAs and lawyers each worming their vampiric tendrils into your heartblood.

      So, walk away. If playing the record industry game is rigged, don't play it. Create the music for yourself and your friends. If they like it, they'll share it. If they share it, maybe you'll get enough interest to be able to sell tickets to small venues for a live performance. My wife follows a band called Girly Man that does that. They have wonderful songs that you'll never hear on the radio or car commercial, but it packs the crowds in for the small venues. The fans buy the CDs and merchandise every chance they get because they know 100% of it goes directly to the band. DIY, in a nutshell.

      DIY takes more effort, but it's the best antidote to alienation and the weight of the old culture I've been able to come up with yet. It's not a panacea, but it's enormously satisfying to do something yourself exactly to your own liking and tell the world of bankers, lawyers, politicians, and all other varieties of parasites to take a hike at the same time.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 2) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Monday September 09 2019, @07:39AM (1 child)

        by jmichaelhudsondotnet (8122) on Monday September 09 2019, @07:39AM (#891575) Journal

        thanks I appreciate this response.

        What if I told you I did this and it has been enjoyable, but on days where I run out of money or have problems finding a tolerable dayjob that doesn't actually harm me, it feels really, really absurd to look at my stack of creations and contributions that are impossible to market or in some way use to prove that I actually don't deserve to starve like someone who has never lifted a finger in their life.

        This is actually where I am, today. I am scrambling to find a new job, waiting for unemployment to even decide if I get it, literally out of money, buying today's food with coins i stored in a jar.

        I've written and self-published 20,000 words this year, I performed a 2 hour free concert at my street's summer fest, I performed 5 times at an open stage at the local theater for big laughs. I write here to some pretty high ratings and I think a lot of people see it. Last year I wrote a collection of short plays, no theater or publisher has responded to my inquiries.

        I am effectively demonotized by the system, pre-demonitizsed in my case, I didn't even get to the first stage of facegag success. Any number of agencies could actually just record all of my successes and wait for me to die, then hand the precrafted comedy and music bits as suggestions to some 17 year old stooge. It's not even I can't get past the gatekeeper, I can't find one.

        This is unspeakably evil, to deny any success to actual creators on ideological grounds(we can't let people outside of our contro accrue power!) then taking the creations of bankrupted middle aged people dumb enough to dare criticize the cultural hegemony, and using it to give moeney to someone who will get to live a life of leisure off of it, wow that's evil.

        But this is where we are headed and it seems to be by design.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09 2019, @12:47PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09 2019, @12:47PM (#891648)

          it sounds to me like you just want society to pay you because you like making music.
          either you're incapable of doing anything else, in which case you are disabled and you should be supported somehow, or you choose not to do anything else.

          "tolerable dayjob that doesn't actually harm me"... I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I'd guess there's around a billion people out there who would call you a lazy asshole for uttering such a sentence.
          so you can't make money by doing the thing you love.
          get over yourself and do something else so that you get a minimum wage.
          if that's not possible, only then start complaining that you can't get money for food.

  • (Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Sunday September 08 2019, @05:22PM (2 children)

    by wisnoskij (5149) <{jonathonwisnoski} {at} {gmail.com}> on Sunday September 08 2019, @05:22PM (#891339)

    If it has not started already, we are clearly at the cusp of the big labels using AI to churn out every possible variation of sound and copyrighting it.

    • (Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday September 08 2019, @05:56PM

      by Bot (3902) on Sunday September 08 2019, @05:56PM (#891354) Journal

      Ok but the proceedings get awarded to the AI or it is CULTURAL APPROPRIATION!!!!

      --
      Account abandoned.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @06:13PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @06:13PM (#891356)

      You don't need AI, you could do it with a for loop...

      Granted, quite a big one. But a very simple concept nonetheless.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @05:33PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @05:33PM (#891342)

    Why do so many artists choose vevo?

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Bot on Sunday September 08 2019, @05:57PM (1 child)

      by Bot (3902) on Sunday September 08 2019, @05:57PM (#891355) Journal

      Their labels do

      --
      Account abandoned.
      • (Score: 3, Funny) by Pino P on Monday September 09 2019, @11:47AM

        by Pino P (4721) on Monday September 09 2019, @11:47AM (#891627) Journal

        Rephrasing: Why do so many artists choose labels that choose Vevo?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @06:56PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @06:56PM (#891366)

    There exists only a finite number of possible songs up to a certain length. One of the reasons I am not interested in music anymore. However, if someone writes a program which enumerates them all, and publishes the results, he could claim those funny property rights to all of them, right?

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday September 08 2019, @07:33PM (1 child)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Sunday September 08 2019, @07:33PM (#891376) Journal

      There exists only a finite number of possible songs up to a certain length. One of the reasons I am not interested in music anymore.

      Hah. For 4 minutes in length, is that finite number more or less than the number of atoms in the universe... squared?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhYwLDkxJYA [youtube.com]
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2Vwn3pxUPg [youtube.com]

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @09:28PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @09:28PM (#891410)

        Probably not, when you account for the sounds needing to be distinguishable and different enough to not violate copyright on other songs and be tolerable to some audience segment, it cuts that down a lot.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @11:26PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @11:26PM (#891447)

    No, that started a while ago, this just will accelerate the collapse.

    While intelligently driving for profit is not a bad thing, blind greed often kills the golden goose..

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by epitaxial on Monday September 09 2019, @12:33AM (4 children)

    by epitaxial (3165) on Monday September 09 2019, @12:33AM (#891468)

    The song is I Won't Back Down. None of you guys enjoy Tom Petty's music?

    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday September 09 2019, @01:25AM (3 children)

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Monday September 09 2019, @01:25AM (#891480) Journal

      Sure. OK, trivia question for a Tom Petty fan: what movie did he have a cameo in as himself, opposite Kevin Costner?

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09 2019, @01:43AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09 2019, @01:43AM (#891486)

        --Answer.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09 2019, @02:42AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09 2019, @02:42AM (#891509)

        Ooooh! Oooooh! I know! It was Waterworld! So, what's my prize?

      • (Score: 2) by epitaxial on Monday September 09 2019, @03:51AM

        by epitaxial (3165) on Monday September 09 2019, @03:51AM (#891530)

        The Postman.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09 2019, @03:39AM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09 2019, @03:39AM (#891526)

    I mean, Ghostbusters had nothing to do with I Want a New Drug. Ice, Ice Baby and Under Pressure were completely different compositions with absolutely no relation. Goldiblocks owed nothing to Beastie Boys. The Beach Boys ripping off Chuck Berry. Fogerty and CCR, which was a successful defense. Radiohead vs. Del Rey, still litigating but there's no way one can listen to Del Rey and not hear the verses' rhythm and melody are straight lifts of Creep.

    For every Thicke / Gaye controversy where something might not quite be right (and keeping in mind that one started in the legal realm with Thicke and Williams going after Gaye and not the other way around,) you can find several others that have merit. And you get Petty versus Smith where the choruses have a lot more in common than just a beat line but a near identical melody intonation.

    In other words, while there can differences and it ain't perfect, nor is there anything generally wrong. Artists should be held responsible when their creations don't, er, blur the lines well enough to a major predecessor work.

    • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Monday September 09 2019, @11:49AM (2 children)

      by Pino P (4721) on Monday September 09 2019, @11:49AM (#891629) Journal

      What steps should Sam Smith and Katy Perry have taken to discover their misappropriation before recording it?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09 2019, @06:43PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09 2019, @06:43PM (#891802)

        For cases like Parker, Vanilla Ice, Smith, and Del Rey it's pretty simple: The problem wasn't recording it. It was releasing the production. But for these cases it gets even more simple: Stop ripping off other artists' work without having gotten a clearance first. Most of these cases the artists were well aware that there was an "inspiration" behind it and it isn't a stretch from the outside perspective to know it's more than "inspiration" (go listen to Radiohead and Del Rey and tell me what you think). So, don't hire all yes-(wo)men for your entourage and producer - have someone who has the courage to say, "Hey, that sounds more than a little bit like ___________." Plus a little self-awareness that when you intentionally start copying the style of others you should remain humble and circumspect about the possibility that society (in the form of a court) may not agree with your opinion how close or far away it is. So again: get a clearance. Get an expert opinion if you must, but that usually isn't necessary because...

        And also keep in mind that for the most part the standard judgment in these suits is either a negotiated settlement and/or the copied party simply gets a songwriting credit (often a shared credit with the copier so they actually share in the proceeds of the song). That's compensation for having taken the work of the original songwriter. It's very rare for an artist to demand a compensation of pulling a record from play entirely and very hard to get that (because even the copy likely does have original elements to it).

        For Thicke: Don't file pre-emptive lawsuits trying to prove you're original just because someone says you copied. Wait for the lawsuit, if any. Because yes the law can unfairly backfire.

        For Fogerty: Do what he did. Bring in your guitar / prove that there's no relationship beyond the fact you've still got the same voice you're singing with.

        • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Monday September 16 2019, @02:37PM

          by Pino P (4721) on Monday September 16 2019, @02:37PM (#894606) Journal

          What steps should Sam Smith and Katy Perry have taken to discover their misappropriation before recording it?

          For cases like Parker, Vanilla Ice, Smith, and Del Rey it's pretty simple: The problem wasn't recording it. It was releasing the production.

          Technically correct. So what steps should Sam Smith and Katy Perry have taken to discover their misappropriation before releasing it?

          But for these cases it gets even more simple: Stop ripping off other artists' work without having gotten a clearance first.

          What steps should Sam Smith and Katy Perry have taken to prevent them from accidentally "ripping off other artists' work"? In addition, what steps should less-capitalized recording artists take to prevent same?

          So again: get a clearance.

          What steps should an indie recording artist take to determine from whom a clearance is necessary for each song? And after having determined from whom, what steps should an indie artist take to convince the person responsible for approving clearances to approve the clearance as opposed to refusing it? Clearance is not compulsory. MARRS ran into refusal to provide clearance in certain territories for certain samples used in the song "Pump Up the Volume", causing the mix to end up severely watered down in several territories.

          It's very rare for an artist to demand a compensation of pulling a record from play entirely

          Giving up a share of the songwriting credit works within the music industry, but not for use of music in audiovisual works. For example, the release of Nintendo's The Legend of Zelda had to be delayed when a copyright infringement was discovered at the last minute with the music used on its title screen. Discovering it any later may have caused Maurice Ravel's estate to take ownership of Nintendo.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09 2019, @01:25PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09 2019, @01:25PM (#891671)

      I agree with most of that except Ice Ice Baby.

      That base riff is just the same. Such that most people can't distinguish those songs until the words start.

      It might not be a big deal is that base riff wasn't the entirety of the song for much of both songs.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09 2019, @04:24AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09 2019, @04:24AM (#891543)

    time to line your pockets.

  • (Score: 2) by hwertz on Monday September 09 2019, @06:52AM (2 children)

    by hwertz (8141) on Monday September 09 2019, @06:52AM (#891567)

    Brought it on themselves... the RIAA and friends have spent at least the last 40 years fighting against fair use rights. The most relevant example, the 1980s when rap artists began using samples (which due to their short length was definitely fair use, the copyright is on the whole song, not some 2 second clip of it...) so the RIAA and friends made sure to get rid of that particular fair use right. And now it's coming back around to bite them in the ass.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09 2019, @07:44PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09 2019, @07:44PM (#891843)

    I hope this blows up in their face and it ends up with massive new restrictions to what Copyright law can claim and do. We're overdo for a massive correction to the powers of those laws.

    • (Score: 2) by Chocolate on Tuesday September 10 2019, @03:24AM

      by Chocolate (8044) on Tuesday September 10 2019, @03:24AM (#892039) Journal

      Didn't happen for Men At Work with Down Under.
      Yes he lifted part from the girl guides contest song [dailymail.co.uk] written in 1934. That is nearly a century ago.
      Copyright is supposed to be for a "limited time". Maybe we should jail or fine music execs "for a limited time".

      --
      Bit-choco-coin anyone?
(1)