Led Zeppelin have triumphed in a long-running copyright dispute after a US appeals court ruled they did not steal the opening riff in Stairway To Heaven.
The British rock legends were accused in 2014 of ripping off a song called Taurus by the US band Spirit.
Taurus was written in 1968, three years before Stairway To Heaven.
Now, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has upheld a 2016 trial verdict that found Led Zeppelin did not copy it.
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-51805905
Related Stories
Entertainer Ed Sheeran has been found not guilty of infringing on four chords used in both his song and in Marvin Gaye's hit, "Let's Get It On". The same four-chord sequence is used in a lot of songs and at a key point in the trial a musicologist testified that the same four-chord sequence has been used in popular songs many times prior to Gaye's 1973 hit. The trial took place in Manhattan in New York and the jury took only three hours to reach a unanimous decision. The two songs featured at the trial also have very different lyrics and melodies as well as different use of the common four chords. While the decision does not form a legal precedent, it is likely to affect similar cases in the future.
During her closing argument, Farkas said the case never should have been brought and that Sheeran was "unjustly accused" of copying from "Let's Get It On."
"We all benefit from artists being free to create and to build on what came before them," Farkas said, warning the jury that a verdict against Sheeran would mean "creativity will be stifled for fear of being sued."
--ABC
Also
"I am just a guy with a guitar who loves writing music for people to enjoy," he added. "I am not and will never allow myself to be a piggy bank for anyone to shake."
--New York Times
(Score: 5, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday March 10 2020, @03:42AM (44 children)
My view on this is that there should be a statute of limitations. If you can't be bothered to protect your copyright for many decades after you become aware of the violation and/or the violation became extremely profitable, then the judges should simply throw out the case and not even bother with the question of whether it's been violated or not.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 10 2020, @03:44AM (34 children)
That'd require you to police all works produced in similar media, which just is not humanly possible. Now when it's a massively famous work like Stairway to Heaven, then you have a point.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Tuesday March 10 2020, @04:17AM (10 children)
There's a reason they waited this long: the person/people in Spirit who owned the original copyright died, and the unproductive leeches who inherited their estate decided to try to capitalize on it.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Snotnose on Tuesday March 10 2020, @04:30AM (9 children)
See also Ono, Yoko. I remember reading a month or two back where she wouldn't give Sean the letters he'd written his dad, he had to buy them from her at auction.
Talk about a talentless fuck skating along on someone else's work, that would be her.
Of course I'm against DEI. Donald, Eric, and Ivanka.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2020, @04:40AM
Well to be fair.... he wasn't exactly paying with his own money was he.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2020, @04:44AM
When he was told did he exclaim "Yoko oh no!"
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2020, @04:51AM (1 child)
Give Ireland back to the Irish
Give Lapland back to the Laps
Give China back to the Chinese
And give Yoko back to the Japs
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday March 10 2020, @01:59PM
Yoko Ono: the Japanese Celine Dion... their home countries DON'T WANT THEM BACK!
Justin Beeber, neither.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday March 10 2020, @09:58AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday March 10 2020, @01:57PM (3 children)
Where's the Amen mod?
She put out a song (heard it a long time ago) where she says (not sings) "What am i going to do about my.........legs?" I thought, "Wha?"
FOUND IT!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1COlh7233Yw [youtube.com]
And NOW for something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdZ9weP5i68 [youtube.com]
Talentless is kind...
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Tuesday March 10 2020, @09:57PM (2 children)
You deserve 30 lashes with a cat o' nine tails just for linking to that audio terrorism.....
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday March 10 2020, @11:21PM (1 child)
Tha's it: keep talking dirty to me...! :)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday March 12 2020, @10:55AM
Oh my, you're such a tease! ;)
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Tuesday March 10 2020, @02:46PM (14 children)
Funny how copyright maximalists expect it to be everyone else's job to police their works for copyright infringement.
If you don't become aware of a similar song or chord progression on a popular song for many years, then I have to wonder whether it should even qualify as a copyright infringement. I could maybe have a bit more sympathy if someone discovered some obscure little known song to have infringed their copyright -- but then I would have to ask if that song had in any way damaged the market value of what is allegedly infringed upon.
The server will be down for replacement of vacuum tubes, belts, worn parts and lubrication of gears and bearings.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 10 2020, @03:22PM (13 children)
False dichotomy. Nobody has to police it. Even the assertion that someone should have to listen to every new song produced in the world or forfeit their right to sue on any they didn't is ludicrous.
That's because you refuse to understand the utility of copyright at all. Yes, the current duration is so absurdly long that it should be overturned by SCOTUS as being functionally eternal but how it started out in the US was a fairly reasonable compromise. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water just because you're pissed off.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday March 10 2020, @03:49PM (9 children)
At this point it really *would* be better to just revoke all copyright laws. That's a sorrowful statement, because copyright *should* serve a useful purpose, and for a long time it did, but the way things are now we'd be better off without any. If you could just revert to a term of 17 years with one extension I'd say "Well, OK" but with rapid communication and cheap publication I think even that's too long.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 10 2020, @04:01PM (8 children)
No, no it would not. Much like it wouldn't be a good thing to shut off all coal/nuclear power without anything to immediately replace it. Being pissed off, righteously or not, does not turn unwise into wise.
I'd say seven years with an option on a seven year extension (for most things) if you're willing to pay 25% of your gross as a fee during that second seven years.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday March 10 2020, @05:07PM (5 children)
I'd like to share that advice with Trump supporters. Or even Trump himself.
The server will be down for replacement of vacuum tubes, belts, worn parts and lubrication of gears and bearings.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday March 12 2020, @03:14AM (4 children)
Man, that needs to be a bumper sticker. No, it needs to be on every license plate.
Trump was still the wiser choice though if you're not into having a shadow government that gives not a fuck what the people who voted them in wanted. And versus either Biden or Bernie a literal clown from an actual circus would even be wiser.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday March 12 2020, @03:06PM (3 children)
In some sense we got a clown.
The sad thing is that these are the candidates that 'float' to the top?
But especially Trump. If Trumpers were unhappy with Hillary (which I understand) could they, collectively as a party, not come up with a better candidate than Trump? I didn't like GWB but I at least had some respect for him and thought he was basically honorable if a bit dim witted. But Trump? That vulgar obscenity? How is it those people picked that, and continue to support him? It boggles the mind. And further brings more division. The pendulum always swings back and forth, but some people don't seem to think that far ahead. Or about rules and lines not to cross, because they might not like the same rules and dirty tricks when the shoe is on the other foot. But no. Nobody seems to think that far ahead.
I hate to see what is coming no matter who gets elected.
The server will be down for replacement of vacuum tubes, belts, worn parts and lubrication of gears and bearings.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday March 13 2020, @11:04AM (2 children)
Yeah, that's why I was specific as to it being a proper clown.
Nah, he was the one closest to what they wanted and by primaries time it's too late to organize a campaign because all of the choices suck. In case you're not quite clear on what they wanted, they wanted a middle finger to the political establishment, business as usual, and politicians on the right who apologize for not being politically correct enough when the left defines political correctness.
Now there were lots of other issues-related reasons but those are the ones that were pretty well universal to all his voters and why him instead of anyone else who ran in the primaries.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday March 13 2020, @05:55PM (1 child)
I was, but am no longer happy with the Democratic candidates. I guess the worst really do float to the top. Brace yourself, no matter what happens.
The server will be down for replacement of vacuum tubes, belts, worn parts and lubrication of gears and bearings.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday March 13 2020, @10:27PM
What for? I mean, it's just gonna be four more years of the same and Trump ain't fucked anything up any worse than any other President in the first four.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Joe Desertrat on Tuesday March 10 2020, @09:53PM (1 child)
I would further that and say that only the actual creators should ever be able to own a copyright. No being forced to give up your copyright just to get a recording contract or such. They can lease distribution to another party for the first seven years, but after that term is up all rights go back to the creators and another lease must be contracted for the second seven years.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday March 12 2020, @03:16AM
Disallow exclusive deals (the kind that prohibit you from dealing with anyone else rather than the kind where you don't want to deal with anyone else) and that goes right away. And you get more competition. Yay competition!
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Tuesday March 10 2020, @03:56PM (2 children)
What is that fairly reasonable compromise? If you don't mind me asking.
I'm under the impression that copyright originally (maybe predating the US) was to protect cartographers.
It seems we might agree that whatever reasonable balance copyright might have once had in the US, that balance has been completely upended by, first the music industry, and then the motion picture industry.
The server will be down for replacement of vacuum tubes, belts, worn parts and lubrication of gears and bearings.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 10 2020, @04:02PM
Truth. See slightly above.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by dry on Tuesday March 10 2020, @04:37PM
While copyright was first used to protect the stationers guild and for censorship after the invention of printing, the first modern copyright act had it right in its long title,
And even then the publishers were arguing it was for the artists while ripping them off.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 11 2020, @04:15AM (7 children)
Indeed.
Why? It wouldn't require policing of "all works produced in similar media" to discover that Led Zepplin was playing other peoples' songs. It'd just require a timely response. The dude who came up with the earlier work allegedly knew of the plagiarism from some point in the 1980s (I dimly recall he allegedly complained about the alleged plagiarism at that time), and probably knew of it almost instantly from 1971, given Led Zepplin's popularity. So why in that light did a lawsuit finally surface in 2014?
My point is that knowledge of the alleged violation happened long before the lawsuit did, and that the violation was very material with huge sales. That should by itself be enough to throw out the lawsuit. Sue them in a timely manner or GTFO.
The terms of copyright, particularly, their duration, are already absolutely ridiculous in their burden on society. There's no need to make it worse by allowing for lawsuits many decades after the plaintiff gets standing to sue. Keep in mind that US copyright on music is presently good for life plus 75 years. The song that Led Zeppelin was accused of infringing was written by a Randy Palmer who died in 1997. Technically, that means that his estate could sue through to 2072 long past the deaths of anyone involved with any alleged violations.
While a couple of posters have proposed ending copyrights altogether (which in my view is better than the current regime - yes, I think it better to have nothing at all than copyrights that will greatly outlive me), we don't need to go that far to merely eliminate vexatious lawsuits submitted decades later than any reasonable limit.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday March 12 2020, @03:11AM (6 children)
Yes, it absolutely would require listening to every bit of audio recorded after your wonderful creation was released to ensure that your copyright was not violated. That is part of why lawsuits are allowed to happen way after the infringement. The burden is on the copyright holder and they have no real way except word of mouth, random chance, or the infringing work becoming insanely popular to even find out if their rights have been infringed.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 12 2020, @05:00PM (5 children)
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday March 13 2020, @10:45AM (4 children)
Duh. You're making blanket policy statements though not specific-to-this-case arguments. And your blanket policy statements are flat out wrong for the reasons I've already put forward and many more.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 13 2020, @12:23PM (3 children)
And I'm quite comfortable with making those policy statements since that actually is the policy. Keep in mind the phrase that I used in the beginning, "statute of limitations". Most crimes and virtually every civil case in the US follows statutes of limitations that are well under 43 years. And it turns out that copyright also has a statute of limitations of three years [forbes.com].
My view is to extend that. If someone has been aware of a violation for decades and done nothing, that should revoke their right to enforce their copyright over the violation - particularly in light of the ridiculous length of copyright.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday March 13 2020, @02:28PM (2 children)
And your view is incorrect. It's slapping idiotic rules on top of idiotic rules in an attempt to mitigate the idiocy. The proper solution is to remove the idiocy not mitigate it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 14 2020, @12:55PM (1 child)
Idiocy mitigation need not be idiotic. Sometimes you can't implement proper solutions - after all the idiocy wouldn't exist in the first place, if it was easy to remove.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday March 14 2020, @01:41PM
Yeah, no. I just ain't gonna get behind leaving idiocy in place. And I'm certainly not going to get behind piling more idiocy on top of it to make it even harder to remove. You don't wrap duct tape around a leaking water pipe, you fix the fucking pipe. You're not even advocating duct tape, you're advocating toilet paper.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by crafoo on Tuesday March 10 2020, @11:51AM (8 children)
As long as we live in the world of absolutely ridiculous and unethical lengths of copyright PROTECTION for the artists, their families, and the great-grand children of the board of directors of the company that bought the rights .. they should be required to protect them in court for as well.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 10 2020, @03:22PM (7 children)
Two stupids don't make a smart.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Wednesday March 11 2020, @06:24PM
Sure, who would disagree with that? I wasn't claiming it was right, just that they should reap the consequences of the system they support when it benefits them.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 13 2020, @12:23PM (5 children)
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday March 13 2020, @02:16PM (4 children)
Mainly? That it's not humanly possible to police every sound recording made after your wonderful creation to ensure no violation has occurred. If it's not possible, it's absurd to require.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 14 2020, @12:54PM (3 children)
Why would you need to? In this story, that wasn't the problem. The copyright holders just need to police one thing in a timely manner. They waited 43 years instead.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday March 14 2020, @01:43PM (2 children)
So what? Time passing doesn't make wrong into right or vice versa.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 14 2020, @05:35PM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday March 14 2020, @09:55PM
Yeah, no, we effectively do not have a statute of limitations on copyright and haven't since the ability for anyone to easily copy any work came about. We have a very narrowly crafted limitation on it that is all but nonexistent because the clock is restarted every time a copy is made.
I've said it before but let me rephrase it, you do not fix idiotic laws by adding a frosting of retardation.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Tuesday March 10 2020, @03:43AM (6 children)
Stairway came out almost 50 years ago. Why the fuck are the courts wasting time on this crap, especially when the plaintiff has been dead for 20 years.
Of course I'm against DEI. Donald, Eric, and Ivanka.
(Score: 5, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 10 2020, @03:45AM (5 children)
Because it's a copyright case. Life + 70. Thank the mouse.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2020, @04:44AM (2 children)
Who modded that funny? It's fuckin sad, that's what it is.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by anubi on Tuesday March 10 2020, @09:14AM (1 child)
We don't have mod for sad.
This a good example of what happens when a few have been entrusted to represent the public, then special interests game the laws they lobbied to have passed.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday March 10 2020, @02:00PM
I blame Hillary....ALWAYS blame Hillary.
She probably deserves it.
:)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday March 10 2020, @04:54AM (1 child)
Thank the mouse.
Or all those people that wrote his name in
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday March 10 2020, @09:17AM
Makes you wonder...how much better would Disney be if Nazis still ran it? Probably more profitable, they would have left ESPN the fuck alone and came up with more original IP rather than X-Men 15: Professor X's Limp Dick.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by epitaxial on Tuesday March 10 2020, @03:51AM (22 children)
They do sound very similar.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Mykl on Tuesday March 10 2020, @04:24AM (10 children)
So do lots of songs [youtube.com]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Common Joe on Tuesday March 10 2020, @08:28AM (8 children)
Lots and lots of songs [youtube.com]. The link I provided is my favorite. It mashes six country songs together. At the end, they literally play all six at the same time. I'm not a big country music lover (not a hater either), but I find it absolutely astounding to listen to.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Tuesday March 10 2020, @09:17AM (3 children)
Lots of things use the same parts.
Did Chevrolet violate Ford's patents if they also used SAE bolts and nuts?
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 10 2020, @03:26PM (2 children)
Pretty sure there were mountains of prior art by the time the first Chevrolet rolled off the line. Nothing in the world wrong with using public domain technology along with patentable parts.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday March 10 2020, @03:54PM (1 child)
That doesn't excuse the way copyright derivation is interpreted. Or the ridiculous lengths. Or much of anything else about current copyright law...like the expense of either defending or prosecuting.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 10 2020, @03:56PM
Copyright ain't patents. Different critters entirely. The rest, that's another matter entirely and one we probably wouldn't disagree on.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Tuesday March 10 2020, @11:42AM (3 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 10 2020, @03:48PM (2 children)
Yup. Cookie-cutter pop stars in boots singing the same six songs with nothing but cosmetic and gender changes.Zero storytelling. I miss Marty Robbins and Hank Williams. Willie and Dolly still write the occasional gem but they're not gonna be around forever.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday March 11 2020, @12:03AM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday March 12 2020, @03:04AM
Based on real shit too. Jolene was a real person that worked at the local bank. Dolly went up there to do some "Bitch, my man ain't yo baby's daddy"-fu and Jolene whooped her ass.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday March 10 2020, @10:02AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday March 10 2020, @09:22AM (4 children)
I have bad news for you. All blues is essentially the same song. Ditto for rock and roll.
The song is probably inspired by Taurus, but not enough to be plagiarism IMO too.
Plus, Taurus did not tune those fucking guitars and they deserve to be sued for that reason only.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday March 10 2020, @02:50PM (3 children)
Some modern music is made of:
* 3 parts modem noise
* 4 parts bass line
* 2 parts simplistic repetitive melody
* 1 part incomprehensible vocal
Does each of these "musical works" infringe upon each other?
The server will be down for replacement of vacuum tubes, belts, worn parts and lubrication of gears and bearings.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday March 10 2020, @10:20PM (2 children)
Most electronic music has devolved,since 1989 for the mainstream and since the trance and progressive scene of the mid 90s in general.
It has turned into the equivalent of clothing fashion, where the novelty is in the tech and old ideas get reissued using it.
But among the sheer amount of useless stuff you can cut out your interesting genre exploration, if you can do it in pop jazz rock indie hip hop, then you can surely do it in electronic. In fact you can do it even if you limit yourself to nu disco or old school house. As long as the subgenre isn't popular. If it's the popular one, expect it to be filled with metoos and 'experts' and profiteers.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday March 11 2020, @02:54PM (1 child)
At least they make up for it by increasing the mp3 bitrate up to 96 kbps to ensure highest audio fidelity.
The server will be down for replacement of vacuum tubes, belts, worn parts and lubrication of gears and bearings.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday March 11 2020, @03:01PM
I prefer crisp and clear 7.5 Kbps sound [soylentnews.org].
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by martyb on Tuesday March 10 2020, @01:44PM (3 children)
One could argue this is different, but along the same lines I would like to offer up this all-time-favorite example of mine.
Rapture Riders [youtube.com] = Rapture - Blondie [youtube.com] + Riders on the Storm - The Doors [youtube.com]
I can still, vividly, recall when I first heard this on the radio while driving through town. I had to pull over to the side of the road! My brain kept struggling and alternating between giving primacy to the melody and then the lyrics and back again!
Wit is intellect, dancing. I'm too old to act my age. Life is too important to take myself seriously.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday March 10 2020, @02:15PM
Man! The Doors ripped off Blondie! Shame! Harumph harumph!
:)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 10 2020, @03:54PM
Kid Rock did a pretty damn good job meshing Werewolves of London [youtube.com] and Sweet Home Alabama [youtube.com] and to create something entirely new and worthwhile in All Summer Long [youtube.com] as well.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Bot on Tuesday March 10 2020, @11:14PM
Hehe then enjoy this label, https://www.junodownload.com/products/mashed-up-funk-vol-7/1543818-02/ [junodownload.com]
The trick for the song you posted is that both songs are harmonically quite plain. And possibly already in key (nothing librubberband can't fix)
Good matches are kid creme's "Doing my own thang" loop with Seymour Bits (which should be a system analyst/programmer) "Bonparapara Attack!" or Tony Rallo's "Holdin' on" loop with "Street Player" (Chicago) remix loop... same
I had myself two unknown tracks that matched perfectly, https://www.mixcloud.com/do7ob/all-vinyl-mix-march-2000-future-boogie-nu-disco-house/ [mixcloud.com] from 19:38 to 21:38 are simply overlayed. No editing, no re cue no pitch shift. All you needed to do was keeping the beat in sync.
It's more rewarding when harmonic variations match, my fave vinyl era live mashup was with one song that had a distinct progression, that is Cerrone's Je suis music (cappella) with michael gray's The weekend (the original version, which was mostly instrumental). When I find the two records I post it somewhere.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2020, @06:33PM
Yeah but Stairway to Heaven sounds like a much better version. Taurus is "meh" and will mostly only be remembered by those in the 1960s and 1970s scene.
It's like me being the first to cook a dish that's somewhat edible and then a few years later a luckier or more talented chef makes a much better version of it that's become world famous. Then decades AFTER I'm dead, my good for nothing descendants or worse try to sue the chef to make some money when those leeches didn't do a fucking thing. Fuck them.
They can give bullshit about fighting for the artist's recognition etc, but the original artist knew the guys and the song, why didn't he bother suing during the decades while he was alive? Go figure.
(Score: 2) by arslan on Wednesday March 11 2020, @12:12AM
Umm no they don't there's a descending chord bit that's similar, nothing else is. Unless they've copyrighted descending chords, which is impossible as there's prior art for _centuries_ from all sorts of music genres from all sorts of cultures over the world.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2020, @08:51AM (10 children)
Decades? Seriously?
Limit copyright to 20 years. Done.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by FatPhil on Tuesday March 10 2020, @10:11AM (7 children)
Of course, that was created in a time when the flow of information, of intellectual property as we would now call it, was incredibly slow. The ability to make money from your inventiveness was severely restricted. It's much easier to turn creativity into profit nowadays, so one could argue that copyright terms should be shorter. That's heresy though, so don't ever get caught saying that in a public place, or they'll sic the MAFIAA on you.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 5, Interesting) by deimtee on Tuesday March 10 2020, @01:26PM (6 children)
I'm a little conflicted. On one hand I think 20 years is plenty long enough for commercial works like films and albums. On the other hand there are series writers who have carefully crafted a universe in their works over longer spans than that and I think they should be protected for at least as long as they keep writing. The problem is that any series/setting protection will be abused by commercial entities to extend their copyrights indefinitely.
On the gripping hand, I would support a law that says copyright is not transferable. It must have a designated human author, and the most the author can do is license it out. All such licences must have a maximum term of five years. All copyrights terminate five years after the author's death.
200 million years is actually quite a long time.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Pino P on Tuesday March 10 2020, @02:16PM (2 children)
How would your law handle the case of a work with hundreds of contributors that provide identifiable creative input, such as a feature film?
Which would certainly raise the stakes in wrongful death suits.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Tuesday March 10 2020, @02:25PM (1 child)
1/ That's up to them to designate someone. It would probably be whoever put up the money or the director. How many of those hundreds of people own the copyright now?
2/ The five years was to match up to the contract term. All contracts would expire before the copyright does.
200 million years is actually quite a long time.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Wednesday March 11 2020, @02:20AM
I can understand a producer as a work's author of record.
But here's the exploit I had in mind: Someone wants to produce a derivative of a particular work but finds its author of record unwilling to license it at any price. So to start the life + 5 clock ticking, someone frustrated with the uncooperative MAFIAA hires someone from the real Mafia to make this author disappear and then waits out the five years.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Tuesday March 10 2020, @02:52PM
Not many people state the "only the author has the copyright, everything else is a licence" line, it's nice to see it repeated as it's one idea I've thrown into discussions on the topic several times over the years, sometimes to much confusion, as it's a radical change from what we currently have. It would somewhat mess up the smooth running of the exploitative fairy-story-driven music business we currently have. Which is a good thing for almost everyone involved in music.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Wednesday March 11 2020, @04:15AM
I'm not conflicted at all. Why shouldn't I be able to write stories about Discworld? Even while Terri Pratchett was still alive? Fans will know which one is the "real Discworld" and which one is the knockoff / Rule 34 version. With that said, I can see protecting Discworld from being commercialized by someone for a certain period of time (a few years, but not a lifetime), but after that?
Why shouldn't I be able to finish Game of Thrones my way? George R. R. Martin doesn't seem to be writing it anymore. And if he does manage to finish his series, people will know which one is the official version. The cherry on top is that this has already been done. Two versions of Game of Thrones happened between him and the television series. It didn't seem to dampen the excitement of George's fans for his next book.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 13 2020, @12:33PM
Why? My take is that they don't need protecting and we're missing out on other peoples' interpretations by doing that. The paying fans can police this stuff.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday March 10 2020, @11:23PM (1 child)
copyright makes no sense when copy has zero cost. Eliminate copyright tomorrow and people will keep making music. In fact you will hear much more music around. People made music when copyright wasn't and the planet did not collapse.
As an artist you should only credit those you copy or get inspired from, as a moral imperative.
As of now, musicians are like youtubers. They can win the lottery and enter the limited VIP club, or basically work for free for the platform (not even the label anymore), it's the distributor with large catalog that makes money. So we might as well eliminate all the hassles with using music freely instead of submitting to the questionable idea of Intellectual Property.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by ChrisMaple on Wednesday March 11 2020, @04:20AM
A band can still make money with live performances. Very few people are going to pay to watch an author read a book, which is why wordsmiths need copyright in order to make a living from their work.