Somebody wants to copyright a rhythm – get ready for the dembow tax if they succeed:
One of the most pernicious effects of today's copyright maximalism is the idea that every element of a creative work has to be owned by someone, and protected against "unauthorised" – that is, unpaid – use by other artists. That goes against several thousand years of human creativity, which only exists thanks to successive generations of artists using and building on our cultural heritage. The ownership model of art is essentially selfish: it seeks to maximise the financial gains of one creator, at the expense of the entire culture of which they are part. A good example of this clash of interests can be seen in yet another lawsuit in the music industry. This time, somebody is trying to copyright a rhythm:
The [Fish Market song] track featured the first known example of what would come to be known as a "dembow" rhythm – the percussive, slightly syncopated four-to-the-floor beat that travelled from reggae to become the signature beat of reggaeton, today the world-conquering sound of Latin American pop.
Now, more than 30 years after Fish Market was released, Steely & Clevie Productions is suing three of reggaeton's most celebrated hitmakers – El Chombo, Luis Fonsi and Daddy Yankee – for what they characterise as unlawful interpolation of Fish Market's rhythm (or "riddim"), and are seeking the credit – and royalties – they say they deserved from the start.
As the article in the Guardian goes on to explain, the culture that has grown up around the dembow rhythm and its many offshoots is large and flourishing. The lawsuit itself cites no less than 56 songs, and on popular sites like YouTube there many dembow and reggaeton mixes and collections that testify to the vitality and range of the music that has emerged over the last few decades. To claim "ownership" of the very simple rhythmic patterns that are used is as absurd as claiming ownership of the waltz or tango.
If successful, the court case will have a devastating effect on dembo and raggaeton culture, since many of today's and tomorrow's artists will doubtless prefer to move on to other styles rather than pay a dembo tax to use something as basic as a rhythm. A couple of musicians may win a few extra dollars, but there will be millions of losers in the form of fans of this music, who will have less of the style they love available to them.[...]
« We Can Use Stem Cells to Make Embryos. How Far Should We Go? | Samsung to Cut Memory Chip Output »
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: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 09, @06:40AM (3 children)
This is not about music or copyrights -
Make no mistake: This is a USA power grab.
America using force of arms to create a world copyright regime that is deeply unpopular in the rest of the known universe, and will
lend massive support to anti-USA feeling every where.
Where I grew up, "Go Home Scum!" was a popular graffiti - everyone knew that it meant American scum (there were American airbases nearby).
Copyright over-reach is already widely seen as an American act of imperialism in most of Europe. If this succeeds I can see it being devastating to the
image of America with youth world -wide, and likely to lead to fight-back in other areas where America "leads the world".
Even your Democrats are seen as right wing in most of the civilised world. MAGA is seen as bat-shit crazy everywhere, with your anti-abortion campaigners
seen as more anti-woman than forced hijab wearing in a lot of the world.
(Score: 4, Disagree) by RamiK on Sunday April 09, @11:51AM (1 child)
1. It's a Jamaican (Steely & Clevie Productions) suing mostly big US labels (and a few Panamanians) in an American court: https://www.dancehallmag.com/2023/01/06/news/dancehall-producers-steely-clevie-takes-reggaetons-biggest-hitmakers-to-court.html [dancehallmag.com]
2. There's more musical complexity in the drum tracks in question than there were in the Queen vs. Vanilla Ice (the "Under Pressure" vs. "Ice Ice Baby" rhythm section) case: https://www.dancehallmag.com/assets/2023/01/031138285259.pdf [dancehallmag.com] (page 15 shows the sheets for fish market and they go song by song from there demonstrating how each individual song only adds tiny modifications to the original drum track).
Anyhow, it's a hip-hop/rap/pop thing so it's purely a record industry problem and has nothing to do with real music anyhow.
compiling...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 09, @03:47PM
Help us throw off the shackles of our Jamaican overlords!
(Score: 2) by GloomMower on Tuesday April 11, @02:53AM
How is Europe copyright better?
(Score: 4, Funny) by BsAtHome on Sunday April 09, @08:43AM (1 child)
clack-click--clack-click--clack-click--clack-click
I am that poor poor creator who needs more stringent copyright to make ends me[ea]t. Every time you step multiple times on the floor you are infringing on my walking rhythm.
Can I have money now? You know you owe me.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday April 10, @02:05AM
Wait, I thought that was a train going by....
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 09, @09:38AM (3 children)
https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxepzw/musicians-algorithmically-generate-every-possible-melody-release-them-to-public-domain [vice.com]
FWIW you could create a website which gives access to practically every combination possible for a few bars in various time signatures ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_signature [wikipedia.org] ).
The backend doesn't have to store much, it just has to programmatically generate the stuff on demand and maybe cache popular pages.
It's just like a website that shows all the possible numbers up to 100 digits in length. It doesn't actually have to store any of the numbers. The visitors just have to click on "starting with 1" and navigate their way to the number they want to view.
If "music" falls virtually in a website "forest" and nobody is around, can it be considered copyrighted or does someone actually have to visit it first? 😉
(Score: 3, Funny) by kazzie on Sunday April 09, @11:00AM
The next step will probably be called Chat Do-Re-Mi
(Score: 1, Troll) by Bethany.Saint on Sunday April 09, @11:51AM (1 child)
I don't think that would work. You can't copyright an algorithm. I suspect you'd need to actually publish them somewhere to have any shot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10, @01:22AM
(Score: 3, Informative) by PiMuNu on Sunday April 09, @11:13AM (15 children)
There was a big deal about Queen "Under Pressure" vs "Ice Ice Baby" 30 years ago.
https://societyofrock.com/vanilla-ice-reveals-how-he-dodged-under-pressure-lawsuit-queen-fans-are-furious-about-it/ [societyofrock.com]
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Sunday April 09, @01:44PM (14 children)
The trouble is that the lines between "rip-off of another song" and "totally original combination of notes and ideas" and "idea so commonly used it can't be copyrighted" are basically subjective, so you'll always have mediocre musicians and their lawyers hoping to get a piece of the pie from much better musicians.
For example, recently there was a lawsuit over the opening riff from Stairway to Heaven [bbc.com] filed by a band that had opened for Led Zep that nobody had ever heard of. I'm sure they also weren't hoping the publicity would lead to more sales either.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Snotnose on Sunday April 09, @01:51PM (9 children)
That "band nobody had ever heard of" was Spirit, who had several successful singles (I got a line on you, Uncle Jack, Nature's Way, etc). 12 Dreams of Dr Sardonicus is a damned fine album, if nothing else check out their greatest hits album.
If you listen to Taurus you will definitely hear Stairway to Heaven in there. My issue was the lawsuit wasn't filed until some 30 years later, after all the principles were dead.
I just passed a drug test. My dealer has some explaining to do.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by aafcac on Sunday April 09, @10:33PM (7 children)
Yep, it's clearly there. Men at Work were massively screwed over the infringing bit of their song where it took decades and a computer program to find that Down Under infringed on kukaburro sits in the old gum tree.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday April 10, @02:11AM (5 children)
Hadn't heard about that, but...
https://www.claytonutz.com/knowledge/2010/february/men-at-work-go-down-under-in-kookaburra-copyright-claim [claytonutz.com]
So... it's in a different musical key, rhythm, and everything else, but it's still the same two bars. Pay up.
Occurs to me that given such elements of music are really math, this is like suing over duplicating a mathematical formula, such as 1+1=2.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aafcac on Monday April 10, @02:15AM (2 children)
If it took that many years for a popular song to be identified and required a computer, it's not really a legitimate copyright claim in any reasonable sense of the word. It just opens the door to shutting down large numbers of possible melodies.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday April 10, @02:45AM
Yeah, this was beyond a stretch all the way to completely imaginary.
And one can envision hordes of salivating copyright lawyers licking their chops.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 11, @01:38AM
It doesn't require a computer - the parts in question sound very similar: https://youtu.be/UODO2O5k_94?t=834 [youtu.be]
Why it took so long is:
1) The actual creator didn't care to sue (Down Under was released in 1981, the creator Marion Sinclair died in 1988).
2) The party who obtained the rights didn't care to sue, and later sold his company.
3) Years later the subsequent party who got the rights, noticed, cared and sued in 2009 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_Under_(song)#Copyright_lawsuit [wikipedia.org] )
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday April 10, @05:40AM (1 child)
I've heard of that one about Down Under before, yes. Another case that shows how arbitrary copyright is.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday April 10, @06:01AM
Yeah, it's become downright capricious.
AKA "Who's got the deepest pockets and/or the meanest lawyers?"
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10, @06:30AM
To me Kookabura and that bit of Down Under sound more similar than Taurus vs Stairway to Heaven
https://youtu.be/UODO2O5k_94?t=834 [youtu.be]
That said Marion Sinclair was around when Down Under came out and she didn't complain.
Neither did Warren Fahey raise a claim when his company owned the rights, in fact he seems to be OK with Down Under: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Fahey [wikipedia.org]
From a comment on the youtube video:
(no idea whether this is really that Warren Fahey or not )
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10, @06:16AM
They're similar but different. I think Stairway to Heaven is better. Taurus sounds like a v0.5. Stairway to Heaven is v1.0.
Taurus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFHLO_2_THg [youtube.com]
Stairway to Heaven: https://youtu.be/X791IzOwt3Q [youtu.be]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 09, @02:13PM
Or unintentionally, as George Harrison attested [wikipedia.org]. Losing that lawsuit is what really shook up the industry in this space.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by theluggage on Sunday April 09, @02:56PM (2 children)
The trouble is, that shouldn't be the distinction. The question should be "did Stairway to Heaven/Ice Ice Baby actually interfere with sales/streaming/licensing of Taurus/Under Pressure" - since that's the only justification for the vast sums of money demanded in these lawsuits.
In short, if you asked for Tubular Bells to be played at your wedding, would you be happy if they played n-n-n-Nineteen instead?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 11, @01:49AM (1 child)
But many people would also make significant distinctions among the many cover versions of a song.
e.g. https://youtu.be/GazL49c9G2w [youtu.be] vs https://youtu.be/AM7ro_nBCHI [youtu.be]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pok8H_KF1FA [youtube.com] vs https://youtu.be/EsZbWAqU8xY [youtu.be]
So your first question is fair enough - cover versions could interfere with sales but your summary seems wrong.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Tuesday April 11, @11:10AM
Well, its never going to be a totally objective, works in 100% of all cases, rule, but its better than the emerging "can you find any aspect of these two songs that might have been copied" which poses an existential threat to music.
Anyway, a good, straight cover version would usually be an acceptable replacement (and if you've paid for a live performer, that's all you're going to get - but you'd know if they covered the wrong song) whereas, arguably, a really radical cover that changed the nature of the song might be considered an original work (I doubt that Sid Vicious did much to harm Sinatra's sales of 'My Way' and you'd be pretty pissed off if your wedding singer got that wrong). There are plenty of cases where the cover version turned an also-ran original into a megahit, or a sample revived interest in the original artist.
(I bet Taurus got a hell of a lot of plays because of the lawsuit - probably not enough to pay the lawyers, though)
(Score: 3, Funny) by srobert on Sunday April 09, @03:23PM (1 child)
I'm holding the rights to the letter 'q'. A lot of people have used it in their work without my authorization. I'd file a lawsuit but my attorney says he needs to get permission to use the letter 'c' to write up the paperwork. That suks.
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Tuesday April 11, @05:41AM
You'll have a ueue of people lining up to protest: I suggest you uit while you're ahead.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Monday April 10, @10:39AM
Imagine the Winstons tried copyrighting the Amen Break [wikipedia.org]. We're not even talking a whole rhythm, we're just talking a 4 beat break. When you hear it (sample in that Wikipedia article linked), you will IMMEDIATELY recognize it. From countless songs.
The idea is as insane as trying to copyright the most basic four-chord progression in pop music (The Axes of Awesome [youtube.com] made a pretty good case for why this would break music as we know it).
The whole idea is completely bonkers.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday April 10, @03:41PM
Quite a while ago, I read a short Sci-Fi story about an acclaimed composer who one day heard somebody else's composition and so was forever barred from any form of music on the grounds that he was irrevocably influenced.
Come on people, get it in your head, dystopian fiction is meant as a warning, not an instruction manual.