Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 8878488">There are people with far greater musical expertise than myself (I can play instruments and understand some music theory). But this decision is widely regarded by people in music as very bad for songwriting in general. I don't the the appellate judges statement at all eases my concern. I once aspired to be a song writer, but after that decision I am glad to not have to worry about music copyright. Also with so many of these cases, the people filing the lawsuit are guilty of the very same thing they accuse the defendants of (there are countless music channels that show the chain of influence leading up to the song in questions and inevitably the plaintiffs are also taking just as much from earlier songs as they say has been taken from their song). Rick Beato has a very short video that I think gets at the heart of the problem with the original decision: [MEDIA=youtube]-1COYitP8hI[/MEDIA]There is also this video on a more recent music case by Adam Neely (which I think helps show how far the Blurred Lines case has led to things moving): [MEDIA=youtube]Tpi4d3YM79Q[/MEDIA]He also did a video on the Kate Perry case, which was ultimately overturned, but the video helps show some of the issues with recent musicologist testimony in these copyright cases: [MEDIA=youtube]0ytoUuO-qvg[/MEDIA]These are all definitely worth checking out. Rick Beato and Adam Neely both have a very strong grasp of the music side of this and how it will impact music. I will say make your own decision and if the statement by the appellate judge changes your mind, fair enough. But I think the core claim presents a huge problem for music (it would in my opinion be like a case in RPGs undermining the concept that you can't copyright a game mechanic).</blockquote>

Verification