
Appeals Court Says It's Okay to Copyright an Entire Style of Music - acabal
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180321/11202439470/appeals-court-says-okay-to-copyright-entire-style-music.shtml
======
sailfast
That’s not what the appeals court says. The appeals court says that they can’t
really overrule a jury decision of the lower court, and the lawyers in that
case screwed up by not contesting the case on the right merits.

This ruling has nothing to do with saying “it’s okay” and everything to do
with the scope of potential judgments available to the appellate court.

Not a lawyer, but this seems like it’s for the best in terms of the
functioning of the law, and a similar trial would likely not reach the same
verdict.

~~~
bambax
> _This ruling has nothing to do with saying “it’s okay” and everything to do
> with the scope of potential judgments available to the appellate court._

Yes, that seems to be what the majority is saying. But could you or someone
explain more? What's the point of appealing a jury decision if it can't be
overruled??

~~~
alistairSH
The jury can be overruled, but the facts of the case cannot be changed. New
evidence cannot be introduced, new arguments are generally limited.
Basically,the appeals courts in the US exist to remedy wrongs done by lower
courts (failure to follow rules, bad interpretation of the law, etc). They do
not rehear the case in its entirety.

Appeals courts can word their decisions broadly or narrowly, in an attempt to
control how much their decision can be applied to future cares.

~~~
alistairSH
Also worth noting, in instances of criminal convictions where new evidence is
discovered, like DNA, often an executive or legislative remedy is required,
because legally speaking, the facts of the original case are fixed.

------
zeta0134
I don't know how I could constructively express my disappointment with this
ruling, so instead I'll leave everyone with this lovely musical discussion of
the ever popular "4 chord song", by Axis of Awesome. They make my point far
better than I ever could.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I)

~~~
saurik
Which is itself meta-interesting, as it is a "style of joke" done by others
(and a far as I'm concerned, often better), such as Rob Paravonian.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM)

------
jobigoud
For those not familiar with the case, the two songs referred to are the
following:

Marvin Gaye - Got to give it up:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fp7Q1OAzITM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fp7Q1OAzITM)

Robin Thicke - Blurred Lines ft. T.I., Pharrell:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyDUC1LUXSU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyDUC1LUXSU)

~~~
lisper
Wow. Those two songs are not even remotely similar.

If this ruling stands no one will ever be able write another reggae song, nor
even a new piece of classical music, without running afoul of someone's
copyright.

~~~
tmuir
I don't think its controversial in the slightest to say that they are highly
similar songs.

They have a similar beat.

They both have a similar style of walking bass line.

They both feature a male falsetto singer as the main melodic instrument.

The both feature a decent amount of random banter in the background.

The both feature the use of the chorus effect. This means that it is very
fluidly changing back and forth between sounding like a single voice singing a
single note, and multiple recordings of the same voice singing the same note,
but with some minute and random time shifting, which is what actually gives
the effect.

I don't know much of either of the two artists catalogs to any comprehensive
degree. But if a single artist had two songs with all of the same qualities
listed above, there would be no disagreement at all that those qualities
defined that particular artist's style.

Thus, if we can argue that "style" is a consistent accumulation of specific
musical qualities, at the expense of incorporating others, these two songs are
by definition of a similar style.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
None of those are copyrightable elements.

Nor is the concept of "style", because it has no recognisable legal or musical
definition.

Musical copyright exists primarily in lyrics and melody for the writing
("publishing") component, and in a specific reproducible recording for the
mechanical distribution component (which can include the entire song, or a
small sample).

Elements that cannot usually be copyrighted include: vocal stylings, bass
lines, production and engineering tricks, chord sequences, rhythms,
arrangement structures.

Sometimes, very rarely, any of these can be considered distinctive enough to
be the primary element that defines a song. But that's a very tough case to
argue, and most suits that try it fail spectacularly.

In fact a lot of pop is made by _knowingly and deliberately copying elements
from various source songs and mixing them up to create a new song._

So there is absolutely no practical way this ruling can stand. If it did, it
would open the industry to a wave of law suits that would reduce it to chaos.

~~~
tmuir
In the case of Blurred Lines, wasn't Pharrell forced to admit that he was
listening to the Marvin Gaye song, around the time of the recording of Blurred
Lines?

That doesn't prove causation on it's own, but it does seem to blur the lines
of such absolutist statements as those you have made.

~~~
Lazare
> it does seem to blur the lines of such absolutist statements as those you
> have made.

I could not disagree more. Again, we're talking about copyright, and copyright
covers a specific expression of an idea. The fact that Pharrell was listening
to an earlier, similar work is irrelevant, because listening to an earlier
work around the time you wrote a new work doesn't mean your work is the _same_
as the earlier work, any more than eating pizza around the time you wrote a
new work means your work _is literally a pizza_.

> That doesn't prove causation on it's own

I think you're using the wrong framework here; this isn't a reverse
engineering case. We don't need to prove that the authors of "Blurred Lines"
had been exposed to "Got To Give It Up"; it's so popular and influential we
can just assume it. What needs to be proven is that "Blurred Lines" contains
copywritable elements _from_ "Got To Give It Up". And contrary to the majority
opinion of the appeals court, it seems quite clear it doesn't.

~~~
tmuir
It is ironic that you mention reverse engineering, because all of my arguments
here are based in details of the most famous copyright infraction cases. The
prevailing logic in this thread, whether correct or not, if that is even a
quantifiable measure, is that copyright is exactly, precisely, without
exception, "a specific expression of an idea", and by defining copyright so
cleanly, they can similarly define what qualifies as infringement of
copyright.

Where this idea meets stiff resistance is when it is contrasted with all of
the precedent set by high profile infraction cases, such as George
Harrison/The Chiffons, The Verve/The Rolling Stones, Ray Parker Jr./Huey
Lewis.

Each of these, in its own way, demonstrates that there is always more context
involved than people making simple absolutist statements would have you
believe.

------
eat_veggies
Reminds me of Spider Robinson's _Melancholy Elephants_.

[http://www.spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html](http://www.spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html)

------
rhn_mk1
As I understand, they refused to overturn the case mostly on procedural
grounds. I find this somewhat reassuring.

~~~
lisper
Yeah, except they passed up on a golden opportunity to overturn it on
Constitutional grounds. The Constitution says explicitly that the purpose of
copyright is to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". I'm pretty
sure that letting someone copyright a whole genre will have the exact opposite
effect.

The idea that copyright is there to help copyright owners make money seems to
have gotten deeply ingrained in the nation's psyche. That idea really needs to
be dislodged or we are headed for a world where no one can create anything
without paying a ransom.

~~~
baseten
It's kind of ironic that Marvin is dead and his particular brand of art is no
longer progressing. He is silent on the matter and his estate brought the
suit.

Ultimately anybody can bring a suit against anybody and this suit wouldn't
even be a thing if that dumb blurred lines song wasn't a hit and there wasn't
money to be made.

That also being said that song is a straight ripoff of Got to give it up.
Everybody who was a fan of Marvin knew it instantly, but if you wrote out the
score on a page and compared, the two songs wouldn't match up. Also if you
objectively compared the audio files you wouldn't find any samples of the
former song in the latter either. I thought they found a clever way around the
copyright using the former track as inspiration. perhaps borrowing heavily,
but if this is the precedent we really are headed toward a world where nobody
can create something without paying a ransom to another copyright holder.

~~~
syshum
This is why copyright should end at death,

Actually copyright should be the 14 years + a one time extension of 14 years
which can only be applied for by the living original creator

Copyrights by corporations are 14 years only, no extensions

~~~
colejohnson66
The problem with ending it at death is that it gives an incentive to kill the
author if you want to rip off their work. The 14+14 (as it originally was) is
what I think it should be.

~~~
acjohnson55
That doesn't seem like a real concern.

------
pjc50
Relevant blogpost on the original ruling:
[https://law.duke.edu/cspd/blurredlines/](https://law.duke.edu/cspd/blurredlines/)

------
prophesi
So are music discovery services now a search engine for copyright violations?

~~~
privacypoller
Pied Piper has been used for that since Season 4, Episode 7!

------
quickben
So, when can I copyright talking/writing/singing in legalese and start
charging others for infringing on it? :)

I realize USA has a precedent based system, but how long do things like that
usually hold over there; before another judge rules something more sane?

~~~
kd5bjo
I am not a lawyer, and have only watched these things from the sidelines, but
my understanding is this:

As this was a circuit court decision, its precedent is only binding within
that region of the country. The best chance of this being overturned within
the court system is for a judge in a different circuit to create conflicting
precedent there, which will make it more likely for the Supreme Court to take
the case and unify the rulings.

Alternatively, Congress can amend the law which will force the courts to base
their decisions on the new text.

~~~
quickben
That actually sheds a lot of light in the process. Thank you for the
explanation.

------
Dowwie
This won't be the last of such a case. Have faith that reason will be
restored.

------
machinehermit
I copyright all music in 12 tet.

I don't care if you make micro tonal music but otherwise..pay me.

------
mnm1
Oh please. The purpose of copyright law may once have been to protect the
public domain, but it hasn't been that for decades, especially since it has
constantly been expanded and focused only on protecting profits.

The purpose of copyright law is to protect the profits of greedy companies.
This court should know better. Do they not consider recent changes to the law?
And how can law have a purpose other than what it actually achieves? No one
could possibly read the minds of legislators or the founding fathers on this
issue. The purpose of the law cannot be something it never achieves anymore.
Of course, going by legal definitions of "reasonable" it's not surprising they
reach such an unreasonable, illogical decision. And people wonder why lawyers
and judges are so despised with this type of illogical thinking.

~~~
parent5446
The purpose of copyright law has never been to protect the public domain. Its
explicit purpose, as even stated in the Constitution, is the protect the
profits of the IP owners.

~~~
gpm
That is not the purpose, and is stated neither in the consitution nor law.

The purpose, as stated in the constitution, is "to promote the Progress of
Science and useful Arts".

This often means protecting the profits of the IP owners, but not always, for
example see "copyright misuse".

