Interesting read though
If you listen to the two, you can spot the similarity but... it’s nowhere close to sampling or plagiarism. They’ve got different melodies, different feels, just a similar prominent keyboard sound.
But no-one wants a court case, so the writers of Fancy get a cut.
Saying he wrote part of it is like the person who mixed Davinci's paint claiming to have painted part of the Mona Lisa.
This song's lyrics solely samples audio from Indiana Jones - 100% of the royalties go to Disney? Morally, I don't think Disney have any right to it, but I could maybe tolerate some payment - however, proportionality?
Maybe a quick providing-useful-context-in-your-original-post before attacking responses next time? :-)
Edit: Sorry, I've checked and the original post replied to wasn't from you. The point of this response still stands though, but directed elsewhere.
(But yeah, QT was and is a jerk. Especially when you consider how he ripped off City on Fire.)
Whether or not it exists, the Blurred Lines decision was dumb and dangerous, even if Marvin Gaye >>>> Robin Thicke.
One day we received in the mail a cassette tape and a letter from a law firm representing a composer or publisher (I can't remember which) of a famous Broadway soundtrack from the 1960s. The letter accused the KLF of infringement. The cassette contained one of the songs on the Broadway soundtrack, an instrumental section of which repeated a three note riff that sounded a lot like the same three-note sequence from one of the KLFs biggest hits. The rhythms and song structures were otherwise nothing alike.
It didn't seem like an obvious example of copying, and it was quite possible it was a coincidence or some obscure influence on The KLF or their core musical collaborators, who would have been youths when the Broadway soundtrack was released.
"Are you going to fight this?" I asked the label's president.
Her answer: "No."
From The KLF's perspective, it wasn't worth a long, expensive legal fight they might lose. I think a lot of it related to the problems it encountered with the "1987" album you mentioned, which had been partly done to ridicule the record industry but really took a lot of energy to deal with when the legal troubles emerged.
Also, the label president didn't say it, but potential bad press could have also been on her mind. At the time, the KLF had the British music press eating out of their hands, and a public legal fight could change the narrative of the KLF as being brilliant pop iconoclasts to something less favorable.
I can only assume others did the same...do u know the bigger story?
I've heard of at least one other band that had this kind of success, and it does not surprise me in the least. Drummond knew how the industry worked as a musician, manager, and skeptic, and in that book outlined a formula that could work. It was a bit of a piss-take but there were nuggets of wisdom and truth.
But we had a series of number ones around the world in countries like the US, Canada, UK, Germany, Japan, Brasil, France, Italy, China, Australia...really every country you have ever heard of.
Of course some of the tactics had to be translated into 2000s world but I still recommend aspiring music artists to read it when they ask me for advice today.
It’s of course not the only strategy that works...but I’d say it’s the easiest to execute if what you want is commercial success
So in either case the book levels the expectations (“sex, drugs and money will always be a problem”) and establishes some fundamentals...and it’s of course a really fun weekend read.
Many of the general ideas also translate 1:1 to startups or really any kind of endeavor and have served me very well in my career
The same section also warned against hiring some "thumb-slapping dickhead" to play bass which made sense from their perspective (The KLF never used bass players) but doesn't hold true for all types of songs, even dance music.
One of my takeaways was to not try to do everything yourself...if fact to try to do nothing yourself except piecing together existing stuff in novel ways
I just watched a YouTube video of one of the producers of Demi Lovato and he frames it like this:
“What makes a great producer is not the ability to play any instrument or be a good engineer or anything. You can find others to do that for you. What makes a great producer is the ability to know how to tell a compelling story with your work!”
Paraphrased from here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kre17S89-j8
I think this is true for any product...your are selling people on a story/vision...of what could be, not what is!
1. How to strip things down to their essence and focus on that.
2. What to expect and not to expect from Being successful
3. Being scrappy as fuck
Just read it...it’s available for free online as pdf...it’s quick and super fun read
1. Steal the drum and bass from an old soul record, don't try to engineer your own.
2. For lyrics, use things you hear shop clerks saying.
3. (from the opening of the book) "Start off skint and on the dole."
Did you do any of those?
We would usually program the bass ourselves for the type of music we made but the progressions were battle tested decades earlier
I doubt it would work today however.
I think the strategies in the book are timeless
The key lesson here issnt to use a ABABCBB arrangement but to research whatever the successful arrangement of your time is and to apply it
Also, I guess the tracking engineer would be up on the latest styles and able to assist with this. I wonder if there are still big studios you could convince to book studio time with net 90 terms? I suppose there must be. So much modern music is just bedroom recordings nowadays but I'm sure fancy studios still exist.
Riff starts on the beginning of both tunes.
Jesus Christ Supertar
What Time is Love?
"In 1991, songwriter Gilbert O'Sullivan sued rapper Biz Markie after he sampled O'Sullivan's "Alone Again (Naturally)" on the album I Need a Haircut. The court ruled that sampling without permission infringed copyright. Instead of asking for royalties, O'Sullivan forced Biz Markie's label Warner Bros to recall the album until the song was removed.
Nelson George described it as the "most damaging example of anti-hip hop vindictiveness", which "sent a chill through the industry that is still felt". The Washington Post wrote in 2018 that "no court decision has changed the sound of pop music as much as this", likening it to banning a musical instrument"
It's sad though that file sharing is no longer a big thing, since that allowed illegal remix culture to really thrive.
(Songwriters get paid per radio play, which mattered a lot before streaming..)
Wikipedia has a list of Zepplin song "inspired by others": with a list of listed song writing credits.
The Beatles covered a lot of songs in the early days. (I think they must have paid royalties).
IIRC, the licensing fee paid by the venue doesn't necessarily grant the performers any rights, it just waives the venue's liability. The nature of the relationship between the performer and venue is context dependent and it isn't always clear if the performers are covered or even could be covered by the venue's license, anyhow.
In practice the licensor associations will leave the performers alone as long as the venue has a license, because what's the point of the venue license if artists face legal jeopardy for playing there.
Alot of copyright works this way: the edges are very blurry and the incredibly broad scope of claims and defenses effectively corrals everybody into quasi-legal arrangements. Were it not for criminal liability and potential for ruinous monetary damages, this would definitely be a feature more than a bug. It's certainly deliberate. No law could ever be precise enough to properly balance such interests a priori.
(FYI—You the news you “think you saw recently” is in the linked article above the fold, which features a photo of Robert Plant right next to the headline.)
It's an interesting question: blues is mostly delivery, so if you take a concept like 'lemon' or 'leave me' and deliver it in shrieky overwrought British rock star fashion, aren't you rewriting it, perhaps significantly? You can't copyright the pentatonic scale. It'd be like someone copyrighting the monotonic drone and then filing suit against half of EDM. I performed for a livestream recently and used a riff from Plastikman 'Marbles', except that riff is only note-note-rest-note-note-rest repeated infinitely on one note. Part of it is the tone and context, and I wasn't cloning that, just the way the extremely brief three-note chunk cycles over a 4/4 beat. Plagiarism? Plagiarism because I know of 'Marbles' and found it inspiring? What if I picked a simple repeating pulse because I'd heard that in some minimal techno, and intentionally did my own take on that because I'd liked it?
“Thin copyright might apply to a doll or a painting because, for example, there are just so many ways to paint a tomato,” Busch said. “Creative choices are limited. It has never applied to music because there are literally an infinite number of creative choices in creating a song.”
... So you're saying there aren't infinite ways to paint a tomato?
Technically that's fine. Copyright only protects originality, not novelty as with patents. Coincidentally creating the same melody as someone else doesn't violate their copyright. If they sued they'd have to prove that it wasn't coincidental with evidence that you heard the original melody, a prerequisite for proving that your melody was derivative.
That's the theory. In practice the first person to publish the melody often wins, especially if their version was popular--e.g. a radio hit, which by itself provides circumstantial evidence that you had heard it.
This also completely ignores there is not a finite number of notes - ever heard someone play a theremin? - and even you restrict yourself to finite tuning systems, there are many to choose from. These can also be used in a pop context - if extremely rarely.
Such an interesting case.
Very dangerous stuff.
(BTW, short stuff can be trademarked, as long as you use it as branding in commerce.)
I'm not sure there are simple and reasonable solutions like this. Everything will be gamed or cause terrible edge case issues
If the creator cared, he'd make it longer. Seriously, why should a 5 second movie be worthy of major copyright protection?
For example, if I wrote a 100 line computer program, should that be worthy of copyright protection. I'd say "no".
A creator of a 10-second movie should consider it advertising for his skills, and hope and pray people copy it and use it all over the place.
I've also made my code Boost licensed, which is equivalent to "no copyright protection". If people use it for whatever, I figure it's great advertising for my (very expensive) consulting rates.
I'm sorry, and would like to know how to put it another way to not sound aggressive, but this point is absurd.
Length (in this case runtime) of the resulting product has little to no relation to the amount of work or value put into it and its development.
1- I'm not even sure why'd you use code as an example, because it is the easiest counterexample to your point. Hundred-line programs can be trivial exercises or crucial pieces of engineering that make or break entire products or businesses (if code should or not be copyrightable is another discussion).
2 - Somehow this discussion also reminds of the time a bureaucrat asked me why I was taking twenty hours to 'read a paper' when it was only a few pages long. I told him it likely took the authors a hundred hours to write six pages rather than sixteen so I could read it in twenty hours instead of two hundred.
> a hundred hours
This is the Labor Theory of Value, which is discredited. The value of something is not necessarily related at all to how much labor was put into it. The value of something is what someone else is freely willing to pay for it.
Nobody has ever asked me how many hours I put into X. They couldn't care less. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the value of what I created.
That's what patents are for, not copyrights.
DOS was indeed pirated all over the place, and Microsoft rose to be the biggest company in the world. Cause and effect? Who knows!
What value is there in posting a link on HN if it's behind a pay (or temporarily free) wall? This goes double for the WSJ. Let's not debate business models here, but asking what's the intent/requirements, and why the double standard?
Or maybe there is one and i haven't twigged to it yet:-)>
But i will submit a request at his github site.
In the meantime, AFAIK, there is no workaround for WSJ. Is it still OK to submit them to HN? i do notice there have been few recently.
You can clear your cookies or you might be interested in subscribing since you seem to enjoy their content.
It's happened at home too where I live alone and have not seen my IP address change in a very long time.
I responded the way I did because it’s a common (annoying) trope for people to complain about paywalls in one breath, then in another breath complain about ads/tracking/lack of independent journalism.
If it's hard paywall with no workaround, it shouldn't be on HN and you should flag it or email the mods.
I think of HN as like a social gathering. Each discussion thread is like a small group of people at a party standing around talking about some topic. It's a big party, and there are dozens of such small groups, constantly forming and breaking up, as people move from group to group.
If I'm at a party, and I see a group discussing a book they have read and I have not, I'm either going to ignore their discussion completely if I'm not interested in the topic or am planning on reading the book later and want to avoid spoilers, or go ahead and join in if I'm interested in the topic and and not worried about spoilers and they are discussing it in general enough terms.
I'm not going to try to tell everyone at the party that they should only talk about books that everyone there has read.
If there is some particular site(s) that someone just does not want to see on HN at all, it's easy to address that with a couple bookmarklets. Here's one that will hide NY Times articles from the listings:
var stories = document.getElementsByClassName('storylink');
for (var i = 0; i < stories.length; ++i)
stories[i].parentNode.parentNode.hidden = 'hidden';
Here's one to unhide them:
var stories = document.getElementsByClassName('storylink');
for (var i = 0; i < stories.length; ++i)
stories[i].parentNode.parentNode.hidden = '';
The WP article also links to the paper of record article. Papers of record can be important even if they are disliked because of the sources they have access to, and the extent to which they influence stories by reporting on them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_of_record
I guess it works though; I'm not about to sign up to the NYT or WSJ and I don't even bother clicking their links, so mission accomplished!