Music copyright lawsuits

Post by **Leisher** » Wed Apr 26, 2023 2:49 pm

Ed Sheeran being sued.

My biggest takeaway from the article:

“It’s really damaging to the songwriting industry. There’s only so many notes and very few chords used in pop music. Coincidence is bound to happen if 60,000 songs are being released every day on Spotify. That’s 22 million songs a year, and there’s only 12 notes that are available,” Sheeran said.

This one was also pretty interesting:

Sheeran’s lawyer Donald Zakarin cross-examined Townsend Griffin Tuesday afternoon. Zakarin said that Sony sent reports from two musicologists to Townsend’s counsel in 2015 that concluded there are no valid claims of copying because the song uses common chord progressions.

Lawyers asked if Townsend Griffin noticed the chord progression in “Let’s Get It On” is used in other songs like “Heart and Soul” or “Earth Angel.” She said she’s never dissected a song until she listened to “Thinking Out Loud.”

Point being, it's very likely her father could have been sued for copying those songs to create the song she's suing about possibly being copied.

Post by **thibodeaux** » Sat Apr 29, 2023 8:06 am

True story: a couple of years ago I played some shows with a cover band. We did a medley of these two songs and when I was practicing them I went...holy shit, they're the same song.

The point about the chord progression is well taken. However, in the case of these two songs, it's not JUST the chord progression. The rhythm is the same, and even the melody is pretty similar. You're not gonna do a medley of "Let's Get It On" and "Earth Angel" and say holy shit they're the same song.

Post by **Leisher** » Sat Apr 29, 2023 5:25 pm

That's interesting, and I believe you being a musician, but why did two "experts" make the claim that there's nothing there?

Even if they are the same, do you believe Sheeran's argument that eventually songs will be very similar as there's only so much that can be created?

Post by **Cakedaddy** » Sat Apr 29, 2023 6:55 pm

Leisher wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 5:25 pm "experts" make the claim that there's nothing there?

Lawyers can find "Experts" that will say whatever they need them to.

Post by **Leisher** » Sat Apr 29, 2023 11:15 pm

Cakedaddy wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 6:55 pm
Leisher wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 5:25 pm "experts" make the claim that there's nothing there?
Lawyers can find "Experts" that will say whatever they need them to.

Well, of course, (look no further than some of the independent autopsies over the years) but I'm more curious about the follow up question.

Post by **thibodeaux** » Sun Apr 30, 2023 9:42 am

Leisher wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 5:25 pm Even if they are the same, do you believe Sheeran's argument that eventually songs will be very similar as there's only so much that can be created?

Yes except not "eventually," have you ever listened to AC/DC?

I don't necessarily believe that Sheeran intentionally ripped off Gaye. Sometimes it just happens.

I also think our copyright laws are TOO strict. Fuck those guys. Five or 10 years, tops. Then it's rip-off city. Fun fact: our national anthem is based on the tune from a different song.

Post by **Leisher** » Sun Apr 30, 2023 4:23 pm

thibodeaux wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 9:42 am have you ever listened to AC/DC?

I laughed.

Post by **TheCatt** » Wed May 03, 2023 2:42 pm

I felt that Sheeran was innocent, until I read this.

Post by **thibodeaux** » Wed May 03, 2023 5:18 pm

Rick Beato (who has a pretty good channel btw) breaks down the musical similarities and differences:

Post by **Leisher** » Thu May 04, 2023 8:22 am

That was indeed a good breakdown.

Sheeran may have borrowed from the background music, but is that enough to sue over? Is he right that there simply aren't enough notes in existence to constantly make new songs? If there are 12 notes and 20M+ new songs every year, how many possibilities are there?

Most importantly, has Marvin Gaye's family sued ChatCPT yet?

Also, how does rap get away with it? Why are they allowed to blatantly steal entire songs? Are there agreements we just don't know about?

Why don't we see this more often in other art forms? Not the stealing, but the suing. Hunger Games being a complete ripoff of Battle Royale. Twilight being a rip off of Underworld. Star Wars stealing from multiple sources. Porns that use the same premises...

Post by **TheCatt** » Thu May 04, 2023 9:18 am

Leisher wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2023 8:22 am Also, how does rap get away with it? Why are they allowed to blatantly steal entire songs? Are there agreements we just don't know about?

They used to just sample without licensing, for the past (25? 30?) years or so they've licensed or other agreements.

Leisher wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2023 8:22 am Hunger Games being a complete ripoff of Battle Royale. Twilight being a rip off of Underworld. Star Wars stealing from multiple sources. Porns that use the same premises...

You cannot copyright ideas, only the actual works. Premises are 100% not protected.

Porn sometimes comes close to the original, in ways that could be protected (visual trademarks, etc), but I don't think there's a ton of money in suing porn companies. Porn companies probably can't use a satire defense, since it's commercial.

Post by **GORDON** » Thu May 04, 2023 9:46 am

The other day i saw an article that claimed puff daddy was STILL paying $5k to Sting for sampling every breath you take without permission.

Post by **Leisher** » Thu May 04, 2023 9:50 am

TheCatt wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2023 9:18 am Porn sometimes comes close to the original, in ways that could be protected (visual trademarks, etc), but I don't think there's a ton of money in suing porn companies. Porn companies probably can't use a satire defense, since it's commercial.

"Your honor, clearly they use the same angle for the bukkake that we used in Tammy Takes on Topeka III."

I would think with porn being a multi billion dollar industry it would be profitable. I wonder if them so obviously labeling those Hollywood ripoff porns as parody protects them...or does Hollywood simply not go after them as a thank you for providing them easy access to whores?

Post by **GORDON** » Thu May 04, 2023 10:44 am

Excuse me, meant to say $5k PER DAY.

Post by **TheCatt** » Thu May 04, 2023 1:07 pm

Ed Sheeran found not liable.

https://news.sky.com/story/ed-sheeran-m ... n-12872670

Post by **TheCatt** » Thu May 04, 2023 1:09 pm

Leisher wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2023 9:50 am "Your honor, clearly they use the same angle for the bukkake that we used in Tammy Takes on Topeka III."

Can't protect that, too generic.

Leisher wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2023 9:50 am I would think with porn being a multi billion dollar industry it would be profitable. I wonder if them so obviously labeling those Hollywood ripoff porns as parody protects them...or does Hollywood simply not go after them as a thank you for providing them easy access to whores?

It's profitable, but spread across a ton of players, is the impression I've gotten from reading.

Post by **Leisher** » Thu May 04, 2023 1:34 pm

TheCatt wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2023 1:09 pm Can't protect that, too generic.

I love that you explained why my joke wouldn't work, and that I appreciated it.

TheCatt wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2023 1:09 pm It's profitable, but spread across a ton of players, is the impression I've gotten from reading.

I've seen porn parody clips, but it isn't my thing. So correct me if this is wrong, but don't a lot of them have the same distributor? One would think that's who Hollywood could go after if they cared. And they do have to care. Look at the millions of examples of other stolen IP projects being sued out of existence, particularly fan made movies that have a far smaller audience than porn. I think the spread out thing is probably right, but I would also wager that porn money finds its way to Hollywood coffers. So, for example, it wouldn't shock me to learn that, say, Lionsgate filters money to porn through a few other companies in various countries to hide their involvement. (I'm NOT saying Lionsgate does that, just wanted to us someone as a theoretical example.) We're talking BILLIONS of dollars and the only porn person to get crazy wealthy seems to have been the GGW guy who was promptly beset upon by scandal, cancelled, sued, and I think jailed? He might be broke now? I list him as an example because he was outside of the porn system, so there's your conspiracy theory.

Total side note: Can we figure out a way to monetize coming up with insane conspiracy theories WITHOUT being like an Alex Jones or The National Enquirer? It's kind of fun to do and easy to make far more plausible than the insane shit I usually see out there

Post by **TheCatt** » Thu May 04, 2023 2:07 pm

GORDON wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2023 10:44 am Excuse me, meant to say $5k PER DAY.

“I want y’all to understand I was joking!” Diddy wrote on Twitter Friday, April 7. “It’s called being Facetious! Me and @OfficialSting have been friends for a long time! He never charged me $3K or $5K a day for Missing You. He probably makes more than $5K a day from one of the biggest songs in history.”

The 5k was just a joke, apparently.

Post by **GORDON** » Thu May 04, 2023 2:10 pm

Ahhh.

I didn't quite believe that it was still making money decades later, but that's what I heard.

Post by **Leisher** » Thu May 04, 2023 2:59 pm

Sheeran wins.