Michael Jackson, Pirate Remixer

from the but-of-course dept

Fri, Mar 9th 2012 6:43pm — Mike Masnick

We always hear stories about how copyright has to be protected to "protect the artists," and yet time and time again we learn that some of the biggest name artists will often copy directly from each other without credit or payment. It's the way music is made. In James Boyle's excellent book, The Public Domain, there's a really fantastic chapter giving plenty of examples of this in practice. However, Rob Hyndman recently pointed us to another such example, found via Wikipedia, but backed up via its sources of course. The discussion? It's about where Michael Jackson's famous song Billie Jean came from. Turns out, Jackson himself admitted to copying the bass line directly from a Hall and Oates song:

According to Daryl Hall, when Jackson was recording �We Are the World,� Jackson approached him and admitted to lifting the bass line for "Billie Jean" from a Hall and Oates song (apparently referring to Hall�s "I Can't Go For That (No Can Do)" from the 1981 album Private Eyes): "Michael Jackson once said directly to me that he hoped I didn't mind that he copped that groove."

Of course, the really amusing part? Hall responded to Jackson... by telling him he had done the same thing himself to get that bassline in the first place! "It's something we all do," Hall later explained.

Indeed. And yet, under today's laws, it's still considered infringement, and we still hear people looking down on "remixing" or people who create works in this manner, by building on the works of others. And yet, this is one of the most successful pop songs of all time. And the bass was a big part of that. Elsewhere in the Wikipedia article, there's a discussion of how the producer of the song, Quincy Jones, hated the song, and specifically the bass line. Yet Jackson insisted that the bass line was the key to the song, and the two of them fought over it until Jackson won. And the bassline was completely copied.

It's stories like this that make us wonder how people can say with a straight face that copying something can't help to create something new.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: bass line, billie jean, copying, copyright, daryl hall, hall & oates, michael jackson, music, remix

48 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 9 Mar 2012 @ 7:06pm

Oh, man.
Jackson got in on that one early, kicking off a whole line of samplers. Here's a list of others who have sampled this Hall and Oates track.

And this trackis my favorite from that list.

Related: the artist on the previous track also released this killer single which samples [dun dun dunnnnnn] MICHAEL JACKSON!

Full circle! Art is fun!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 10 Mar 2012 @ 6:18am
  
  Re: Oh, man.
  Nice list, though this will always be my favourite: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08X5CVfL0bk
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- huntall, 10 Mar 2012 @ 2:10pm
  
  Re: Oh, man.
  Creepy: Hackers stole Michael Jackson music catalog of Sony�s servers
  
  http://huntall.com/creepy-hackers-stole-michael-jackson-music-catalog-sonys-servers
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2012 @ 7:08pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_music

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collage

http://en.wikiped ia.org/wiki/Stealing

One of these things is not like the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
daniel, 9 Mar 2012 @ 7:35pm

reply
WRONG! Michael Jackson wrote Billie Jean while was travelling with his brothers, he yes always admitted that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
daniel, 9 Mar 2012 @ 7:35pm

reply
WRONG! Michael Jackson wrote Billie Jean while was travelling with his brothers, he yes always admitted that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2012 @ 10:16am
  
  Re: reply
  Writing a song doesn't imply that you write the bassline at the same moment.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2012 @ 7:36pm

Mech v. Authorship?
There is a difference though between playing something you've heard before (it's the bread and butter of blues) and taking the actual recording someone else made and splicing it into your own song. This difference is relevant in discussions of copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Leigh Beadon (profile), 9 Mar 2012 @ 7:51pm
  
  Re: Mech v. Authorship?
  There is a difference though between playing something you've heard before (it's the bread and butter of blues) and taking the actual recording someone else made and splicing it into your own song.
  
  Splicing recordings into new songs is the bread and butter of countless genres today... There may be a technical and legal difference, but I don't think there is a moral or cultural one.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - TtfnJohn (profile), 10 Mar 2012 @ 8:12am
    
    Re: Re: Mech v. Authorship?
    If you listen carefully, you'll notice that George Martin, when he produced The Beatles, often spliced bits of background/sweetener music into their songs. Not large amounts but enough the get the sound the Martin and the band wanted to get.
    
    And that in the days of open reel and tape!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2012 @ 8:47pm
  
  Re: Mech v. Authorship?
  You are correct, sorry Marcus! There is a huge difference between copying the "groove" in your own performance, and just lifting someone else's performance.
  
  Michael Jackson didn't pirate anything, he was just inspired by a bass line, and work from it with his own work.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 9 Mar 2012 @ 10:24pm
    
    Re: Re: Mech v. Authorship?
    I dare you to do that with any baseline today. Just take the baseline as is, play it in your own music, and try not to drown in the lawsuit.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 10 Mar 2012 @ 2:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Mech v. Authorship?
      Just take the baseline as is, play it in your own music, and try not to drown in the lawsuit.
      
      Actually he'd probably get away with it 9 times out of 10 - mostly because his music is not very good and no one will notice it!
      
      However there is no guarantee - and that is the point.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 10 Mar 2012 @ 5:24am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Mech v. Authorship?
      Just take the baseline as is, play it in your own music, and try not to drown in the lawsuit.
      Worked stunningly well for Vanilla Ice vs. Queen/Bowie's Under Pressure for example.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Kingster (profile), 10 Mar 2012 @ 12:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Mech v. Authorship?
        That was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard (profile), 10 Mar 2012 @ 1:31am
    
    Re: Re: Mech v. Authorship?
    There is a huge difference between copying the "groove" in your own performance, and just lifting someone else's performance.
    
    Copyright law does not make that difference. Many artists have been successfully sued for "copying the groove" - George Harrison (My Sweet Lord) springs to mind immediately.
    
    In copyright law the creative element is the important part - not the purely mechanical process of playing the notes.
    
    What you are trying to do is to separate those who have the mechanical skill of playing from those who do not - however this was always an inappropriate distinction as there are great composers who never had the skill tho play (e.g. Berlioz) and in recent years technology has rendered the mechanical skills unnecessary.
    
    These days the chief virtue of the mechanical skills of playing music is in the pleasure it give the performer him/herself and the social interaction it creates in a live music setting.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2012 @ 8:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Mech v. Authorship?
      "Copyright law does not make that difference. Many artists have been successfully sued for "copying the groove" - George Harrison (My Sweet Lord) springs to mind immediately."
      
      Again, that wasn't a copy of a groove, that was a copy of a song (chord progression, instrumentation, etc) A simple bass line, especially one that isn't particularly unique, isn't something that is going to stand up to much of copyright item in and of itself.
      
      In fact, I would say that for the general public, they would be entirely unable to pick out what would make those songs similar, which sums it up.
      
      " in recent years technology has rendered the mechanical skills unnecessary."
      
      The difference is that those without mechanical skills (Hi Marcus!) are using other people's performances as their own work. For me, that crosses a big line. If you like something, AT LEAST play it yourself, or hire someone to play it for you. Don't just copy someone else's performance. That is lazy as it comes.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2012 @ 11:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Mech v. Authorship?
        If an artist isn't a little lazy then they're probably not very good.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Steve, 12 Mar 2012 @ 6:53am
    
    Re: Re: Mech v. Authorship?
    Ok, if that's the case, please explain?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 10 Mar 2012 @ 1:20am
  
  Re: Mech v. Authorship?
  There is a difference though between playing something you've heard before (it's the bread and butter of blues) and taking the actual recording someone else made and splicing it into your own song.
  
  This difference is purely one of "sweat of the brow".
  
  This difference is relevant in discussions of copyright.
  
  No! it clearly isn't since sweat of the brow does not attract copyright.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2012 @ 1:20pm
    
    Re: Re: Mech v. Authorship?
    Sweat of the brow isn't the issue, not in the least. It's a question of a completed copyright work.
    
    Taking a copyright work and using it without permission is against the law. It's also as lazy as fuck (right Marcus?). Anyone can do it.
    
    Hearing someone play a bass line, and then playing a similar progression yourself isn't in itself generally a violation of copyright alone. It tends to come as a combination of things.
    
    It's why 100 songs can have a similar bass line and not violate each other - but the one song that just takes a sample of another one would.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Leigh Beadon (profile), 10 Mar 2012 @ 2:12pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Mech v. Authorship?
      It's why 100 songs can have a similar bass line and not violate each other - but the one song that just takes a sample of another one would.
      
      Amazing that you recognize that situation, but don't realize how stupid and wrong it is.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JEDIDIAH, 10 Mar 2012 @ 2:17pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Mech v. Authorship?
      Copyright also covers derivative works.
      
      Your attempt to create a double standard here simply isn't consistent with the law, not even the 1812 version of the law.
      
      This is an important issue for "fair use" and is what makes the Copyleft licenses of Free Software work.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Leigh Beadon (profile), 10 Mar 2012 @ 2:17pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Mech v. Authorship?
      Anyone can do it.
      
      Okay: release an album as successful as something by Dangermouse or Girl Talk. I'll wait here. GO!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2012 @ 4:14pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Mech v. Authorship?
      Except cutting and pasting music is not taking an entire copyright body of work.
      
      Is more like taking bits and pieces from something and making something new.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2012 @ 5:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Mech v. Authorship?
      Seriously, take an art class or an art history class or read about art or art history. You just might learn how art actually works.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2012 @ 4:13pm
  
  Re: Mech v. Authorship?
  Copy and pasting MIDI arrangements and editing them are not creative process?
  
  Like photo editing?
  
  A musician should build his own instrument and not use the knowledge and skill of others to make his music then? Should all musicians pay the makers of their instruments everytime they make a dime? Maybe a levy on music should be done by the instruments manufacturers since those instruments are essential for the creation of music, without them music would just not sound the same.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2012 @ 7:46pm

That's what IP usually brings us, rehashes of rehashes. Then IP extremists complain about the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Benjo (profile), 9 Mar 2012 @ 8:48pm

Daryl Hall is a badass
And so was MJ.

I've had quite a few arguments over sampling / covering / "stealing" from other artists, and almost always at the end of the argument we both agree that little to no harm is ever done to the original artists. If anything, value is added.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2012 @ 8:26am
  
  Re: Daryl Hall is a badass
  Especially in the case of The Verve and The Rolling Stones. The Verve lost the copyright of Bittersweet Symphony to Mick Jagger and Keith Richards over a 4 bar sample they used from a Stones song. The best part is, they actually had permission to use it. That's how ridiculous copyright is.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greevar (profile), 9 Mar 2012 @ 9:16pm

This is so apt.
When they copy, they justify it. When we copy, they vilify it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Дмитрий, 10 Mar 2012 @ 3:47am

технологии
колесо изобретено давно и вообще не человеком ,а природой
мы люди разумные с копировали и совершенствуем колесо и интернет и Wikipedi и авторов от природы которых нам подсказывают свыше.Я за авторство как подлинник (платформа),я за совершенствова&# 1085;ие как жизнь моя.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- indieThing, 12 Mar 2012 @ 2:26am
  
  Re: технологии
  Why are people reporting these Russian comments ? There is no spam or offensive material in them, they are actually valid comments if you take the time to translate them.
  
  Or does everyone assume that because it's not in English they must be spam ?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ninja (profile), 12 Mar 2012 @ 4:39am
    
    Re: Re: технологии
    I'm Brazilian and I'm commenting in English out of respect for the international aspect of TD. He could do the same.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Moondoggie, 12 Mar 2012 @ 7:43pm
    
    Re: Re: технологии
    No. He should try and learn english. We don't know what he is talking about and Google Translate sucks cock.
    
    This is how his post looks like through Google translate:
    
    "invented the wheel for a long time, and no man, and nature
    we are people with a reasonable copying and improving the wheel and the Internet and Wikipedi and authors on the nature of which we suggest svyshe.Ya for authorship as the original (platform), I like to improve my life."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kevin (profile), 10 Mar 2012 @ 5:23am

Just imagine
Can one imagine if the current ridiculous patent and copyright had existed when the first person made a brick and designed a house we would all be paying his/her ancestors and not be allowed to vary from the original design.
Imagine if Mozart did what is done today. No orchestra would be allowed to stray from his original score and orchestra set up. And so on.
The whole issue is just ridiculous.
I'm still getting over the copyright owner of the Teddy Bear Song winning a case against Men At Work for using a part of the nursery song in Down Under. a part that no matter how often I listen I cannot identify that part.
Copyright should only apply to the whole song and only the original arrangement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TtfnJohn (profile), 10 Mar 2012 @ 8:15am
  
  Re: Just imagine
  Better yet try to imagine if patent law existed when the wheel was "invented". Or the plow. :-)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
huntall, 10 Mar 2012 @ 2:11pm

JAy bob
Creepy: Hackers stole Michael Jackson music catalog of Sony�s servers......

http://huntall.com/creepy-hackers-stole-michael-jackson-music-catalog-sonys-servers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2012 @ 4:18pm
  
  Re: JAy bob
  You mean they stole Sony's music, Michael created those but is not his anymore :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 6:07am
    
    Re: Re: JAy bob
    Liar! Zombie MJ is so totally out there, anyone who watches the 'Thriller' music video could tell you it wasn't just dancing, it was practice.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2012 @ 4:46pm

give me a break
enough with the pro-piracy nonsense. While MJ and many other artists take bits and pieces from others works, they turn it into something distinctively their own. MJ's music is clearly his own distinct style. On the other hand, completely copying works in their entirety is a whole other matter, stop trying to morally justify your blatant theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2012 @ 5:01pm
  
  Re: give me a break
  You spelled copyright infringement wrong.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2012 @ 5:32pm
  
  Re: give me a break
  Are you serious? There are quite a few bands/musician's that have been sued for copyrights when they sampled and made something distinctly their own.
  
  I think one of the first cases was U2 vs. Negitivland. It's ok for a band with a label that has deep pockets and an army of lawyers. It's not ok for a small independent band. That's the only difference.
  
  Rock'n roll wouldn't exist without using southern blues - and often, a complete song, melody, harmony with a change of instrumentation and tempo, The Rolling Stones early recordings as an example.
  
  "Good artist's copy, GREAT artist's steal" -- Picasso and Steve Jobs
  
  Creativity does not exist in a vaccum.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2012 @ 5:35pm

Wikipedia to the rescue
I looked through the wikipedia article and could not find the quote mentioned. Was it removed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2012 @ 4:15pm

Maybe that's why the RIAA had him killed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Moondoggie, 11 Mar 2012 @ 6:45pm
  
  Re:
  *GASP*
  
  It all fits! RIAA probably had wanted MJ to retire permanently to create an artificial scarcity of his works. But MJ wasn't about to have that and on the month of the holiest comebacks ever, RIAA had a spy slip something with his meds.
  
  KILL EVERYONE IN RIAA! EVEN THE JANITOR!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Moondoggie, 11 Mar 2012 @ 6:47pm
  
  Re:
  *GASP*
  
  It all fits! RIAA probably had wanted MJ to retire permanently to create an artificial scarcity of his works. But MJ wasn't about to have that and on the month of the holiest comebacks ever, RIAA had a spy slip something with his meds.
  
  KILL EVERYONE IN RIAA! EVEN THE JANITOR!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2012 @ 10:56am

What an alarmist headline. Even considering the content of the article, Jackson would not have been considered a pirate, since I have rarely heard of sample-based artists being referred to as such. On top of that, it's not a sample. He replayed and re-recorded the bass line so it's not a remix. (Also, when did MJ become a mix engineer? Did he know how to use a compressor? I seem to remember him as a performer, not the guy behind the console.)

So basically we have "NEWSFLASH: Michael Jackson was influenced by something." I guess that doesn't reel in the views, though.

Listening to tech blogs mischaracterize music... must be as annoying as listening to label employees talk about technology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]