Michael Jackson, Pirate Remixer
from the but-of-course dept
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Oh, man.
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 ]
Re: Oh, man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, man.
http://huntall.com/creepy-hackers-stole-michael-jackson-music-catalog-sonys-servers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 ]
reply
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
reply
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: reply
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mech v. Authorship?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mech v. Authorship?
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 ]
Re: Re: Mech v. Authorship?
And that in the days of open reel and tape!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mech v. Authorship?
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 ]
Re: Re: Mech v. Authorship?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mech v. Authorship?
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Mech v. Authorship?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mech v. Authorship?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Mech v. Authorship?
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mech v. Authorship?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mech v. Authorship?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mech v. Authorship?
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 ]
Re: Re: Mech v. Authorship?
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Mech v. Authorship?
Amazing that you recognize that situation, but don't realize how stupid and wrong it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mech v. Authorship?
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Mech v. Authorship?
Okay: release an album as successful as something by Dangermouse or Girl Talk. I'll wait here. GO!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mech v. Authorship?
Is more like taking bits and pieces from something and making something new.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mech v. Authorship?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mech v. Authorship?
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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Daryl Hall is a badass
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 ]
Re: Daryl Hall is a badass
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is so apt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
технологии
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 ]
Re: технологии
Or does everyone assume that because it's not in English they must be spam ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: технологии
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: технологии
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 ]
Just imagine
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 ]
Re: Just imagine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JAy bob
http://huntall.com/creepy-hackers-stole-michael-jackson-music-catalog-sonys-servers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: JAy bob
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: JAy bob
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
give me a break
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: give me a break
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: give me a break
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 ]
Wikipedia to the rescue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 ]
Re:
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 ]
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 ]