By stealing Satriani's unique elements Coldpaly dilutes the value of his remarkable work to enrich thier own unremarkable work.
Woah, woah. I'd like to hear this one. How is the value of Satriani's work diluted? Do you honestly thing that people are going out to buy Viva La Vida instead of If I Could Fly? Do you think Coldplay is competing with Satriani, that If I Could Fly might be a hit single if it weren't for Coldplay?
I mean, there's an integrity issue here if Coldplay is passing off Satriani's work as their own, but how is the value of Satch's work affected?
How few notes make a cord? a melody? a basic music progression?
In Western music, you've typically got 12 notes in an octave, usually 7 of those in a scale. Chords, two notes I guess, though a standard chord is three. So yeah, obviously going to be a lot of overlap. Most pop songs are 3 or four chord songs.
Solution: the fight is over a basic building block of music and cant be illegal for the same reason a 3 note block cant be illegal, its to basic.
Otherwise I would write a computer program to generate all possable melodys, write a song for each of them (or have a computer generate one for me) and then sue all new musical talent that comes after me because thay used something I made first.
Well, almost. With copyright infringement, you need to prove copying, not just similarity. Independent creation is a defense. If you came up with the exact some song as some one else, but you both can prove that you did so independently (e.g. no way you knew each other or each other's music), then there's no copyright infringement. (Were this patent law, independent invention is not a defense.)
So, it's not that absurd, but yeah, you can easily step on someone else's toes without it actually being an act of copying.
Doesn't the post office stamp it or something? (I don't know, I'm not too familiar with snail mail.) I thought that was the point. Why would the post office stamp and deliver an empty envelope? And I assume that may even contain some sort of tracking information or something? (If not, wouldn't a fancier mailing service do that?)
Interesting point. I think I through a link in the post to a YouTube video about a Zeppelin case of infringement. To be honest though, that was the first I heard of it, searching for video clips this afternoon.
Talking to my cousin as I was writing up the article, she also brought up the case of white musicians blatantly ripping of the songs of black musicians earlier in the 20th century and passing them off as their own.
It struck me that there are really a few distinctions that's a bit of a gradient here: covering => remixing => sampling => borrowing a piece of a song (e.g. a melody or a chord sequence).
That list isn't complete, I'm not really considering lyrics much, or more transformative uses (like using a song as a soundtrack). I might be missing other things too.
It seems like Coldplay is on one end of the spectrum, while Zeppelin is on the other (from what I know). Using a song someone else wrote is a clear case of infringement. Your song is their song. But using a melody that sounds similar, in a song that sounds different? That's not so clear.
You can't really copyright a chord sequence, but you can copyright a song.
Because this situation is likely governed by the "Fair Use" rules of copyright law...
Well, I don't think Coldplay will likely make a fair use argument, unless they can't prove independent creation and don't want to (/can't) settle.
There seems to be three options, amongst the possible defenses:
Coldplay argues it's a case of independent creation. This would exonerate them of the plagiarism claim, that they even ripped off the melody to begin with, and "clear their name." How they would prove this? I have no idea (not that I think it's necessarily impossible, I just don't have any real guesses, except for trying to suggest that it's highly plausible that they could have...)
Coldplay argues de minimis copying, that the portion is so small as to be trivial. When you think about it, the core of the melody is three freaking notes. The third held, then a quick fourth and down to the super tonic. Then, the vocal melody diverges from the guitar riff (though the underlying chord is the same). At a super quick glance, that seems to be the argument here. I bet this approach could be used to suggest independent creation too (i.e. that the melody isn't necessarily a derivative, since it's such a small sample, only a few notes). *shrugs*
Coldplay argues fair use, that the copying is so small (and that their song is hardly competing with Satriani's on the airwaves, or effecting its commercial viability, etc.) that it ought to be considered fair use. I think the fundamental problem with this defence is that it would admit to plagiarism. "Yes, we took the melody from your song, but it was only a small piece of the song." I don't think an artist would want to argue this, but maybe the defense could be a fall back if the other two approaches aren't successful.
All that said... it's just conjecture. I'm no lawyer and I'm just guessing at things.
That said, I see no useful purpose served by turning this into a contest of wills before a court of law. In many instances the extension and acceptance of an apology, together with proper credit, is all that is needed to lay an issue to rest. To the band: fess up, apologize, and give fair credit. To the guitarist: graciously accept, license its use after the fact without groveling for royalties.
Agreed. Except, if Coldplay genuinely did not rip off Satriani and they're offended by the accusation. Settling would be the easiest way out, but if the band is offended, they might not want to settle and admit to doing something they didn't.
I'd say they could duke it out in a guitarmageddon of sorts, but in order for that to work there'd have to be some sort chance that Coldplay would win...
haha, well, hopefully McGuinty (Premier) was signalling a real desire to listen. He does go on to say, in the article, "if not this, then what? What responsibilities, what assurances can they provide us that they'll do what they need to do to keep themselves safe?"
That does show an intention to engage in real dialogue. But whether it would actually happen or not is a different question.
I haven't familiarized myself with all the arguments "we" (is that royal?) have been making. But I'm catching up, and I can find a lot to agree with.
It's not a royal we, there are other contributors to the blog and lots of people who participate in the community and help formulate and defend the arguments. Mike's just best at it. :)
You have a very practical approach, which I appreciate. Still, I don't think I can agree that the sale of "scarce goods" -- i.e., physical merchandising -- is the solution. Clearly, some creators (notably, as discussed in the thread, many authors) are unable to create spinoff "scarce goods" to fund the production of their "infinite goods." What about them?
It's important to realize that, while physical goods may be the most obvious scarce goods, they aren't the only or more important scarce goods. Access and reputation are scarce goods. Just about any product is a bundle of scarce and non-scarce goods.
Live music is a good example, for touring musicians.
The most valuable scarcity for creators, however, is their ability to create. That is, to create new content. That takes time and talent. Paying for the creation of new content is a huge opportunity.
You, or perhaps it was another commenter, posited that the law is immoral. My rejoinder was simply to ask why this is believed to be the case?
You accused Mike of focusing only on economics and ignoring morality and ethics. I guess I just assumed you had a relevant moral or ethical concern to raise.
It should be obvious there is a huge difference between using knowledge learned from an original work of authorship versus making "Chinese copies" of a either the entirety of such a work or a significant portion thereof.
The problem is there's a lot in between. Where's the line between acceptable influence/use?
By asking the question I believe it fair to say that this is an issue that you should ponder for more time.
Please, humour me. What's your moral argument for copyright law?
The most common argument I hear is the 'end of music/software/creation' type argument, that people wouldn't be able to make a living without copyright protecting their works so they'd stop doing what they're doing. The economic arguments make that moral argument irrelevant by demonstrating ways that people do make money and continue to create without depending on copyright. The argument is that it's immoral because you're taking people's ability to make a living away, but that's clearly not dependent on copyright.
The other common argument is a sort of natural conception of intellectual property, that it's your idea/song/product so you should have ownership of it. That's a profoundly ignorant and arrogant position, and I don't think that's what you were trying to get at by talking about the word progress.
Copyright law does not define "the winning business model". It represents, just like every other law, rules of societal conduct.
Ehn, "winning business models," same difference. Sure, there are many business models that depend on copyright, but the problem is that most recording industry execs can't imagine a business model without copyright. You can see it in the way they struggle with the idea of giving away music for free. They fundamentally believe that something needs to be protected, that if they aren't enforcing copyright, they won't have a way to make money, even though the copyright crutch is failing them.
Copyright law defines the winning type of model in so many people's minds. It takes a real leap of faith for many in the music industry to disabuse themselves of the notion.
In a general sense, as long ago recognized by Mr. Freidman, all property is nothing more than a government recognized "monopoly". Scarce and infinite may make sense when one is focused solely on economics, but I submit that our society is defined by far more than simply economic theory.
The distinction between scarce and infinite goods is not merely economic, it's just... well, obvious, I think. Philsophical? (Even that sounds too involved...) If you and I are standing together and we have one apple between the two of us, either you can eat it or I can eat it. Or maybe we can split it. But we can't both eat the same parts. Yet, if you and I are standing together and I sing a melody, I don't lose the parts of it that you learn and sing.
So... do you really think the distinction between scarce and infinite goods doesn't matter? And what's your moral argument for not letting people share stuff that they own?
I agree with most of your comment, but you lost me as you got to the conclusion.
So now musicians are embracing that, and trying to do it on their own, just in time for forums like this to say...hey...you should give it away for free.
By downloading music (that the artist has not authorized to be downloaded for free), you are simply not paying the musician most of the time.
The argument isn't a defence of unauthorized downloads, but rather that artists should consider authorizing downloads, growing their market and adopting business models that take full advantage of digital technology.
Sure, it'd be great to give more and more fans a reason to buy something, but you don't need to make money from every person who enjoys your product. There will inevitably be people who aren't interested enough to put money down, but their interested enough to listen and share it with their friends (some of whom might be willing to put money down). Or maybe someone who isn't a big fan today will become a bigger fan down the road, and eventually get to the point where they're interested in the fan club experience. They count, but you don't have to reach into their wallets in order for them to count.
As a student, first of all, let me say that I find laptops in class distracting too. I try to avoid using mine at all costs, because I'm bound to start doing something else once it's open. And it's distracting when someone in front of me is playing counterstrike.
That said, banning them seems like a really bad idea. Some people use their laptops to take notes.
I'm not sure that incorporating Facebook (or similar tools) into a lecture makes sense, because that might just add to the distraction... I mean, I have a few ideas, but part of the problem is... if you start making use of Facebook, students will feel left out if they don't have a laptop and can't participate, so you'll be encouraging more people to use laptops during the lecture.
I think it'd make more sense to use Facebook around lectures. Say, creating a group where students can share links and resources, ask questions, form study groups, meet other people in the class, etc... (obviously not anything that gives away answers for assignments though). But if you have good online resources at your school, Facebook would seem redundant (and inflexible). Though, it's where students are.
and since FF 3, it crashes constantly on my Linux box (Don't tell me it's Flash, because other browsers aren't crashing)
... I bet it's flash. I was using FF3 (from the beta) with Gnash for months with very few crashes. It started crashing every few hours once I switched back to Adobe's Flash.
Oh, yeah. I'm a Firefox user, but I'm really excited about Chrome (even though it seems like it'll be a while before it's available on my OS). Mozilla is still doing a good job, but that doesn't mean Chrome isn't any good either.
On the post: Joe Satriani Sues Coldplay For Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Coldplay Satriani Controversy
Woah, woah. I'd like to hear this one. How is the value of Satriani's work diluted? Do you honestly thing that people are going out to buy Viva La Vida instead of If I Could Fly? Do you think Coldplay is competing with Satriani, that If I Could Fly might be a hit single if it weren't for Coldplay?
I mean, there's an integrity issue here if Coldplay is passing off Satriani's work as their own, but how is the value of Satch's work affected?
On the post: Joe Satriani Sues Coldplay For Copyright Infringement
Re:
In Western music, you've typically got 12 notes in an octave, usually 7 of those in a scale. Chords, two notes I guess, though a standard chord is three. So yeah, obviously going to be a lot of overlap. Most pop songs are 3 or four chord songs.
Well, almost. With copyright infringement, you need to prove copying, not just similarity. Independent creation is a defense. If you came up with the exact some song as some one else, but you both can prove that you did so independently (e.g. no way you knew each other or each other's music), then there's no copyright infringement. (Were this patent law, independent invention is not a defense.)
So, it's not that absurd, but yeah, you can easily step on someone else's toes without it actually being an act of copying.
On the post: Copyright Has Stretched So Far That It Has Broken
Re: Re: Re: Re: Abolish Copyright
On the post: Warner Music Pitches Music Tax To Universities: You Pay, We Stop Suing
Re: Communism for all!
Make that $0.29.
On the post: Joe Satriani Sues Coldplay For Copyright Infringement
Re:
Thanks. Long time, no talk!
Interesting point. I think I through a link in the post to a YouTube video about a Zeppelin case of infringement. To be honest though, that was the first I heard of it, searching for video clips this afternoon.
Talking to my cousin as I was writing up the article, she also brought up the case of white musicians blatantly ripping of the songs of black musicians earlier in the 20th century and passing them off as their own.
It struck me that there are really a few distinctions that's a bit of a gradient here: covering => remixing => sampling => borrowing a piece of a song (e.g. a melody or a chord sequence).
That list isn't complete, I'm not really considering lyrics much, or more transformative uses (like using a song as a soundtrack). I might be missing other things too.
It seems like Coldplay is on one end of the spectrum, while Zeppelin is on the other (from what I know). Using a song someone else wrote is a clear case of infringement. Your song is their song. But using a melody that sounds similar, in a song that sounds different? That's not so clear.
You can't really copyright a chord sequence, but you can copyright a song.
Thoughts?
On the post: Joe Satriani Sues Coldplay For Copyright Infringement
Re:
Well, I don't think Coldplay will likely make a fair use argument, unless they can't prove independent creation and don't want to (/can't) settle.
There seems to be three options, amongst the possible defenses:
All that said... it's just conjecture. I'm no lawyer and I'm just guessing at things.
That said, I see no useful purpose served by turning this into a contest of wills before a court of law. In many instances the extension and acceptance of an apology, together with proper credit, is all that is needed to lay an issue to rest. To the band: fess up, apologize, and give fair credit. To the guitarist: graciously accept, license its use after the fact without groveling for royalties.
Agreed. Except, if Coldplay genuinely did not rip off Satriani and they're offended by the accusation. Settling would be the easiest way out, but if the band is offended, they might not want to settle and admit to doing something they didn't.
On the post: Joe Satriani Sues Coldplay For Copyright Infringement
Re: Coldplay Satriani Controversy
I'd say they could duke it out in a guitarmageddon of sorts, but in order for that to work there'd have to be some sort chance that Coldplay would win...
On the post: Ontario Government Considers Facebook Consultation
Re: one way street
That does show an intention to engage in real dialogue. But whether it would actually happen or not is a different question.
On the post: Warner Music Pitches Music Tax To Universities: You Pay, We Stop Suing
Re:
It's not a royal we, there are other contributors to the blog and lots of people who participate in the community and help formulate and defend the arguments. Mike's just best at it. :)
You have a very practical approach, which I appreciate. Still, I don't think I can agree that the sale of "scarce goods" -- i.e., physical merchandising -- is the solution. Clearly, some creators (notably, as discussed in the thread, many authors) are unable to create spinoff "scarce goods" to fund the production of their "infinite goods." What about them?
It's important to realize that, while physical goods may be the most obvious scarce goods, they aren't the only or more important scarce goods. Access and reputation are scarce goods. Just about any product is a bundle of scarce and non-scarce goods.
Live music is a good example, for touring musicians.
The most valuable scarcity for creators, however, is their ability to create. That is, to create new content. That takes time and talent. Paying for the creation of new content is a huge opportunity.
For more broad examples, Kevin Kelly suggested eight key scarcities a while back.
So, physical goods are scarcities, but there are scarcities beyond tangible goods.
On the post: Canadian Cops Seek To Solve Murder Cases With Online Tips
Re: Re: good idea
Getting an iPod for a tip on a murder case does seem a bit odd, but offering a reward (like the $50,000 cash for the case above) isn't new.
On the post: Free Is Not Socialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You accused Mike of focusing only on economics and ignoring morality and ethics. I guess I just assumed you had a relevant moral or ethical concern to raise.
On the post: Free Is Not Socialism
Re: Re: Re:
The problem is there's a lot in between. Where's the line between acceptable influence/use?
By asking the question I believe it fair to say that this is an issue that you should ponder for more time.
Please, humour me. What's your moral argument for copyright law?
The most common argument I hear is the 'end of music/software/creation' type argument, that people wouldn't be able to make a living without copyright protecting their works so they'd stop doing what they're doing. The economic arguments make that moral argument irrelevant by demonstrating ways that people do make money and continue to create without depending on copyright. The argument is that it's immoral because you're taking people's ability to make a living away, but that's clearly not dependent on copyright.
The other common argument is a sort of natural conception of intellectual property, that it's your idea/song/product so you should have ownership of it. That's a profoundly ignorant and arrogant position, and I don't think that's what you were trying to get at by talking about the word progress.
What's your ethical argument for copyright?
On the post: Free Is Not Socialism
Re:
Ehn, "winning business models," same difference. Sure, there are many business models that depend on copyright, but the problem is that most recording industry execs can't imagine a business model without copyright. You can see it in the way they struggle with the idea of giving away music for free. They fundamentally believe that something needs to be protected, that if they aren't enforcing copyright, they won't have a way to make money, even though the copyright crutch is failing them.
Copyright law defines the winning type of model in so many people's minds. It takes a real leap of faith for many in the music industry to disabuse themselves of the notion.
In a general sense, as long ago recognized by Mr. Freidman, all property is nothing more than a government recognized "monopoly". Scarce and infinite may make sense when one is focused solely on economics, but I submit that our society is defined by far more than simply economic theory.
I'm curious. What non-economic moral or ethical rationale would you suggest for artificially limiting the ownership of infinite goods? I mean, by nature, no one possesses an idea the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. There are those making moral and ethical arguments against limiting the ownership of infinite goods.
The distinction between scarce and infinite goods is not merely economic, it's just... well, obvious, I think. Philsophical? (Even that sounds too involved...) If you and I are standing together and we have one apple between the two of us, either you can eat it or I can eat it. Or maybe we can split it. But we can't both eat the same parts. Yet, if you and I are standing together and I sing a melody, I don't lose the parts of it that you learn and sing.
So... do you really think the distinction between scarce and infinite goods doesn't matter? And what's your moral argument for not letting people share stuff that they own?
On the post: ASCAP's Bill Of Wrongs
Re: Re: Re: Rights
So now musicians are embracing that, and trying to do it on their own, just in time for forums like this to say...hey...you should give it away for free.
By downloading music (that the artist has not authorized to be downloaded for free), you are simply not paying the musician most of the time.
The argument isn't a defence of unauthorized downloads, but rather that artists should consider authorizing downloads, growing their market and adopting business models that take full advantage of digital technology.
The "embrace" can go further.
On the post: Another Band Starts Bundling Scarce And Infinite Goods
Re:
On the post: University Bans Access To Facebook; Claims It's A Security Issue
Re: Two Hands...on the one, and on the other
That said, banning them seems like a really bad idea. Some people use their laptops to take notes.
I'm not sure that incorporating Facebook (or similar tools) into a lecture makes sense, because that might just add to the distraction... I mean, I have a few ideas, but part of the problem is... if you start making use of Facebook, students will feel left out if they don't have a laptop and can't participate, so you'll be encouraging more people to use laptops during the lecture.
I think it'd make more sense to use Facebook around lectures. Say, creating a group where students can share links and resources, ask questions, form study groups, meet other people in the class, etc... (obviously not anything that gives away answers for assignments though). But if you have good online resources at your school, Facebook would seem redundant (and inflexible). Though, it's where students are.
*shrugs* My two cents...
On the post: Making Google Products Easier To Use Is Not 'Encouraging Stealing'
Re:
On the post: Is Firefox Missing The Point In Its Response To Google Chrome?
Re: I've switched
... I bet it's flash. I was using FF3 (from the beta) with Gnash for months with very few crashes. It started crashing every few hours once I switched back to Adobe's Flash.
On the post: Is Firefox Missing The Point In Its Response To Google Chrome?
Re: Chrome Bashing
On the post: Google On The High Seas
Re: Re: My server is wet!
Next >>