Programmer/Lawyer with music degree tackles copyright infringement issues

[Eddy Deegan]

We know that fragments of a song can be used to sue other musicians who, whether inadvertently or otherwise, have used recognizably similar fragments.

This chap decided to generate pretty much every possible 8-note melody that can be created using the standard scales in a specific octave, remove a bunch of 'already taken' melodies from the result set, copyright the remainder and then put them into the public domain.

And he's done it. They are working on expanding the dataset to more notes now. It's a bit of an experiment to demonstrate how daft the law can be and to see how it responds to this. It's an interesting talk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJtm0MoOgiU

... and the datasets are available here:

http://allthemusic.info/

[Folderol]

That's going to upset quite a few people

[Sam Spoons]

Mostly other lawyers

[CS70]

What people forget about these things is that law is not made to be literal, but it is subject to interpretation (by the judiciary though, not everyone) and specifically taking in account the spirit behind the text.

I doubt any claim based on such a database would stand up in any court. And if the problem truly arose and became an issue, it would be quickly dealt with by adding a single line to the existing law text.

When laws are made, the lawmakers try (more or less) to take in account all the cases but it's a given that if the situation changes ,the law is gonna be amended or a new one created to replace it. Since there are literally billions of things on which it would be possible to legislate, which laws are actually picked up depend only on how important or relevant is the problem - it's the meaning of "politics".

[Martin Walker]

Bravo!!!

Martin

[Sam Spoons]

It's difficult to see how 'justice' is served by somebody claiming credit for a short snippet of melody which happened to be present in a hit song and then being able to claim a substantial percentage of the income from the hit song. Sure it's very grey rather than black and white but either way the main beneficiaries are the lawyers.

I like what he says, makes perfect 'common' sense to me but then when has 'common sense' ever played a part in the legal system.......

[N i g e l]

What people forget about these things is that law is not made to be literal, but it is subject to interpretation (by the judiciary tough, not everyone) and specifically taking in account the spirit behind the text.

It is very difficult ! Take theft. Its been happening for 1000's of years but the law has recently been updated in the UK after a judge gave a burglar a 10 year sentance for stealing a banana.

Previously : the Theft Act 1968 states that: 'A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another, with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it

The burglar had helped himself to a banana from the fruit bowl of a large country house while on the job, thus depriving the owner of it permenantly.

He had also taken a priceless painting from the house which he had hung on his own wall but as "he had just borrowed it and was going to return it after a year" it wasnt theft.

[CS70]

It is very difficult ! Take theft. Its been happening for 1000's of years but the law has recently been updated in the UK after a judge gave a burglar a 10 year sentance for stealing a banana.

A 10 years sentence for stealing a banana (without further qualification) doesn't sound real.

[Drew Stephenson]

When laws are made, the lawmakers try (more or less) to take in account all the cases but it's a given that if the situation changes ,the law is gonna be amended or a new one created to replace it. Since there are literally billions of things on which it would be possible to legislate, which laws are actually picked up depend only on how important or relevant is the problem - it's the meaning of "politics".

I dispute the accuracy of this. Laws are frequently made my people who accept campaign funds to pass those laws. The reality of the new technologies, operating paradigms, and even the original purpose of surrounding legislation are ignored as long as lobbying groups continue to press for the extension of existing benefits and monopolies.
Personally I agree that it's unlikely to stand in court, but only because too many vested interests won't allow it to. But the main purpose of the exercise was to show how nuts the current situation has become.

[Sam Spoons]

In practice it will only be useful if you can run the algorithm on your own melody and get a definitive answer as to whether it has already been used or not. That would involve comparing it to the database and would require sufficient tech skills to generate a midi/text/notation file which the system can use. I'd guessot that difficult for many on here but not trivial to many musicians.

[CS70]

Laws are frequently made my people who accept campaign funds to pass those laws. The reality of the new technologies, operating paradigms, and even the original purpose of surrounding legislation are ignored as long as lobbying groups continue to press for the extension of existing benefits and monopolies.

Well, that's the meaning of politics as well

All I'm saying is that if it becomes a pressing problem, it will be at some point selected for (re)legislation.

What makes something become pressing, is a different discussion.

There's lots of reasons for which something ends up in the legislative agenda, and being important to the electorate is undoubtedly one of them.. but probably not the most frequent. Simply because most people don't have an opinion on most things unless you ask, I'd say..

[Drew Stephenson]

I'm not going to disagree there!

[Mike McLoone]

remove a bunch of 'already taken' melodies from the result set, copyright the remainder and then put them into the public domain.

However since let's say less well known music was already released and therefore copyrighted (i.e. my own stuff), and not included in this "already taken" data set, it would mean that my melodies are in there somewhere, and now I can sue this guy for attempted copyright infringement?

While it is a bold statement, I think he may have left himself open to more problems than he considered. Especially from countries where the "no win, no fee" Lionel Hutz type prevail.

[Sam Spoons]

I was listening to Roger Waters on Desert Island Discs this morning and his first record was "Helpless" by Neil Young. The melody is incredibly simple, mostly comprising of descending me, re, do phrases. Surely somebody has done this before? If so why haven't they sued Neil Young?

[Sam Spoons]

remove a bunch of 'already taken' melodies from the result set, copyright the remainder and then put them into the public domain.

However since let's say less well known music was already released and therefore copyrighted (i.e. my own stuff), and not included in this "already taken" data set, it would mean that my melodies are in there somewhere, and now I can sue this guy for attempted copyright infringement?

While it is a bold statement, I think he may have left himself open to more problems than he considered. Especially from countries where the "no win, no fee" Lionel Hutz type prevail.

Isn't the settlement usually awarded as a share of the income from the infringing record/song? There might be a risk from somebody counter suing if they had a hit with one of his 'unused' melodies that subsequently proved to have 'prior' but little or none from his putting them in the public domain.

[DC-Choppah]

So all possible melodies have now been made public and are now royalty free?
Which means he has made it impossible for anyone to copyright their melody in the future?

That's ridiculous and already been done and doesn't help anything.

This is a very old trick and is the reason why most music publishers do not accept any unsolicited material.

Many decades ago, some unscrupulous folks would send a huge tape of 'every possible melody' on the piano to music publishers with a certified letter. Then they would match a hit song to some random piece of music played for a few seconds on the tape and claim copyright violation. So now, out of fear of being set up, many publishers will not listen too (or open a letter from) someone they don't know AND musicians have to hold professional liability insurance now in case someone sues for copyright infringement.

So this guy is another unsolicited tape. Just because it was posted to the internet doesn't mean that anyone listened to it. No way to claim any violation. And no way to claim that all melodies are now public. It would take an infinite amount of time to listen to his tape to get all the ideas.

You also can't claim melodies that an algorithm has written. They have to have been written by a person. Algorithms don't have the right to hold copyrights. Sorry.

If I have a typewriter and set a little motorized monkey to start banging out works of literature, I can't claim that all literature is now owned by my monkey. The monkey has no right to hold a copyright or give the rights away.

Copyrights mean that other folks can't copy your work unless they have your permission. It assumed that your work is something you care deeply about and have spent artistic effort and valuable talent energy, time and resources creating. That is WHY it is protected - out of respect for the creator. Someone can't use your song for a purpose you don't agree to. That's 'cause you are a human, not an algorithm.

[Dr Huge Longjohns]

the law has recently been updated in the UK after a judge gave a burglar a 10 year sentence for stealing a banana.

Can you post a link supporting this? Sounds like fake news/urban myth to me.

[Drew Stephenson]

So all possible melodies have now been made public and are now royalty free?
Which means he has made it impossible for anyone to copyright their melody in the future?

That's ridiculous and already been done and doesn't help anything.

This is a very old trick and is the reason why most music publishers do not accept any unsolicited material.

Many decades ago, some unscrupulous folks would send a huge tape of 'every possible melody' on the piano to music publishers with a certified letter. Then they would match a hit song to some random piece of music played for a few seconds on the tape and claim copyright violation. So now, out of fear of being set up, many publishers will not listen too (or open a letter from) someone they don't know AND musicians have to hold professional liability insurance now in case someone sues for copyright infringement.

So this guy is another unsolicited tape. Just because it was posted to the internet doesn't mean that anyone listened to it. No way to claim any violation. And no way to claim that all melodies are now public. It would take an infinite amount of time to listen to his tape to get all the ideas.

You also can't claim melodies that an algorithm has written. They have to have been written by a person. Algorithms don't have the right to hold copyrights. Sorry.

If I have a typewriter and set a little motorized monkey to start banging out works of literature, I can't claim that all literature is now owned by my monkey. The monkey has no right to hold a copyright or give the rights away.

Copyrights mean that other folks can't copy your work unless they have your permission. It assumed that your work is something you care deeply about and have spent artistic effort and valuable talent energy, time and resources creating. That is WHY it is protected - out of respect for the creator. Someone can't use your song for a purpose you don't agree to. That's 'cause you are a human, not an algorithm.

DC you're absolutely right about algorithms not being able to hold copyright, but that's not what he's doing. He's committed them to the public domain, it's a different kettle of fish.

[Sam Spoons]

Just a little thought experiment, I have little knowledge of classical music so can't easily answer this question myself. Can anybody identify a snippet of classical music that matches the Stairway To Heaven sequence? Given the nature of the progression I find it hard to believe that it doesn't exist somewhere (sounds very Bach to me). If it does why was Randy Wolfe's estate's claims not thrown out early on in the proceedings?

[Eddy Deegan]

Just a little thought experiment, I have little knowledge of classical music so can't easily answer this question myself. Can anybody identify a snippet of classical music that matches the Stairway To Heaven sequence? Given the nature of the progression I find it hard to believe that it doesn't exist somewhere (sounds very Bach to me). If it does why was Randy Wolfe's estate's claims not thrown out early on in the proceedings?

"Sonata di Chittarra, e Violino, con il suo Basso Continuo" by Giovanni Battista Granata (in the 1600s), roundabout the 32 second mark is reminiscent: https://youtu.be/MYSFuWU7GQs?t=32 though not quite as much as Taurus, by Spirit: https://youtu.be/gFHLO_2_THg?t=41

I recommend listening to the whole of both pieces though. They are lovely stuff!

[OneWorld]

Just a little thought experiment, I have little knowledge of classical music so can't easily answer this question myself. Can anybody identify a snippet of classical music that matches the Stairway To Heaven sequence? Given the nature of the progression I find it hard to believe that it doesn't exist somewhere (sounds very Bach to me). If it does why was Randy Wolfe's estate's claims not thrown out early on in the proceedings?

It's not a million miles away from Pacabel's Canon to me, OK Canon goes from I, V etc but still essentially an arpeggio over falling chords.....

D–A–Bm–F#–G–D–G–A, and of course Stairway is minor chords, starting with Aminor

[Sam Spoons]

I'd listened to Taurus before, the Giovanni Battista Granata I hadn't hears but Pacabel's Canon was the one that I had associated with Stairway, I'd forgotten what it was though.

According to Rolling Stone last September the verdict is due sometime this year.

[merlyn]

Can anybody identify a snippet of classical music that matches the Stairway To Heaven sequence? Given the nature of the progression I find it hard to believe that it doesn't exist somewhere (sounds very Bach to me).

Bach is public domain so you're free to do what you like with Bach. The first part of the Stairway progression is in a lot of tunes. It's a descending chromatic line from the root. This is also in My Funny Valentine and This Masquerade. It's not possible to copyright a chord progression so the Taurus case must be about something else when the technical legal details are examined. In layman's terms I would think 'rip-off' may be what the legalese is trying to say.

[Sam Spoons]

That's pretty much what I thought. The 'melody' in question is the descending chromatic scale linked by arpeggio's not chords, which is the crucial detail.

[CS70]

As (at least in the US) these things are often decided by jury, I doubt anyone would exchange Stairway for the Canon, or My Funny Valentine...

No matter the actual notes or progression, they have completely different feels and direction imho (consider that I understand the elements of music theory but know nothing about theoretical composition.. but neither probably does any jury). Whereas perhaps songs which aren't as "linked" according to music theory might end up being considered similar enough.. there's so much more to music than just the notes... if not, all the I V V vi IV songs that exist would be in copyright violation