THE FUTURE OF SONGWRITING.
heres an interesting "quandary" ive often discussed with fellow musos/songwriters.
and i'm interested in what pg users opinions are.

SCENARIO.
a songwriter innocently writes a new song. completely unaware there is a "similar" song out there in the ether.
the quandary is, one cant spend millenia searching high and low to see if there is a similar song to the one that has just been written.
of course there are only so many keys/notes/chords/inversions/extensions etc etc.

given the above, and the fact that someone could "pop up" at any time and say "hey buddy" "thats the same as my (insert song name) song".
WILL PEOPLE IN THE FUTURE BE EAGER TO WRITE NEW SONGS ?
there is a "scaredness factor" at play here dont you think // legal worry ?

i'm thinking of the next generation of songwriters/young uns coming up.
how are they going to deal with this issue ?
AND will it mean loss of lots of new interesting songs
to the music consumer because , concern that the heirs to a song made many years ago, suddenly pop up and claim this new song is the same as their grandfathers. for example.

there are other ramifications as well, includeing the fact that if people are scared to write a song , they wont buy "music gear" possibly. thus job impacts in manufacturing.

thoughts ?

best.
muso.

I hear ya... and as a writer, I've thought about that.... however.....

Yep, there's a chance that you might write something that sounds like something else.... the big question is....

Did the other one become a big hit and make a lot of money or, did your original song that sounds like something else make a lot of money? If the answer is NO.... there's no problem... life goes on.

If the answer is YES.... then the realm of possibilities is pretty wide open. You're likely to meet judges and lawyers and all sorts of folks you would never have met otherwise... but that depends on a few people connected to the original song. Look up the lawsuits of the past. George Harrison with My Sweet Lord, millions changed hands over 3 notes.... but then again, I thought that Lady A's Need you now was a dead ringer copy to Parson's Eye in the Sky, but apparently not.

Heck, it comes down to this.... write your song and don't worry about the fall out that "might" happen.

Absolutely nothing to worry about unless your song is generating substantial income. Absolutely nothing.

Think about it....why would I go to the expense of suing you for infringement unless there's royalties to be claimed? A copyright infringement case costs a minimum of $20k to litigate. Why would I spend that money unless there was a heck of a lot more on the table to be gained?

99.9% of the infringement cases are brought by people who wrote songs that are generating little to no income, suing people who have a big hit. No one in their right mind is going to sue someone for a similar sounding song on an independent project, or even an album cut on most major artists. It's simply not worth the time & hassle, when all you'll accomplish is proving a point.

I've thought about this too, actually. I talked about with another musician friend of mine, and he said he wouldn't be surprised if it led to music getting more and more experimental so as to be impossible to distinguished as having elements from other songs. I don't entirely agree with him, but it's an interesting thought.

End copyright on melodies it will be wide open music for the masses

That's never going to happen.

Ever.

No. It only means that big internet will continue to steal at will — only legally.

Copyright exists to stimulate creativity. That you do not understand this is not only sad but causes you to give misinformation to others.

Of all the misinformation I've read about this, that's the silliest.

The person who sued bought the rights to He's So Fine for the sole purpose of filing that law suit. It wasn't over till Mr. Harrison bought the rights back for himself and his heirs.

The vast majority of Copyright cases are filed over maps. Mineral rights are big business.

After that, in a distant 2nd place, is textbooks — where defendants learn that Fair Use doesn't mean what they think it does.

Print plagiarism was 3rd, last I checked which was a few years ago.

Music suits are relatively rare, as has been pointed out. Lots and lots of take-down notices… Copyright attorneys do not want for work.

The vast majority of Copyright cases are filed over maps. Mineral rights are big business.

After that, in a distant 2nd place, is textbooks — where defendants learn that Fair Use doesn't mean what they think it does.

Print plagiarism was 3rd, last I checked which was a few years ago.

Music suits are relatively rare, as has been pointed out. Lots and lots of take-down notices… Copyright attorneys do not want for work. [/quote]


Way to misquote me out of context, Mike. I was VERY specifically referencing song/music infringement cases with the 99% number, and I'm absolutely correct on that. I never stated, or implied, that 99% of all copyright infringement cases were music related.

Come on, man, you're better than this.

I quoted you word for word. That you did not put it in context is your mistake, not mine.

Yes, I see that you have some experience here but your post was worded poorly. I was pointing that out. I see that you didn't understand this, either.

Your percentage is still wrong.

Otherwise, it's still January. The meaning of that will be clear if I post on this subject in February.

In the mean time, who's your PRO?

Is it me, or do there appear to be fewer stars (in the sense we had become accustomed to regarding them,) in the sense of having dedicated fans and sold-out concerts, coveted television appearances, and all the signs of being larger-than-life than there were before the web, MP3, and all that? In related events, statistics show there are more people watching DIY commentators on the internet than giants like CNN.
The exceptions seem to be Nashville and Rap. What I am getting at is the change in the money. Artists don't seem to be hitting the jackpot with a #1 like they used to. Even Adam Smith in "Wealth of Nations" (1776) comments on the value of copyright as a protection against small publishers knocking off cheap repros of famous books. The governors argued that activity was discouraging the flow of ideas.

You quoted a portion of a sentence, not the complete thought. Furthermore, the entire conversation was about music infringement. What the hell do any other infringement cases have to do with the discussion at hand? My point, which should have been clear, is that 99% of music infringement cases are brought against very successful songs that have generated a lot of money, not the ones that have only had a few thousand streams or sales.

As for the rest of your snarky response ("I see you have some experience here"), do you really want to compare resumes? Because I'm happy to do so...I've made my living as a full time professional songwriter since 1985. As a matter of fact, you can see who I am by clicking on the NSAI link in my signature (http://www.nashvillesongwriters.com/roger-brown). I'm on the board of directors, serving as the legislative co-chair, and have been lobbying in DC for songwriters for nearly two decades. I was actively involved in helping get the Music Modernization Act signed into law. So yes, I have a pretty solid handle on infringement issues and the profession of songwriting in general. The gold and platinum records hanging on my wall probably suggest I have a clue what I'm talking about as well.

I don't like spouting off my credits or discography, because I've never been "that guy" but your patronizing, condescending tone ticks me off. All I attempted to do by responding to this thread in the first place was to assuage unnecessary concerns about being sued for plagiarism. If my thoughts and expertise aren't wanted or appreciated, I can certainly keep them to myself. Or if you don't like what I have to offer personally, feel free to put me on ignore.

As to who my PRO is, I have no idea why that's at all relevant (or any of your damn business), but I have been with all three in my career at one time or another (ASCAP, SESAC, BMI) and I'm currently affiliated with BMI.

William S. Gilbert may have said it best in 1890:

“When everyone is somebody,
Then no one’s anybody.”

(There Lived a King) from "The Gondoliers"

To your other point, it's getting nigh impossible to make a decent living as a songwriter. Streaming pay sucks absolutely.

<< Copyright exists to stimulate creativity. That you do not understand this is not only sad but causes you to give misinformation to others. >>

I've had to be away from posting on the Forum for a few weeks but I've pondered over this comment for a while now. I'm afraid I've missed the point and I don't understand either. I secured my first copyright in 1959 and I've copyrighted quite a few songs since then. I know quite a few songwriters and I've read many articles, listened to songwriters interviewed and so forth.

I have never heard anywhere at anytime, anyone say "I'm inspired to write a song because I know I can Copyright it." - Copyright is not a creative tool as far as I can determine. It's a legal protection for intellectual content.


Quote:
"George Harrison with My Sweet Lord, millions changed hands over 3 notes... "

<< Of all the misinformation I've read about this, that's the silliest. The person who sued bought the rights to He's So Fine for the sole purpose of filing that law suit. It wasn't over till Mr. Harrison bought the rights back for himself and his heirs. >>

I've again missed the point of contention here. Nothing in the reply contradicts the poster's quote as the post does not address the plaintiff's intentions to file the lawsuit but only the lawsuit's results, which in fact, Harrison paid millions.

Why go to the expense of filing an infringement lawsuit unless there's substantial royalties to be claimed?

I believe there's actually quite a bit to worry about regardless of the amount of income the actual song in question is generating. Damages caused by an infringement can be much more than sales and play royalties. According to Business News Daily, possible consequences of intellectual property infringement that "Depending on the nature of the violations, penalties may include civil damages in the dollar amount of damages and lost profits, an injunction to stop the infringement, payment of the attorneys' fees by the infringer, and felony charges with prison time." There's also the issue of fair use that may have to be determined by litigation. Many people also have a strong sense of right and wrong values and their understanding that a person or entity has willingly and willfully wronged them and improperly used their intellectual material is motivation to threaten litigation. A person that feels they've been wronged and had their intellectual property stolen may be satisfied with a 7-10 year judgement from a small claims court knowing they've ruined the perpetrator's credit or had their wages garnished.

The threat of litigation is a very powerful negotiation tool and is a very efficient and economical method to secure a monetary settlement. While I agree with you regarding your assertion that infringement cases are made by people that wrote a song that is generating little or no income filing a claim against artists and record companies that have a similar sounding song, the actual percentage of claims made that go into extended and expensive litigation and trial is a tiny percentage of the total claims filed. Corporations and celebrity artists that have great exposure retain full time attorneys to avoid allowing claims to expand into time consuming and expensive litigation and particularly trials. Thousands of claims are privately and quietly negotiated each year especially ones that have merit that while not gaining monumental cash settlements, the amount still may be thousands of dollars but considered a big win by Corporate when considered in relation to their potential exposure and payout.

Charlie, first of all, welcome back and best wishes to you.

You're absolutely incorrect on this. No one is going to file an infringement suit against someone when the song in question hasn't generated substantial income. It makes no sense to do so. I've been on both sides of this - I have had songs of mine infringed on, and I've received a letter from an attorney accusing me of infringement (falsely, for the record). Could I have sued some of them for infringement? You better believe it. But the people who ripped off my work didn't make any money to speak of for their trouble (a few hundred, maybe a few thousand dollars). I would never have recouped the cost of going to trial, or settling for that matter. Even in the non-litigated settlements, there are legal fees involved. It doesn't happen in a void, or for free. I'll make my point again...why would I sue someone for $10,000 if it costs me $30,000 to do it? And why would I try to negotiate an out-of-court settlement for $1,000 if it's going to cost me $2500-3000 to do so?

Send a threatening, C&D letter? Absolutely I'd do that. But it doesn't really have any teeth in it.

On the other hand, if someone infringes on one of my songs and has a big hit, big synch, etc (something where substantial royalties come in to play), of course I'd pursue litigation or a settlement. And if you think about it, those are the type situations you hear about/read about. It's either a "little guy" suing a "big guy" or a big guy suing another big guy. When's the last time you read, or even heard, about someone like Elton John suing Tex Nobody because poor ol' Tex wrote, recorded & released a song that sounds sort of like Yellow Brick Road and made a couple of hundred bucks?

The overarching point is this. You should absolutely do everything in your power as a writer/artist to avoid plagiarism. But if it happens, and your song has generated no income or very little income, no one is going to legally or financially come after you. They'll just very sternly notify you that they're aware of the infringing song and demand that you pull it down.

*also, you are incorrect in your comments regarding having someone's credit destroyed/wages garnished. The settlement on small infringements such as we are debating would be limited to the royalties generated by the infringing work. Unrelated work income has nothing to do with it. These cases have to be filed in U.S. District Court, not in small claims courts. Copyright is a Federal issue.

Yep.

Although many organizations would like the ability to seek remedies in small claims, the Federal court system reserves that for themselves.

Without the protection of Copyright, there is no incentive for anyone except hobbyists to create. Sure, hobbyists can get distribution now but many of us were doing this before the internet and that horrible giveaway, the DMCA to Big Internet when it was only little internet. That the genie is out of the bottle doesn't make it right.

Broadcast, music, records etc. all exist because their creators expect that their works can be protected. The fact that it's been so watered down nowadays does not change this.


Yes, you did. Plenty of info on this hit job online. No need for me to regurgitate it here.

It's now February. Retirement from my day job in the field of Copyrights enforcement is now complete.

Not on this subject. At least not publicly. Next time I'm in Nashville, perhaps.

AI will be writing the songs in the future so it will be a moot point.

We might be closer to that than we suppose. Given the saturation of broadcast media (radio and TV,) the internet, social media, and mass surveillance, it is quite possible the media already dictates what we think, what we feel, and when we feel it. Combined with feedback that never sleeps, it isn't too much of a reach to think distributors will deliver "those perfect songs, so relevent," to consumers (or performers) on a regular basis.