Loc: Winston-Salem, NC USA
Well now. That talk made the discussion clear as mud.
Seriously two thoughts came to mind:
When was the presentation given? Ableton published the video on March 19, 2019 so I'm slightly reassured the presentation is current.
Are either of the two cases mentioned in the presentation under appeal? The answer is not readily available so there is no way to know if the definition of infringement of US copyright law will be clarified.
Jim Fogle 2019 UltraPlusPak BiaB(634) RealBand(Build 5) Cakewalk by Bandlab - Audacity - Zoom MRS-8 recorder i3 laptop, 64bit Win 7, 8 GB ram, 480GB SSD Music at: http://fogle622.wix.com/fogle622-audio-home
I recently heard a sample that you can buy on Splice. It's basically a guy humming/beat boxing the bass line from Rapper's Delight (Sugar Hill Gang), which is also the bass line in Good Times (Chic), which is also a bass line from an older more unknown soul record.
Imagine 10 different people buy that sample from Splice and use it unaltered on 10 different tracks that are all published on Spotify. Who will sue who? It is hard to believe that a jury "consisting of ordinary people" would say it is fair use.
Edit: Oh, and I think attorneys love the "mud" with contradictory or unclear rulings, because that is how they get clients!
Loc: Redondo Beach, Ca.
The second case he talked about is 2nd Circuit which means Appeals. I kinda follow the Thicke case and I haven't heard of it being appealed. I think I read they settled it out by paying several mil to Gaye's estate.
I thought he explained the "mud" element pretty clearly when he demonstrated what he did with Uptown Funk. He took samples from that recording and smushed them up so much as to be completely unrecognizable. My takeaway was that would probably be OK but the operative word is "probably". Attorneys' crystal balls are no clearer than anybody else's. If somebody sued somebody for mashing samples up so far as to be unrecognizable and you went to him to defend he would probably say there could be a decent defense here and quote you a fee. There are NEVER any guarantees when you go to court.
People need to read these actual cases based on the trial transcripts to really understand what went on. I'm a nerd with no life and actually do read some of that stuff...
The main thing is you can do anything you want and get away with it if your song never goes anywhere like online for example. Oh, you want to put it up on YouTube? Then be careful. If you're worried about it then don't sample or write or create a certain feel that sounds like a copy of something else. Just don't do it and this whole conversation is moot.
Other than don’t copy or don’t sample other folks. Can anyone tell me what this guy actually said. I could not say I was in anyway enlightened (but then again American English is not my native tongue.)
Edited by Teunis (05/26/1912:46 AM)
HP i7-4770 16GB 512G SSD, Win 10 Home, Roland Quad Capture, Launchkey 61, Maton CW80, Telecaster + more BB 2019 (634) RB 2019 (5), CakeWalk by BandLab, Reaper, Audacity, Melodyne and more
Loc: Redondo Beach, Ca.
I can see it would be a bit tricky of you're not a native English speaker.
The first case was this: A famous group of producers freely admitted they loved a song done by Marvin Gaye and wrote a new song similar to it. It had different words and a different bass line but the overall feel and sound was very similar. When Gaye's family heard it they sued saying it was too close to what Marvin did and the court agreed it was copyright infringement. That was a big bomb dropped in the middle of the music biz because everybody thought the feel or rhythm or whatever was ok, it was specific musical licks or melodies they had to watch out for. I listened to both songs and yes they definitely have a certain ambience or overall feel in common even though the new one has different words. This case was not about specific samples it was about the feel of it.
His second point was where do you draw the line with copying samples? If you sample the bass line from Thriller and you can clearly hear it's the bass line from Thriller then forget it, you'll get sued. What he did was sample some parts of Uptown Funk but using Abelton Live he transformed the samples so much they had no resemblance at all to the original sound. He then posed the question, is this OK or not? His answer was "maybe".
These two cases have nothing specific to do with rap or hip hop, it concerns all music. He's talking about soundtracks from big movies like Star Wars or the Avengers, pop songs, classic country, whatever. And, he specifically said if you copy or sample something that is recognizable and release it you WILL get caught so don't even think about it. He even answered the question, how about just one bar? NO. How about just 2 beats? NO. If a third party listening to an original recording of yours can tell even one little thing was exactly the same as the original, you're screwed if the artist wants to sue. There is software now that can pick stuff like that up just like the software universities use to catch students trying to cheat on their term papers by plagiarizing books or other published papers.
Which was really the point of the talk, imo. He wasn't giving (much) specific legal advice. He was explaining the current (as of the date of the talk) state of the law. If the law (and the precedents set in the courts) are in flux, how is a concise answer even possible? His points about undermining the value of a copyright shouldn't be ignored either. If you've done no damage (you haven't usurped money or driven value from the original to your "homage") then a suit for damages is pointless. If you HAVE, then things are really slippery at the moment until settled more firmly. Beware.
It's also worth remembering that there are essentially two types of copyright pertaining to recorded music. Mechanical rights are about the actual recording. This is mostly what he demonstrated.
Publishing rights are about, essentially, what happens before a song is recorded to hard media (including computer hard-drives). Lyrics, melody, etc. This is mostly what he talked about in the Marvin Gaye scenario. They weren't accused of using even bits of the recording of that song, but copying one or more of the creative decisions made in the creation of the song. That's the "scary" one for music and musicians in general.
It's exceeding easy to NOT COPY recordings--not even a single lick or note. It's a more open question when "creative decisions" can be construed to infringe. Sometimes it's blatant and obvious. Other times it may be coincidental. And other times, it's just the nature of music that there are only so many choices available in progression or in intervals. As long as juries understand this, then I think they can be trusted to judge rightly.
Edited by Tangmo (05/28/1907:10 AM)
BIAB 2019 Audiophile. Windows 10. Former user of old version. Prefer creating while learning over learning before creating. Passable, intermediate level acoustic rhythm guitar player. Songwriter, lyricist, composer loving all styles.
I followed one of the references, the Estate of Marvin Gaye vs. Robin Thicke, who many here have probably heard of. A fairly routine copyright complaint suddenly takes a dystopian turn when the judge considers the idea that the song of the defendant had the same "feel" of the Marvin Gaye song.* This would be an outrage if it were not for the eerie pre-recognition of things possibly to come, as Google and Artificial Intelligence continue to team up to produce programs like China's "social credit system," which now has identified over three million "citizens of questionable social value," or thoughts. Not bad for a couple of years work. It takes no loss of the senses to imagine a world in which Google uses Ai to compile a data base of "finger prints," in a manner of speaking, of every element of the audio universe, carefully tabulated and cross referenced to suggest possible duplication that could be used to gin up litigation on behalf of lawsuit happy children of the creator. Not a leap at all. Add to this the fact that broad distribution makes it possible to claim a violation occurred in virtually any corner of the civilized world; meaning, with that much territory, plaintiffs are bound to find a sympathetic judge, somewhere. Typically, we underestimated Silicon Valley. We have heard the plan is to use copyright law to shut down criticism of media content, de facto censorship, or that the purpose of the tech giant's buying up intellectual property en masse was to start a super library. Silicon Valley is always two steps ahead of us. It is in the water. A good reference on this is UC Davis's Professor Darrell Hamamoto's "The Dark Side of Asian America." Darrell has the technocracy sussed. Here's more food for thought: https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/music/a-court-date-has-been-set-for-the-copyright-infringement-lawsuit-against-ed-sheeran.html/ ................................ *"The basis of the Gaye defendants' claims is that 'Blurred Lines' and 'Got to Give It Up' 'feel' or 'sound' the same," the lawsuit states. "Being reminiscent of a 'sound' is not copyright infringement. The intent in producing 'Blurred Lines' was to evoke an era." https://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music-arts/robin-thicke-files-lawsuit-blurred-lines-article-1.1429185
Edited by edshaw (05/29/1904:19 AM)
Biab for WIN 2018 Win 10 64bit Reaper TASCAM Digital deck
Then.... there was the time when I was riding down the road....I was listening to a local gospel radio station and a song came on that made my jaw drop. It was by a local (in this state) gospel quartet. I forget the names involved but this song had a melody, lyrics and a groove that was practically a dead ringer for a song I had written a few years previous. I was floored by the similarities.
The song I wrote was never released.... this was back before the internet was a thing. Stuff was still recorded mostly on tape and transferred to tapes. No chance they had heard my song.... at least not very likely. It was simply and amazing coincidence.
No I didn't get a lawyer, no I didn't sue.... I never heard that song from that group again. In fact... I never heard anything from that group. They probably faded into the dust heap of countless, faceless, gospel quartets.
Thanks for sharing - I found this to be very informative. Still a little muddy, yes - but he's an attorney in the subject and even he finds it muddy. Unfortunately the grey area on the subject right now is vast. I look forward to hearing where it all ends up.
There's a growing surplus of experimental artists on the underbelly of the hip hop and rock scene I follow. I have a suspicion as these laws get stricter and stricter, we'll see more and more experimental and abstract artists coming to the forefront. I could be wrong, but it'd be nice to see.
It's a tough time for pop artists though. It's scary knowing if something even has the vibe of another tune - by accident even - that you can be sued.
Edshaw, I am sending this out to all of my musician friends who are not on the forums. This explained a lot of way I dislike most of the songs on the radio today. It also explained why I like most of the music in the showcase!
Folgers got it wrong. The best part of waking up is going back to bed after you pee!
64 bit Win 10 Pro - the latest BiaB and RB - Roland Octa-Capture audio interface - a ton of software and some hardware.
Thank you Mario. I hesitated to post that link. Your positive comment on it makes all the difference. Thx. Yeah, Ai and out of control domination is affecting so many areas, not to mention music. I also turned up a PBS Nova clip (3:00) on Deep Fakes, which I had only heard mentioned. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/deepfake-videos-are-getting-terrifyingly-real/ Not to dwell on it, but it goes to show what can happen when the business agents take over all the jobs, kind of like robots in an auto plant.
Biab for WIN 2018 Win 10 64bit Reaper TASCAM Digital deck
When computer-created music becomes more mainstream and computer AI's can easily detect copyright violation, maybe we'll get into a situation where computers start suing the computers over artificial intellectual property infringement.
LaptopBeast HP Win7Pro64, 8GB AudioBeast ASUS Win10Pro64, 16GB VideoBeast HP Win10Pro64, 8GB
Get your Band-in-a-Box® 2019 for Mac Bonus PAK Today!
Purchase Band-in-a-Box® 2019 for Mac during our special (which has been EXTENDED to October 31st), and you'll receive a FREE Bonus PAK overflowing with great Add-ons, including MIDI SuperTracks Set 28: Pop Basses with 6 MIDI SuperTracks, 21 RealDrums Transcriptions, 120 guitar licks and riffs in Instrumental Studies 7: Brent Mason 12-key CountryPop Guitar Licks, and 15 new MIDI Styles!
Or, upgrade it to the 49-PAK for just $49 and add 40 UNRELEASED RealTracks, 10 "Low Man" & Re-amped "12-Key" Metal/Thrash Electric Guitar RealTracks, 6 more MIDI SuperTracks with Set 29: More Organ, Piano & Accordion, 120 more guitar licks and riffs with Instrumental Studies 8: Brent Mason 12-key Train-Beat Licks, 15 more MIDI Styles, and Artist Performance Set 9: Celtic Flute with Geoff Kelly!
Xtra Styles PAK 7 for Band-in-a-Box® 2019 Special Extended!
The verdict is in, and everyone agrees that Xtra Styles PAK 7 is incredible!
There are 164 unbelievable new RealStyles that await you in Xtra Styles PAK 7! We've dreamed up some surprising new arrangements for your songwriting, production, and teaching needs in four volumes: Jazz 7, Country 7, Rock/Pop 7, and Americana 2.
The possibilities seem endless with these fully-produced styles, like atmospheric folk, Western swing chicken pickin', dreamy Southern rock, smooth jazz with world percussion, Brazilian samba, acoustic grunge, and '90s R&B. We've even included two great new MultiStyles that use up to eight substyles! Do yourself a favor and take home this comprehensive and imaginative collection of styles today!
SPECIAL EXTENDED!!! Get all 164 new RealStyles in the All Xtra Styles PAK 7 for only $29 until October 31st! (Reg. $49)
Specific genre packages are also available for $15 each!
For more information and to listen to demos, click here.
Band-in-a-Box® 2019 for Mac Build 309 Update Available!
Band-in-a-Box® 2019 for Mac customers can download the latest FREE patch update here.
Summary of changes for Build 309: Fixed: The Chord Builder is disabled if previously opened before using a modal dialog (eg. Style Picker, Set Tempo). Fixed: The program might crash when selecting RealTracks in the Best RealTracks dialog (eg. #2541). Fixed: Wrong notes in Oohs and Aahs RealTracks. Improved: Higher dots-per-inch printing. Added: [Print Chords Only] button added to the Print Options dialog.
PowerTracks Pro Audio 2019 Build 2 Update Available!
PowerTracks Pro Audio 2019 users can download the FREE Build 2 patch update here
Summary of Changes in Build 2: Fixed: Sometimes the position of the VST/DX plugs window (even if not visible) would prevent a drop, such as into the drop station, from occurring. Fixed: When batch converting files, the volume of some file types such as wav/mp3/wma/mp4, etc. would be too low. Fixed: In Chords Window, you could not enter held chords on Piano track. Fixed: LeadSheet might not display tied notes on the last bar of a track. Fixed: Pressing "M" key in Editable Notation to insert a new note at the current time location on the Staff was inserting a duplicate note rather than inserting it above an existing note. Fixed: Loading in a MusicXML file could result in MIDI notes of zero instead of the currect MIDI notes. Fixed: Dragging a file into the tracks window didn't always result in the effects slot for the track being setup properly for the file type dragged in. Fixed: When inserting hard rest, and answering Yes to question about removing notes for the peg, it would remove notes from both clefs instead of the clef that the rest was inserted on. Fixed: Potential access violation when deleting a note in staff window. Fixed: Potential jukebox access violation if there were songs with the entire path of the filename being 256 characters or greater loaded into jukebox. Fixed: Jukebox not playing the playlist in correct order in certain situations involving stopping/restarting, etc. Fixed: When loading in a MusicXML file that has a specific guitar fretboard defined that matches one of our fretboards, the guitar tablature type will now be set for the notation. Fixed: Ability to load in .MXL (compresssed musicXML file) as well as ability to load normal noncompressed musicXML file with the new .musicxml extension instead of just .XML. Fixed: Hammer ons, pull offs, and slides are now being saved to MusicXML files. Fixed: Exceptionally jittery timing indicator in the notation window during playback compared to older versions of RealBand. Fixed: If the start of a generated section of a song didn't have a chord entered at the beginning of the section, then it could default to a C major chord instead of the most recent chord prior to the section. Fixed: Potential access violation if song has micro-pegs and multiple notes on a peg. Fixed: Accidental element that specified whether a note was displayed as sharp/flat wasn't eing saved to XML, even though the correct pitch of the note itself was saved.
All RealBand 2019 for Windows customers can download the latest FREE patch update (build 5) here.
Summary of Changes in Build 5 (Oct 10) Fixed: Sometimes the position of the VST/DX plugs window (even if not visible) would prevent a drop, such as into the drop station, from occurring. Fixed: When batch converting files, the volume of some file types such as wav/mp3/wma/mp4, etc. would be too low. Fixed: In Chords Window, you could not enter held chords on Piano track. Fixed: LeadSheet might not display tied notes on the last bar of a track. Fixed: Pressing "M" key in Editable Notation to insert a new note at the current time location on the Staff was inserting a duplicate note rather than inserting it above an existing note.
Notation Enhancements in Band-in-a-Box® 2019 64-bit for macOS Catalina
With Band-in-a-Box® 2019 64-bit for Mac we added Drum Notation Support, and we didn't stop there! Other Notation Enhancements added in this new version are:
-A new track type (Drums) is available for the Melody and Soloist tracks.
-Clicking close to a stave line will put a note on the stave line instead of between stave lines. Previously, you had to click extremely close to a stave line to insert a note on it.
-Holding down the control key and pressing the zoom in/out buttons results in finest possible incremental adjustment in size.
-In the Notation Window Options dialog, the clefs split point asterisk indicates that C5* is middle C.
-Notation is much clearer, not jagged, on retina screens.
-The clefs split point can be set by the spin controls.
-The right-click menu in the Editable or Staff Roll mode Notation window has an option to change the current beat resolution. Previously, the only way to do this was to right-click on the time line.
-There is a keystroke entry mode, which lets you enter a melody entirely using keystrokes. The keystrokes are N to enter a note, M to enter a third note, up/down cursor to change the pitch of the highlighted note, and left/right cursor to move the time line.
-You can quickly enter forced accidentals from the right-click menu.
Read more about the Notation Enhancements in Band-in-a-Box® 2019 64-bit for Mac here. Watch this feature 'in action' with our new features video - jump to this topic when you click here.
...and don't forget - Band-in-a-Box® 2019 for Mac upgrades are ON SALE until October 15th, up to 50% off! Order now!
One of our representatives will be happy to help you over the phone. Our hours of operation are from
6:00AM to 6:00PM PST (GMT -8) Monday thru Friday, and 8:00AM to 4:00PM PST Saturday. We are closed Sunday. You can also send us your questions via email.
Hours of operation are from 10:00AM to 4:00PM PST (GMT -8) Monday thru Friday. (Please note:
Tech Support is not available on weekends or Holidays.) You can also send us your technical
support questions via fax or email.