And the record shows you can feed several ravenous Transylvanians with just one Meatloaf.
Christ, what an asshole©
Been a while since I did CopyrightX, but I remember thinking that this was yet another instance of a bad case making for bad law.
So if you go to the bottom of this comment and click the ...
to “show more,” you’ll see an option to bookmark this comment.
Bookmark me now, quote me later: Five to ten years from now this idiotic standard will be crushing indie music makers left and right and BoingBoing will be decrying it along with every other reasonable person.
The ‘idea’ that this particular run (even in this particular rhythm or timing) of four notes (whether or not the fourth one is repeated to make five) - which is so incredibly common in western popsongery’s somewhat limited vocabulary of pentatonic noodling - is ‘stealable’ is ludicrous. A reasonable case could be based only on an actual theft of an actual recording.
But …
I’m quite ready to be contradicted by the reality.
Can you provide other examples of songs where the main hook is a repeated trill of those four notes sung quickly by a high female voice? That’s what this is about, not the use of four or five notes by any instrument or in any context. If someone plays A - C# - G on an oboe, slowly, as part of a symphony, it’s not the same thing as Beyonce singing a song that happens to also use A-C#-G.
That’s not my argument, but if I get a spare half hour or so then I’ll certainly have a look. As for that particular run of four notes, it’s instantly available to anyone at the beginning of Gershwin’s “I got rhythm” and although that’s not extremely similar to wotsername’s implementation, it’s easily just as likely to be the ‘inspiration’ for bieber’s producer’s effort, not that he needs one.
Does “I got rhythm” use the same four notes as its primary hook throughout the tune, repeated over and over again? Because that’s what’s at play here, not just a random sequence of notes, yes?
Yes. But it’s slightly subtler than that, in that although that motif is repeated throughout, indeed it’s the principal motif of the piece, it’s followed immediately by its inversion before the note for note repeat. Which makes it more interesting. But Gershwin’s no Bieber - I don’t care what anyone says.
It’s also probably worth pointing out that the actual notes don’t matter much (you earlier supply an example of A-C#-G, which is in a specific key) as most folk don’t have perfect pitch anyway and it’s really only the intervals which signify anything memorable (your example might then be cast as 0-4-11).
weird that Diplo would side against Skrill, considering they are JackU project mates.
You could also compare it to the Kraftwerk story posted today, where they got their “ass handed to them” by the German courts.
I think the question of where the line lies is a useful one and it’s not exactly easy and might not be the same for all cases. And how does the story change when it’s about a less well known artist having their work appropriated vs. having a more well known artists work appropriated by an indie artists.
I’m still waiting for a news story about an identical twin suing his sibling for copying his DNA.
- Get yourself cloned
- Await maturity, sue the clone
- If (2) fails, sue the cloner
I found this quite strange as well.
I mean, yeah, deadmau5 slamming Skrillex I can understand. Diplo just seems odd to me.
The two vocals sound damn near identical to me. Even if Skrillex used a session musician if it can be proven that he was inspired by the plaintiff’s song he’ll likely lose. There’s actual case law to support this in Bright Tunes Music vs Harrisongs Music. tl;dr: George Harrison lost because “My Sweet Lord” was “subconsciously” inspired by “She’s So Fine” even though he didn’t necessarily intend to plagiarize it.
We constantly see stories on BB about abuses of the copyright system, and many of them are completely rage worthy. This particular case seems like the system is being used as intended.
To my untrained ear, I can hear differences.
Dienel sounds to be better trained than the girl in the Bieber video — Dienel changes between the notes a lot more smoothly than the Bieber girl.
Also, the sequence of notes is different; in Bieber’s video, as opposed to Dienel’s, the last note is repeated (and there you can really hear that it’s a different voice — you can hear “breathiness” in that last note, which I can’t hear anywhere in Dienel’s).
Add to that the fact that Dienel starts with that four note sequence and then plays with it, but Bieber just adds the fourth note again, and then loops it…
Maybe, it could be “inspired by,” but I’d say that it’s just as likely that it’s a case of multiple discovery; with the popularity of Bieber’s music, and the sheer amount of music coming out every year, it’s pretty statistically likely that something else will come out that sounds similar.
I agree with everything you’ve said. The fact stands that they are very similar. It seems to me that the burden here is on Skrillex & co to prove that they weren’t in any way whatsoever inspired by the original.
If I were a betting man (which I am not) I’d predict an eventual settlement will come from this (just like when Huey Lewis sued Ray Parker Jr over the Ghostbusters theme).
I have been sampling for 15 years, in my opinion this is a direct sample from Casey, chopped to add the last note. The session vocals Skrillex played are not the same as on the “Sorry” record imo he’s just covering his ass. I think both songs are pretty good production wise though. I think they should pay for what is obviously a sample and move on. I would bet that a wave form for both samples looks identical.
Pretty sure you can make at least 6 meatloafs from Bieber. And a stringy rump roast.
burn it 2d ground (east-coast/west-coast beef)
How do you prove a negative like that, though?
No, your Honour, I’m 100% certain that I never heard that song playing in a neighbouring car while I drove down the highway, and if I did, I wasn’t subconsciously influenced by it.