Ableton Forum

not according to the video I was watching. although we all know that internet videos can lie.

but according to the video, zeroG pitched the amen break up a slight bit and copyrighted it as their own. which with todays copyright laws isn't legal as far as the pitch change goes that isn't a saving grace.

I'd love if someone could chime in some new info on this topic. I don't even know where to start googling on the subject.

Anubis wrote:So if what you're saying is correct, then there are potentially thousands of tracks out there that are already in violation of copyright law?- without even getting into the sampling issue? That's staggering.

particularly drum breaks.

Why steal someone elses work, compose your own!
Thats the problem with todays music, downloading software, downloading midi files of a hit, change it a bit and make money, that sucks.
Personally i love to hear music NOT a Xerox machine, music is a expression form someone's soul. If someone else takes that expression, would that make it an hounest expression then?
Innovate, don't copy.
I.m.o


There was a courtcase last week in Belgium, a musician who sueed Maddonna for her single "frozen"
He said that she had stolen the first 4 notes of his single (it was a rocktune)

So he (the little man) sued her(Madonna).........and won

lola wrote:Why steal someone elses work, compose your own!
Thats the problem with todays music, downloading software, downloading midi files of a hit, change it a bit and make money, that sucks.
Personally i love to hear music NOT a Xerox machine, music is a expression form someone's soul. If someone else takes that expression, would that make it an hounest expression then?
Innovate, don't copy.
I.m.o


There was a courtcase last week in Belgium, a musician who sueed Maddonna for her single "frozen"
He said that she had stolen the first 4 notes of his single (it was a rocktune)

So he (the little man) sued her(Madonna).........and won

yeah, i saw that on tv... ridiculous. just because parts of 2 songs vaguely resemble eachother does not necessarily mean one copied the other.

Didn't Killing Joke sue Nirvana over the bassline for "Come As You Are", saying it was the same as their song "Eighties"?

Submersible wrote:More recently, James Newton lost his argument against the Beastie Boys that a four note flute riff qualified as a protectible composition. I wouldn't bet on the outcome, though, if the riff to Satisfaction (for example) was at issue instead of four random notes taken out of context.

That case was so fucking stupid, they'd cleared the copyright of the RECORDING but not the composition, and that's what the case was about... but then the guy shows up in court with the sheet music and those four notes are so insignificant to his tune that they're not even in the sheet music. I mean. Fuck's sake.

100 Miles And Runnin', anyone?

synthpopkid wrote:Didn't Killing Joke sue Nirvana over the bassline for "Come As You Are", saying it was the same as their song "Eighties"?

That would be cool, never knew they sueed nirvana for that, but always knew that nirvana stole it, cuz its exactly the same.
What was the outcome of that case?

lola wrote:There was a courtcase last week in Belgium, a musician who sueed Maddonna for her single "frozen"
He said that she had stolen the first 4 notes of his single (it was a rocktune)

So he (the little man) sued her(Madonna).........and won

he claims he saw her in 78, and so she would have stolen the ideas then, but she didn't even write the song. I don't see how the guys who wrote the song could have known about that. The court that decided it was plagiarism was in Belgium... I don't think Madonna expected that, she will probably appeal but this time with serious lawyers on the case, I wouldn't be surprised if she won in the end. Although I ain't no fan of hers, in this case that would be right I think

lola wrote:

synthpopkid wrote:Didn't Killing Joke sue Nirvana over the bassline for "Come As You Are", saying it was the same as their song "Eighties"?

That would be cool, never knew they sueed nirvana for that, but always knew that nirvana stole it, cuz its exactly the same.
What was the outcome of that case?

I think they settled out of court. It was ages ago, when I was young and still read the NME, so I might be wrong. It definately is the same. That Killing Joke album is great.

Apparently they decided not to sue, and Dave Grohl returned the favour on a later album or something. Good old Google. Anyway.

This whole topic of which bits of songs resemble (or are copied from) other songs is a lot of fun when it comes to the likes of us lot just spotting them. What I'm wondering is is whether anybody knows of a website somewhere that collects examples of this sort of thing. Please let me know.

I've just seen the new Coldplay single and that is without doubt based on Kraftwerk's Computer Love. I reckon this is a deliberate lift because the video is all about a robot too - a surefire Kraftwerk reference.

Any ideas?

the problem is there are only so many progressions you can come up with, which of course I'm sure people have brought up before. but eventually with everything getting copyrighted you'll be writing songs and finding out that half the album you just wrote has copyrights. you wake up one day to realise the bassline of your hit has a copyright from the 80s and you realise the lead guitar has a copyright in the mid 90s and the lines you're singing have been sung before. I mean isn't the whole copyright thing going to eventually choke music to death?

Johnisfaster wrote:the problem is there are only so many progressions you can come up with, which of course I'm sure people have brought up before. but eventually with everything getting copyrighted you'll be writing songs and finding out that half the album you just wrote has copyrights. you wake up one day to realise the bassline of your hit has a copyright from the 80s and you realise the lead guitar has a copyright in the mid 90s and the lines you're singing have been sung before. I mean isn't the whole copyright thing going to eventually choke music to death?

again, (is it the 5th time I'm saying this in this thread ?) in terms of plagiarism, only melodies and chord changes are looked at.
Read the KLF manual to number 1, the bit on Billy Jeans bass , and grooves in general is still actual, so you can sleep safe regarding infringment.
But, if you think you just came up with 100% original stuff in your new songs, you're whether, deaf or musically uneducated or egomaniac.
Like KLF said, there are no hidden beats, no extra note in the scale, everything's been done already.
It's not the copyright thing that will choke music to death, it's the lack of talent in disguising what is being ripped off.

melodies and chord changes is what I was refering to friend. and of course everything has been done already. even melodies and chord changes that are currently being copyrighten have already been done. but now since it's copywritten it limits what people can play.

for instance if I write an entirely new song using the same riff as nirvana's smells like teen spirit I will be sued. but it's just 4 standard chords which I'm sure has been played a thousand times before them. nothing particularly original about them. but now the riff is owned by nirvana and no one else. isn't it likely that this trend will continue to include more and more riffs until it's actually difficult to write a guitar riff without stepping on toes? or am I totaly missing what you're saying?

Johnisfaster wrote:melodies and chord changes is what I was refering to friend. and of course everything has been done already. even melodies and chord changes that are currently being copyrighten have already been done. but now since it's copywritten it limits what people can play.

for instance if I write an entirely new song using the same riff as nirvana's smells like teen spirit I will be sued. but it's just 4 standard chords which I'm sure has been played a thousand times before them. nothing particularly original about them. but now the riff is owned by nirvana and no one else. isn't it likely that this trend will continue to include more and more riffs until it's actually difficult to write a guitar riff without stepping on toes? or am I totaly missing what you're saying?

if these chords were used before, then they are copyrighted by each person who wrote their respective songs. So the riff isn't owned by Nirvana more than all the other composers who wrote songs using the same chords.
If you were to use the same chord sequence and got sued by Nirvana's publisher, you could argue that that chord sequence was not theirs in the first place. If you 'd loose, you could find an obscure track written before with the same chord sequence, you buy the publishing of that track, or sub-publish it, and sue Nirvana, and get your money back

Look at the blues sequences, mutated into rock, how many songs did have the exact same chords ? so it's really up to the melody on top.
That's what I find really strange in the Madonna's case (apparently referring to a standard chord sequence rather than a melody) but like I said it isn't over yet.