Originally Posted by Martin Lide
I think it comes down to how immediately recognizable some aspect of a piece of music is.

If someone hears a song and they say..."that reminds me of...." ....Probably not a big deal.
if someone hears a song and thinks that it is a another song and then finds out that it is not, I think that draws a clearer line on theft.

And then other things come into play...the Marvin Gaye copyright holders may have never had a case if Robin Thicke had not remarked about the lift.

I personally think that part of it is that the theft has been so blatant and "in your face" by the big dawgs in the music industry fr so long, that the worm finally had enough and turned.

Disclaimer...all of the above is the opinion of a hobbyist who knows nothing about copyright law.


Yeah, the only thing considered unique is a particular phrasing of melody. Hard to believe that 5 notes in a particular pattern can garner so much protection.

For me it seems odd that somebody can blatantly steal a Charlie Watts beat, and people will say "ohh cool he's playing a Charlie Watts beat" but steal Jaggar's melody, and theyll say "wait a minute, he's stealing Jaggars melody"

Or even greater "oh cool he's using a Pete Townshend acoustic rhythm on guitar" no problem, but "wait he's singing the same five notes as Daltry"

it seems odd. I guess the response would be that melody has unlimited combinations whereas a drummer would run out of possibilites.

Then again, there are so many melodys in the world, that finding 5 unique notes for a chorus, it probably impossible.

it comes down to popularity really. They use to say the only way to protect your song is to have a hit with it. you wont win any case against somebody with the copyright from congress. If its a popular song then you have alot of protection cause you can use the argument that it was heard.