Originally Posted by John Lawrence Schick
It doesn't matter. I know I did it. The bottom-line is "intent". We've all been influenced by others. And that's a good thing. Otherwise, we'd all still be writing chants. Ubio is knowingly using others' work.

John

When you write a song, if you can trace the antecedents (influences) in your mind...then you are "using other's work" to arrive at your work.
A strong if not bullet-proof case can be made that your work would never have been written without the influences.
You heard them, they registered in your brain and subconscious and left impressions that remain.
That's comparable to assembling an algorithm.

What will matter is the actual comparison of your work to the "influencing" work.
If it is dead on, and you had access, there is a problem for you.
If it is not dead on, and you had access, there is no problem or less of a problem for you.

Udio will make the same argument, and it is a viable point of view.
Alleging theft is not proving theft by legal definitions.

Study up on the "Taurus" decision.
Led Zep won the case.
I personally dont think that they should have.
But they did.

Ps...sorry, I wanted to drop out but you keep repeating something that ignores too much fact to let go. I'll try again

https://soundcloud.com/sunset-poet-of-texas