I really doubt it. There would be a never ending chain of lawsuits between every pop star over every song if that was the case.

=

Coolcat wrote: Want to tap into your knowledge. How far does one go to infringe on copyright?

There's been a good few interesting debates on GFSA about copyright & plagiarism. I enjoy the topic as I reckon it's about intent & interpretation.

This was the last thread I could find : http://www.guitarforum.co.za/general-music/led-zeppelin-being-sued-for-plagiary-uh-gain/

I reckon this fellow has done a really good summary (which I agree with wholeheartedly) in this series "Everything is a Remix" : http://everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/

One of the links he references is : http://www.thatsongsoundslike.com/ - it's less about lyrics and more about melody/harmony.

Lyrically I'm not entirely sure - though if it's a parody (Ala Wierd Al) or social commentary (tricky to define?), then you have nothing to worry about.

I bought the entire Led Zeppelin collection on vinyl over the years,
Only to end up buying the same again on CD format...
Now I download the same again from piratebay...
Will I go to jail ? ???

DaFiz wrote: I bought the entire Led Zeppelin collection on vinyl over the years,
Only to end up buying the same again on CD format...
Now I download the same again from piratebay...
Will I go to jail ? ???

As far as I know, you are allowed to have a digital "backup" copy of any music you own on disc/vinyl. The same goes for DVDs.

Sorry for deviating from the original topic. There aren't enough jails to put everyone there that downloaded a song or movie without paying for it. If they really wanted to stop it then they should protect the song or movie (or other) from downloading and close down every software company that makes software available to make downloads without paying for it possible. Simple solution to a problem everyone talks about.

babbalute wrote:they should protect the song or movie (or other) from downloading and close down every software company that makes software available to make downloads without paying for it possible. Simple solution to a problem everyone talks about.

If it was that simple they would've done it.

Very simple: you cannot get any money from someone others bank account on a bank website, why would you be able to download a song or movie from another website ?

I failed to make a copy of my Led Zeppelin DVDs as they are copy protected,
but yet I can watch the entire move on You Tube ???

babbalute wrote: Very simple: you cannot get any money from someone others bank account on a bank website, why would you be able to download a song or movie from another website ?

Well for one thing you can't make multiple copies of money and share it with your friends and still have the same amount you started with. You'll find there's nothing illegal about writing and distributing software to manage peer to peer downloads, even though this is the primary mechanism used to download pirated media. It's the act of downloading that's illegal, not the tools used to do it. Kind of like any crime.

ChrisDanger wrote:

babbalute wrote: Very simple: you cannot get any money from someone others bank account on a bank website, why would you be able to download a song or movie from another website ?

It's the act of downloading that's illegal, not the tools used to do it. Kind of like any crime.

Yes, though the majority of offender's are charged for distribution (seeding) than for download.

Which brings me onto...the double standard that is Youtube...

DaFiz wrote: I failed to make a copy of my Led Zeppelin DVDs as they are copy protected,
but yet I can watch the entire move on You Tube ???

If all copyrighted material, that was in contravention of a black and white interpretation of the copyright act(s), was removed from youtube - how much content would be left on youtube?

And are all artists against it? Well, no. One of my favourite artists (Lack of Afro) got a immense amount of exposure (12 million & counting) from having one of his tunes used in a video that went viral. How much income did he directly make from this? None, how much did he indirectly make from this? Impossible to say - but he got a LOT of new fans just from that one exposure and was very happy with the end result.

Swings & round-a-bouts.

You'll find there's nothing illegal about writing and distributing software to manage peer to peer downloads, even though this is the primary mechanism used to download pirated media. It's the act of downloading that's illegal, not the tools used to do it. Kind of like any crime. - See more at: http://www.guitarforum.co.za/general-music/infringing-copyright-or-not-that-is-the-question/msg265273/?topicseen#msg265273

There is nothing wrong with writing software for peer to peer etc. donwloads totally agree. BUT:
As Indicated with the banking example: it is the process that needs to be implemented before a download would or could go ahead, all seem to miss this point. One needs to logon on the banking website, one needs to provide proof of who you are, and one needs to have money in the account to get or transfer it. This system could easily be implemented before a download from e.g. youtube onto your harddrive for either copying or re-distribution could take place(I-Tunes). So one would pay for this download and the mp3 or any other format should be coded so it could not be copied only played. This is all possible and this way there would still be plenty content on youtube (to listen only to) but not downloadable unless you pay for it. e.g.I-tunes. Of course a drastic turnaround and implementation of new systems worldwide would have to take place. And yes, maybe the artist does not want that(unless you are called Taylor Swift, she's taken the bull by the horns and making sure she looses as little as possible income for her, she still got a way to go but she's leading the pact. Some say if you put your work on social media then it becomes everyone's property so it should be free of charge.(as the internet is free ?)
And of course e.g.youtube is there for the advertising income as is facebook and many others alike. The income of this is much higher than the possible income of downloaded material(currently) as well as the advantages by the companies advertising that the "crime" can take place and to break this wont be easy if at all.

Thanks all for your comments.

@ V8. Thanks for link to that series of videos. Definitely food for thought.

babbalute wrote: There is nothing wrong with writing software for peer to peer etc. donwloads totally agree. BUT:
it is the process that needs to be implemented before a download would or could go ahead, all seem to miss this point.

So the process is flawed? I would disagree. I propose that model of copyright is fundamentally flawed. And stuck in the 90's greedy mode - when bands printed money with their latest CD.

P.s, there isn't usually a download option on youtube. This is a "service" provided by other websites. Regardless, by the mere fact of viewing/listening to material subject to copyright - you've potentially infringed copyright - Has the artist agreed to not receive royalties OR does the service have a agreement in place?

I did find this interesting reading : http://thetrichordist.com/2014/11/12/the-streaming-price-bible-spotify-youtube-and-what-1-million-plays-means-to-you/

babbalute wrote: Some say if you put your work on social media then it becomes everyone's property so it should be free of charge.(as the internet is free ?)

The internet isn't free. Ask Norio what it takes to keep GFSA going on a monthly basis. How much do you pay for access - mobile/fixed line? There is always a cost - whether it is subsided by government, advertising or other corporate source(s). And content is king - the highest valued websites do not generate ANY content (Youtube, Facebook, Ebay, Ali-express, Twitter) - you do ALL the work...kinda like a subscription?

No that I disagree with your point - What I do respect is the honor system - many creations are available in this fashion (E.g. bandcamp) For me, this makes far more sense in the digital age than licencing and distributing physical media (especially w/DRM). Imho - One should pay a premium for physical media (Vinyl, DvD) and for lossless formats (WAV/Flac/Aiff) and a discounted rate on the lossy formats.

Just my 2c. Aplogies to CoolCat, I R waaaay off topic here.

Ah . . . you guys are discussing my favourite topic. As a matter of fact, I wrote my Masters thesis on the very same question asked, namely, how much of a song can you copy, before you get in trouble.

Coolcat wrote: My question; is using the same theme / setting / idea with different lyrics – except as mentioned above – an infringement of copyright?

Absolutely not. If I write a book about 3 wizards who go to wizard school and beat up bad guys, can Rowling sue me? No, she does not own the right to use all themes of wizards - but if I write a book with 3 wizards called Henry, Ronny and Hermonica and they attend Hogwards then yes, that is infringement. In copyright, there is no protection for an 'idea'. When judges determine if there is copyright infringement or not, they look for two things.

1. Whether there is a causal connection
2. Was a substantial part taken

So if I wrote exactly the same book as Rowling, but I live in the Amazon jungle, and had no way of knowing of her success/books, then that is not copyright infringement. If however I did know, but still wrote anyway, I'd only be in trouble if the courts can prove I copied a substantial part. Now what is substantial part? Well its an extremely subjective test. In music at least, it is most commonly associated with the melody, rhythm and harmony, especially the melody. Lyrics get their own copyright. So the court will decide if the part you copied is important to the song, and really makes the original song unique, and now you put it in your song, then yes, its likely to be a substantial part. Its not about how much you copied, but always about what you copied. So you could take 40s from a song and not be in trouble, but you could take 4 seconds from another song and get in deep trouble. A good test to ask yourself is, if you as an average listener had to listen to the song, would you be reminded of the original version? There is a lot more to this - I am only giving the icing.

DaFiz wrote: I bought the entire Led Zeppelin collection on vinyl over the years,
Only to end up buying the same again on CD format...
Now I download the same again from piratebay...
Will I go to jail ? ???

If you make an album - its your right as an artist to determine in what format you wish to make it available, so whenever you (as a consumer) convert from one format to another, you are infringing their rights.

Hasie wrote: As far as I know, you are allowed to have a digital "backup" copy of any music you own on disc/vinyl. The same goes for DVDs.

Nope. That exception only applies to computer programmes, not music!

As for YouTube, a lot of the content on their infringes copyrights. YouTube has take-down process, so if a video is infringing, you submit the notice, and they will take it down - not everyone does that, hence the reason there is a mass of video's still online. But the sad reality is that if you post a video of your band doing a cover of another band, that is copyright infringement, unless you had permission to do so. Your video will likely stay on YouTube as it is not causing any harm, but I'm willing to bet, the moment you start making serious money from the cover, then the original artists will come down on you hard!

Thanked for the answer. Good stuff.

Hello! A couple of years back there was also this interesting copyright infringement case where U2's record company took Negativland to court over an EP they created. I don't recall the full details, so quickly searched for info on the net. Here's a snippet: http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/3.01/negativland_pr.html

@ Adrian Rogowski

Thank you for your comment. Much appreciated.

This is current - Brad Holland illustrator being interviewed by Will Terry - speaking about what's happening with copyright law right now in the States:

=