Exactly. This basic ass pop shit is all the same anyway. It’d be different if it was like Yngwie Malmsteen being sued for copying some Bach piece under a different name. But no lol
But some dumbass modern piece of shit trying to make a song ripping off an old song it's a little bit different than being inspired it's just pathetic everybody's making shit music with no originality in this just defines today's music it's all bulshit
Timmy Kenny wow bro that’s crazy but have you heard any music by Black Midi, Swans, Death Grips, Yves Tumor, Mount Eerie, King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard, Weatherday, The Voidz, Superorganism, 100 gecs, SOPHIE, Car Seat Headrest, Machine+, JPEGMAFIA, Open Mike Eagle, Xiu Xiu, Ariel Pink, Candy Claws, Beach House, Tropical F*** Storm, Pure Adult, Frank Ocean, Glass Beach, Lemon Demon, Clipping, Kero Kero Bonito, Fiona Apple, Billie Eilish, or Tyler, The Creator? I mean that’s just the start of it and these are artists of several different genres that all have albums filled with personality and originality that have come out in the past couple years. If you don’t think any modern music is good, you’re clearly not making any effort to seek any out.
1. Define generic? 2. Once weve done that how do you even prove that two humans didnt just create something the same (generic or non generic) without any interaction or knowledge of the other persons creation? My point is even when something IS actually identical 99% of people will just automatically assume it was conscious plaguerism instead of the possibility that just by co incidence someone else created something that is the same as something else lol. Even if a song is "famous" there is no guarantee someone has heard it (i know people who havent heard of stevie wonder or michael jackson believe it or not)
this copyright stuff is kinda wack. copyright claims made on youtube should be sued for ripping off music copyright claimers because they are clearly stealing their thing.
This is scary stuff. The more lawsuits like these that succeed, the more that massive corporate entities are able to control art and reduce creativity. I hope this trend turns around soon somehow. In the 60s and 70s the fight was against lyrical censorship, now it’s against this.
It won’t. Corporations are heavily lobbying for stricter control and more power over creative mediums. Meanwhile there’s not really anyone fighting them at least not on a similar level. Support against the increasing control is also fragmented with corporations building narratives that they’re doing this to protect art and artists (because they totally aren’t the ones screwing artists over and only care about exploiting their works for sales).
The more of this kind of crap they pull- the less power the corporations and the state will have. creativity is the very core of human nature, they cannot take it away and the more they try- the more they will lose their power. Take punk rock for example, it was a direct response to the conformist society where it spawned- a creative outlet for the anger felt by a generation of teenagers who felt their individuality and creativity was being suppressed. If they actually make creating music illegal, people will simply ignore them. you might as well try to make it illegal to breath.
12 bar blues and the minor Pentatonic scale have never changed lol. If you copyright it everyone, and I mean everyone, that has every made a blues song is screwed. So pretty much everyone lmao.
@@JackTheMurderer Thankfully copyright wasn't around then. Bach basically got an church organist/choir director salary. Without the megabucks that modern celebrities think is their due - and he seemed a happy man - with 20 children! He was also modest - said anyone could write his fugues if they put the work in. He also actually quite often borrowed melodies that had been around - and sometimes developed them into fantastic fugues. Both ancient religious and folk tunes and that of his contemporaries. And his contemporaries did the same. And often they did not even attribute these melodies. And it didn't affect the quality of music. (In fact I think it is pretty safe to say music of a higher standard then - I can't imagine Sheeran or Townsend being able (or put in the work) to write anything like a fugue. Intellectual property rights have destroyed music, not improved it. And of course it has made a few people very, very, rich.
Nah - _that_ was _Slonimsky's Thesaurus of Scales and Melodic Patterns._ Every possible thing to do with four notes in the key of C and still took 256 page!
No problem then, make your hamburger with lettuce, tomato, pickles AND onions. This changes the functional sequence of the assembly therefore is original...
great video and i totally agree w you dude... this lawsuit is so silly. i think it's absurd that cases about music theory are decided by a jury with likely little to no musical knowledge. it basically encourages people to bring ridiculous lawsuits hoping they get lucky with the jury and win a big settlement 😕
With technical cases of any kind the jury system is flawed - we can see this increasingly in lawsuits around software (for instance) too where juries have to rule on subjects it might take a PhD to truly understand, and the judge isn't any better informed than the jury. The same is true of politicians passing many laws, but sadly it's hard to see a simple solution.
I😉 think it would be fun and prove a point if some composers took some time to write completely different songs with the same chords and rhythm as thinking out loud to end this discussion and prevent musical restriction ;) I did it on my channel, I hope some will follow...
This is why juries, politicians, and judges need access to individuals and resources relating to the cases they're handling. Not everyone is a 'Jack of all trades'. Hearing from industry experts on matters with legal implications for those industries is almost a necessity. Related reading materials, too.
Daniel Hernandez I worked as a waitress. I had coworkers that would get the order of coke, and not even ask. They just gave them pepsi, thinking it was basically the same thing. At the time I was a cocacolic and was horrified!
Bottled coke tastes like ass. Fountain coke is much better, but if they have Dr. Pepper I'll be getting that. And Pepsi tastes good no matter where it comes from.
No, this is like copying the Mona Lisa and changing her hair or eye color. LISTEN to the two songs and it instantly becomes apparent that Ed's song is a copy of Marvin's. It's not just the chord progression, the songs SOUND the same in just about every aspect. Add to the fact that Ed Sheeran is a Marvin Gaye fan and has heard that song many times and there leaves no room for doubt. The only question is, was it accidental or intentional. For myself, I don't see how it could have been accidental. Either way, it's definitely a copyright issue. There are 12 notes in multiple octaves with different modes and scales, etc., in western music. There are almost 11 billion chord combinations just from 3 note chords, triads, and there are all kinds of different chords besides these basic ones. Factor in all possibilities and it basically becomes limitless, infinite, for all intents and purposes. Saying everything has been done and nothing can be original and we should expect songs to sound like each other etc., is more ridiculous than saying we should expect authors to produce the same novels etc. because there are only so many letters in the alphabet.
@@davidseverance9282 Imagine if attorneys couldn't base their work on the work of those who came before. That'd be fun "objection, he isn't raising an original argument".
I must have been living under a rock as this video is 4 years old and I just watched it today and found out about this law suit - then as soon as I finished watching it found the jury found he didn't copy the song. While I agreed with everything you said in the video - I'm also glad the jury did in the end as well!
Not only the lawsuit, but also the decision may be due to how the jury swings in this case. I personally wouldn't mind seeing this go to the Supreme Court.
There's a difference between taking elements of music and using them in an original way, and what Ed Sheeran did with his song. The accompaniment part is a blatant rip off from the Marvin Gaye song (you really can't get much closer to that without using sampling). But is it really an original enough part? I think that's the main question, and that's why I'm not 100% sure on my opinion. This isn't only about the chords or the bassline or any of the elements separately - it's about the combination of those elements, and you rarely have songs that use the same combination of tempo, groove, bassline, drum beat, chord progression and instrumentation. The arguments the lawsuit uses, though, are flawed. I think it's trying too hard to find similarities between the songs, and it's making ridiculous claims like the song is the only song ever to use this chord progression in this tempo or that the melodies are supposedly the same when they really aren't even close.
MaggaraMarine I think you're missing the point. The notion of "owning" a musical idea is utterly pants-on-head insane. It's like claiming to own a mathematical equation. Theorists know this already. It's just that people in the "music industry" make a lot of money by pretending that their fever-dream delusions about owning abstract concepts have any merit. It's best to tell those people to go fuck themselves and continue to make music in whichever way you see fit.
Considering there are only a finite number of chord progression permutations, if this BS keeps up, it will be impossible one day to compose any new music without someone filing an infringement lawsuit.
Actually, there are an infinite number of chord progressions; ever heard of microtones? Just make sure you're .001 Hertz out of tune on the first chord and you're golden! Or maybe go all-out and compose a song using a 13-note scale!
You shouldn't even be able to own a melody. We only have 12 notes. The criteria for infringement should be insanely restricted to situations in which a work deliberately thieves from anothers by means of deception, like taking an artists name, ripping off entire lyrics, or directly taking the song itself and monetizing/distributing it without credit and/or license. Even using the same melody has the opportunity to be VASTLY transformative in innumerable ways. Even covers and remixes can contain enough alternate elements that I'd argue would make a significant portion of the end result no longer belong to you.
Effort is a determined attempt that's typically failure and is uncertain to work? Antonym of fail? Why is it that you can't say attempt & why is attempt associated with fail and crimes and suicide & yet you think it means achieves its desired purpose; succeed?
our song limit is only 3,67,87,32,28,800 songs we can make and that is really sad to me because i love music and song making might come to an end in the future..
+CantBeatMeHaHa I mean it's a funny joke, but there would be no legal basis. You an show this video in court without stepping on any legal issues. If the judge permits it, it's permitted. They could show Star Wars in the court legally if it was relevant to the case.
Me (No, not Ashildr, I had the name before Doctor Who, and I'm not changing it!) is pretty easy to understand with the support of images And musical examples in a video versus just speech
The thing that always gets me about this sort of stuff is that, statistically speaking, at some point, there's gonna be nothing original to write anymore. There's only so many notes and chords to choose from. At some point were going to run out of "original" music. Like, I just wrote a song recently, and after listening to it a couple times I realized that one of my kinda ambient vocal melodies in the chorus was the exact same as the bridge of "dance monkey" by Tones and I. However, otherwise the song shares zero similarities other than arguably they have a similar swing to them. I feel like this case is a little different cause they're actually in the same slow swing love song kinda style, so there's a little more to cling to, but I really don't think they have a strong case here.
@@vibrantdragon3123 I think so too but most of the general public can’t even hear/identify microtones so we’ll have to condition the masses to the sound first somehow lol.
Nobody's really trying to write original music or rather, I'm sure people are, but 'commercial' music recycles the same four chords (with incredible streaming results - diverting ML recommendations on Spotify and other platforms away from original writing).
The actual laws are very clear - melody and lyrics only - and the concept dates back a long time - because they were the only elements thought to be unique enough to warrant some protection. These court cases (Blurred Lines, That Ed Sheeran Song and Dark Horse), you have uneducated juries being swayed by dodgy "musicologists" who are just out to make a fast buck as a so-called expert witness. For whatever reason the defendants can't seem to get a decent one to rebut (Someone like Rick Beato or Adam Neely for example). This stuff should never have been allowed to proceed in the first place as there was no standing in the law. There is no law protecting "groove" (Blurred Lines), no law protecting chord progressions (Ed Sheeran) and no law protecting Timbre (Dark Horse). The plaintiffs motivations were different in each case as well, which is another topic entirely.
Cinta Damai You cant copyright specific lines of code, but you can copyright entire software code. Its quite easily proven that you used most of the code if you used some software as backround. Fallout Shleter and Westworld had clearly the same code with different textures, so thats why you can go to court with it. Its even more lenient than if you for example, copy a line (quot) from a book and did not do any changes. Simply called plagiarism.
Adam, please make sure the defendant's attorney gets a copy of this video. They may be able to play it in court, depending on the whims of the judge. If not, they can certainly use some of your well-stated points in their arguments. Good job!
Yes. The lawsuit could CRUMBLE under just this video. If they brought Adam in as 'Expert Testimony', it'd be over in less time that it took to write this.
These lawsuits are going to kill the music industry Edit: I find it funny that youtubers like Adam do a better job of defending the art than the actual lawyers
The music industry is already dead. greedy record companies killed it years ago. and these days the only reason record labels sign new acts is so they can control any real talent that comes along and steal from the real talent to help their auto tuned wannabe's they've signed to make fast money. they use the talent of the real artist to push their fake artists. Right now radio stations and record labels are telling you what to like.
The "Earth Angel" progression has been so common in mid-20th C music that at our family singalongs we like to sing a medley - Blue Moon (no bridge), Santa Catalina, Silhouettes, Shaboom, whatever - then rather like a round, each person sings a different song simultaneously. It works-Fun! But is there a lawsuit in it?....
Rick lol I get kicked off. They ask if I have any prejudices. I say Is there any bikers on the case? Because if your an inconsiderate jerk that drives by on a loud harley my opinion of you is decided instantly. They also don't like when I openly say I'm an atheist so I can swear on god or anything.
Adam, this video clearly follows a "introductory explanation, comparison, contrast, analysis, conclusion" format. I think the record will show that I have released videos in this _exact_ fundamental format previously. You can expect to hear from my lawyers. I hope you have $100,000,000.
Adam's video like many I have made in the past uses words utter by mouth. He should expect notice from my lawyer in the near future. Added to which Anderson, you will be hearing from my lawyer for infringing use of punctuation. I have written comments that utilize puncuation that predate yours and set a precedent.
TheCompleteGuitarist, I think you will find that I have made satirical comments in a similar vain addressing two parties in the legal sense such as you have just here long before you posted this one. My attorney will be in contact and a cease and desist will be sent.
You're writing a informal and a warning influenced comment on a TH-cam channel's comment section, sir the only person you'll get in touch tomorrow is my Lawyer.
Owen, I have previously used words erroneously, and lay claim to your confusion of the words vain/vein. That is actually my error, not yours, and you are not allowed to make it without my permission.
Holy crap. I remember watching this when it came out. When I heard about the case I was confused because I thought it already happened. I can’t believe it took four years for this to be settled. Jesus.
I was like “4 years ago” what? It only just ended. No wonder he said he would leave his career. 4 years of bs just for him to be in the right the whole time.
As a composer, this lawsuit is utter bullshit. The chord progressions sound similar, sure, but not the same. Even if they *were* the same, the plaintiff is literally trying to lay claim to a chord progression - they’re trying to lay claim to a fundamental piece of music itself. I get copyright and stuff like that, because musicians need to make money too. But a chord progression? That’s just insane. Music is something that should be shared, experienced; not owned.
Macabre Music In 200 years we will have made every musically possible combination of notes that everything gets sued by mass music sueing companies. Great plot for a sci-fi movie.
To quote Adam Neely himself (in his video on elemental arranging), "Nobody is original. Every inspiring piece of music and work of art you have ever experienced has been stolen from people who have done it before. Your job as an artist is not to be original. Rather, it's to take what others have done and mold that into something that you like. The more successful that you are in blending elements stolen from your influences into a unified whole, the more 'original' you are."
Pradigy Musicman there's even a strong argument to say copyrighting a melody is largely bullshit I believe copyright law uses lead sheets so it shouldn't be possible to sue based on chords alone
Chord progressions cannot be copyrighted, as spelled out in copyright law. The lawyer trying to bring that up is...I'm not sure what his point is. Presumably, Sheeran has a decent legal team, and they'll get that aspect of the case tossed in pre-trial motions, as it has no basis in the law.
Next painters will sue other painters because they used blue, yellow and red. TV programs will sue other TV programs because they used blue, green and red
Not quite that simple. Using yellow blue and red is fine. Using a yellow sky, blue building and red automobile, if another painting used that combination might be considered plagiarism.
*looks at date of video*... *looks at news of this lawsuit JUST reaching a verdict this week*... THIS LAWSUIT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR ALMOST FIVE YEARS???
"It should be noted that the tempos of the two songs are virtually identical: Gaye’s song clocks in at about 83 beats per minute, while Sheeran’s sets a slightly slower pace of about 79 beats per minute." From the lawsuit.. Even to bring up tempo is beyond ridiculous. So what? two songs have the same tempo? (which obviously they don't even have in this case).
"Virtually identical" Jesus, could you imagine if it was a murder case (something that is actually worthwhile pursuing) and the fingerprint was "virtually identical"? The judge would throw you out of court until you can prove that it is the exact same set of fingerprints.
@@UserJWR That is, unless you had enough money. Judges have made worse decision in the past, and legal the system in the US is designed to allow corruption.
Including everonye who ever whistled, sneezed more than once on a row, hummed, clapped, snapped their fingers or made sounds. All these filthy criminals belong in prison...
Your musicology knowledge is just like, wow! I’m blown away by all this info and the way you present it. What the heck is up with Marvin Gaye’s estate? This is the second “song theft” lawsuit by them I’ve heard about. They’re out of control. If making songs that sound kind of similar is illegal, there goes the whole genre of Reggaeton! 😳
As alluded to in the video, most chord progressions are stolen from Bach anyway. I wish I could somehow get legal rights to everything bach wrote just to f*** with copyright trolls
And I don't want to overemphasize Bach too much, he made some very real changes to how harmony works but he also, you know, copied other people's ideas
Kougeru yeah but that background being of a geologically similar mountain rather than the same mountain. You can not copywrite chord progressions otherwise nobody (or very very few) would be able to write decent music. I refer you to the Axis of awesome 4 chord medley for reference. This is a frivolous lawsuit and I hope the plaintiff goes bankrupt for bringing it. It's only for personal gain and not just at the cost to Ed Sheeran but to the entire institution of music as a whole. Next we'll be copywriting guitar tunings ffs.
Unless the melody is completely stolen. The comparison between “Amazing” by Matt Cardle and “Photograph” by Sheeran is possibly the only type of lawsuit which has some actual logical basis.
punch3870 Not necessarily. The whole point of a genre is that songs within it tend to sound the same. All pop music definitely doesn't sound the same....if you've spent any amount of time listening to it. One could just as easily say there's something wrong with baroque music, metal music, indie music, and literally any other genre. What's wrong here is people being greedy for money and trying to find theft where there isn't any; not the genres.
HrhMk pop music is more susceptible to sounding similar because of its simplified chordal and rhythmic structure. The lack of modulation is already a huge hindrance. More complex music like the Baroque style will present more possibilities, producing different sounds and ideas as long as how far conventional theory can take you. As a genre itself, creating pop only becomes difficult when trying to write something different than pop.
Fanchen Maybe I just don't have an idea of what resides exclusively under the pop genre, cause I usually think of just whatever plays on top 10 stations but that can't be the case cause while those stations dont play distinct genres like metal or rap, the artists also dont sound the same at all and many probably fall under multiple genres. Now country, country music sounds exactly like what you just described.
I agree with this video. The people who are doing these frivolous lawsuits are selling us out for short term gain but long term they are screwing over artists with this legal precedent for many years to come and (hopefully not) generations.
Nice work sir, good to see you upping the video-ante again! Praying this suit gets thrown out. The Blurred Lines/Got to give it up lawsuit was already a step too far.
I think it would be fun and prove a point if some composers took some time to write completely different songs with the same chords and rhythm as thinking out loud to end this discussion ;) If I found some motivation I‘d do it as well🤔
You call yourself a composer but want this law suit thrown out? Any musician with ears would know if there ever was a blatant knock off this is just that. Its not only the chord progression, the tempo, placement of the 4 chords on the third beat of each bar, bass line etc. Its like taking the music from the Beatles song 'Hard Days Night' and adding another melody and different lyrics to it. Then saying it was mine. Would that deserve a law suit too? Well yes it would.
They are aware that notes and their scales are not invented by anyone right? It is a pattern found in nature that humans DISCOVERED and seemed to enjoy, so they wrote the instructions down
Yep, it's almost as if you patented scientific discoveries. Sorry, I now own the concept of both nuclear fission and fusion. That old glowing ball in the sky ain't freeloadin' anymore!
“It is a pattern found in nature” What drugs were you on when you wrote that? An octave is certainly a physics thing (doubling or halving the frequency) but otherwise it was an arbritrary choice of humans to divide up an octave into twelve notes. Other systems have existed. Chords, scales, and keys were all made up by humans, not discovered.
Damn, by that logic every metal, punk, and hard rock song have been in violation of copyright for using the same 3 chord patterns. There goes a few genres
@Shockheadd45 I'm not saying the vast majority of metal consists of original chord progressions (there being so many bands, of course there are going to be plenty of similar progressions), but metal as a whole is nowhere near the level of simplicity of genres like punk, and is not based on just a couple of familiar chord progressions. The OP seems to imply metal does only consist of a handful of chord progressions, similar to genres like punk. There has been some evolution since the days that bands like Motörhead, Judas Priest, Mötley Crüe, Black Sabbath, etc. dominated the genre. Not every metal band still bases its song structures mainly on blues, rock'n'roll, etc. Basically everything you can do with a guitar, has been done by some metal band. The past decade plenty of bands have based their whole sound on dissonance, atonality, microtonality and several other unconventional writing methods (Suffering Hour, Deathspell Omega, Skáphe, Last Sacrament, Malthusian, ...), other bands have used progressions inspired by classical music for decades (not just talking about obvious stuff like neo-classical and symphonic metal) and still come up with fresh sounding stuff (Cor Scorpii, Týr, Mistur, ...), etc.
Law Firm: *Tries to sue Ed Sheeran for sounding too similar to another artist* Rappers with Garage Band, Dreadlocks and "Lil" in their name: *sweating profusely*
There's more in common between these songs than just the chord progression. If it was about the chord progression on its own, yes, you would have a point. But since the accompaniment parts of these two songs sound so similar (it's about the whole arrangement, so the combination of chords, bassline, drum beat, groove, instrumentation), I don't think it's really getting out of hand - I can see a justification for this case. Though, I'm a bit on the fence on this one. I'm not sure if the accompaniment part in the Marvin Gaye song should be considered an original enough idea. Because I think it's definitely more unique and recognizable than a stylistic cliche like the "boogie woogie riff", but it's really not as unique/recognizable as the accompaniment part of a song like "Bohemian Rhapsody" (I mean, when you hear that piano riff, you know instantly that it's "Bohemian Rhapsody", and if some other song used that same accompaniment pattern, it would be a total rip off). It's kind of in between those two.
MaggaraMarine Honestly I want the case to be thrown out primarily because it's a blatant scam. It's not protecting the work of an artist, their legacy, or the livelihood of that artist's family; it's a firm trying to abuse the legal system for profit. If they win this case this sort of cynical profiteering will only become more common, and that's not good for anyone. I would also like to point out that "stylistic cliches" differ from cases like this because of how frequently they're imitated. There's no way to objectively define the point where a combination of recognizable elements transcends personal ownership and become public domain.
Yes, and then they must give them all to early Hip Hop producers who worked out how to use the machines :) The Hip Hop producers can then give all the royalties to the funk/blues musicians and so on until the Caveman/woman that first hit a stone with a stick gets what he/she deserves! Nothing is new!
My suggestion for the Defendant is to use the Axis of Awesome defense. I, V, vi, IV. show how many different songs run off that one chord progression. How each makes a completely different mood, character, and Message. You cannot copyright a chord progression.
Thank. You. I’m still upset over the last lawsuit over Blurred Lines. I’m not a fan of Robin Thicke or Ed Sheeran, but I’m a fan of the growth of music. Allowing these ridiculous lawsuits to continue will only cause musicians to be afraid to create music.
Alex Walker Smith blurred lined was even more blatant of a rip off. Not to mention it's literally a song about rape but if you support that I guess you got better problems besides being blind to justice
Kougeru No, it wasn’t a ripoff. It had a similar groove, and that’s it. If anything, it was INSPIRED by the Marvin Gaye song, and that’s not illegal. And Blurred Lines is a stupid song about trying to get laid, but it is NOT about rape.
Don't be upset. Lawsuits will almost certainly only affect musicians that make lots of money - in my opinion the money made from ANY music should be shared across the music industry and used to finance new/upcoming artists and youth music projects (most VERY succesfull financially musicians deteriorate/stop producing new material when they get rich enough anyway). Vast majority of musicians on the planet will carry on doing what they want and not being able to make a living. Growth of music doesn't depend on Robin or Ed. I agree that the lawsuits are ridiculous but then so are nearly all "you stole my idea" lawsuits. No musical idea belongs to any individual because the true origins of the idea can NEVER be proven. Copyright is a "protectionist" tool that can be manipulated. I hope this debate results in the end of copyright in music and the beginning of TRUE growth. Copyright is a flawed idea, it was ok when there wasn't so much "StuFf" :)
TheStuF The money you make from music should be your money. Period. None of this “shared across the music industry” socialist garbage. But I agree that copyright laws are getting out of hand. We can thank decades of Disney lobbyists for that. The fact that contracts include wording like “across the universe and until the end of time” shows how ridiculous it’s getting.
All the defense needs to win this case is Bach's usage of both the progression and tempo. The very fact that Back used the chord progression at the same tempo over 100 years ago puts the combined progression and tempo in the public domain. As a result of the combo being in the public domain, the combo cannot be copyrighted in and of themselves which the law suite clearly claims it is. Secondly, the sounding alike of songs simply means that they are in the same niche genres much like rockabilly songs all have the same base rhythm and the music of the 1020's have the same basic swing feel in them. Because there are in fact a very limited number of notes, two people on the opposite sides of the planet, never having met each other or heard each others music, can develop the exact same chord progression, base rhythm, beat at the exact same time. They just won't know it until the one decides to sue the other for copyright infringement. This is in reality not a case of copyright infringement. This is a case of copyright theft. What the plaintiffs are attempting to do through the legal process is overturn hundreds of years of industry known and agreed upon practice to make a claim to every song in the world that has ever existed or shall ever exist. What they are seeking to do is steal the copyrights to every new song that an artist writes even if the song has absolutely no connection with the song they are protecting. In the minds of the plaintiffs, the only person that has the right o plagiarize Bach is Marvin Gaye and no other person in the history, presence or future of humanity may do the same. Yeah, that's about the size of what they are doing! The plaintiffs are not acting like legitimate attorneys protecting Marvin Gaye's legitimate copy right claims. They are acting like copyright trolls that, like their cousins the patent trolls who lay claim to inventions they have never worked on, copyright trolls lay claim to musical work that does not in fact violate a copyright.
This is just ONE example of said progression. You will literally find thousands of the exact same progression in modern music. When nearly every pop song uses a four chord progression there’s only half a dozen or so combinations you can use. Next consider that almost every pop song uses common time, so the beat is always going to be the same. There’s only a few realistically usable time signatures for pop music so there’s going to be a huge overlap there. The only course for action would be where the progression, time signature, harmony and melody are the same, in which case you basically have the same song potentially in a different key. With today’s music you’re talking about an extremely finite number of ways that you can arrange a song. Of course you’re going to have similar sounding songs. For Christ’s sake, they ALL sound the bloody same!
The lawsuit was just plain ridiculous from the get-go. Ed Sheeran not only deserved the win but also protected musical artists as well. Great breakdown of the hows an whys of the case 👍👍👍
I learned more about music in this 10 minute video than I did from a one semester course in college. Very well done. I think it should be presented to the jury as evidence.
i swear that one day people will sue others for using the same shade of color in graphic designs too. This lawsuit cannot win otherwise it will spell trouble for all sort of creatives.
Luke Lim im suing you for having a similar idea yet you cant prove it and in reality this is the dumbest lawsuit in history And yes agreed, if this also does “win” its the end of the music industry I think this law suit is idiotic, especially when most pop songs sound the same, and some even go as far to have the same melody (Theres also a conspiracy that its meant to all sound the same b/c they are the BIG HITS) This is idiotic
OverKnight 52 It just means the people on marvin gayes side are lazy mother fuckers out for some easy cash grab. Its a gamble sure but they stand to win a lot of money. I make music, take video and pictures and do graphic design as a living. It is a fine line between plagarism and inspiration. But there is a difference. And progress in art depends on copying to a certain extent. Is the white stripes going to sue the whole of europe soccer fans and stadiums for blasting seven nation army and shouting the bassline out? Not cool if they sue. If you are worried about being copied try making something new and fresh to compete.
You laugh but Coca Cola owns the particular she of red it's using. T-Mobile has sued other companies several times over the use of their "iconic" pink color.
Thinking Out Loud is a watered down version of the original Funk beat of Let’s Get It On. Including the fact that the key is changed from a half-step from Eb to D. Paul Humphries was the original drummer for Marvin Gaye’s track. And I also don’t appreciate that for all his talk about theory he’s not using the original key of Let’s Get It On which is Eb. Yes musicians have used the same chord progression but contrafect also means that key and RHYTHMIC FEEL is altered. Nobody likes to talk about RHYTHMIC FEEL.
I'm sure Ed's got good lawyers. I'm sure that Ed will win the lawsuit against Ed, and in turn Ed with definitely lose against Ed. Congratulations to Ed.
Hopefully Ed Sheeran's legal team hires you as their expert witness or whatever it's called (all I know about American law is from Boston Legal and the Good Wife).
Exactly. Why would anyone want to be a songwriter/composer? In the unlikely event you write a hit, all it takes to get sent back to zero is for a lawyer to convince a jury of non-musicians that some song written in the past century or so sounds not entirely unlike your song.
Rekt Gaming exactly, it requires a larger similarity rather than some obscure component, like chords. Sue someone for using a same composition of chords is like suing for cooking on the stove
You did a great job on your research here, Adam. I think the video title, “You Can’t Own Chords,” says it all. Otherwise, blues song composers would have been paying royalties through the nose for 12-bar blues progressions over the last 100+ years. On another note (See what I did there?), when did the IV chord become the “predominant”? Back in my music theory days (early 1970s), we called it the “subdominant.”
I swear people in this age sue for the money. It's like a lottery at this point. Also, its usually a ridiculous amount of money too. They do sound similar though but since you exposed the chords not being the same I guess it doesnt make any sense lol
Tbh thinking out loud is one of ed sheerans most popular songs, it probably made an unimaginably large amount of money. If you knew that number, the amount he's being sued for might make a little more sense
The only legally copyrightable elements of music are melody and lyrics. That’s. It. You can’t copyright basslines, and you definitely can’t copyright chord progressions. There are only 7 notes in a diatonic scale, no matter what key they’re in. There are only so many combinations you can make with them. Trying to claim a specific chord progression is greedy, and diminishes creative possibilities in an art form that already has a pretty limited tool box.
Yeah accurate. The only way this case could hold water is if you could successfully make the point that said signature bassline is the melody at times, such as the under pressure case.
This is not entirely accurate, you can sue someone for lyrics and/or for the theme which is to say a specific melody over a specific chord progression but no you couldn't sue someone for a beat or rythme although in the blurred lines case they successfully sued robin thick for the rythme so the law doesn't make sense
I think you could definitely copyright a bass line. Take Paul McCartney’s bass lines on Come Together, Rain, or Hey Bulldog for example. Those are melodies on their own
Unfortunately, the Blurred Lines verdict in 2015 opened the floodgates for ridiculous lawsuits like this. I keep wondering when some lawyer claiming to represent the estate of Bo Diddley is going to launch a bunch of lawsuits against every song that used the beat he's credited with bringing to rock and roll.
Lmao funny, the thing is with blues is that a 12 bar blues is a characteristic and feature of the genre. So it’s how you identify the genre. That’s not to say there aren’t blues songs which just resolve around chord I
@akrinah I'd heard that, your comment inspired me to finally look it up. Apparently it's since been ruled that they didn't own it anyway. 'Warner/Chappell, who charges anywhere from $1,500 to $50,000 to use the song in movies, radio spots, and ads, is reported to make some $2 million a year off of the song' 'Warner/Chappell only sends out bills when the song is used commercially, or for public performances (defined under current copyright law as “a place open to the public, or any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered”).' priceonomics.com/who-owns-the-copyright-to-happy-birthday/ 'In a stunning reversal of decades of copyright claims, the judge ruled that Warner/Chappell never had the right to charge for the use of the "Happy Birthday To You" song.' www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-happy-birthday-song-lawsuit-decision-20150922-story.html
oh wait every mumble rapper would get sued by just stealing snare patterns from other mumble rappers that also stole the pattern to another mumble rapper that stole the same pattern from another mumble rapper
Hey, I really like your explanation of the music theory behind 4 Chord songs and it's connection to old Masters like Bach, but I have to comment 2 things you got wrong: 1) Arnold Schönberg was austrian, not german! We austrians are quite butthurt when we get called "germans" 2) I think you meant Hugo Riemann, not Reimann. He was indeed german though :)
Meh. You can legally sue anyone for any reason. That doesn’t mean that you are in the right, that you’ll win, or even that a judge will hear your case. In reality, most people who bring up these ridiculous lawsuits don’t truly believe they can win. Rather, they want the defendant to panic and agree to an absurd settlement payout ahead of any actual court hearings.
You can file the lawsuit, but people who bring lawsuits that are wholly without merit may, however, be subjected to penalties including paying the other side’s legal fees. If it turns out that the plaintiff really had no reasonable basis to believe the allegations were true, the plaintiff and his attorney may be fined and disciplined.
Yes, I was saying that you can't sue for /any/ reason. It's troublesome that they already have sued and won similar legal proceedings, but that doesn't validate the statement that you can legally sue for any reason. Penalties are handed out for cases that are wholly without merit or where the plaintiff has no reasonable basis.
Copyright law in general is very problematic in the United States and heavily subject to legal abuse. What we need to focus on as the problem is not litigation, but the problems with copyright law and the need for reform. It is no longer meeting any of the original goals for creating copyright law.
Agree wholeheartedly. There's limited use in treating a symptom whilst leaving the cause intact. If a system is susceptible to abuse, abuse of said system isn't surprising. The choice of pro-plaintiff courts in east Texas by patent trolls (up until last year's prohibition on their forum-shopping) particularly epitomises the problem. U.S. Copyright law stands on a solid (if slightly outdated) basis in the Berne Convention, but it definitely needs a bit of statutory reform, as well as the reconsideration of some precedents that no longer fit our contemporary context.
Not quite accurate. FACT: the USSA (even Adolf H said WE were his inspiration in ALL categories, like ethnic cleansing or enslaving minorities!!) MAKES IT NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR LITTLE PEOPLE TO SUE in almost any circumstance. (Hiring lawyers is hell. Dealing with lawyers is hell. ANd MOST lawyers are crooks cuz they're fellow lawyers WROTE ALL "LAWS" and run every inch of our lives.) EVEN SMALL CLAIMS is a FRAUD on the public: if you win, you STILL have to go thru our thug govt to TRY and recoup the money you won! 99% of americans do NOT sue for evil, illegal stuff done to them every day!
You definitely can't own chords. There's a very limited number of patterns of chords and tempo that are considered musical, and ALL the patterns have been done in music at some point in time. Really at this point, the only difference is tempo and strumming patterns, which you ALSO can't own. There are literally hundreds of songs you can play with just 2 or 3 chords. The only way you can reasonably claim copyright to tones these days is if you digitally alter them to sound different, like they do with things like dubstep. I could play any random set of 2-5 chords and I can guarantee that someone in history has used that pattern. There are songs that I've come up with, and later hear a song that has that exact same chord progression.
This is very correct in regards to pop music. There are an (almost) infinite number of possibilities in regards to progressions. Just ask Thelonious Monk or Dizzy Gillespie
Claiming copyright infringement of a 4 chord progression is like claiming a copyright on primary colors.
Trademark is different from copyright.
also purple is a secondary color
Exactly. This basic ass pop shit is all the same anyway. It’d be different if it was like Yngwie Malmsteen being sued for copying some Bach piece under a different name. But no lol
I OWN THE COLOR RED. LOL
Imma go I iii IV V in 80bpm
There are literally entire music genres based on the same bass line style
I'm waiting for the Bossa catalog to all collectively sue each other
Have you heard Brazilian funk by any chance? Literally the same thing everytime
But some dumbass modern piece of shit trying to make a song ripping off an old song it's a little bit different than being inspired it's just pathetic everybody's making shit music with no originality in this just defines today's music it's all bulshit
Timmy Kenny wow bro that’s crazy but have you heard any music by Black Midi, Swans, Death Grips, Yves Tumor, Mount Eerie, King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard, Weatherday, The Voidz, Superorganism, 100 gecs, SOPHIE, Car Seat Headrest, Machine+, JPEGMAFIA, Open Mike Eagle, Xiu Xiu, Ariel Pink, Candy Claws, Beach House, Tropical F*** Storm, Pure Adult, Frank Ocean, Glass Beach, Lemon Demon, Clipping, Kero Kero Bonito, Fiona Apple, Billie Eilish, or Tyler, The Creator? I mean that’s just the start of it and these are artists of several different genres that all have albums filled with personality and originality that have come out in the past couple years. If you don’t think any modern music is good, you’re clearly not making any effort to seek any out.
@@timmykenny717 shut the fuck up boomer
How to get rich: Step one: Make a generic song. Step two: Wait for someone to eventually make something that sounds sort of similar. Now you're rich!
Emmy Mae Congratulations, your generic song sounds exactly like me own copyright protected generic song. I am now suing you for 2$ and a casio watch!
1. Define generic?
2. Once weve done that how do you even prove that two humans didnt just create something the same (generic or non generic) without any interaction or knowledge of the other persons creation? My point is even when something IS actually identical 99% of people will just automatically assume it was conscious plaguerism instead of the possibility that just by co incidence someone else created something that is the same as something else lol. Even if a song is "famous" there is no guarantee someone has heard it (i know people who havent heard of stevie wonder or michael jackson believe it or not)
nezkeys79 ever heard of a joke
this copyright stuff is kinda wack. copyright claims made on youtube should be sued for ripping off music copyright claimers because they are clearly stealing their thing.
The hilarious part is that this could actually work haha
This is scary stuff. The more lawsuits like these that succeed, the more that massive corporate entities are able to control art and reduce creativity. I hope this trend turns around soon somehow. In the 60s and 70s the fight was against lyrical censorship, now it’s against this.
It won’t. Corporations are heavily lobbying for stricter control and more power over creative mediums. Meanwhile there’s not really anyone fighting them at least not on a similar level. Support against the increasing control is also fragmented with corporations building narratives that they’re doing this to protect art and artists (because they totally aren’t the ones screwing artists over and only care about exploiting their works for sales).
The more of this kind of crap they pull- the less power the corporations and the state will have.
creativity is the very core of human nature, they cannot take it away and the more they try- the more they will lose their power.
Take punk rock for example, it was a direct response to the conformist society where it spawned- a creative outlet for the anger felt by a generation of teenagers who felt their individuality and creativity was being suppressed.
If they actually make creating music illegal, people will simply ignore them. you might as well try to make it illegal to breath.
If their goal was to reduce creativity, they shouldn't be attacking Ed Sheeran of all people.
@@youtubeuserdan4017
You got me with that one lol
All those people playing the blues should be sued. All of 'em!
Langfocus you're channel is amazing
Langfocus hey paul, could you do a vid talking about Georgian (Kartvli)?
12 bar blues and the minor Pentatonic scale have never changed lol. If you copyright it everyone, and I mean everyone, that has every made a blues song is screwed. So pretty much everyone lmao.
Langfocus Holy cow! I honestly did not expect to see you Paul. Your channel is awesome! 👍😎
Playing the blues?! Better sing those greens!
You can't own chords, but you can own scales. And I own C major.
c ya guys in court
But...I like c major ):
Ceems like we're all in major trouble
Noo.... thats cheating
I’ll take b##
I understand that. But that was me with lil peep, I believe everyone is welcome and you can become a fan even after they're dead.
Almost every song from the 50s literally sounded the same but still no lawsuit there wow
1990• yeah but there's just some people in life that make arguments just to get they want even if their case/s don't make any sense
No song from the 50's sounded like that
Chuck Berry and the Beach Boys for one
potato Carrot I mean most of the 50s music sounds the same Even if Its good
@@SlashManEXE
Chuck Berry sued and won. They didn't sound alike, they were the same.
Every time I've seen or read about copyright cases Bach is used as an example of who did it first.
The man really did everything.
If he just lived 250 years longer, he could have made tons of money on copyright lawsuit.
@@JackTheMurderer Thankfully copyright wasn't around then. Bach basically got an church organist/choir director salary. Without the megabucks that modern celebrities think is their due - and he seemed a happy man - with 20 children! He was also modest - said anyone could write his fugues if they put the work in. He also actually quite often borrowed melodies that had been around - and sometimes developed them into fantastic fugues. Both ancient religious and folk tunes and that of his contemporaries. And his contemporaries did the same. And often they did not even attribute these melodies. And it didn't affect the quality of music. (In fact I think it is pretty safe to say music of a higher standard then - I can't imagine Sheeran or Townsend being able (or put in the work) to write anything like a fugue. Intellectual property rights have destroyed music, not improved it. And of course it has made a few people very, very, rich.
Nah - _that_ was _Slonimsky's Thesaurus of Scales and Melodic Patterns._ Every possible thing to do with four notes in the key of C and still took 256 page!
White peoples would say anything. People of color don’t go for the bullshit.
Except he was largely influenced by the Italian school and these progressions go to before Bach.
It's like McDonalds suing you for making a hamburger with lettuce , tomato, onions AND pickles!
No problem then, make your hamburger with lettuce, tomato, pickles AND onions. This changes the functional sequence of the assembly therefore is original...
If that were the case, then Wendy's, Burger King, and all other Fast Food Burger joints, including mom and pop joints, would be gone.
No mc Donald hamburger has tomatoes onn
BUT, McDowell's buns have no seeds
Its like Apple suing you for using a screen on your phone
"Let's ask a dead german" should be the name of this channel
underrated
200
“Why is genocide a good thing, let’s ask a dead a german”
@@kcatthirtysix i wonder how many people have yet to realize that hitler was not german, but born in austria
@@kcatthirtysix I hope that you understand that there are MANY antifascistic germans
The Bach estate is about to make a lot of money
Luckily he has been dead for 268 years.
Anonymous thats why the [estate] is making alot of money.
It's a shame Guido D'Arezzo never patented musical notation
This is the greatest youtube comment of all time. You deserve every one of those 1.1k likes.
Simon Burford not even close
If we're gonna start claiming chord progressions then imagine how many people would get sued for using the I-V-vi-IV progression
They could sing "Those magic changes" as a closing argument.
Bach
great video and i totally agree w you dude... this lawsuit is so silly. i think it's absurd that cases about music theory are decided by a jury with likely little to no musical knowledge. it basically encourages people to bring ridiculous lawsuits hoping they get lucky with the jury and win a big settlement 😕
Kurt Hugo Schneider why is nobody replying to you
With technical cases of any kind the jury system is flawed - we can see this increasingly in lawsuits around software (for instance) too where juries have to rule on subjects it might take a PhD to truly understand, and the judge isn't any better informed than the jury. The same is true of politicians passing many laws, but sadly it's hard to see a simple solution.
I😉 think it would be fun and prove a point if some composers took some time to write completely different songs with the same chords and rhythm as thinking out loud to end this discussion and prevent musical restriction ;) I did it on my channel, I hope some will follow...
This is why juries, politicians, and judges need access to individuals and resources relating to the cases they're handling. Not everyone is a 'Jack of all trades'. Hearing from industry experts on matters with legal implications for those industries is almost a necessity. Related reading materials, too.
That is odd. Almost like Sheehan's legal team arranged a bunch of up votes without realizing that looks odd without actual replies.
Saying that I6 is the same as iii is like your waiter saying "is pepsi ok?"
Daniel Hernandez I worked as a waitress. I had coworkers that would get the order of coke, and not even ask. They just gave them pepsi, thinking it was basically the same thing. At the time I was a cocacolic and was horrified!
Bottled coke tastes like ass. Fountain coke is much better, but if they have Dr. Pepper I'll be getting that. And Pepsi tastes good no matter where it comes from.
@@branfrd american?
@@hannahbis420 Yes
@@hannahbis420 Us Americans are conuesuers of sugar-based unhealthy beverages
this is like suing an artist for using a simlar use of colour and composition as you
Don't give the lawyers any suggestions.
Original Character DO NOT STEAL:
>Insert a bad Sonic recolor
"No one has ever used this color scheme before" (says about red white and blue)
By this logic why dont countries sue each other for having similar flags
No, this is like copying the Mona Lisa and changing her hair or eye color. LISTEN to the two songs and it instantly becomes apparent that Ed's song is a copy of Marvin's. It's not just the chord progression, the songs SOUND the same in just about every aspect. Add to the fact that Ed Sheeran is a Marvin Gaye fan and has heard that song many times and there leaves no room for doubt. The only question is, was it accidental or intentional. For myself, I don't see how it could have been accidental. Either way, it's definitely a copyright issue. There are 12 notes in multiple octaves with different modes and scales, etc., in western music. There are almost 11 billion chord combinations just from 3 note chords, triads, and there are all kinds of different chords besides these basic ones. Factor in all possibilities and it basically becomes limitless, infinite, for all intents and purposes. Saying everything has been done and nothing can be original and we should expect songs to sound like each other etc., is more ridiculous than saying we should expect authors to produce the same novels etc. because there are only so many letters in the alphabet.
The sad thing is that they couldn’t give a rat’s arse about the actual music, they just want to make money
That's why they should lose, and be forced to pay Ed Sheeren a lot of money. Perhaps the amount they were suing for.
What happened at the end? Has a decision been made?
You just described an attorney.
@@davidseverance9282 Imagine if attorneys couldn't base their work on the work of those who came before. That'd be fun "objection, he isn't raising an original argument".
@@corybarnes2341 True. So many lawyers refer to previous supreme court and other rulings. If that wasn't allowed, what would happen then lol?
Whoever came up with the 12 bar blues chord progression must be kicking themselves
Pretty sure he's not around to know better...but his relatives can sue everyone if they want, apparently...
That person is long dead because the 12 bar blues progression goes back to at least the end of the 19th of the century
Yeah man, on my next jam session Imma call out an Ed Sheeran in C
It was me.... pay up guys!
Cortexturizer Nah man lets do a Stockhausen in Eb
The people responsible for protecting marvin gaye's works kinda sue a lot of people
Beary Boy its easy money.
Beary Boy Pretty gaye if you ask me
...and they won a case that most legal experts agree they shouldn't have won.
Jason Andrews
Yup, which opened the door to all this bullshit.
Didn't they sue Blurred Lines
1.) Ed Sheeran hires me as lawyer
2.) Walks into court room wheeling tv on cart
3.) Plays this video
4.) Wins
Sorry, just thinking out loud
I concur.
Wonderfull idea.
badum *tss*
@Time Traveller nd he writed without thinking?!?
@Time Traveller thanku my English teacher
I must have been living under a rock as this video is 4 years old and I just watched it today and found out about this law suit - then as soon as I finished watching it found the jury found he didn't copy the song. While I agreed with everything you said in the video - I'm also glad the jury did in the end as well!
Literally the point of music theory is to take elements of existing effective music and put it into a new context. This lawsuit is anti-music
Not only the lawsuit, but also the decision may be due to how the jury swings in this case. I personally wouldn't mind seeing this go to the Supreme Court.
There's a difference between taking elements of music and using them in an original way, and what Ed Sheeran did with his song. The accompaniment part is a blatant rip off from the Marvin Gaye song (you really can't get much closer to that without using sampling). But is it really an original enough part? I think that's the main question, and that's why I'm not 100% sure on my opinion.
This isn't only about the chords or the bassline or any of the elements separately - it's about the combination of those elements, and you rarely have songs that use the same combination of tempo, groove, bassline, drum beat, chord progression and instrumentation. The arguments the lawsuit uses, though, are flawed. I think it's trying too hard to find similarities between the songs, and it's making ridiculous claims like the song is the only song ever to use this chord progression in this tempo or that the melodies are supposedly the same when they really aren't even close.
Have you looked at what's on the Supreme Court lately, and what it's going to look like after Trump’s second pick arrives?
MaggaraMarine I think you're missing the point. The notion of "owning" a musical idea is utterly pants-on-head insane. It's like claiming to own a mathematical equation. Theorists know this already. It's just that people in the "music industry" make a lot of money by pretending that their fever-dream delusions about owning abstract concepts have any merit. It's best to tell those people to go fuck themselves and continue to make music in whichever way you see fit.
Do we know who trump's second pick is? I didn't think he'd announced it yet.
I copyright Dm7b5, henceforth I now own Christmas
I shall replace it with Fm6 Hahahaha (evil laughter)
Well played
Okay okay... I'll write my Christmas song in G major so I can use Am7b5. 😛
Defense99 GOT EM!!
And all Disney songs!
Considering there are only a finite number of chord progression permutations, if this BS keeps up, it will be impossible one day to compose any new music without someone filing an infringement lawsuit.
true.
and they know it, they really want to destroy music and convert it into a very very very primitive one without musical notes.
@Timothy James greedy people i guess
@Timothy James The estate holders of dead musicians.
Actually, there are an infinite number of chord progressions; ever heard of microtones? Just make sure you're .001 Hertz out of tune on the first chord and you're golden! Or maybe go all-out and compose a song using a 13-note scale!
2050: “This song uses the exact same 12 tone equal temperament system as mine. This is clearly a blatant rip-off of my work”
AD 2100: "Not only is this song in 4/4, but it has quarter notes in it. This is clearly an overt rip-off of my work!"
Ed should hire you to present this on court. :D
Ευτύχης Μπλέτσας βλεπω εισαι και εσυ ανθρωπος της μουσικης θεωριας
Ο τελευταίος άνθρωπος που περίμενα να δω εδω
Ευτύχης Μπλέτσας in
Or he could just play the video... I'm just thinking out loud tho
I think he could definitely testify as a professional.
Why don't people sue every blues song that has the 12 bar blues progression in it?
Led Zeppelin would be fucked.
It looks like THAT'S exactly where this is all leading. I wonder who wrote the very first D C G song? Now that's a person with a good copyright case!
Leo Du most of them are dead. The rest of them probably don’t have the money for lawyers or even know they have been ripped off.
I thought you can't steal a chord progression cause it's naturally occurring in music...but it's the lick that you can sue for...
Bye bye Beatles
its almost impossible to create any pop music without copying chord progressions from past songs.
thats why intellectual property doesn't exist
de facto intellectual property doesn't exist man, you can't prove that ideas and imaterial products are scarce
@Kaptain Kid Just wanna say that we're all impressed at how smart you are bud
exactly - "pop" "popular" "Borrowed"
@@nomnombr should not. in the USA, it's a legal concept. and the courts can bite you. want it not to exist (as a legal concept) go try to change it.
You shouldn't even be able to own a melody. We only have 12 notes. The criteria for infringement should be insanely restricted to situations in which a work deliberately thieves from anothers by means of deception, like taking an artists name, ripping off entire lyrics, or directly taking the song itself and monetizing/distributing it without credit and/or license.
Even using the same melody has the opportunity to be VASTLY transformative in innumerable ways. Even covers and remixes can contain enough alternate elements that I'd argue would make a significant portion of the end result no longer belong to you.
There are other tuning systems tho
Effort is a determined attempt that's typically failure and is uncertain to work? Antonym of fail? Why is it that you can't say attempt & why is attempt associated with fail and crimes and suicide & yet you think it means achieves its desired purpose; succeed?
our song limit is only 3,67,87,32,28,800 songs we can make and that is really sad to me because i love music and song making might come to an end in the future..
@@prabhathneni1352 What makes you say this?
SquishyMuffinz
Ed sheeran's lawyer wants to *know your location*
The defense should just play this video at the trial xD
Zebo12345 then they get sued by the owner of this video...
CantBeatMeHaHa why would they be? They wouldnt be taking someone's work and stealing it to pass it off as their own
+CantBeatMeHaHa I mean it's a funny joke, but there would be no legal basis. You an show this video in court without stepping on any legal issues. If the judge permits it, it's permitted. They could show Star Wars in the court legally if it was relevant to the case.
true!
1000000% they should..!
Dude, this is such a detailed explanation, I wouldn’t be surprised if Ed Sheeran’s law team call you up and bring you in as a witness to explain this.
Thinking the same bro
He just needs to dumb it down for the judge to understand it. :3
Nah, if I can understand that no problems, without a lot of musical background, I don't see why a judge wouldn't
Me (No, not Ashildr, I had the name before Doctor Who, and I'm not changing it!) is pretty easy to understand with the support of images And musical examples in a video versus just speech
The thing that always gets me about this sort of stuff is that, statistically speaking, at some point, there's gonna be nothing original to write anymore. There's only so many notes and chords to choose from. At some point were going to run out of "original" music. Like, I just wrote a song recently, and after listening to it a couple times I realized that one of my kinda ambient vocal melodies in the chorus was the exact same as the bridge of "dance monkey" by Tones and I. However, otherwise the song shares zero similarities other than arguably they have a similar swing to them. I feel like this case is a little different cause they're actually in the same slow swing love song kinda style, so there's a little more to cling to, but I really don't think they have a strong case here.
Microtonal music will be the future
@@vibrantdragon3123 I think so too but most of the general public can’t even hear/identify microtones so we’ll have to condition the masses to the sound first somehow lol.
Chess is much simpler than music but even Alpha Zero hasnt “finished” it. It would take longer than the universe to write every possible music.
@@ericoschmitt But most of the possible melodies don't work. I agree with your mindset, but I think we can't be sure about the specific number
Nobody's really trying to write original music or rather, I'm sure people are, but 'commercial' music recycles the same four chords (with incredible streaming results - diverting ML recommendations on Spotify and other platforms away from original writing).
Unclear copyright laws make things unnecessarily difficult.
Oh God, can I get claimed for that sentence structure?
The actual laws are very clear - melody and lyrics only - and the concept dates back a long time - because they were the only elements thought to be unique enough to warrant some protection. These court cases (Blurred Lines, That Ed Sheeran Song and Dark Horse), you have uneducated juries being swayed by dodgy "musicologists" who are just out to make a fast buck as a so-called expert witness. For whatever reason the defendants can't seem to get a decent one to rebut (Someone like Rick Beato or Adam Neely for example). This stuff should never have been allowed to proceed in the first place as there was no standing in the law. There is no law protecting "groove" (Blurred Lines), no law protecting chord progressions (Ed Sheeran) and no law protecting Timbre (Dark Horse). The plaintiffs motivations were different in each case as well, which is another topic entirely.
What about software codes? Its even more ridiculous. Copyright as you type? WTF!?!
Cinta Damai You cant copyright specific lines of code, but you can copyright entire software code.
Its quite easily proven that you used most of the code if you used some software as backround.
Fallout Shleter and Westworld had clearly the same code with different textures, so thats why you can go to court with it.
Its even more lenient than if you for example, copy a line (quot) from a book and did not do any changes. Simply called plagiarism.
@@KeyUSeeCZ I agree yes. It should be fir a finished program(subset) or product. Its silly to copyright a mathematical expression such as codes.
I'll see you in court pal.
Adam, please make sure the defendant's attorney gets a copy of this video. They may be able to play it in court, depending on the whims of the judge. If not, they can certainly use some of your well-stated points in their arguments. Good job!
Yes
Yes. The lawsuit could CRUMBLE under just this video. If they brought Adam in as 'Expert Testimony', it'd be over in less time that it took to write this.
PLEASE do this
Adam should take part in ALL musical related cases.
This must happen
These lawsuits are going to kill the music industry
Edit: I find it funny that youtubers like Adam do a better job of defending the art than the actual lawyers
It's not. It's going to kill small independent artists.
Mr WiseGuy I find in interesting that there's a music industry but not an art or visual industry set the same way
Agreed. Defense lawyers should hire him.
That's because Adam is an artist, not a lawyer lol
The music industry is already dead. greedy record companies killed it years ago. and these days the only reason record labels sign new acts is so they can control any real talent that comes along and steal from the real talent to help their auto tuned wannabe's they've signed to make fast money. they use the talent of the real artist to push their fake artists. Right now radio stations and record labels are telling you what to like.
The "Earth Angel" progression has been so common in mid-20th C music that at our family singalongs we like to sing a medley - Blue Moon (no bridge), Santa Catalina, Silhouettes, Shaboom, whatever - then rather like a round, each person sings a different song simultaneously. It works-Fun! But is there a lawsuit in it?....
This is like Jim Sterling's copyright deadlock tactic except with music.
Copyright the lick, make millions on filing lawsuits against the jazz industry.
Go broke because theres no money in jazz. lol
Azathoth43 Damn, as a jazz musician, that hurts that it's soo so true
Phi6er Gene Simmons actually has the copyright to all notes
You sir are a psychopath
The 2-5-1 progression would be make some lawyers very happy.
I'll admit, I didn't understand half of what you said, but it sounded very clever.
Imagine being a selected for jury duty in a case where you don't understand a single word of what's being said... It's like, *SUPER HELL*
Same
Rick, bruh how did you get past the screening process 😂
Rick lol I get kicked off. They ask if I have any prejudices. I say Is there any bikers on the case? Because if your an inconsiderate jerk that drives by on a loud harley my opinion of you is decided instantly. They also don't like when I openly say I'm an atheist so I can swear on god or anything.
Corylus Bluefox doesn’t mean it’s correct. But it probably is lol
Adam, this video clearly follows a "introductory explanation, comparison, contrast, analysis, conclusion" format. I think the record will show that I have released videos in this _exact_ fundamental format previously. You can expect to hear from my lawyers. I hope you have $100,000,000.
Adam's video like many I have made in the past uses words utter by mouth. He should expect notice from my lawyer in the near future. Added to which Anderson, you will be hearing from my lawyer for infringing use of punctuation. I have written comments that utilize puncuation that predate yours and set a precedent.
TheCompleteGuitarist, I think you will find that I have made satirical comments in a similar vain addressing two parties in the legal sense such as you have just here long before you posted this one. My attorney will be in contact and a cease and desist will be sent.
TheCompleteGuitarist He breathes while making this video, just like I did in the past.
Expect to get a call from my lawyer soon.
You're writing a informal and a warning influenced comment on a TH-cam channel's comment section, sir the only person you'll get in touch tomorrow is my Lawyer.
Owen, I have previously used words erroneously, and lay claim to your confusion of the words vain/vein. That is actually my error, not yours, and you are not allowed to make it without my permission.
Holy crap. I remember watching this when it came out. When I heard about the case I was confused because I thought it already happened. I can’t believe it took four years for this to be settled. Jesus.
I was like “4 years ago” what? It only just ended. No wonder he said he would leave his career. 4 years of bs just for him to be in the right the whole time.
Thats how close he came to loosing this.
As a composer, this lawsuit is utter bullshit. The chord progressions sound similar, sure, but not the same. Even if they *were* the same, the plaintiff is literally trying to lay claim to a chord progression - they’re trying to lay claim to a fundamental piece of music itself. I get copyright and stuff like that, because musicians need to make money too. But a chord progression? That’s just insane.
Music is something that should be shared, experienced; not owned.
Macabre Music In 200 years we will have made every musically possible combination of notes that everything gets sued by mass music sueing companies. Great plot for a sci-fi movie.
To quote Adam Neely himself (in his video on elemental arranging), "Nobody is original. Every inspiring piece of music and work of art you have ever experienced has been stolen from people who have done it before. Your job as an artist is not to be original. Rather, it's to take what others have done and mold that into something that you like. The more successful that you are in blending elements stolen from your influences into a unified whole, the more 'original' you are."
Macabre Music u cant copyright chord progression. You can copyright melody and not Thick v gaye has documented that feel can be challenged too
Pradigy Musicman there's even a strong argument to say copyrighting a melody is largely bullshit
I believe copyright law uses lead sheets so it shouldn't be possible to sue based on chords alone
Chord progressions cannot be copyrighted, as spelled out in copyright law. The lawyer trying to bring that up is...I'm not sure what his point is. Presumably, Sheeran has a decent legal team, and they'll get that aspect of the case tossed in pre-trial motions, as it has no basis in the law.
How the heck would they know if no other song ever created in the history of music uses those same chords? This whole thing is just ridiculous
That should be reason enough to throw out the case because this makes no sense when creating music.
Yeah for real, there are 10,000 new songs uploaded to SoundCloud everyday
Next painters will sue other painters because they used blue, yellow and red.
TV programs will sue other TV programs because they used blue, green and red
I should sue my mum because she has similar DNA as me. Or maybe my mum and dad should sue me because I have their chromosomes.
@@v6790 xd
Well, DA artists already do that. 😂
Not quite that simple. Using yellow blue and red is fine. Using a yellow sky, blue building and red automobile, if another painting used that combination might be considered plagiarism.
@@spareplanet r/wooosh
*looks at date of video*...
*looks at news of this lawsuit JUST reaching a verdict this week*...
THIS LAWSUIT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR ALMOST FIVE YEARS???
I literally thought that there was an error in the date, lmao
Don't know why the US waste too much time on lawsuits
I copyrighted the C major chord, see you in court suckers!
I never use that chord anyways
Ba-Boom
Chase Dunkley and don't even think about transposing! I think I also used a minor chord once, so it's best to avoid those too
You're right. From now on I'll only use diminished#11 chords.
Chase Dunkley go ahead, that chord is too complicated for my music anyway
Everyone uses that in aural skills to cop out sight singing
"It should be noted that the tempos of the two songs are virtually identical: Gaye’s
song clocks in at about 83 beats per minute, while Sheeran’s sets a slightly slower pace of about
79 beats per minute."
From the lawsuit.. Even to bring up tempo is beyond ridiculous. So what? two songs have the same tempo? (which obviously they don't even have in this case).
Madness by nature knows no limits. "virtually the same" there is like imitating an internet meme involving the worst of conspiracy theory.
"Virtually identical" Jesus, could you imagine if it was a murder case (something that is actually worthwhile pursuing) and the fingerprint was "virtually identical"? The judge would throw you out of court until you can prove that it is the exact same set of fingerprints.
Those song are 4 beat apart that in DJ terms that pretty far away
@@UserJWR That is, unless you had enough money. Judges have made worse decision in the past, and legal the system in the US is designed to allow corruption.
Obviously you should've written that song in 87.3927bpm
Anyone who does music should be sued. Everyone has hit the same key as someone else before
Including everonye who ever whistled, sneezed more than once on a row, hummed, clapped, snapped their fingers or made sounds. All these filthy criminals belong in prison...
TheKlikluk | Lets Plays apparently you can gey sued for singing the happy birthday song
Not anymore, it's public domain now.
Jay Sea was just about to say
John Smith lmao yep, especially now, all pop music sounds the same...
Your musicology knowledge is just like, wow! I’m blown away by all this info and the way you present it. What the heck is up with Marvin Gaye’s estate? This is the second “song theft” lawsuit by them I’ve heard about. They’re out of control. If making songs that sound kind of similar is illegal, there goes the whole genre of Reggaeton! 😳
This guy is some kind of. Genius
All genres of music work this way. Rock and roll, blues, disco, it doesn't matter, we're all making music that sounds like the kind of music we like.
As alluded to in the video, most chord progressions are stolen from Bach anyway. I wish I could somehow get legal rights to everything bach wrote just to f*** with copyright trolls
And I don't want to overemphasize Bach too much, he made some very real changes to how harmony works but he also, you know, copied other people's ideas
It's like suing a painter because their painting used similar colors to yours
or they painted the same thing but in a different way
Not even close. It's more like someone painted the same background as you and but different subject matter in the front. He's guilty
Kougeru after thinking about your comment, it kinda makes sense..
Kougeru yeah but that background being of a geologically similar mountain rather than the same mountain. You can not copywrite chord progressions otherwise nobody (or very very few) would be able to write decent music. I refer you to the Axis of awesome 4 chord medley for reference. This is a frivolous lawsuit and I hope the plaintiff goes bankrupt for bringing it. It's only for personal gain and not just at the cost to Ed Sheeran but to the entire institution of music as a whole. Next we'll be copywriting guitar tunings ffs.
Garrett Jacobs more like painted the same picture with different colors but good try
This video is so good it makes me not wanna post the one I made... dammit Adam.
LOL
0:59 get rekt, n00bs
Post it in 6 months time and swear you never saw this one.
Sue him.
Do it and ill get my lawyers on you for copyright infringement
I now own the letter A and the concept of communication. All y'all getting sued. See you in court.
Jason Darkflame W ht? I need the letter ' ' tho. You know wh t, I own the letter 'b' now then.
I now own the rest of the ‘ lph et. H ve fun with th t.
I own breathing and everything in existence
I can sue you for you trying to sue
You know how ez it is to not use that letter?
I now own " "ll the numbers
This. This should be used as court evidence for Sheeran's defense
I’m guessing it will be
We hope so
People who sue others over music fundamentally don’t understand what music as an art form is
Nah they just want money
@@Sockem1223 Money for nothing. Scumsuckers.
they said in the video the original composer is dead...so obviously i's someone trying to make money who owns the late composers rights o the song...
Money.
Unless the melody is completely stolen. The comparison between “Amazing” by Matt Cardle and “Photograph” by Sheeran is possibly the only type of lawsuit which has some actual logical basis.
Back in music college here in Brazil I used to say that "no one ever composed or written anything entirely unseen after J.S.Bach"
Mathcartney tru dat!
Iannis Xennakis? Pretty far out guy. saudações
Bach = Endgegner 😎
Bach is still the guy with the biggest cock in music aka o que bota o pau na mesa mesmo depois de séculos
Denis Willer this might be the best comment I've ever seen
There's something wrong with pop music when people are suing eachother for sounding too similar, nearing the line of stealing.
I thought that the entire point of pop is that it all sounds the same
punch3870 Not necessarily. The whole point of a genre is that songs within it tend to sound the same.
All pop music definitely doesn't sound the same....if you've spent any amount of time listening to it.
One could just as easily say there's something wrong with baroque music, metal music, indie music, and literally any other genre.
What's wrong here is people being greedy for money and trying to find theft where there isn't any; not the genres.
HrhMk pop music is more susceptible to sounding similar because of its simplified chordal and rhythmic structure. The lack of modulation is already a huge hindrance. More complex music like the Baroque style will present more possibilities, producing different sounds and ideas as long as how far conventional theory can take you.
As a genre itself, creating pop only becomes difficult when trying to write something different than pop.
Didn't you just watch the video? He talks about making new music based on old music being one of the pillars of musical tradition....
Fanchen Maybe I just don't have an idea of what resides exclusively under the pop genre, cause I usually think of just whatever plays on top 10 stations but that can't be the case cause while those stations dont play distinct genres like metal or rap, the artists also dont sound the same at all and many probably fall under multiple genres. Now country, country music sounds exactly like what you just described.
I agree with this video. The people who are doing these frivolous lawsuits are selling us out for short term gain but long term they are screwing over artists with this legal precedent for many years to come and (hopefully not) generations.
Nice work sir, good to see you upping the video-ante again! Praying this suit gets thrown out. The Blurred Lines/Got to give it up lawsuit was already a step too far.
I think it would be fun and prove a point if some composers took some time to write completely different songs with the same chords and rhythm as thinking out loud to end this discussion ;) If I found some motivation I‘d do it as well🤔
That's a really good idea
Did it ;)
That Blurred Lines case was a disgrace to law and music.
You call yourself a composer but want this law suit thrown out? Any musician with ears would know if there ever was a blatant knock off this is just that. Its not only the chord progression, the tempo, placement of the 4 chords on the third beat of each bar, bass line etc. Its like taking the music from the Beatles song 'Hard Days Night' and adding another melody and different lyrics to it. Then saying it was mine. Would that deserve a law suit too? Well yes it would.
They are aware that notes and their scales are not invented by anyone right?
It is a pattern found in nature that humans DISCOVERED and seemed to enjoy, so they wrote the instructions down
Yep, it's almost as if you patented scientific discoveries. Sorry, I now own the concept of both nuclear fission and fusion. That old glowing ball in the sky ain't freeloadin' anymore!
The overarching theme of all of this is ego (gone mental). Also fear. Specifically existential fear as a tool of control.
“It is a pattern found in nature”
What drugs were you on when you wrote that? An octave is certainly a physics thing (doubling or halving the frequency) but otherwise it was an arbritrary choice of humans to divide up an octave into twelve notes. Other systems have existed. Chords, scales, and keys were all made up by humans, not discovered.
Damn, by that logic every metal, punk, and hard rock song have been in violation of copyright for using the same 3 chord patterns.
There goes a few genres
well damn, shots were fired
(but I totally agree)
Certain minimalist styles of metal maybe, but metal as a whole? No.
@Shockheadd45 I'm not saying the vast majority of metal consists of original chord progressions (there being so many bands, of course there are going to be plenty of similar progressions), but metal as a whole is nowhere near the level of simplicity of genres like punk, and is not based on just a couple of familiar chord progressions.
The OP seems to imply metal does only consist of a handful of chord progressions, similar to genres like punk. There has been some evolution since the days that bands like Motörhead, Judas Priest, Mötley Crüe, Black Sabbath, etc. dominated the genre. Not every metal band still bases its song structures mainly on blues, rock'n'roll, etc.
Basically everything you can do with a guitar, has been done by some metal band. The past decade plenty of bands have based their whole sound on dissonance, atonality, microtonality and several other unconventional writing methods (Suffering Hour, Deathspell Omega, Skáphe, Last Sacrament, Malthusian, ...), other bands have used progressions inspired by classical music for decades (not just talking about obvious stuff like neo-classical and symphonic metal) and still come up with fresh sounding stuff (Cor Scorpii, Týr, Mistur, ...), etc.
Oouf, that's gonna upset some people lol.
@@Bock3039 someone's gonna copyright Chugging then you are all fucked.
Law Firm: *Tries to sue Ed Sheeran for sounding too similar to another artist*
Rappers with Garage Band, Dreadlocks and "Lil" in their name: *sweating profusely*
What's next? Everyone using the Canon in D progression suing everyone else using the Canon progression? This is getting out of hand
All the royalties will go to Canon Inc.
There's more in common between these songs than just the chord progression. If it was about the chord progression on its own, yes, you would have a point. But since the accompaniment parts of these two songs sound so similar (it's about the whole arrangement, so the combination of chords, bassline, drum beat, groove, instrumentation), I don't think it's really getting out of hand - I can see a justification for this case. Though, I'm a bit on the fence on this one. I'm not sure if the accompaniment part in the Marvin Gaye song should be considered an original enough idea. Because I think it's definitely more unique and recognizable than a stylistic cliche like the "boogie woogie riff", but it's really not as unique/recognizable as the accompaniment part of a song like "Bohemian Rhapsody" (I mean, when you hear that piano riff, you know instantly that it's "Bohemian Rhapsody", and if some other song used that same accompaniment pattern, it would be a total rip off). It's kind of in between those two.
It’s just crazy it’s literally like suing someone for using letters or sonething
MaggaraMarine
Honestly I want the case to be thrown out primarily because it's a blatant scam. It's not protecting the work of an artist, their legacy, or the livelihood of that artist's family; it's a firm trying to abuse the legal system for profit.
If they win this case this sort of cynical profiteering will only become more common, and that's not good for anyone.
I would also like to point out that "stylistic cliches" differ from cases like this because of how frequently they're imitated. There's no way to objectively define the point where a combination of recognizable elements transcends personal ownership and become public domain.
The "q. e_h q. e_h" pattern is exactly the same in both songs' verses.
That means every producer of house-music should get royalties for almost every pop music currently
Yes, and then they must give them all to early Hip Hop producers who worked out how to use the machines :) The Hip Hop producers can then give all the royalties to the funk/blues musicians and so on until the Caveman/woman that first hit a stone with a stick gets what he/she deserves! Nothing is new!
And every house producer should get royalties for every person that owns a house.
*plot twist*
Ed Townsend isn’t suing Ed Sheeran for copying the song but for copying his first name
No he is not, because he is dead. Also you can't own your name.
Alex Harshegyi haha relax! Only a joke :)
Daniel Paul Music
he should sue his parents
@@captainalex8003 r/woosh
I was just about to comment on the same First Name Copyright Infringement matter.
My suggestion for the Defendant is to use the Axis of Awesome defense. I, V, vi, IV. show how many different songs run off that one chord progression. How each makes a completely different mood, character, and Message. You cannot copyright a chord progression.
Thank. You.
I’m still upset over the last lawsuit over Blurred Lines. I’m not a fan of Robin Thicke or Ed Sheeran, but I’m a fan of the growth of music. Allowing these ridiculous lawsuits to continue will only cause musicians to be afraid to create music.
Alex Walker Smith blurred lined was even more blatant of a rip off. Not to mention it's literally a song about rape but if you support that I guess you got better problems besides being blind to justice
Kougeru No, it wasn’t a ripoff. It had a similar groove, and that’s it. If anything, it was INSPIRED by the Marvin Gaye song, and that’s not illegal. And Blurred Lines is a stupid song about trying to get laid, but it is NOT about rape.
Kougeru are you a feminist?
Don't be upset. Lawsuits will almost certainly only affect musicians that make lots of money - in my opinion the money made from ANY music should be shared across the music industry and used to finance new/upcoming artists and youth music projects (most VERY succesfull financially musicians deteriorate/stop producing new material when they get rich enough anyway). Vast majority of musicians on the planet will carry on doing what they want and not being able to make a living. Growth of music doesn't depend on Robin or Ed. I agree that the lawsuits are ridiculous but then so are nearly all "you stole my idea" lawsuits. No musical idea belongs to any individual because the true origins of the idea can NEVER be proven. Copyright is a "protectionist" tool that can be manipulated. I hope this debate results in the end of copyright in music and the beginning of TRUE growth. Copyright is a flawed idea, it was ok when there wasn't so much "StuFf" :)
TheStuF The money you make from music should be your money. Period. None of this “shared across the music industry” socialist garbage. But I agree that copyright laws are getting out of hand. We can thank decades of Disney lobbyists for that. The fact that contracts include wording like “across the universe and until the end of time” shows how ridiculous it’s getting.
All the defense needs to win this case is Bach's usage of both the progression and tempo. The very fact that Back used the chord progression at the same tempo over 100 years ago puts the combined progression and tempo in the public domain. As a result of the combo being in the public domain, the combo cannot be copyrighted in and of themselves which the law suite clearly claims it is.
Secondly, the sounding alike of songs simply means that they are in the same niche genres much like rockabilly songs all have the same base rhythm and the music of the 1020's have the same basic swing feel in them.
Because there are in fact a very limited number of notes, two people on the opposite sides of the planet, never having met each other or heard each others music, can develop the exact same chord progression, base rhythm, beat at the exact same time. They just won't know it until the one decides to sue the other for copyright infringement.
This is in reality not a case of copyright infringement. This is a case of copyright theft. What the plaintiffs are attempting to do through the legal process is overturn hundreds of years of industry known and agreed upon practice to make a claim to every song in the world that has ever existed or shall ever exist. What they are seeking to do is steal the copyrights to every new song that an artist writes even if the song has absolutely no connection with the song they are protecting.
In the minds of the plaintiffs, the only person that has the right o plagiarize Bach is Marvin Gaye and no other person in the history, presence or future of humanity may do the same.
Yeah, that's about the size of what they are doing!
The plaintiffs are not acting like legitimate attorneys protecting Marvin Gaye's legitimate copy right claims. They are acting like copyright trolls that, like their cousins the patent trolls who lay claim to inventions they have never worked on, copyright trolls lay claim to musical work that does not in fact violate a copyright.
Very well said, mate 😊
Your Honor, this concludes the defense's closing remarks.
Scott Tovey something tells me you don’t get it
This is just ONE example of said progression. You will literally find thousands of the exact same progression in modern music. When nearly every pop song uses a four chord progression there’s only half a dozen or so combinations you can use. Next consider that almost every pop song uses common time, so the beat is always going to be the same. There’s only a few realistically usable time signatures for pop music so there’s going to be a huge overlap there.
The only course for action would be where the progression, time signature, harmony and melody are the same, in which case you basically have the same song potentially in a different key.
With today’s music you’re talking about an extremely finite number of ways that you can arrange a song. Of course you’re going to have similar sounding songs. For Christ’s sake, they ALL sound the bloody same!
@@imayhaveanunbelievablysmal7406 Something tells me you're trolling around.
you mean... the same progression in every 50's piece???
Eeeeey! Someone who knows what an axolotl is! Aren't ya a cool kid?
@@void_fimshe ???
A lot of them literally just play the blues proggression in arpeggios for the bassline too.
@@crazycoder2434 my old profile picture was an axolotl
Well... You mean every Doo Wop piece. There were all of TWO chord progressions in the fifties.
The lawsuit was just plain ridiculous from the get-go. Ed Sheeran not only deserved the win but also protected musical artists as well.
Great breakdown of the hows an whys of the case 👍👍👍
Damn, that Palestrina tune was LIT
Chad Mojito 🇫🇷🍔🐀 The Gloria from Palestrina's Missa Papae Marcelli is the best Palestrina you'll hear ;)
Nice, thanks
Palestrina is to Fux, is what The Clash is to Rancid
Is that a good thing?
Mr Pink Guy I'm going to pretend you didn't ask that. Clash > Rancid. It's a well known fact. (Oh no I'm doing the TH-cam thing! Dammit!)
You just did the lawyer’s work
mxonlight - but will the judge understand?
Literally just send it to the lawyers and let the case end quickly
Waiting for the day a Patent Troll decides to take other Patent Trolls to court to sue over their copying of the idea of Patent Trolling.
Then when he loses the case he can say he was just TROLLING THE WHOLE TIME, BRO. Genius.
I learned more about music in this 10 minute video than I did from a one semester course in college. Very well done. I think it should be presented to the jury as evidence.
Soooo many pop songs build on the chords G Em C and D, so i guess we need to sue pop music for existing🤔😂
Good Morning Australia I'm all for that. No more Britney Spears? No more Cher? Yep, let's do it.
bye taylor swift
Finel Pha
True 😂
Good Morning Australia - SOOOOO many. Thinking of Earth Angel right now....
maybe getting them sued out of existence might help the world
i swear that one day people will sue others for using the same shade of color in graphic designs too. This lawsuit cannot win otherwise it will spell trouble for all sort of creatives.
Luke Lim im suing you for having a similar idea yet you cant prove it and in reality this is the dumbest lawsuit in history
And yes agreed, if this also does “win” its the end of the music industry
I think this law suit is idiotic, especially when most pop songs sound the same, and some even go as far to have the same melody
(Theres also a conspiracy that its meant to all sound the same b/c they are the BIG HITS)
This is idiotic
OverKnight 52 It just means the people on marvin gayes side are lazy mother fuckers out for some easy cash grab.
Its a gamble sure but they stand to win a lot of money. I make music, take video and pictures and do graphic design as a living. It is a fine line between plagarism and inspiration. But there is a difference. And progress in art depends on copying to a certain extent.
Is the white stripes going to sue the whole of europe soccer fans and stadiums for blasting seven nation army and shouting the bassline out? Not cool if they sue.
If you are worried about being copied try making something new and fresh to compete.
You laugh but Coca Cola owns the particular she of red it's using. T-Mobile has sued other companies several times over the use of their "iconic" pink color.
SolarLiner im not laughing. shit is serious.
i think easyjet orange and uk post office pillar box red are protected legally too
As a drummer, I can tell you. If this was about a drum beat instead of a bass line, lack of examples wouldn't be a problem.
Diogo Almeida lol right
Good old Clyde Stubblefield.
Thinking Out Loud is a watered down version of the original Funk beat of Let’s Get It On. Including the fact that the key is changed from a half-step from Eb to D. Paul Humphries was the original drummer for Marvin Gaye’s track. And I also don’t appreciate that for all his talk about theory he’s not using the original key of Let’s Get It On which is Eb. Yes musicians have used the same chord progression but contrafect also means that key and RHYTHMIC FEEL is altered. Nobody likes to talk about RHYTHMIC FEEL.
Aight cool I’ll make sure when I use this chord progression I’ll make it at 81 bpm
I'm sure Ed's got good lawyers. I'm sure that Ed will win the lawsuit against Ed, and in turn Ed with definitely lose against Ed. Congratulations to Ed.
Woah
Ed’s fuckkked
@@AECunningham Whao*
Now where's Brett??
sorry, you had 77 likes a second ago. Sorry i ruined it.
Hopefully Ed Sheeran's legal team hires you as their expert witness or whatever it's called (all I know about American law is from Boston Legal and the Good Wife).
Expert witness is correct. I'm sure Adam has a lot of impressive credentials to wow the jury.
I was thinking the same. The combination of his level of knowledge and being a first-rate “explainer” would be deadly.
He has a degree in BASS!! haha
Boston Legal was the shit.
Let's retire to the patio with cigars and single malt.
As someone with no music theory background, I do declare, those sure were some words!
+1
god imagine if bach and mozart came back with lawyers, I'd love to see that massacre...
Mozart? Music theory prior to book and explained
You'd make a great expert witness
This is why we can't have nice things.
Xero taylor swift tease
ROTFL!
Exactly. Why would anyone want to be a songwriter/composer? In the unlikely event you write a hit, all it takes to get sent back to zero is for a lawyer to convince a jury of non-musicians that some song written in the past century or so sounds not entirely unlike your song.
this comment is gold. i died while i was laughing
Those who sue a simple musical similarities are desperate for money
Rekt Gaming exactly, it requires a larger similarity rather than some obscure component, like chords. Sue someone for using a same composition of chords is like suing for cooking on the stove
That's why it would be just if they lost all of it. All of it!
Except that's exactly what they're doing. They're suing over chord progression (which isn't the same between the two songs) and tempo.
You did a great job on your research here, Adam. I think the video title, “You Can’t Own Chords,” says it all. Otherwise, blues song composers would have been paying royalties through the nose for 12-bar blues progressions over the last 100+ years. On another note (See what I did there?), when did the IV chord become the “predominant”? Back in my music theory days (early 1970s), we called it the “subdominant.”
Court room.
Defense lawyer: exhibit A
*shows this video*
*innocent*
Pedro Fernandes _Objection!_ The judge does not have a mobile data plan! He cannot watch the video on his phone!
Haha! The court room has WiFi!
Luuk van de Pasch I knew someone would say that, but... Aha! It's password protected!
But! The judge has done several cases in this court room before, so he already has the password!
Luuk van de Pasch I'm crying lmao
I swear people in this age sue for the money. It's like a lottery at this point. Also, its usually a ridiculous amount of money too. They do sound similar though but since you exposed the chords not being the same I guess it doesnt make any sense lol
Yep
Tbh thinking out loud is one of ed sheerans most popular songs, it probably made an unimaginably large amount of money. If you knew that number, the amount he's being sued for might make a little more sense
I guarantee you, suing for the money is not a new thing.
YOUR ARGUMENT THAT YOU CAN'T COPYRIGHT TWO BASS NOTES ("Under Pressure" by Queen & Bowie) IS CHILDISH AND IGNORANT.
I once got copyrighted for doing a cover. The people tried to put ads on the video just in case I didn’t do anything about it.
And I did.
Hello i would like to copyright the note E.
Emmey Bbut- I like E minor :'(
Too bad i already copyrighted the concept of notes itself. Pay up or see you in court.
BinaryCounter
Nice try, but I copyrighted lawsuits. All of you better fork over some dough.
Emmey You could sue like 90% of rock artists!
Smarter move is to copyright the letter e.
In the future every song must have a unique tempo, and it gets to the point where every song is only a few seconds long or days long
The only legally copyrightable elements of music are melody and lyrics. That’s. It. You can’t copyright basslines, and you definitely can’t copyright chord progressions. There are only 7 notes in a diatonic scale, no matter what key they’re in. There are only so many combinations you can make with them. Trying to claim a specific chord progression is greedy, and diminishes creative possibilities in an art form that already has a pretty limited tool box.
Yeah accurate. The only way this case could hold water is if you could successfully make the point that said signature bassline is the melody at times, such as the under pressure case.
This is not entirely accurate, you can sue someone for lyrics and/or for the theme which is to say a specific melody over a specific chord progression but no you couldn't sue someone for a beat or rythme although in the blurred lines case they successfully sued robin thick for the rythme so the law doesn't make sense
@@DazzleCamo Yep. If the bassline is melodic or a riff like Rick James' Super Freak or the example you gave
@@currentyear5921 What the fuck is up with the parenthesis. Get the fuck out of here, anti semite.
I think you could definitely copyright a bass line. Take Paul McCartney’s bass lines on Come Together, Rain, or Hey Bulldog for example. Those are melodies on their own
"Let's ask a dead German" could also help us a hell of a lot in many historical contexts.
Unfortunately, the Blurred Lines verdict in 2015 opened the floodgates for ridiculous lawsuits like this. I keep wondering when some lawyer claiming to represent the estate of Bo Diddley is going to launch a bunch of lawsuits against every song that used the beat he's credited with bringing to rock and roll.
Surely a ‘Jury of Peers’ in this case would need to be musically educated to a reasonable degree, in a perfect world perhaps anyway.
Luckily there will almost assuredly be Expert Witnesses in a case like this
Jared McLaren but will the jury be able to comprehend their evidence?
*I'm suing this video for $10000000000 because it uses a camera and language and features a person ust like in my video that was it was stolen from.*
My thoughts and prayers are with you! Sue this son of a bitch
I submitted a copyright to own 12 bar blues today. Wish me luck.
Lmao funny, the thing is with blues is that a 12 bar blues is a characteristic and feature of the genre. So it’s how you identify the genre. That’s not to say there aren’t blues songs which just resolve around chord I
@akrinah I'd heard that, your comment inspired me to finally look it up. Apparently it's since been ruled that they didn't own it anyway.
'Warner/Chappell, who charges anywhere from $1,500 to $50,000 to use the song in movies, radio spots, and ads, is reported to make some $2 million a year off of the song'
'Warner/Chappell only sends out bills when the song is used commercially, or for public performances (defined under current copyright law as “a place open to the public, or any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered”).'
priceonomics.com/who-owns-the-copyright-to-happy-birthday/
'In a stunning reversal of decades of copyright claims, the judge ruled that Warner/Chappell never had the right to charge for the use of the "Happy Birthday To You" song.'
www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-happy-birthday-song-lawsuit-decision-20150922-story.html
@akrinah Except the copyright on Happy Birthday was ruled invalid.
oh wait every mumble rapper would get sued by just stealing snare patterns from other mumble rappers that also stole the pattern to another mumble rapper that stole the same pattern from another mumble rapper
also mumbling
mumble rapping doesn't sound very pleasing to listen to.
muh muh meh?
Your implying mumble rappers have enough talent to produce music in the first place.
To be fair most of those snare patterns are probably royalty free samples and are free game for anyone to use. But I agree with you in principle lol
Hey, I really like your explanation of the music theory behind 4 Chord songs and it's connection to old Masters like Bach, but I have to comment 2 things you got wrong:
1) Arnold Schönberg was austrian, not german! We austrians are quite butthurt when we get called "germans"
2) I think you meant Hugo Riemann, not Reimann. He was indeed german though :)
Meh. You can legally sue anyone for any reason. That doesn’t mean that you are in the right, that you’ll win, or even that a judge will hear your case. In reality, most people who bring up these ridiculous lawsuits don’t truly believe they can win. Rather, they want the defendant to panic and agree to an absurd settlement payout ahead of any actual court hearings.
You can file the lawsuit, but people who bring lawsuits that are wholly without merit may, however, be subjected to penalties including paying the other side’s legal fees. If it turns out that the plaintiff really had no reasonable basis to believe the allegations were true, the plaintiff and his attorney may be fined and disciplined.
Yes, I was saying that you can't sue for /any/ reason. It's troublesome that they already have sued and won similar legal proceedings, but that doesn't validate the statement that you can legally sue for any reason. Penalties are handed out for cases that are wholly without merit or where the plaintiff has no reasonable basis.
Copyright law in general is very problematic in the United States and heavily subject to legal abuse. What we need to focus on as the problem is not litigation, but the problems with copyright law and the need for reform. It is no longer meeting any of the original goals for creating copyright law.
Agree wholeheartedly. There's limited use in treating a symptom whilst leaving the cause intact. If a system is susceptible to abuse, abuse of said system isn't surprising. The choice of pro-plaintiff courts in east Texas by patent trolls (up until last year's prohibition on their forum-shopping) particularly epitomises the problem. U.S. Copyright law stands on a solid (if slightly outdated) basis in the Berne Convention, but it definitely needs a bit of statutory reform, as well as the reconsideration of some precedents that no longer fit our contemporary context.
Not quite accurate.
FACT:
the USSA (even Adolf H said WE were his inspiration in ALL categories, like ethnic cleansing or enslaving minorities!!) MAKES IT NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR LITTLE PEOPLE TO SUE in almost any circumstance. (Hiring lawyers is hell. Dealing with lawyers is hell. ANd MOST lawyers are crooks cuz they're fellow lawyers WROTE ALL "LAWS" and run every inch of our lives.)
EVEN SMALL CLAIMS is a FRAUD on the public: if you win, you STILL have to go thru our thug govt to TRY and recoup the money you won!
99% of americans do NOT sue for evil, illegal stuff done to them every day!
You definitely can't own chords. There's a very limited number of patterns of chords and tempo that are considered musical, and ALL the patterns have been done in music at some point in time. Really at this point, the only difference is tempo and strumming patterns, which you ALSO can't own. There are literally hundreds of songs you can play with just 2 or 3 chords. The only way you can reasonably claim copyright to tones these days is if you digitally alter them to sound different, like they do with things like dubstep. I could play any random set of 2-5 chords and I can guarantee that someone in history has used that pattern. There are songs that I've come up with, and later hear a song that has that exact same chord progression.
Exactly. Song copyrights should be based on a combination of several of these things;
Key, chord progression, tempo, timbre, melody, and lyrics.
Yeah skip over the fact that its about a I6 chord which is pretty rare
This is very correct in regards to pop music. There are an (almost) infinite number of possibilities in regards to progressions. Just ask Thelonious Monk or Dizzy Gillespie
I hope this video Blows up and Ed's team contacts you... You could educate the whole courtroom!
me with no knowledge on music theory: hmm interesting