I became the world's most prolific DJ, using code

Post by cwkoss » Sun, Mar 27, 2022, 12:56 AM UTC

pfarrell wrote: post #95

cwkoss wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that counter my point? If anything, I'd say that supports the cap, as the cap is unlikely to hurt artists - it would mostly hurt industry predators. And less money in predators pockets reduces the funds they have available for legal strong-arming.

You're right. It doesn't counter your point. I was thinking it colors it. A limit might discourage predators from taking advantage of artists, or it could intensify the situation into more of a zero-sum game that encourages more predation. It's certainly an interesting thought. I'd say, even without the limit, the default position is for creators to get taken. As an aside, I've had an essay brewing in my mind for yea…

Post by ninioArtillero » Fri, Apr 01, 2022, 7:06 PM UTC

woolion wrote: post #64

thebricksta wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a fun concept, and maybe will be useful in some weird edge case of a lawsuit, but no. Most recent music infringement lawsuits seem to argue that some combination of the sound design, groove, rhythms, chord progressions, melody or reduced melody, structure, and lyrics wind up giving a song the same "feel" as a prior song, and that's the basis of the copyright infringement. Then pseudoscientific experts come in an…

>Adam Neely did a good job touching on this in his recent analysis of the Dua Lipa Levitating lawsuit [1] He most certainly did not. Of all the different takes out there, his is very weak. >Most recent music infringement lawsuits seem to argue that some combination of... There is a very good reason: as he mentions, the chords diversity use in pop songwriting is typically so poor that based only on that, the amount of…