You understand what the existing rules are but you feel that they may not be strict enough, correct?

That would bring us back to my earlier question of whether it was possible for anyone to claim ownership to elements that they are not responsible for bringing into existence. The frequency spectrum was already here before me so how can I claim that I created any part of it? How would anyone determine, let alone prove in a courtroom, that a song contained an infringing tone? What sounds the same isn't necessarily the same.

For example, two basslines are recorded at exactly the same pitch, tuning, volume, EQ settings, etc., so that they will sound exactly the same to your ears upon listening. Let's say I go back and adjust the EQ by a hair or change the compression ratio on one of the parts. At that point, the two bass parts are no longer "exactly" the same even though to our ears, they would very likely still sound exactly the same. If we were dealing with analog mixers, someone may claim that the knobs are still in the same position but in a software mixing environment where everything would represented digitally, the numbers don't lie. An EQ setting of -2.59 db is NOT the same as -2.58 db.

It just wouldn't be worth the energy and expense trying to prove that they are still exactly the same in a courtroom. Therefore, it is a good thing that we do not allow the law to govern at such a minute level. It would result in total chaos and probably no one would bother to record any more songs. Creativity would be held captive by overbearing legalism.

I'm not trying to change your position. We can agree to disagree and I'm cool with that. I just want to make people aware of the possible side-effects to the outcome that they are asking for when they want Robin Thicke to lose this case. If he were to lose, it would be a sad day for recording artists and listeners across the country.

peace...