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

Not at all. I'm kinda playing devil's advocate. I'm a believer in a complete free-for-all in terms of copywrite infringement in the arts. Not just music, everything. So in a way...I'm trying to attack the idea of melody/composition being a legitimate basis for infringement as well. I see no reason why melody/composition should be given more value than arrangement/engineering/rhythm/tone/etc.


>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.

There are certainly ways to objectively define a certain tone for a certain instrument. In this case...the base in the Pharell track is clearly modelled after the bass the in the Marvin track. To give a clearer example....suppose I make a track with a flute solo and decide to really experiment with the tone of the flute. So I record the flute with a specific condenser mic with a specific mic placement....replay the flute track soloed through a leslie cabinet with three different mics placed triangularly around the speaker. Send those tracks panned left, centre, right and add a phasing filter to the left and right while leaving the centre untouched....then create a series of patches manipulating the signal in various ways. Blah blah blah. If someone else sets out to make that EXACT same tone with the exact same mic placements, effects, patching, panning, eq'ing, etc...except they play a DIFFERENT melody...we're gonna sit here and say 'fair game'? Now....suppose the inverse....someone plays the same melody.....except they add all those production techniques which make it sound different from the pre-existing source....now it's NOT 'fair game'? I find that problematic. Hopefully that made sense.



>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 agree...the slippery slope is ridiculous. But I'd suggest that the same case can be made for melodies/composition.

>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.

Agreed. Also...welcome to OKP if you're new here. I dig your posting. Always nice to have some fresh minds around. Cheers.