baudtack wrote:Alpine wrote:I mean qpb's already summed up what I was going to say, but I'll say it anyway. There's a difference between using a chord progression and releasing something that someone else has made using that chord progression. We all know that the dude from Oasis gets hella narked about anyone using the same progression, but he can't do anything about it. However, if I was going to do a cover of Wonderwall and sell it for money, then he has every right to be angry. It's fine to use elements of someone else's music in your own, but at least do something creative with it, Greenday's Basket Case is one of my favourite songs, and even though the chord progression is pretty much ripped straight from Pachelbel's Canon, there's enough of a difference in the tracks to say that it isn't a cover or remix.
Having a right to be angry, which I disagree that he does frankly, isn't the same as should be able to hold copyright on. I mean chord progressions as ridiculous extreme.
The rational behind behind copyright is to give a content creator limited term rights over a work so that they are incentivized monetarily to create the work in the first place, but still limited so that society as a whole can benefit from building off their work. Without getting into the insanity that is the infinitely renewable copyright (I'm looking at you Mickey and George Lucas), having a copyright over recordings does exactly that thing. Going beyond that to have the copyright include the song itself goes far beyond, imho, the point of copyright law. It in fact, does some of the opposite by stiffing the creativity of others. Unless you have money, which I suppose is about par for the course.
EDIT: To address what you said about doing something creative, I completely agree. I just don't think we should have to legislate that. There is a chiptune artist that I won't mention, that kind of bugs me because the covers they create are just flat xerox's of the original songs. I don't like that. I just don't think they should be stopped from doing that because they lack the funds to pay for it.
You aren't building on it if you're covering it, you seem to be saying that because someone releases a song, they should be able to make money off of other people using their work. I put out all of my stuff under a license that allows people to build on it, but non-commercially. I am 100% happy with people remixing or re-interpreting my work in their own way. What I am not cool with is people using something that was originally mine in any form for their own financial gain. Artists are under no obligation to allow others to let other people play their work, let alone play it and make money out of doing so. I like that the chipscene as a whole is pretty open about sharing stuff, .lsdsng songs, or .ftms or whatever, but you don't have bands give out chord sheets with their music, if you're luck then you get lyrics.
By the same token would you be fine with what qb said, if you were to put effort into a song, only to have someone remix it, and make millions of X currency off of something that is mostly your own work? I would feel cheated. If someone was going to do that, I'd like a cut of it as well, not just because I need money, but because something that I have put time and effort into creating is making money, therefor I should be aloud a percentage of the money for my work.
You're telling me you wouldn't be narked even a little if you had a timbaland pulled on you?
Last edited by Alpine (Aug 13, 2014 3:46 pm)