Someone’s Trying To Copyright A Rhythm
from the don't-dembow-to-copyright-maximalism dept
One of the most pernicious effects of today’s copyright maximalism is the idea that every element of a creative work has to be owned by someone, and protected against “unauthorized” – that is, unpaid – use by other artists. That goes against several thousand years of human creativity, which only exists thanks to successive generations of artists using and building on our cultural heritage. The ownership model of art is essentially selfish: it seeks to maximize the financial gains of one creator, at the expense of the entire culture of which they are part. A good example of this clash of interests can be seen in yet another lawsuit in the music industry. This time, somebody is trying to copyright a rhythm:
The [Fish Market song] track featured the first known example of what would come to be known as a “dembow” rhythm – the percussive, slightly syncopated four-to-the-floor beat that travelled from reggae to become the signature beat of reggaeton, today the world-conquering sound of Latin American pop.
Now, more than 30 years after Fish Market was released, Steely & Clevie Productions is suing three of reggaeton’s most celebrated hitmakers – El Chombo, Luis Fonsi and Daddy Yankee – for what they characterise as unlawful interpolation of Fish Market’s rhythm (or “riddim”), and are seeking the credit – and royalties – they say they deserved from the start.
As the article in the Guardian goes on to explain, the culture that has grown up around the dembow rhythm and its many offshoots is large and flourishing. The lawsuit itself cites no less than 56 songs, and on popular sites like YouTube there many dembow and reggaeton mixes and collections that testify to the vitality and range of the music that has emerged over the last few decades. To claim “ownership” of the very simple rhythmic patterns that are used is as absurd as claiming ownership of the waltz or tango.
If successful, the court case will have a devastating effect on dembow and raggaeton culture, since many of today’s and tomorrow’s artists will doubtless prefer to move on to other styles rather than pay a dembow tax to use something as basic as a rhythm. A couple of musicians may win a few extra dollars, but there will be millions of losers in the form of fans of this music, who will have less of the style they love available to them. Culture itself will also be the poorer. But contrary to its frequent claims, the copyright industry never cared about either, and will be happy to see the courts spread the ownership obsession more widely.
Follow me @glynmoody on Mastodon or Twitter. Story originally posted to the Walled Culture blog.
Filed Under: copyright, dembow, fish market, reggaeton, rhythm, riddims
Comments on “Someone’s Trying To Copyright A Rhythm”
Copyright maximalism really doesn’t have a bottom in terms of how low it can go and this case proves as much.
Re:
If people can’t make lots and lots of money from music, then no-one will ever make music, just like they didn’t make music before copyright was invented by Sonny Bono.
Re:
Remember what copyright maximalists on Techdirt tended to say a lot at one point, to justify stronger antipiracy laws, worse penalties and limited permissions? “You abuse your privileges, you get your toys taken away?”
I think it’s high time the same was thrown back at copyright holders. If they don’t want the general public to respect copyright even less, they can start by policing the bad actors in their midst. After all, they expect it from us.
Re: Re:
At any time now the Bayside Advisory apologist is going to rear his ugly head, angry that people disrespecting copyright makes them all minimalists playing into the hands of maximalists, in the same way that the victims of bullies are cowed into not telling the teacher because the bullies would hit them even harder.
Maybe you should’ve referred to Steely & Clevie as “copyright law’s best and brightest” or something.
Re: Re: "respect copyright..."
Bwagahahaha!
We’re several decades past “don’t copy that floppy.
Copyright – and so-called “intellectual” property in general – is dead, except as a means for ridiculous lawsuits which are really just desperate attempts to prop up the dead husks of legacy business models.
I've copyrighted rhythm
I’ve copyrighted music.
Who could ask for anything more?
🎶
I was going to finish reading this article, but then I realized Glyn was using words that someone else invented, so out of respect for the descendants of those people and their bank account balances, I can’t support this clearly unauthorized infringement. Also, please donate to my GoFundMe campaign so I can afford the license fees to use the words I’m currently typing.
Re:
Once you’ve read the dictionary, everything else is just a remix.
I just copywrote the C cord for the guitar, and every variation of drum notes where you hit the drum X number of times then hit cymbals or foot pedal. Time to sue every musician ever.
Re: Again?
Didn’t we already go through this a few years ago when Metallica tried to copyright a chord progression because it was “theirs”???
I know we’ve had the terrible “Blurred Lines” case/ruling in the recent years that is in this same vein, but I’d love to see this suit get tossed in a way that tries to reset things because you can’t copyright a rhythm, chord, or vibe… its just not a thing, especially if anyone involved is musically literate.
That’s copyright maximalists for you. Where normal people see commons, they see res nullius.
Ahh, copyright maximalism, where the idea is that 5 minutes work entitles the writer and descendants to the 100th generation a fabulous income.
This will be fun....
If Steely & Clevie Productions wins this suit, I’ll wager that someone will immediately sue them because their song is undoubtedly not the first to use that rhythm.
Also, there is a copyright issue with songs in 4/4 time! Valmiki, the composer of the Ramayana has the prior art. All Sanskrit shlokas are recited in a 4/4 time signature, which were composed in ancient India even before writing originated.
BRB, copyrighting my π/4 time signature.
Even if they succeeded in this forsaken attempt to get a copyright on dembow, how could they possibly extract payments from modern users of that rhythm? Courts don’t allow for ex post facto laws back when this was free for public use and what about enforcing the laws across multiple countries?
Whoever thinks they can extort innocent people into paying them is delusional
Re:
I’m not a lawyer, but it’s my understanding that the time limit on copyright infringement claims is based on when the rightsholder “knew or should have known” about the allegedly infringing material.
It would be a reasonable defense that a 20 year old song would be past that time limit, but a song that came out last year wouldn’t be.
Additionally, it’s not ex post facto law because the law in question is copyright, it’s not new. As to an “ex post facto decision” however, the rightsholder will just use the decision to claim that this has always been the proper interpretation and the defendants should have known better.
It’s still a troubling turn of events and the courts would be wise to tell people to knock it off. Take, for example, the classic “boom-tiss” beat underlying so, so many dance songs. Is that copyrightable? I would say no. But how many beats/notes does it take for a non-copyrightable basic pattern to become a copyrightable riff or rhythm? It’s best left subjective because if it’s ever quantified, every possible sequence of notes of that number will be quickly copyrighted.
Re: Re:
Another element that could come into play is how influential the riddims of reggae are to religion. It could be argued that if riddims in general can be copyrighted, how might that affect churches in Jamaica, both Rastafari and non-Rastafari that use that music in church services. If that music is being restricted than a successful challenge on the grounds of freedom of religion could be used.
Of course, whether or not someone wants to create a religious song based around “reggaeton” anywhere in Latin America remains to be seen. I think the whole idea that entire genres of music are illegal is wrong on so many levels.
Scenes a faire!
if this became law in the usa then it could be incorporated in future international trade treatys that cover music ,media,film,tv rights etc many styles of music use certain basic tempo,s and rhythm,s ,like country music and reggae .its like in comicbooks if someone tried to copyright certain artistic effects that are use to portray speed, lasers, effects from weapons ,explosions,marvel comics have certain effects used to show superhero,s powers
Bo Diddley
If only Bo Diddley were able to copyright his rhythm…So many songs, from Ace Frehley’s “New York Groove” to the Who’s “Magic Bus” to Bow Wow Wow’s “I Want Candy” to George Michael’s “Faith” would either not be made or would have paid royalties to Bo Diddley.
(P.S. Yes, I realize three out of four of the artists those songs listed just made the most famous version and were not the proper songwriters)
Just think of the fun and games we’ll have when they extend copyright back in time, before it was invented, and we discover that JS Bach’s descendants hold the copyright to the rhythms and melody pattern of “Stairway to Heaven”!?! You take a look at the rhythms and melody pattern of “Stairway to Heaven” and “Jesu Joy of Man’s desiring”, if you doubt me …
Hello,
Thanks for sharing social bookmarking sites. Its helps to fetch traffic to my website.
Thanks for the same.
https://www.hamptonturfandtree.com/