Plagiarism is likely to be infringement, but the plagiarism aspect doesn't really matter. Meaning if I copy your song and credit it to you, but don't have permission, that's infringement -- and if I copy your song and pretend I made it myself, again without permission, then that's the exact same kind of infringement. The fact that one is plagiarism and one is admitted copying makes no real difference to the legal question.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Correction: Mind controlled computing
Um I'd definitely like to hear some evidence if you're going to throw accusations like that at Randi. I've never heard whisper of that in my life. Are you sure you're not just making/buying into completely unfounded accusations based on the fact that he recently came out as gay?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Correction: Mind controlled computing
who would want to watch a show about a fake psychic?
Wel... Psych was actually pretty fun for a while, and scored major points for steadfastly refusing to entertain the idea that psychic abilities were anything but fake.
But other than that, yeah. And your point about scientists is well made -- folks interested in that should learn about James Randi, Banachek and Project Alpha, one of the most enjoyable stories of psychic researchers being made to look like fools.
Don't worry, we don't intend to move our comment system into something third-party like that, nor would we ever require those forms of login (we wouldn't mind offering them as an option for those that want to use them). And we are committed to retaining the ability to comment fully anonymously, partially anonymously, with an account, etc. with no restrictions.
That said, I can't promise we'll "leave Techdirt the way it is" -- there's a lot we'd like to do to grow and improve this site.
Sigh. Yes, I know what MIDI is. And both of these song samples here were generated via MIDI through the same set of MIDI-controlled sound generators, in this case primarily an organ, which is why they both have the same organ. What about that do you not understand? These are not the original songs — they are the stripped-down example versions created for the jury. The jury is being instructed to ignore things like "how the organ sounds" and focus entirely on the composition.
And yes, this is entirely about the composition, and nobody is saying that means there's no ground for copyright. THey are saying nothing that Thicke did infringes on the composition of the original.
What is your point about the Beastie Boys? That there have been other disputes where the recording does matter? Because nobody is denying that. This is a situation where it doesn't matter because the original work was copyrighted before it was possible to copyright recordings, and thus the copyright only covers the composition.
Honestly, it seems like you haven't read even the first thing about this case. You are ignoring all its key aspects.
It might do? Not saying it's right, but it might do.
No... have you been following this case at all? The whole point of this dispute, and the whole reason these MIDI versions were made in the first place, is that the Gaye estate only holds copyright on the sheet music, not on the recording or any recorded elements like the specific style of instruments or their sound.
Moreover, these two examples are not the original songs — they are played on the same MIDI generator, using the same MIDI organ. So of course they sound the same. And of course that has nothing to do with this.
I think it's true that the recordings are mislabelled here and in the Ratter post... will try to figure that out. It definitely sounds like the songs with the vocals swapped.
But, unrelated to that, one key point: the timbre and sound of things like the organ have nothing to do with this, and are not even the sounds from the original songs. They sound similar probably because they are both being played by the same MIDI instrument. But this is entirely about the notes, not the instruments playing them or anything specific about a given recording, which is the whole reason for this stripping-down exercise in the first place.
It's not saying "beheading videos are illegal" that undermines the internet. It's saying "platform providers can be criminally liable as though they directly provided 'technical expertise' to anyone who simply makes use of their platform" that undermines the internet, and that's not at all an exaggerated or sensationalized assertion.
Actually no. It's cleverly written to make it SOUND like it says that, but it doesn't. Read the exact language again closely, and notice how it's structured and where the commas and periods are placed -- in reality, the penalty of perjury applies to ONE THING ONLY, and that's that the person sending a notice is the copyright holder or representing the copyright holder of the work they are claiming is being infringed.
As for the links they target, those can be anything -- the notice is worded such that you only sign your name to a "good faith belief" that the links are infringing, and you're NOT explicitly under penalty of perjury on that part.
Yeah, I know what you mean. On the one hand, it makes perfect sense to utilize the smartphone for that purpose -- on the other hand, it's a little frustrating when there is no alternative. Especially if it's a network device that absolutely should be controllable by desktop software or a firmware interface in the device itself.
I dunno. I've backed lots of things on Kickstarter, and while most of them did end up taking longer to produce than planned, I've never been "scammed" by someone who was trying to take the money and run.