Discussion:
Metallica want naming rights to [E F] chord sequence
(too old to reply)
paramucho
2003-07-17 02:04:31 UTC
Permalink
"It's just a matter of a band having the right to protect the chords
it uses. I couldn't start up my own soft drink company using the exact
same formula as Coca-Cola." — Jill Pietrini, Metallica's lawyer

MONTREAL — Metallica are taking legal action against independant
Canadian rock band Unfaith over what they feel is unsanctioned usage
of two chords the band has been using since 1982 : E and F.

"People are going to get on our case again for this, but try to see it
from our point of view just once," stated Metallica's Lars Ulrich.
"We're not saying we own those two chords, individually - that would
be ridiculous. We're just saying that in that specific order, people
have grown to associate E, F with our music."

Metallica filed a trademark infringement suit against the indie group
at the US district court for central California on Monday. According
to the drummer, the continued use of the two chords causes "confusion,
deception and mistake in the minds of the public".

Metallica's lawyer, Jill Pietrini, told us that the band decided to
take legal action only after first sending a letter of complaint to
the Canadian band's singer/songwriter, Erik Ashley.

"We sent a demand letter and haven't reached a resolution, so we had
to sue," she said. "They continue to shamelessly feature the two
chords on their website song samples and we just can't have that."

Ashley, in the meantime, is still shocked by the entire story, and
hasn't yet decided how the band will respond.

"I thought it was a prank at first," he told us. "Now I'm not sure
what to think."

Ulrich states that he's not trying to prevent Unfaith from using the
two chords, only that he feels Metallica should be credited for them
whenever used, and is calling for 50% of all revenue generated from
any song using them.

"It's nothing personal against them," he added. "We intend to enforce
our rights with any band intending to use Metallica-branded chords in
the future."

This marks the first time anything of this kind has ever been tried in
court, and it will be interesting to see how things develop.

Metallica's website has issued an official statement on the suit here.

Unfaith's official website hasn't officially responded at print time.

—Joe D'Angelo
http://www1.scoopthis.com/411/met_uf/stc_met_uf_mtv.htm


==================
METALLICA DEFENDS RIGHTS AGAINST CANADIAN BAND OVER E, F CHORDS |
7/16/2003 << GO BACK

We have elected to pursue legal action against Unfaith, a Canadian
band using chords (E & F) traditionally associated with Metallica. We
intend to agressively defend our rights in this matter to the fullest
extent of the law. It's nothing personal against the band in question,
as we intend to do the same to anyone else using the same chords in
that order.

We're not saying we own the E chord, or even the F - that would be
ridiculous. We're just saying that together, people have grown to
associate them with our music, and their continued use in the same
song causes confusion, deception and mistake in the minds of the
public.

We are fighting this fight for our fans, who don't deserve to be
subjected to this confusion... just as we appreciate their support
through this.
http://www1.scoopthis.com/411/met_uf/stc_met_uf.htm


--
Ian
Impressive If Haughty - Q Magazine
Charles-Emmanuel
2003-07-17 02:34:13 UTC
Permalink
Wow, I thought there were no copyrights on chord progressions...
Post by paramucho
"It's just a matter of a band having the right to protect the chords
it uses. I couldn't start up my own soft drink company using the exact
same formula as Coca-Cola." — Jill Pietrini, Metallica's lawyer
MONTREAL — Metallica are taking legal action against independant
Canadian rock band Unfaith over what they feel is unsanctioned usage
of two chords the band has been using since 1982 : E and F.
"People are going to get on our case again for this, but try to see it
from our point of view just once," stated Metallica's Lars Ulrich.
"We're not saying we own those two chords, individually - that would
be ridiculous. We're just saying that in that specific order, people
have grown to associate E, F with our music."
Metallica filed a trademark infringement suit against the indie group
at the US district court for central California on Monday. According
to the drummer, the continued use of the two chords causes "confusion,
deception and mistake in the minds of the public".
Metallica's lawyer, Jill Pietrini, told us that the band decided to
take legal action only after first sending a letter of complaint to
the Canadian band's singer/songwriter, Erik Ashley.
"We sent a demand letter and haven't reached a resolution, so we had
to sue," she said. "They continue to shamelessly feature the two
chords on their website song samples and we just can't have that."
Ashley, in the meantime, is still shocked by the entire story, and
hasn't yet decided how the band will respond.
"I thought it was a prank at first," he told us. "Now I'm not sure
what to think."
Ulrich states that he's not trying to prevent Unfaith from using the
two chords, only that he feels Metallica should be credited for them
whenever used, and is calling for 50% of all revenue generated from
any song using them.
"It's nothing personal against them," he added. "We intend to enforce
our rights with any band intending to use Metallica-branded chords in
the future."
This marks the first time anything of this kind has ever been tried in
court, and it will be interesting to see how things develop.
Metallica's website has issued an official statement on the suit here.
Unfaith's official website hasn't officially responded at print time.
—Joe D'Angelo
http://www1.scoopthis.com/411/met_uf/stc_met_uf_mtv.htm
==================
METALLICA DEFENDS RIGHTS AGAINST CANADIAN BAND OVER E, F CHORDS |
7/16/2003 << GO BACK
We have elected to pursue legal action against Unfaith, a Canadian
band using chords (E & F) traditionally associated with Metallica. We
intend to agressively defend our rights in this matter to the fullest
extent of the law. It's nothing personal against the band in question,
as we intend to do the same to anyone else using the same chords in
that order.
We're not saying we own the E chord, or even the F - that would be
ridiculous. We're just saying that together, people have grown to
associate them with our music, and their continued use in the same
song causes confusion, deception and mistake in the minds of the
public.
We are fighting this fight for our fans, who don't deserve to be
subjected to this confusion... just as we appreciate their support
through this.
http://www1.scoopthis.com/411/met_uf/stc_met_uf.htm
paramucho
2003-07-17 03:19:57 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 04:34:13 +0200, Charles-Emmanuel
Post by Charles-Emmanuel
Wow, I thought there were no copyrights on chord progressions...
Well, if it is for real then I don't think it's based on current
copyright law. They'll probably proceed with something about a
"recognisable" signature, akin to a trademark. And it would probably
only apply to the metal market (otherwise they might have a few
problems in the Flamenco area).

If you can get patents on the human genome then just about anything is
up for grabs.



--
Ian
Impressive If Haughty - Q Magazine
Joey Goldstein
2003-07-17 04:14:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by paramucho
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 04:34:13 +0200, Charles-Emmanuel
Post by Charles-Emmanuel
Wow, I thought there were no copyrights on chord progressions...
Well, if it is for real then I don't think it's based on current
copyright law. They'll probably proceed with something about a
"recognisable" signature, akin to a trademark. And it would probably
only apply to the metal market (otherwise they might have a few
problems in the Flamenco area).
If you can get patents on the human genome then just about anything is
up for grabs.
A "chord-based" case would never make it to chord. This is clearly a
"melody-based" matter as is all music, Albert.
Jesus

A "chord-based" case would never make it to court.

Sheesh. That coulda' been pretty funny and I blew it with a typo. Sorry.
--
Joey Goldstein
http://www.joeygoldstein.com
joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
paramucho
2003-07-17 07:10:11 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 00:14:29 -0400, Joey Goldstein
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by paramucho
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 04:34:13 +0200, Charles-Emmanuel
Post by Charles-Emmanuel
Wow, I thought there were no copyrights on chord progressions...
Well, if it is for real then I don't think it's based on current
copyright law. They'll probably proceed with something about a
"recognisable" signature, akin to a trademark. And it would probably
only apply to the metal market (otherwise they might have a few
problems in the Flamenco area).
If you can get patents on the human genome then just about anything is
up for grabs.
A "chord-based" case would never make it to chord. This is clearly a
"melody-based" matter as is all music, Albert.
Jesus
A "chord-based" case would never make it to court.
Sheesh. That coulda' been pretty funny and I blew it with a typo. Sorry.
Well, I think you just got naming rights for "Court Based Music".

Count De Basie would be proud.



--
Ian
Impressive If Haughty - Q Magazine
Joey Goldstein
2003-07-17 14:53:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by paramucho
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 00:14:29 -0400, Joey Goldstein
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by paramucho
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 04:34:13 +0200, Charles-Emmanuel
Post by Charles-Emmanuel
Wow, I thought there were no copyrights on chord progressions...
Well, if it is for real then I don't think it's based on current
copyright law. They'll probably proceed with something about a
"recognisable" signature, akin to a trademark. And it would probably
only apply to the metal market (otherwise they might have a few
problems in the Flamenco area).
If you can get patents on the human genome then just about anything is
up for grabs.
A "chord-based" case would never make it to chord. This is clearly a
"melody-based" matter as is all music, Albert.
Jesus
A "chord-based" case would never make it to court.
Sheesh. That coulda' been pretty funny and I blew it with a typo. Sorry.
Well, I think you just got naming rights for "Court Based Music".
cute
Post by paramucho
Count De Basie would be proud.
--
Ian
Impressive If Haughty - Q Magazine
--
Joey Goldstein
http://www.joeygoldstein.com
joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
Dr.Matt
2003-07-21 11:16:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by paramucho
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 04:34:13 +0200, Charles-Emmanuel
Post by Charles-Emmanuel
Wow, I thought there were no copyrights on chord progressions...
Well, if it is for real then I don't think it's based on current
copyright law. They'll probably proceed with something about a
"recognisable" signature, akin to a trademark. And it would probably
only apply to the metal market (otherwise they might have a few
problems in the Flamenco area).
If you can get patents on the human genome then just about anything is
up for grabs.
True, which is why it isn't at all hard to believe that someone would also
try to copyright E and F (or even succeed). The real sad statement here is
not about Metallica, the internet, the gullibility of the American people or
its news-services, but rather how absurd patents and copyrights have become.
Josh
Nope, it's about gullability. You were one of those gulled.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Dr.Matt
2003-07-17 02:11:29 UTC
Permalink
This is a satire, right?
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Daniel Seriff
2003-07-17 03:02:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr.Matt
This is a satire, right?
One hopes.

Metallica shouldn't be suing anyone over music when they haven't produced
anything listenable in over a decade.
--
Daniel Seriff

Ridiculous Lucky Captain Rabbit King, Lucky Captain Rabbit King Nuggets are
for the youth!
paramucho
2003-07-17 07:08:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel Seriff
Post by Dr.Matt
This is a satire, right?
One hopes.
Metallica shouldn't be suing anyone over music when they haven't produced
anything listenable in over a decade.
Is the [E F] chord sequence a recognisable signature of their personal
style?



--
Ian
Impressive If Haughty - Q Magazine
Daniel Seriff
2003-07-17 07:37:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by paramucho
Post by Daniel Seriff
Post by Dr.Matt
This is a satire, right?
One hopes.
Metallica shouldn't be suing anyone over music when they haven't produced
anything listenable in over a decade.
Is the [E F] chord sequence a recognisable signature of their personal
style?
Not so much that they should be suing over it. It's also a recognisable
signature of Andalusian flamenco guitar, but I've never heard of Spain taking
Canadian metal bands to court.
--
Daniel Seriff

Ridiculous Lucky Captain Rabbit King, Lucky Captain Rabbit King Nuggets are
for the youth!
paramucho
2003-07-17 03:16:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr.Matt
This is a satire, right?
I can't find anything at the official Metallica site, but it's a bit
of mess.

The Unfaith website has this:

Note: An official statement regarding
the Metallica controversy will soon be
issued on our newsletter (mailing list)

Anything is possible.


--
Ian
Impressive If Haughty - Q Magazine
Gordon 101
2003-07-17 07:45:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by paramucho
"We're not saying we own those two chords, individually - that would
be ridiculous. We're just saying that in that specific order, people
have grown to associate E, F with our music."
Considering they use no third's in their chords only makes it more
ridicules.

Gordo
Daniel Seriff
2003-07-17 08:03:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon 101
Post by paramucho
"We're not saying we own those two chords, individually - that would
be ridiculous. We're just saying that in that specific order, people
have grown to associate E, F with our music."
Considering they use no third's in their chords only makes it more
ridicules.
It's just the notes E and F, not the chords. No one is allowed to use them
ever again.
--
Daniel Seriff

Your religion is the goofy fruit of the ha-ha bush.
Scott GF Bailey
2003-07-17 16:09:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel Seriff
Post by Gordon 101
Post by paramucho
"We're not saying we own those two chords, individually - that would
be ridiculous. We're just saying that in that specific order, people
have grown to associate E, F with our music."
Considering they use no third's in their chords only makes it more
ridicules.
It's just the notes E and F, not the chords. No one is allowed to use them
ever again.
They'll want B and C next.
Dan Fox
2003-07-17 15:03:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott GF Bailey
They'll want B and C next.
Bill Gates is going to copyright the numbers 0 and 1.
--
Dan
http://www.danfoxart.com
paramucho
2003-07-18 02:25:04 UTC
Permalink
From Urban Legends: http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/metallica.asp


Claim: Heavy metal band Metallica is suing the group Unfaith over
their use of the E and F chords.

Status: False.

Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2003]

MONTREAL - Metallica are taking legal action against independant
Canadian rock band Unfaith over what they feel is unsanctioned usage
of two chords the band has been using since 1982: E and F.

[rest of article here]

Origins: Metallica may be derided by some fans as an aggressively
litigious group, having once sued the Napster file-sharing service
over the unauthorized distribution of their copyright-protected music,
but they haven't gone so far as to sue another band over the use of
the E and F chords.

The "Metallica Sue Canadian Band over E, F Chords" article was a spoof
posted on the humor site scoopthis.com and mocked up to look like a
genuine news page from the MTV.com web site. The joke was executed
well enough that it fooled some "legitimate" news services, such as
Ananova, into picking up the story.

Last updated: 17 July 2003


--
Ian
Impressive If Haughty - Q Magazine
Jerry Freedman
2003-07-19 16:16:06 UTC
Permalink
Unfaith's Official Statement on the Metallica E-F Chord Controversy
Friday, July 18, 2003
by Erik Ashley
You might have heard about this on CNN, MSNBC, Ananova, or on one of
the thousands of radio stations across America since Wednesday.
International rock superstars Metallica is suing an independant
Canadian band over unsanctioned usage of the E and F chords ; that
band being Unfaith ; us.
Let's make this clear : This story is SATIRE.
But as with most parodies, it is also a statement in sheep's clothing
; one that inadvertantly ended up making a point FOR the band, as much
as anything else.
We all know about the Napster issue, the perfume company, the lipstick
company, the tire makers... Metallica has sued them all. Rightly or
wrongly, no one is judging that. However, the idea behind this parody
was to gauge, after all that litigation, just how willing America was
to buy a story as extraordinay -- as outlandish -- as them claiming
ownership of a 2-chord progression.
If this week was any indication, America is all too willing to believe
it.
The story was originally planted on 411mania.com, who were in on it.
Within minutes, literally hundreds of message boards lit up, including
those of legitimate music news sources. Then, Fark.com jumped on board
and promoted the 411 link. With the help of these two websites, the
story got rebroadcasted from one news source to the next.
Jimmy Kimmel treated the story as fact on his ABC talk show, his
researchers never bothering to contact any of the parties involved.
MSNBC's Jeannette Walls printed the story as fact in yesterday
morning's "The Scoop" column... and retracted it minutes later with no
explanation.
Dotmusic.com did the same, as did Ananova.com in the UK.
Radio stations across America have been broadcasting the news as fact
for days, going so far as organizing boycott petitions against
Metallica on the stations they work for... and even playing our MP3
samples on the air simply to spite them.
What is wrong with this picture? If you want to play us because you
enjoy our music, that's one thing. But playing us just to spite
another band..?
Rolling Stone was the first publication to contact the parties
involved. Then came Court TV / CNN, and MuchMusic. They took the time,
and got the real story.
As for the hoax itself, it generated over 200,000 hits in just two
days, and crashed our servers repeatedly. Beyond the numbers, however,
I think it was TANSTAAFL ? one of the thousands of internet message
"I'm not sure what's worse, that the story is a fake, or that it was
actually conceivable that Metallica would do that."
In truth, none of us ever expected the parody to reach as far and wide
as it did. What originally began as something of a psychology study on
Metallica's reputation instead turned into an exposé on how dangerous
the internet ? and its media ? can be.
"Because if it's on the net, it's got to be true" ?
Both the supposed "MTV.com" and "Metallica.com" pages were
painstakingly recreated for the parody to be effective ? just as
Saturday Night Live goes through great lengths to recreate a
celebrity's facial features and voice ? but both pages have a clear
"ScoopThis.com" notice at the bottom. And although ScoopThis.com had
been technically offline since 2000, its documents still very clearly
state that anything found on its domain is fake.
So who should Metallica be St.Angry with over this? Us, for what we
thought was an obvious parody (we didn't even bother masking the url
fields)... or every single so-called legitimate news outlet for
spreading it as truth? It's hard to ignore the fact that the runaway
hoax ended up exposing the internet for what it is, with legitimate
news sites spreading one of the most incredible fictional stories we
could come up with without pause, much less research.
You would think it was 1938, and this was War of Worlds.
I can't help walking away from this whole bit actually sympathizing
with the band. Because even as the hoax was exposed, diehard
Metalli-bashers maintained their positions on the grounds that this
was something Metallica COULD have done. Overlooking one very
important fact : They didn't.
In the end, I am left wondering... is this the kind of unbiased
journalism I can expect if I become a public figure?
Reactions now that people are slowly catching on to the hoax have
ranged across the board from people thinking it was a brilliant and
well-executed prank, to people being upset by what they feel is a
cheap publicity stunt... to those people, I can only offer the
reminder that we have nothing to sell. No CD's were printed in
preparation for this, and we haven't responded to a single donation
offer made to us towards our fictional upcoming legal battle.
Unfaith may have received some short-term exposure out of this, and
I'd be lying if I said I didn't think this was great. Wouldn't you?
Sure, some people will stick around with us when this is over, but
most won't. As James Hetfield once put it, however, the Memory
Remains.
As for the fallout, Jimmy Kimmel has already apologized for spreading
an astonishing story as truth, as did Ananova. Others ? including
MSNBC, whom I've emailed personally ? haven't ; content in simply
laying low after eliminating the evidence.
As for me? I'll quote from an interview I did with UGO.com last year,
which you could easily Google-up. On the subject of my influences, I
answered, among other names, "the 'commercial era' Metallica.
Everything since the black album. Yep, that includes Load and Reload."
I didn't mind saying it then, and I don't mind repeating it today.
This hoax was merely a joke that America wished so hard to be true,
that it slowly stopped mattering if it was or not.
First, none of our songs were ever based on an E-F progression (I
can't sing that high).
And second, MTV.com remains the only entertainment news website never
to have touched this story.
Erik Ashley
Singer/Songwriter
Unfaith | www.unfaith.net
Montreal, Canada
Metallica plans to take legal action against 411mania.com!!!!
Dr.Matt
2003-07-19 16:25:39 UTC
Permalink
What I think is sad is that so many people repeated the ridiculous
meme that the hoax "seemed credible" and that claiming ownership of
E-F "seemed like something Metallica really might do".

People really don't understand copyright--and they really are clueless
about how musicians make a living.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
paramucho
2003-07-20 06:38:47 UTC
Permalink
FYI, Roger McGuinn of The Byrds has posted this press release on his
http://www.ibiblio.org/jimmy/mcguinn/Microsoft.html
..I think the fact that it's on Roger McGuinn's own website as a press
release kind of makes it hard for this one to be a hoax! .."
That address isn't McGuinn's site. His site is www.mcguinn.com and that
article isn't there.
This and the Metallica story are obvious hoaxes -- and pretty funny
ones. They belong in The Onion where people can appreciate them
without thinking they're true.
--Joan
http://community-2.webtv.net/Jem33d/McHead/index.html
--
Ian
Impressive If Haughty - Q Magazine
paramucho
2003-07-20 07:28:52 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 00:19:27 -0400, "BlackMonk"
FYI, Roger McGuinn of The Byrds has posted this press release on his
http://www.ibiblio.org/jimmy/mcguinn/Microsoft.html
..I think the fact that it's on Roger McGuinn's own website as a press
release kind of makes it hard for this one to be a hoax! .."
That address isn't McGuinn's site. His site is www.mcguinn.com and that
article isn't there.
There's no link to it on the main page, but it's the same site.
And you'll find the link by going to the site map and then to the info
page.

http://www.ibiblio.org/jimmy/mcguinn/
http://www.ibiblio.org/jimmy/mcguinn/sitemap.html
http://www.ibiblio.org/jimmy/mcguinn/info.html
http://www.ibiblio.org/jimmy/mcguinn/press.html

So, unless someone has cracked his website (which is quite possible),
it's from him.


--
Ian
Impressive If Haughty - Q Magazine
Josh Dougherty
2003-07-21 02:42:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr.Matt
What I think is sad is that so many people repeated the ridiculous
meme that the hoax "seemed credible" and that claiming ownership of
E-F "seemed like something Metallica really might do".
People really don't understand copyright--and they really are clueless
about how musicians make a living.
Um, people repeated the "ridiculous meme" because the hoax did seem
believable to so many people. Ian seemed to think it was possibly true, so
did I. I assume that millions also did. Apparently it is not a ridiculous
notion for musicians to make a living by claiming ownership of certain
chords and denying other musicians the right to use them.

Josh
paramucho
2003-07-21 03:00:06 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 02:42:01 GMT, "Josh Dougherty"
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Dr.Matt
What I think is sad is that so many people repeated the ridiculous
meme that the hoax "seemed credible" and that claiming ownership of
E-F "seemed like something Metallica really might do".
People really don't understand copyright--and they really are clueless
about how musicians make a living.
Um, people repeated the "ridiculous meme" because the hoax did seem
believable to so many people. Ian seemed to think it was possibly true, so
did I. I assume that millions also did.
I've seen equally ridiculous claims in other areas so this kind of
thing remains possibility. I keep an open mind.
Post by Josh Dougherty
Apparently it is not a ridiculous
notion for musicians to make a living by claiming ownership of certain
chords and denying other musicians the right to use them.
Well, I didn't think that such a claim would have been made on the
basis of copyright law at all but rather on the basis of some
recognisable branding.


--
Ian
Impressive If Haughty - Q Magazine
Josh Dougherty
2003-07-21 06:04:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by paramucho
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 02:42:01 GMT, "Josh Dougherty"
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Dr.Matt
What I think is sad is that so many people repeated the ridiculous
meme that the hoax "seemed credible" and that claiming ownership of
E-F "seemed like something Metallica really might do".
People really don't understand copyright--and they really are clueless
about how musicians make a living.
Um, people repeated the "ridiculous meme" because the hoax did seem
believable to so many people. Ian seemed to think it was possibly true, so
did I. I assume that millions also did.
I've seen equally ridiculous claims in other areas so this kind of
thing remains possibility. I keep an open mind.
Post by Josh Dougherty
Apparently it is not a ridiculous
notion for musicians to make a living by claiming ownership of certain
chords and denying other musicians the right to use them.
Well, I didn't think that such a claim would have been made on the
basis of copyright law at all but rather on the basis of some
recognisable branding.
Is that not a part of copyright law?

Josh
paramucho
2003-07-21 06:58:54 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 06:04:17 GMT, "Josh Dougherty"
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by paramucho
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 02:42:01 GMT, "Josh Dougherty"
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Dr.Matt
What I think is sad is that so many people repeated the ridiculous
meme that the hoax "seemed credible" and that claiming ownership of
E-F "seemed like something Metallica really might do".
People really don't understand copyright--and they really are clueless
about how musicians make a living.
Um, people repeated the "ridiculous meme" because the hoax did seem
believable to so many people. Ian seemed to think it was possibly true,
so
Post by paramucho
Post by Josh Dougherty
did I. I assume that millions also did.
I've seen equally ridiculous claims in other areas so this kind of
thing remains possibility. I keep an open mind.
Post by Josh Dougherty
Apparently it is not a ridiculous
notion for musicians to make a living by claiming ownership of certain
chords and denying other musicians the right to use them.
Well, I didn't think that such a claim would have been made on the
basis of copyright law at all but rather on the basis of some
recognisable branding.
Is that not a part of copyright law?
Recognisable melodic sequence with a minimum length I think -- but two
notes would never be sufficient. I'm sure someone here would know more
about the subject :-)




--
Ian
Impressive If Haughty - Q Magazine
James King
2003-07-21 13:03:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by paramucho
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 06:04:17 GMT, "Josh Dougherty"
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by paramucho
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 02:42:01 GMT, "Josh Dougherty"
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Dr.Matt
What I think is sad is that so many people repeated the
ridiculous meme that the hoax "seemed credible" and that
claiming ownership of E-F "seemed like something Metallica
really might do".
People really don't understand copyright--and they really are
clueless about how musicians make a living.
Um, people repeated the "ridiculous meme" because the hoax did
seem believable to so many people. Ian seemed to think it was
possibly true, so did I. I assume that millions also did.
I've seen equally ridiculous claims in other areas so this kind of
thing remains possibility. I keep an open mind.
Post by Josh Dougherty
Apparently it is not a ridiculous notion for musicians to make a
living by claiming ownership of certain chords and denying other
musicians the right to use them.
Well, I didn't think that such a claim would have been made on the
basis of copyright law at all but rather on the basis of some
recognisable branding.
Is that not a part of copyright law?
Recognisable melodic sequence with a minimum length I think -- but
two notes would never be sufficient. I'm sure someone here would know
more about the subject :-)
If you play E-F over and over and over, you get the theme to "Jaws."

In college, while working on my Master's degree, my studio arranging
instructor and I had some disagreement over how much of a song you
could keep for it to be recognizable. I had done a dramatically
different reharmonization of "But Beautiful," replacing the original
chord progression with a different one (that also worked well). My
instructor claimed that no one would be able to recognize the song
because the expected chords or the expected substitutions were not
there, even though I had kept the melody exactly as written.

I strongly disagreed with him. Even though the other students in the
class were immediately able to recognize the song from the melody, the
instructor continued to maintain that what I had done was put a melody
"somewhat similar" (his words) to "But Beautiful" over an original
chord progression, and that no one would recognize the song in its new
context. I found it humorous that the melody which was duplicated
exactly was described merely as "somewhat similar."

Then again, this instructor would sing everything I wrote to the class
with the syllable "tuht" regardless of the articulation I wrote in, and
remark how horrible my work sounded.

James King
--
Old Time Radio lives on
at http://www.shadowradio.org
paramucho
2003-07-21 14:13:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by James King
Post by paramucho
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 06:04:17 GMT, "Josh Dougherty"
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by paramucho
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 02:42:01 GMT, "Josh Dougherty"
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Dr.Matt
What I think is sad is that so many people repeated the
ridiculous meme that the hoax "seemed credible" and that
claiming ownership of E-F "seemed like something Metallica
really might do".
People really don't understand copyright--and they really are
clueless about how musicians make a living.
Um, people repeated the "ridiculous meme" because the hoax did
seem believable to so many people. Ian seemed to think it was
possibly true, so did I. I assume that millions also did.
I've seen equally ridiculous claims in other areas so this kind of
thing remains possibility. I keep an open mind.
Post by Josh Dougherty
Apparently it is not a ridiculous notion for musicians to make a
living by claiming ownership of certain chords and denying other
musicians the right to use them.
Well, I didn't think that such a claim would have been made on the
basis of copyright law at all but rather on the basis of some
recognisable branding.
Is that not a part of copyright law?
Recognisable melodic sequence with a minimum length I think -- but
two notes would never be sufficient. I'm sure someone here would know
more about the subject :-)
If you play E-F over and over and over, you get the theme to "Jaws."
In college, while working on my Master's degree, my studio arranging
instructor and I had some disagreement over how much of a song you
could keep for it to be recognizable. I had done a dramatically
different reharmonization of "But Beautiful," replacing the original
chord progression with a different one (that also worked well). My
instructor claimed that no one would be able to recognize the song
because the expected chords or the expected substitutions were not
there, even though I had kept the melody exactly as written.
I strongly disagreed with him. Even though the other students in the
class were immediately able to recognize the song from the melody, the
instructor continued to maintain that what I had done was put a melody
"somewhat similar" (his words) to "But Beautiful" over an original
chord progression, and that no one would recognize the song in its new
context. I found it humorous that the melody which was duplicated
exactly was described merely as "somewhat similar."
Then again, this instructor would sing everything I wrote to the class
with the syllable "tuht" regardless of the articulation I wrote in, and
remark how horrible my work sounded.
James King
People can be taught the rules but creativity can only be learned.

I heard Shakira do a live version of her "Estoy Acqui" recently with
some radical changes to the chord structure. It's just nice to hear
how things could come out in a parallel universe.



--
Ian
Impressive If Haughty - Q Magazine
Dan Williams
2003-07-21 14:16:12 UTC
Permalink
What a clueless nincompoop. How can an arranging teacher banish reharm? Has
he never heard of, say, Jim McNeely, who presents the original tune in an
unusual manner at the beginning -- then he really goes nuts with it. I
wonder if your "reharm" maintained the melodic/harmonic phrases of the tune.
What was it that bothered him so much?

Recently, a student here did an unintentional "reharm" of St. Louis Blues,
that kept using the blues form during the habanera minor-key section ("St.
Louis woman ..."). What was astounding to me is that no one in the band
caught it in rehearsal!

Dan Williams
Post by James King
In college, while working on my Master's degree, my studio arranging
instructor and I had some disagreement over how much of a song you
could keep for it to be recognizable. I had done a dramatically
different reharmonization of "But Beautiful," replacing the original
chord progression with a different one (that also worked well). My
instructor claimed that no one would be able to recognize the song
because the expected chords or the expected substitutions were not
there, even though I had kept the melody exactly as written.
I strongly disagreed with him. Even though the other students in the
class were immediately able to recognize the song from the melody, the
instructor continued to maintain that what I had done was put a melody
"somewhat similar" (his words) to "But Beautiful" over an original
chord progression, and that no one would recognize the song in its new
context. I found it humorous that the melody which was duplicated
exactly was described merely as "somewhat similar."
Then again, this instructor would sing everything I wrote to the class
with the syllable "tuht" regardless of the articulation I wrote in, and
remark how horrible my work sounded.
James King
--
Old Time Radio lives on
at http://www.shadowradio.org
Dr.Matt
2003-07-21 11:34:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by paramucho
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 06:04:17 GMT, "Josh Dougherty"
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by paramucho
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 02:42:01 GMT, "Josh Dougherty"
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Dr.Matt
What I think is sad is that so many people repeated the ridiculous
meme that the hoax "seemed credible" and that claiming ownership of
E-F "seemed like something Metallica really might do".
People really don't understand copyright--and they really are clueless
about how musicians make a living.
Um, people repeated the "ridiculous meme" because the hoax did seem
believable to so many people. Ian seemed to think it was possibly true,
so
Post by paramucho
Post by Josh Dougherty
did I. I assume that millions also did.
I've seen equally ridiculous claims in other areas so this kind of
thing remains possibility. I keep an open mind.
Post by Josh Dougherty
Apparently it is not a ridiculous
notion for musicians to make a living by claiming ownership of certain
chords and denying other musicians the right to use them.
Well, I didn't think that such a claim would have been made on the
basis of copyright law at all but rather on the basis of some
recognisable branding.
Is that not a part of copyright law?
Recognisable melodic sequence with a minimum length I think -- but two
notes would never be sufficient. I'm sure someone here would know more
about the subject :-)
It's not supportable under copyright because of prior art, end of
question.

It's probably not supportable under trade mark law because no jury
would consider it a marker distinct enough from flamenco music as to
uniquely identify a band. By the time a set of musical features become
distinct enough to function as a trademark, they are novel enough that
most reasonable people would consider them a new composition--
protectable under copyright.

The whole purpose of the spreading of these sorts of hoaxes is either
to spread FUD about all of intellectual property, or, as I think
happened in this case, to make fun of how poorly most people understand
the basic concepts of intellectual property. You were among the people
being spoofed.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
paramucho
2003-07-21 15:25:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr.Matt
Post by paramucho
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 06:04:17 GMT, "Josh Dougherty"
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by paramucho
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 02:42:01 GMT, "Josh Dougherty"
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Dr.Matt
What I think is sad is that so many people repeated the ridiculous
meme that the hoax "seemed credible" and that claiming ownership of
E-F "seemed like something Metallica really might do".
People really don't understand copyright--and they really are clueless
about how musicians make a living.
Um, people repeated the "ridiculous meme" because the hoax did seem
believable to so many people. Ian seemed to think it was possibly true,
so
Post by paramucho
Post by Josh Dougherty
did I. I assume that millions also did.
I've seen equally ridiculous claims in other areas so this kind of
thing remains possibility. I keep an open mind.
Post by Josh Dougherty
Apparently it is not a ridiculous
notion for musicians to make a living by claiming ownership of certain
chords and denying other musicians the right to use them.
Well, I didn't think that such a claim would have been made on the
basis of copyright law at all but rather on the basis of some
recognisable branding.
Is that not a part of copyright law?
Recognisable melodic sequence with a minimum length I think -- but two
notes would never be sufficient. I'm sure someone here would know more
about the subject :-)
It's not supportable under copyright because of prior art, end of
question.
It's probably not supportable under trade mark law because no jury
would consider it a marker distinct enough from flamenco music as to
uniquely identify a band. By the time a set of musical features become
distinct enough to function as a trademark, they are novel enough that
most reasonable people would consider them a new composition--
protectable under copyright.
The whole purpose of the spreading of these sorts of hoaxes is either
to spread FUD about all of intellectual property, or, as I think
happened in this case, to make fun of how poorly most people understand
the basic concepts of intellectual property. You were among the people
being spoofed.
You seem to have a real bee in your bonnet about this thing. I just
thought it was mildly interesting and that it was certainly pertinent
to RMT, true or false.
.



--
Ian
Impressive If Haughty - Q Magazine
Jo Totland
2003-07-21 06:38:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr.Matt
The whole purpose of the spreading of these sorts of hoaxes is either
to spread FUD about all of intellectual property, or, as I think
happened in this case, to make fun of how poorly most people understand
the basic concepts of intellectual property. You were among the people
being spoofed.
In popular music, I'm not even sure it's necessary to spread FUD. Looking at
earlier court rulings, it is almost impossible to write a new piece of
"popular" music, that would be recognized as "new" if somebody spotted a
similar tune, and it ever came to a trial. See
http://slashdot.org/~yerricde/journal/36125. The conclusion: If you want to
write new music, either be very original (un-"popular"?), base it on a
public domain work, or cross your fingers and hope nobody finds out. (But
yes, two chords is definitely on the light side.)

Willondon
2003-07-21 11:18:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by paramucho
Well, I didn't think that such a claim would have been made on the
basis of copyright law at all but rather on the basis of some
recognisable branding.
Is that not a part of copyright law?
No. Trademark law is what protects brands, or in general, the ability to
do business using recognized names, logos, product names, icons, etc.
without having someone else use them in order to trade on your reputation.

Copyright law doesn't include any of those sorts of protection.
--
Willondon
Dr.Matt
2003-07-21 11:27:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by paramucho
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 02:42:01 GMT, "Josh Dougherty"
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Dr.Matt
What I think is sad is that so many people repeated the ridiculous
meme that the hoax "seemed credible" and that claiming ownership of
E-F "seemed like something Metallica really might do".
People really don't understand copyright--and they really are clueless
about how musicians make a living.
Um, people repeated the "ridiculous meme" because the hoax did seem
believable to so many people. Ian seemed to think it was possibly true,
so
Post by paramucho
Post by Josh Dougherty
did I. I assume that millions also did.
I've seen equally ridiculous claims in other areas so this kind of
thing remains possibility. I keep an open mind.
Post by Josh Dougherty
Apparently it is not a ridiculous
notion for musicians to make a living by claiming ownership of certain
chords and denying other musicians the right to use them.
Well, I didn't think that such a claim would have been made on the
basis of copyright law at all but rather on the basis of some
recognisable branding.
Is that not a part of copyright law?
No, it's not a part of copyright law at all. Please. Take the time to
find out what's at http://www.copyright.gov/.
Post by Josh Dougherty
Josh
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Josh Dougherty
2003-07-21 13:16:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr.Matt
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by paramucho
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 02:42:01 GMT, "Josh Dougherty"
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Dr.Matt
What I think is sad is that so many people repeated the ridiculous
meme that the hoax "seemed credible" and that claiming ownership of
E-F "seemed like something Metallica really might do".
People really don't understand copyright--and they really are clueless
about how musicians make a living.
Um, people repeated the "ridiculous meme" because the hoax did seem
believable to so many people. Ian seemed to think it was possibly true,
so
Post by paramucho
Post by Josh Dougherty
did I. I assume that millions also did.
I've seen equally ridiculous claims in other areas so this kind of
thing remains possibility. I keep an open mind.
Post by Josh Dougherty
Apparently it is not a ridiculous
notion for musicians to make a living by claiming ownership of certain
chords and denying other musicians the right to use them.
Well, I didn't think that such a claim would have been made on the
basis of copyright law at all but rather on the basis of some
recognisable branding.
Is that not a part of copyright law?
No, it's not a part of copyright law at all. Please. Take the time to
find out what's at http://www.copyright.gov/.
Thanks for your oh so helpful response. I would have thought that if my
question required a "no" answer that it also pretty obviously begs the
question of what it is instead. Apparently my answer lies in the "related
links" section of the page that you want me to spend a few years studying.
I already spent a year studying copyright law in college. I guess Ian was
suggesting it would somehow be argued on the basis of Trademark law, which
is different but related.

Josh
Josh Dougherty
2003-07-21 13:34:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Dr.Matt
What I think is sad is that so many people repeated the ridiculous
meme that the hoax "seemed credible" and that claiming ownership of
E-F "seemed like something Metallica really might do".
People really don't understand copyright--and they really are clueless
about how musicians make a living.
Um, people repeated the "ridiculous meme" because the hoax did seem
believable to so many people. Ian seemed to think it was possibly true, so
did I. I assume that millions also did. Apparently it is not a ridiculous
notion for musicians to make a living by claiming ownership of certain
chords and denying other musicians the right to use them.
Josh
That's exactly my point. I'm amazed that both of you bought
it.
Well, your amazement is an unusual reaction.
Metallica has been on the forefront of defending real copyright--a
concept which most people don't understand at all,
The only reason why copyrighting or trademarking or whatever of E & F chord
progressions isn't "real copyright" is because nobody's won such a case yet.
I don't see why it's so "amazing" for someone to believe that some people
would try.
and for which
Metallica has been unjustly demonized by the
file-sharing-and-damn-The-Man public as well as the big entertainment
collectives, restaurant lobby, televangelist lobby, and everybody else
who wishes to make a free buck off musicians.
Metallica sued Napster. I don't know what else they've done, but I don't
see how the evil entities you mention were making free bucks off musicians
because of Napster.

The televangelist lobby?!?
I so tire of seeing "spoofs" like this attached to every musician who
defends their copyright--and then people saying that the spoof was
somehow "credible". Junk like this pushes me further and further towards
the RIAA's camp about suing filesharers left and right.
Well, they can try all the want, but I think they're fighting a battle they
just can't win. Unless you erect some kind of police state that will invade
people's homes and monitor all their computers, you're never going to stop
filesharing or cd burning. That seems to me just the way it is, and
frankly, I'd prefer the filesharing and cd burning.

Josh
Dr.Matt
2003-07-21 14:28:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by paramucho
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Dr.Matt
What I think is sad is that so many people repeated the ridiculous
meme that the hoax "seemed credible" and that claiming ownership of
E-F "seemed like something Metallica really might do".
People really don't understand copyright--and they really are clueless
about how musicians make a living.
Um, people repeated the "ridiculous meme" because the hoax did seem
believable to so many people. Ian seemed to think it was possibly true,
so
Post by Josh Dougherty
did I. I assume that millions also did. Apparently it is not a
ridiculous
Post by Josh Dougherty
notion for musicians to make a living by claiming ownership of certain
chords and denying other musicians the right to use them.
Josh
That's exactly my point. I'm amazed that both of you bought
it.
Well, your amazement is an unusual reaction.
I thought you were musicians.
Post by paramucho
Metallica has been on the forefront of defending real copyright--a
concept which most people don't understand at all,
The only reason why copyrighting or trademarking or whatever of E & F chord
progressions isn't "real copyright" is because nobody's won such a case yet.
I don't see why it's so "amazing" for someone to believe that some people
would try.
But musicians???!!!
Post by paramucho
and for which
Metallica has been unjustly demonized by the
file-sharing-and-damn-The-Man public as well as the big entertainment
collectives, restaurant lobby, televangelist lobby, and everybody else
who wishes to make a free buck off musicians.
Metallica sued Napster. I don't know what else they've done, but I don't
see how the evil entities you mention were making free bucks off musicians
because of Napster.
The televangelist lobby?!?
Haven't you been following current events the last few years? In the
USA right now, the restaurant lobby and televangelist lobby teamed up
and got a whopping wide exception to all licensing and royalty
requirements. It's only a matter of time until somebody forces the
issue by reissuing every CD ever made with the words "Praise Jesus"
tacked on the end.
Post by paramucho
I so tire of seeing "spoofs" like this attached to every musician who
defends their copyright--and then people saying that the spoof was
somehow "credible". Junk like this pushes me further and further towards
the RIAA's camp about suing filesharers left and right.
Well, they can try all the want, but I think they're fighting a battle they
just can't win. Unless you erect some kind of police state that will invade
people's homes and monitor all their computers, you're never going to stop
filesharing or cd burning. That seems to me just the way it is, and
frankly, I'd prefer the filesharing and cd burning.
This is tantamount to saying that once people start looting, trying to
have a society in which there is such a thing as property is fighting
a battle you just can't win. I don't know whether that's so, but time
will tell.
Post by paramucho
Josh
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Josh Dougherty
2003-07-21 15:50:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr.Matt
Post by paramucho
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Dr.Matt
What I think is sad is that so many people repeated the ridiculous
meme that the hoax "seemed credible" and that claiming ownership of
E-F "seemed like something Metallica really might do".
People really don't understand copyright--and they really are clueless
about how musicians make a living.
Um, people repeated the "ridiculous meme" because the hoax did seem
believable to so many people. Ian seemed to think it was possibly true,
so
Post by Josh Dougherty
did I. I assume that millions also did. Apparently it is not a
ridiculous
Post by Josh Dougherty
notion for musicians to make a living by claiming ownership of certain
chords and denying other musicians the right to use them.
Josh
That's exactly my point. I'm amazed that both of you bought
it.
Well, your amazement is an unusual reaction.
I thought you were musicians.
Yeah, and? Is it really that beyond comprehension that someone would try
something like that?
Post by Dr.Matt
Post by paramucho
Metallica has been on the forefront of defending real copyright--a
concept which most people don't understand at all,
The only reason why copyrighting or trademarking or whatever of E & F chord
progressions isn't "real copyright" is because nobody's won such a case yet.
I don't see why it's so "amazing" for someone to believe that some people
would try.
But musicians???!!!
Post by paramucho
and for which
Metallica has been unjustly demonized by the
file-sharing-and-damn-The-Man public as well as the big entertainment
collectives, restaurant lobby, televangelist lobby, and everybody else
who wishes to make a free buck off musicians.
Metallica sued Napster. I don't know what else they've done, but I don't
see how the evil entities you mention were making free bucks off musicians
because of Napster.
The televangelist lobby?!?
Haven't you been following current events the last few years?
Well, not this particular one.
Post by Dr.Matt
In the USA right now, the restaurant lobby and televangelist lobby teamed
up
Post by Dr.Matt
and got a whopping wide exception to all licensing and royalty
requirements.
Wow. Nope, hadn't heard that. I'm not all that surprised by the
televangelists. They're even tax exempt aren't they? So, if they can get
roads and mail and everything else for free, paid for by the rest of
us...why not music? The restaurant thing is more surprising. Is this
about restaurants being able to play stereos and cds without paying
royalties? Of course, this is different than Metallica and filesharing
though.
Post by Dr.Matt
It's only a matter of time until somebody forces the
issue by reissuing every CD ever made with the words "Praise Jesus"
tacked on the end.
Post by paramucho
I so tire of seeing "spoofs" like this attached to every musician who
defends their copyright--and then people saying that the spoof was
somehow "credible". Junk like this pushes me further and further towards
the RIAA's camp about suing filesharers left and right.
Well, they can try all the want, but I think they're fighting a battle they
just can't win. Unless you erect some kind of police state that will invade
people's homes and monitor all their computers, you're never going to stop
filesharing or cd burning. That seems to me just the way it is, and
frankly, I'd prefer the filesharing and cd burning.
This is tantamount to saying that once people start looting, trying to
have a society in which there is such a thing as property is fighting
a battle you just can't win.
Well, not exactly because physical property and intellectual property are
different animals. With looting, a person leaves their home and invades
someone else's physical property and takes it. The looter has to commit a
public act on someone else's property, and he now has a piece of physical
property which can be traced, and the owner is plainly left without that
property. Furthermore, even though the concept of property itself is a
construct that is debated as to where the line of rights should be drawn,
there's generally a consensus that people's homes and their personal
posessions are theirs and that other people have no right to use them.

OTOH, with this kind of intellectual property, the "looter" doesn't have to
leave his home or interact with anyone that is not consenting. There's no
obvious way to tell that the owner has been robbed because he still posesses
the property, and none of his physical property or space has been invaded.
What he's lost is only a vague notion of something, if he can ever even
determine that the looter has taken anything at all. And the construct of
intellectual property is even more vague and widely disputed than physical
property, with wide disagreement over where one person's rights start and
another's end. As such, it seems pretty clear that the only way to
ultimately stop this is for a police state to ban all programs that can
transfer information (both legal and illegal) between two or more computers,
and to have free reign to invade the privacy of peoples' homes and monitor
their cd collections and the programs and files on their computers.
Post by Dr.Matt
I don't know whether that's so, but time will tell.
True enough, but I don't see how it'll happen.

Josh
Loading...