[AS126]

> "If you can be liable for allegedly copying a three-note phrase, I think that really dampens the creative output of artists," said Keyes.

I don't like where this is going. Those songs have key differences in percussion and partly in melody too, as explained in the graphic. This sets an interesting precedent, to say the least.

[ddingus]

Interesting is the nice word for it.

Honestly, there is nothing the same, and only a couple similarities such that one may be reminded of the other song. Remarkably, Pery added a ton of her own expression. These tunes are just not very similar.

Prior to this decision, I would have said no way to infringement.

Basically, the flood gates from hell were just opened. Music is about to get devalued (again), attorneys will make a killing, and the scope of new music will be reduced away from anything even remotely close to what major artists have released.

The latter may actually bring some new ideas forward, but I fear appetite for risk will prove more limiting than the new ideas may be potentially compelling.

[ptah]

in the graphic 16 notes are green (meaning the same) so saying 3 is not accurate at all

[IfOnlyYouKnew]

Three different notes. Repeating the same note is rhythm, but the allegations are about melody.

[ptah]

three different tones, but you are ignoring the most important aspect of modern music: rhythm. a modern music piece uses only a few different tones