[hajile]

Rather horrible breakdown IMO.

The "prior art" from 1984 he mentions is radically different in the note pattern used which alone defeats that entire line of argument. Similarly, reaching back to classical music to talk about modern synth beats is a red herring. All he succeeded in doing here was showing that there wasn't actually prior art.

He does a bit on how the pagan aspects of the lyrics and video are irrelevant, but proving harm is crucial to a legal case. If the music is indeed copyrighted, then he could easily be harmed by the associations that would negatively affect his own song (and most in the US would recognize pagan themes as decidedly at odds with Christian ones).

The final blow is recognition and feel. A huge number of people would recognize Dark Horse exclusively by the playing of that short set of notes much as they could instantly recognize Billie Jean by its opening rift (or any number of other songs). This alone indicates that the notes in question are more than superficial.

Likewise, would the song have been successful without their support? It's doubtful as they try to add a crucial layer of sound over the otherwise very drab and forgettable (if not outright distasteful) melody.

If the notes are derivative and add substantially to the new work, then there is a case here.

EDIT: I say this as someone who doesn't like the current copyright system (either its interpretation or length)

[coldtea]

>The "prior art" from 1984 he mentions is radically different in the note pattern used which alone defeats that entire line of argument.

It's not radically different at all. I'm a musician, but even for a lay person, this is as close as it gets without it being 100% the same.

>Similarly, reaching back to classical music to talk about modern synth beats is a red herring.

This doesn't even make sense. It's like saying that referring to a 18th century invention to invalidate a 2019 patent is a red herring. Music is music.

>The final blow is recognition and feel. A huge number of people would recognize Dark Horse exclusively by the playing of that short set of notes much as they could instantly recognize Billie Jean by its opening rift (or any number of other songs). This alone indicates that the notes in question are more than superficial.

No, it only indicates that these persons have a limited repertoire.

[hajile]

Jumping UP an entire FIFTH is hardly the same as dropping DOWN a single NOTE then dropping down another single note. In what world are these two even remotely similar?

> This doesn't even make sense. It's like saying that referring to a 18th century invention to invalidate a 2019 patent is a red herring. Music is music.

Point out even one classical music piece were any instrument is used even remotely similarly to how this piece ties together the song. It does not exist. Trimming out a few similar notes used in an entirely different manner for an entirely different effect is like saying Picasso and Rembrandt are similar because they use similar lines and curves.

> No, it only indicates that these persons have a limited repertoire.

Copyright exists for the general public (as stated in the US constitution). If you need an expert to tell you two pieces of music seem to be similar, but actually are not, then there's probably something wrong.

[coldtea]

>Point out even one classical music piece were any instrument is used even remotely similarly to how this piece ties together the song. It does not exist.

Actually tons of classical pieces depend on a key motif by a particular instrument...

>Copyright exists for the general public (as stated in the US constitution).

The US constitution is wrong: copyright as it stands exists for fat company executives.