[phasersout]

I think that would actually be a good field for machine learning: To separate sound-alikes from copycats.

It always bothers me that these claims are often about a simple melody, while arrangements or rhythm patterns seem to be fair game - if I would use the drum patterns of "Smells like teen spirit" in my song I don't think Grohl could claim anything. But if I would go "Coding in my Pyjamas" with the melody of "Living on a Prayer" I'd have Bon Jovi's lawyers in my mailbox in a heartbeat.

But that being said, I think the copyright overall should be a lot more relaxed with a lot more leeway for creatives because the status quo is just ridiculous.

[djur]

The recent trend in copyright rulings for music amount to a kind of enclosure of a traditional commons, which should be regarded as a bigger issue than it is. There are entire genres of music based on the adaptation and elaboration of existing melodies. This is an ancient practice, and copyright law has historically fit into gaps in that practice (for instance, covering modern innovations like printed sheet music and recordings), rather than totally overriding it.

The law should err on the side of permitting copying. There's enough IP in lyrics, complete arrangements, recordings, etc. (where copying can be clearly demonstrated) to protect the interests of artists.

[whimsicalism]

So make it legal to re-arrange a song with no profit-sharing?

[djur]

It would be better than the status quo, but I get your point. I think there's a way to set an objective standard that protects extended compositions (film scores, etc.) while not also making jazz illegal.