06-17-2016, 12:54 PM
I'm with you, and at the same time I'm not with you. I know...that makes a lot of sense.
I understand your premise, and agree to a point. Please know I not really arguing in the following, but rather thinking out loud trying to grasp the entire concept. By all means, please feel free to correct, explain wrong conception, and educate me.
I saw another thread in a subforum that ties into this. Natural law all stems, basically, from property rights. The ownership of our bodies, our land, our mind, god, ect. From that mindset, is not intellectual property something for the originator to do with as they please? If I work for 10 years, and compose both music and lyrics for a song that crosss genre lines, racial lines, the whole ball, am I wrong to declare rights to royalty from any other artist that wants to record it? I say record, because now they are profiting off of my work. I don't see why someone should care if people cover their song on stage, that's free publicity to a crowd that may have been unavailable to me before. But if they put it on their album, and release it as a single, shouldn't they be required to at least pay royalty fees (after getting permission)?
I understand many times these lawsuits are really reaching, but sometimes it's just blatant. As I said earlier, there are only 12 notes in music, so it's not hard to find similar progressions in many songs. But a good example was Vanilla Ice's "Ice Ice Baby" (you know you just started humming it. don't lie). It was a blatant ripoff from Queen's "Under Pressure", no permission was sought, ect. Their defense was, "It's not the same hook. The last note is an octave lower". It still followed the exact same pattern, just simply went a tad lower on the last note.
Do you feel the same way regarding patents? If not, why? Aren't they both the fruit of someone's vision and work?