Sephirot Theme ( Phase 2 ) sound familiar?

[Kukajoo]

thankyou for taking the time to comment and help clear this up yoshida ^^

[Alistaire]

thankyou for taking the time to comment and help clear this up yoshida ^^

I don't think in the history of accusations like this the line "we weren't aware of your song" has ever changed someone's mind from the course of action they want to take against it.

I don't even think being able to prove that (not that you could) would change how a lawsuit would turn out.

[heiligeharmonie]

I don't think in the history of accusations like this the line "we weren't aware of your song" has ever changed someone's mind from the course of action they want to take against it.

I don't even think being able to prove that (not that you could) would change how a lawsuit would turn out.

Actually, "I never heard that song before, I came up with this on my own," is a defense that is used in copyright courts. It then comes down to credibility of the defendant, and the defendant's accessibility to the song will be examined. In this case, as some people have already pointed out, When Worlds Collide hasn't been relevant in almost 2 decades, and given Sokken's Japanese nationality and residence, it's not a stretch to think that he might be telling the truth.

The question of how common certain chord progressions and arrangements are in a given genre is also key there, and again, others have already expressed that, to them, it sounds like many other industrial song. And let's not even get into performance vs. actual composition. All in all, copyright cases are messy and oftentimes, really, REALLY objective. They're either hard as hell to prove or hard as hell to disprove. In this particular case, I doubt it would go to any kind of trial. If the band/record company does anything more than blow hot air on social media (which alone will get them TONS of attention), the whole thing will probably get settled out of court, because it's just cheaper and less complicated that way.

[ShadowJetX]

Please people, there's a whole music genre based off of sounding the same:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsV5...youtu.be&t=13s

[zaviermhigo]

I don't think in the history of accusations like this the line "we weren't aware of your song" has ever changed someone's mind from the course of action they want to take against it.

I don't even think being able to prove that (not that you could) would change how a lawsuit would turn out.

I'm in law school, in copyright we hit on this, technically an artist could say "you copied my son" but the person copying having access to the song (listening to it, being there when its written etc) is usually more of a hook line and sinker for the case. First things first this would be an international case regardless, and it would all come down to did Japan sign TRIPs and is it a Berne Country. (Japan is a Berne, TRIPPS, UCC Paris, UCC Geneva and WCT country so they should have maximum international copyright protection and ....sanction)

But for the most part, in courts we are arguing that music is still limited every note variation is out there pretty much (I come from IT, Music and Poli Sci background before entering law school) and there is really no real test. The court might go "oh industrial is a stagnant genre and to my laymen ear all of it sounds the same", judges are not usually musicians at all and they are the ones ruling on it. Its a not a perfect world where two people with musical skill compare the song, instead a judge and maybe an expert or two listens to it, and unless you blatantly copy 3 bars or more, its probably not even going to court.

If I'm kinda vague, I get copyright, but its not my area of expertise, my expertise is Gaming (Gambling) law, I go to the best school in the nation for it (I'm a las vegas local) and the parts I really get about copyright are because dealing with casinos in Vegas = copyright, enterntainment, contracts, tort, administrative etc

Also to clarify you can be completely inspired by someone elses work and have it not be copyright, the only case that says differently is the Estate of Marvin Gaye case and I honestly think Marvin's Gayes Estate is filled with greedy people who can pay whoever they want off to get the verdict they want. the "what is it like" is probably not enough for infringement, the beats of the song are actually different enough to most laymen. Everyone is screaming infringment without actually reading any case law or knowing anything about copyright. Ya'll are funny. The guy I'm quoting though is kinda right "not knowing about the song" isn't a defense, but it can work in your favor just sayin.

TLDR: In copyright law there is no clear and cut "you copied this much of my song its infringment" its all up to the judges laymen ear. One line of lyrics is not typically enough since words are limited, sometimes copying notes isn't even enough because when you break it down there aren't that many note variations that a person could create a new song and have it not share notes with another, its just not possible anymore. The beat of the two songs even to a laymen are not enough alike, they are similar but not enough alike to claim copyright, if you don't know anything about copyright stop talking about it, its widely misunderstood.

This artist probably got more publicity for it, although I played tony hawk back in the day, I didn't know who this guy making crap music even was, especially since no one have given a crap about industrial music since 2004, and I doubt he even as big enough pockets to sue SE for it XD