Dan Sicko wrote: > It was probably the audacity (or lack of originality) to make a > similar track and even *name* it the same way that infuriated Dan ...
Yeah, but it's dirty laundry all the same. I remember seeing an interview with (I think) Bootsy Collins, who remarked that (at least it used to be) you couldn't sue someone over a drum pattern or a bass line. Melodies and lyrics only. So if there's not much more to a track than beats and bass, you put it out at your own risk. "That's not a song". That is, outside of electronic music, the studio is still considered window dressing. I just doubt there's much precedent in the law for what would be considered engineering techniques, like the EQing of a vocal sample. I don't see anyone complaining about Global Communication's "Maiden Voyage" (8 07 and 5 23 on the 76 14 album; you know the one I'm talking about). - Mike ____________________________________________________________________________ mike j. brown | xml/xslt: http://skew.org/xml/ denver/boulder, colorado, usa | personal: http://hyperreal.org/~mike/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
