From: smoliar@iss.nus.sg (Stephen Smoliar)
Subject: Re: Casey Kasem wrote and boy is he pissed...
Organization: Institute of Systems Science, NUS
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 11:57:02 GMT

The following arrived in my personal mail.  My guess is that it was intended
for bulletin board posting and may have run afoul of new tin commands (as I
did recently).  I shall first reproduce it and then put in my two cents.

========begin mail insertion========

Return-Path: <dhuffma@neptune.calstatela.edu>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 15:30:59 PST
From: dhuffma@neptune.calstatela.edu (david huffman 07-17-92)
To: smoliar@iss.nus.sg

     Music doesn't seem to be copyrighted for the way it is recorded onto tape, cd, etc.  Music is copyrighted for its melody and sound.  It doens't matter
what bits are altered nor how the stereo panning is altered; what matters is
the melody and feel of the song.  You can alter the bits and store them as
different files using different files as the original song as much as you want, but if the melody is the same and the copy sounds like the original then it
is illegal to copy it because of the copyright.  The important thing is that
there is enough of a difference that people can tell a difference. I believe
that only 30 - 40% of the original can be the same, or is it 30 - 40% has to be
changed?  I don't remember.  My point?  I'm not sure!  Just be sure to distort
most of the song if not all and you know your within copyright laws.

My question is:
     What will song writers do once every melody that is possible to conceive
has been conceived?  I hear songs all the time now that sound a lot like other
songs I've heard.  There are so many musicians and music has been around ever
since life began that we're bound to run out of original combinations of notes
eventually.

	Either:

	1) We'll have to toss the copyright law so that new songs with old
           tunes can be put together like Hooked On Classics which combines
           a whole bunch of songs together into one song.

           For Example: Michael Jacksons "Beat It" and Neil Diamonds
                        "Sweet Caroline" put together to form a song.
            
           Scary, isn't it?

	2) Someone will have to discover a new type of music that is not
           possible to discover within the dimensions which we are limited
           by.


                                           dhuffma@neptune.calstatela.edu

========end mail insertion=========

I happen to be listening to my Muddy Waters Chess Box this evening.  I raise
this point because several years ago I heard the Kronos Quartet perform an
arrangement of "Hoochie Coochie Man" as an encore.  What were they arranging?
Were they arranging Muddy Waters' 1954 recording?  Were they arranging Jimi
Hendrix?  Was Jimi Hendrix arranging Muddy Waters?  How many estates deserve
to benefit finanacially from the decision of the Kronos to perform an
arrangement of "Hoochie Coochie Man?"

The point is that it is very easy to slip into absurdity.  The case studies in
the ethics of appropriate which Gregory posed present the problem even more
vividly.  I suspect that we shall never be able to set up a reasonably
effective set of general guidelines.  Unfortunately, that means that all
case will have to be handled on an individual basis, which is just what
this overly litigeous world needs, isn't it?  What bothers me is that the
only people who will ever take this resort will be those who can afford to
do so.  In other words if you are interested in arrangements, parody, or
appropriation, don't mess with rich people.  Come to think of it, don't
mess with poor people.  Your work may contribute to their becoming better
known, after which they will be rich;  and they will probably have long
memories.

This business of running out of melodies (as if melody were the only element of
music worthy of copyright) reminds me of another absurdity.  I assume that "How
Dry I Am" is in the public domain.  (If it is not, someone must be getting very
rich off the royalties.)  Insert one auxiliary tone and it becomes "The Party's
Over," whose copyright is probably still in effect.  This is why these
percentage laws are so silly.  We NEVER run out of melodies because we
are always working up new contexts in which to engage the same sequences
of notes.  Sometimes these contexts may genuinely acknowledge some previous
ancestry (as in the old joke about Brahms' debt to Beethoven).  Sometimes any
resemblance really IS accidental.  Nevertheless, the thought of armies of
musicologists being summoned by lawyers to serve as expert witnesses tends
to make my stomach churn.  As far as whether or not the problem can be resolved
by introducing "a new type of music," all I can ask is, "Will anyone listen to
it?"  Then I have to duck, because I suspect this will raise an argument which
raged for rather a while on rec.music.classical.
--
Stephen W. Smoliar; Institute of Systems Science
National University of Singapore; Heng Mui Keng Terrace
Kent Ridge, SINGAPORE 0511
Internet:  smoliar@iss.nus.sg