National’s DVD copyright questioned
The NZ Herald reports that the music used in National’s DVD about John Key may be similiar enough to Coldplay’s Clocks to infringe copyright.
Now my musical talent is somewhere between retarded and non-existent so I can offer no opinion on whether it is too similiar or not. But I would make two observations:
- If the music is too similar, then I would be placing some high grade explosives under the professional production company who made the DVD – their job is to know what you can and can’t do in this area, and are the experts.
- Regardless of the professional responsibility resting with the production company, someone within National should have made 100% sure the DVD had no legal or copyright issues with it. When associating a party brand or the Leader’s brand with something, you need to make certain beyond doubt that it will not bite you in the rear. Politics is an arena where even the most minor potential infringement will be noticed and seized upon. Every photo you use has to be double checked for model release etc etc.
I suspect there will be a few unhappy people today. Of course it may not infringe, but even the fact there is a story saying it is debatable is untidy.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: National
December 1st, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Ah well. I did think about that when I watched it. I thought that would be the first thing they would have taken care of though.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Of course they ignore all the Labour videos using Split Enz and Korn’s music don’t they.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Usual tactic from the left. If you can’t attack the message, attack the messanger.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Those videos may have permission.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Graeme Downes has been nicking rhythms and motifs from popular and classical composers for 25 years so its a bit rich for him to take the moral high ground.
It seems the left must be really struggling for traction if the best they can do is feign disgust at the use of a twenty second muzak track based on a crap song from a B grade english pop band!
December 1st, 2007 at 1:10 pm
re nicking bits boomtownprat, as long as it isn’t an abosolute key element of a song (like verve using rolling stones, nirvana using killing joke, fast crew using the eagles) as as a sample or other, the likelyhood is you’ll be fine.
but to possible copy a whole song sound (not band sound) is a bit far of the mark.
especially a liberal left band song for use in a right wing political party propaganda DVD!!!
December 1st, 2007 at 1:16 pm
boomtownprat
“Graeme Downes has been nicking rhythms and motifs from popular and classical composers for 25 years”
It’s called “genre” you inane prat.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:18 pm
This is a pinko beat-up. Tane and Sam have been spamming every blog, and every journalist’s blog, trying to get traction with this. At best they’ve got a few lines in the Herald.
First Tane and Sam claimed it was definitely, absolutely, unequivocally Clocks. Colin Espiner wasn’t fooled. He said he listened to the two, and they’re different. Sure, part of it sounds like a part of Clocks, but you’d have to have very enormous legal resources, and nothing to apply them towards, and be very bored, and enjoy losing, to take a copyright case on that.
The Standard can’t stand the idea that John Key is thrashing Helen in the polls. Instead they engage in dirty tricks to try and undermine the message. It isn’t working.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:20 pm
sicoff,
I think there is a big difference between a song, produced for sale and claimed as ones own composition and a 20 sec music track on a giveaway DVD. The classic way of avoiding copyright infringement in these scenarios is to change 1 chord in the progression. You here it all the time on ads on TV. The number of car ads in the mid nineties that had big heavy guitars and imitation smell like teen spirit riffs was quite high I recall.
Listening to the track on the DVD again, it seems clear to me there is a different chord in the middle.
At the end of the day……..who cares
December 1st, 2007 at 1:29 pm
No nome, genre suggests a particular technique or form.
Downes unashamedly lifts classical runs and motifs and plants them in the terminally boring drivel he produces. Take the laugable ommpa pa bit in Bird Dog, or the carnival motif in Death and the Maiden, or the finale of the Ballad of harry Noryb.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:39 pm
How many folks havn’t heard about the DVD much less seen it… but on reading this story and hearing the word ‘coldplay’ go and watch? A few I suspect. Thanks NZ Herald.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Naughty, naughty, naughty – Breaking the law…once again.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Come on James.. you can do better than that. digital analysis of the track and comparision with the digital version of clocks perhaps? Lecture us on international copyright and applicability in this instance? Nah too hard. Just re-watch the DVD and get used to seeing more of JK in your home.
December 1st, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Come ON, us serious music buffs get really peeved over dreck like “Clocks” being thought to be ORIGINAL in the first place, and Chris Martin being hailed as some sort of “music” genius.
It is just as likely that the “composer” of the ditty used in the John Key Video can point to a common source way back in the pre-copyright era that both Chris Martin and himself were plundering.
Take the opening bars of Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata and play each 3-note motive backwards, use a Rhumba rythm instead of Beethoven’s steady triplets, and voila! – “Clocks”.
December 1st, 2007 at 2:20 pm
“Downes unashamedly lifts classical runs and motifs and plants them in the terminally boring drivel he produces.”
Would be nice to see some physical proof of this….
BTW – simply slightly altering a piece of music (as National seems to have done) isn’t always enough to avoid a law suit. For instance… listen to the first 20 seconds of the two following songs and you’ll see that “Vanilla Ice” has added a beat to a sample of Queen’s and David Bowie’s “Under Pressure”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdaHCLlBkWU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxN_pbMOFk0&feature=related
http://samplinglaw.blogspot.com/2007/10/time-magazine-article-on-sampling-1991.html
This could be very interesting.
December 1st, 2007 at 2:25 pm
“Naughty, naughty, naughty – Breaking the law…once again.”
Do you know a bit about the law James ?
December 1st, 2007 at 2:36 pm
“Downes unashamedly lifts classical runs and motifs and plants them in the terminally boring drivel he produces.”
Would be nice to see some physical proof of this….
BTW – simply slightly altering a piece of music (as National seems to have done) isn’t always enough to avoid a law suit. For instance… listen to the first 20 seconds of the two following songs and you’ll see that “Vanilla Ice” has added a beat to a sample of Queen’s and David Bowie’s “Under Pressure”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdaHCLlBkWU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxN_pbMOFk0&feature=related
Vanilla Ice ran into the problem when he was accused of lifting part of the 1981 song Under Pressure, written by David Bowie and Queen, for his No. 1 hit $ Ice Ice Baby. When Bowie and Queen threatened a lawsuit, the rapper eventually added them to the composer credits.
December 1st, 2007 at 2:36 pm
http://samplinglaw.blogspot.com/2007/10/time-magazine-article-on-sampling-1991.html
This could be very interesting.
December 1st, 2007 at 2:42 pm
I think it’s obvious that it is supposed to sound LIKE Clocks. But it is not Clocks, the last two chords of the main riff are different. I think you’d have a hard time proving copyright violation in court.
December 1st, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Nor is this sampling – the difference in Vanila Ice’s track is that John Deacon’s bassline was lifted wholely and completely. It’s the same damned bassline played the same way and therefore composed by Mr Deacon, not Mr Van Winkle.
If every artist sued for songs that SOUNDED LIKE their own, Oasis wouldn’t have a career for starters.
December 1st, 2007 at 2:48 pm
BlairM – it’s not the same baseline. As I’ve said, Vanilla Ice added a beat/note – go back and listen to the links I provide.
December 1st, 2007 at 2:49 pm
*was allowed to sue* should have said.
December 1st, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Meh… if you believe the gossip mags, Coldplay frontman Chris Martin (and his legal representatives) might be otherwise engaged drawing up the divorce settlement and child custody arrangements with Gwenyth Paltrow’s people.
Meanwhile, I’m perhaps the legal eagles at the Sub-Standard should turn their big brains to some rather basic media law. I think there are a few people who would have pretty good grounds for a defamation action.
December 1st, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Then you’re fucking deaf Roger, because it is. It even has the same two piano chords from Under Pressure.
December 1st, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Then you’re fucking deaf BlairM, because it isn’t.
Actually I can play and sing Ok according to many of my friends, thanks very much dickhead.
December 1st, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Heh, this is great. It will show voters that whatever National does, big or small, things will not be right.
Why let our country desend on a key-tastrophy, just re-elect Helen!
December 1st, 2007 at 3:04 pm
And can we take a class action suit against the Sub-Standard for using Coldplay — which makes James Blunt sound hard – as a weapon of political mass distraction? I thought this country was a signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
December 1st, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Aren’t Chris Martin and Gwyneth battling copyright with MacIntosh?
December 1st, 2007 at 3:15 pm
And many of my friends say my arse isn’t big – which is kind but untrue. Anyway, hope the musical career goes better than the political analysis Mr. Nome.
And when are you opening another genral discussion thread, DPF, because I’d sure love to see folks thoughts on how Gordon Brown managed to turn an eleven point poll lead into an eleven point deficit in a single month… Bloody wizard.
December 1st, 2007 at 3:21 pm
roger nome is your band called the silly sub standard androids ? I presume you play the broken harp ?
December 1st, 2007 at 3:22 pm
And Tane , the kicked in drums ?
December 1st, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Yet another example of poor staff work. Time for Judy Kirk to move on I think.
December 1st, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Ok – I’ve finally gotten around to listening to both National’s and Coldpaly’s pieces of music, and to me the former’s borrowing from the latter is obvious to the point where i have to listen quite carefully to discern any difference. Certainly to me it seems reasonable to say that the public could confuse them with each other. Judge for yourself (you only need to listen to the first 40 seconds of each video).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9j_RZDqYc4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jLC-0vy3gU
December 1st, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Just a thought. Vanilla Ice was making money of music that sounded like something else. Key is not using this music for commercial reasons. Even though the music is not coldplay, the fact that this music is not being used for commercial purposes should have a bearing?
December 1st, 2007 at 3:31 pm
By the way, Roger, you’ve been bitching about the similarity of the music for days and you have only JUST NOW got around to listening to both tracks!!
I expect better from you.
December 1st, 2007 at 3:34 pm
One of JK’s main themes is that NZ has lots of unrealised potential. Quite aspirational in it’s own right, but doubly so when you realise that Labour – supported by their ideologically blinded wailing trolls – can only muster limp & unsubstantiated allegations about music copyright. (oh also, glasshouses, stones etc)
Keep it up fellas… NZ deserves better leadership and we’re going to get it when the sad, tired sisterhood et al are shown the door despite the EFB muzzle that’s being fitted.
December 1st, 2007 at 3:36 pm
I can’t wait to see you on TV2′s new show Singing Bee, Roger. I’ll text-vote for you every week!
December 1st, 2007 at 3:39 pm
“Key is not using this music for commercial reasons.”
National is apparently using the music for personal gain. Perhaps that’s the real problem.
BTW if JK gets elected his salary goes up doesn’t it? Was the DVD not aimed at getting him elected. Commercial gain no?
December 1st, 2007 at 3:41 pm
“I can’t wait to see you on TV2’s new show Singing Bee, Roger. I’ll text-vote for you every week!”
Awesome! I’ll be the kid with the yellow polka dot bow-tie and the ukulele, OK?
December 1st, 2007 at 3:43 pm
“And many of my friends say my arse isn’t big ”
But you’re a middle aged Tory – of course your arse is going to be big!
By comparison I’m a young lefty liberal – as are most of the musicians I know. Go figure!
December 1st, 2007 at 3:44 pm
They are close – the drums come in at the same time, but there is certainly a different note in the main riff. To me it sounds almost like someone has dubbed that different note right over top of the original.
December 1st, 2007 at 3:45 pm
SlighltyRighty said
“By the way, Roger, you’ve been bitching about the similarity of the music for days and you have only JUST NOW got around to listening to both tracks!!
I expect better from you.”
Really……you must be the only one!
December 1st, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Roger, one mans personal gain (your view) might be seen by others as another mans public service announcement. (my view)
By the way, John Key doesn’t need the money. His current salary is largely donated to charity.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10413135
December 1st, 2007 at 3:47 pm
“By comparison I’m a young lefty liberal – as are most of the musicians I know. Go figure!”
I vomit you out after 5 jugs you gnomer spittle !!!
December 1st, 2007 at 3:55 pm
“Roger, you’ve been bitching about the similarity of the music for days and you have only JUST NOW got around to listening to both tracks!!”
I watched the Key DVD days ago – and I knew that “clocks” song well enough to know that they sound similar, so my opinions weren’t without basis. Today is the first close analysis I’ve done though.
December 1st, 2007 at 3:57 pm
I think it’s hilarious that they clearly did something not 100% legal for the video. In any reasonable political climate, I would think all this fuss was ridiculous.
However, when Labour is being accused of promoting a violent culture solely because Trevor ‘Angry’ Mallard socked Tau ‘Angry’ Henare, and idiots on the right of the political spectrum are saying that New Zealand is descending into a fascist/communist/nazi/homosexual/labour etc dictatorship, I think it’s totally warranted to abuse National about this sort of dodgy stuff.
After all, isn’t Helen Clark a terrible criminal for signing that painting? Isn’t John Key just as bad for flogging off someone else’s music?
December 1st, 2007 at 4:02 pm
SR – the DVD was a mass-produced promotional advert for Key and the National party, not some altruistic “public service announcement” – don’t be cute. Anyway, we may well see this settled in court. As I’ve said – it’s going to be interesting.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:05 pm
roger: I doubt it very much. But then again, I didn’t think anybody would be stupid enough to take a court case out against Mallard, so who knows.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:07 pm
I’m a muso. I’ve listened to both the recordings and while the chords may be sound the same they are different and the arpeggio is played quite differently with the bottom note accented not the top note. We’re only talking a few chords here. Also, there is no singing in the Key DVD and ‘Clocks’ is a song not an instrumental. I don’t think a case for copyright infringement would stand up.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:08 pm
What this video does not show is that John Key sniffs vegetables before buying them.
A vegetable sniffer as Prime Minister? I don’t think so. What an embarassment to all New Zealanders. If John Key becomes PM we won’t just be sheep-shaggers – we will be vegetable-sniffing sheep-shaggers.
How embarassing!
December 1st, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Roger, if this is the sort of thing that you find interesting then we really are stuffed. NZ is adrift, rudderless and without power while captain clark thrashes the crew and passengers. and you’re interested in a piss-weak allegation of copyright violation?!? ask for a new script. this one is worn out.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Coldplay supported the tories, so Chris Martin is not likely to have any ideological problems with the Nats using a sound-alike:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1744447,00.html
December 1st, 2007 at 4:13 pm
“We’re only talking a few chords here. Also, there is no singing in the Key DVD and ‘Clocks’ is a song not an instrumental”
Your opinion against a musicologist hey kent? hmmm, tough choice?
December 1st, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Does anyone remember this:
http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2005/11/madonna-found-guilty-of-copyright.html
A lazy link, I know… but it provides an interesting context for this discussion.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Kent – Please correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t EMI own the rights to the music – not Martin?
December 1st, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Kent – Please check the date on that story. I didn’t trust National before this and I don’t trust them now. They may pay lipservice to property rights but this shows they are charlatons. The right deserves better.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:22 pm
roger nome said “As I’ve said – it’s going to be interesting.”
roger – since when has anything you’ve said been remotely interesting.
BTW – I hear that a complaint has been lodged with the Ministry of Commerce about a Fair Trading Act breach on the 2005 pledge card. Someone is complaining that the photo on the card is not a true likeness of the PM – did Helen pay royalites to the “face-double”?
December 1st, 2007 at 4:30 pm
STOP THE PRESS.
Look at this BLATANT rip off of Oasis’s “wonderwall” from a labour campaign in 2002.
I have listened to it twice (my mate Arthur says I know a thing or two a bout music), and I can’t tell the difference.
There is a guitar, it’s being strummed, the time is 4/4 and the chords are nearly identical, save a minor alteration.
the horror….oh the horror!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yK9kWwSacFc
December 1st, 2007 at 4:34 pm
boomtownprat:
Your mate “Arthur” is presumably a musicologist then?
December 1st, 2007 at 4:36 pm
BTW – it sounds nothing like “wonder wall” you twerp, and I’ll give you $100 if you can find a musicologist that will publicly stake their reputation on asserting that it does.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Yes Roger, he is…do you know him.
In fact he knows Chris martin and use to babysit Graeme Downes kids and at night he turns into the fucking tooth fairy!!
Twat
December 1st, 2007 at 4:38 pm
oh dear – you are wel named Mr Prat.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Yer probably right there. In fact, I think if you are going to cover a song, you don’t need permission, you just have to pay the fee:
That’s from http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a951027.html
For info on the various rights connected with music have a read of this article concerning Beatles back catalogue
http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/jackson.asp
December 1st, 2007 at 4:43 pm
This is just so typical of the barren of ideas left. They won’t ever argue on policy. The Nats/ John Key tried to sleaze out of paying royalties. Don Brash met with the Brethren. George Bush lied about WMD. John Howard lied about kids being thrown overboard. There always has to be something to distract from the main issue- policy. Because the left know that on policy, they will always lose.
…and you know what the worst of it is?? The friggin dimbulb right who always go for the bait. Fuck the left and their pissant never ending false allegations. Ignore them. They’ve got nothing. They’ve always got nothing.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:46 pm
But everyones the left, so who do you turn to???
December 1st, 2007 at 4:50 pm
“But everyones the left, so who do you turn to???”
Why his soul-mate dad4justice of course!
December 1st, 2007 at 4:52 pm
“One of JK’s main themes is that NZ has lots of unrealised potential.”
And that potential’s going to remain unrealised while JK and his mates are happy to engage a musical plagiarist to provide the theme song to his platitudinous observations.
Sorry, guys, but the issue of potential copyright infringement is a major head-office stuff-up, as DF acknowledges, and that’s the real message from this DVD.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:56 pm
redbaiter you buffoon:
Yes – lets talk about less tivial things like National Party policy. One problem there – the National Party have no policy.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:05 pm
roger gnomer – do you yearn miss hinshitmoo and idiotboy at night time ?
December 1st, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Thats a trifecta insult – game over – goodbye suckhole sewer rats !!
December 1st, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Does anything you type ever make any sense D4J?
December 1st, 2007 at 5:24 pm
No comment .
Bye – bye – do have a good evening . Must go .
December 1st, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Roger – who was the woman on the 2005 Pledge Card? And was she aware that her likeness was being used to (mis) represent a troll?
If so, was a fee paid?
December 1st, 2007 at 6:58 pm
so when roger says
“the DVD was a mass-produced promotional advert for Key and the National party, not some altruistic “public service announcement” “, does he understand that there are those who see altruistic “public service announcements” for things like kiwisaver and WFF as promotional adverts for Labour?
Think on that Roger.
December 1st, 2007 at 7:27 pm
I quess we should be grateful Dear Leader puts her name on paintings instead of songs. And if she did just imagine the neat tittles she could have put her name to, “send In the clowns”, “you won’t find another fool like me”, “got you by the balls (acdc)”, “these boots were made for walking”, “its only make believe” but the one I would really like to see her name on “take this job and shove it”.
December 1st, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Boomtown..-It seems the left must be really struggling for traction if the best they can do is feign disgust at the use of a twenty second muzak track based on a crap song from a B grade english pop band!
Yeah, dead right. Mind you what can the leftist nitwits do, Key plays solid defence i.e. he leaves few holes.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:07 pm
I think this “Coldplay” issue is amazing. It’s absurd that so many people on the right have no idea about music “copyright” laws; laws that have prevailed for decades. It’s amazing the so called party of “business” stumble into one of the most fundamental business principles of the music industry, “No Plagiarism”. ……and then idiots call it a piffling matter. A billion dollar publishing industry we’re talking here; let alone the disgusting connection of a prominent leftwing artist to a right wing politician,( for that record Coldplay are hardly my favorite band.) Read up on business law before you post.
p.s there are very few rightwing artists, makes ya think. Good Art is protest. The first world right wing and their visonless future of striving hardworkers while the rich get richer nearly always is the subject of such protests. Get your own art.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:31 pm
JJ, you should also read before you post. Did you spot the link to the article to the guardian earlier in the thread, from an article in April of this year?
Here’s some of it.
************************************************************
“In a coup for the Conservatives, the lead singer of Coldplay, Chris Martin, has declared his backing for David Cameron, releasing a song that the party hopes will become the Tory answer to Labour’s 1997 anthem, Things Can Only Get Better.
“Dave really cares about the things I care about,” Martin, whose band has sold more than 17m albums worldwide, told the Guardian. “I’m afraid the same can’t be said of Tony Blair any more.”
************************************************************
Look for the link, give it a read. OH MY GOD JJ!!! A “left wing” artist supporting the CONSERVATIVES?
And anyhow, how does John Key using a 20 sec sound bite of something that resembles coldplay deprive Chris Martin of income?
Tell me JJ, is a coldplay fan not going to buy clocks because he might have heard something similar on John Key’s DVD? Is Apple Martin going without her organic treats because John Key wants to promote himself to the electorate?
Give me a break.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Slightyrighty/Kent Parker
The Guardian article is a well known April Fool’s joke. (Try unscrambling the reporter’s name).
Obviously you can fool some of the people some of the time …
December 1st, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Good one then.
But my question remains.
How does John Keys use of a 20 sec soundbite similar to but demonstrably not Clocks by Coldplay deprive Chris, Gwyneth and little Apple??
December 1st, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Thanks for my apology tightlyrighty.
Its called copyright law. You have to pay an artist you use (rip off). It’s not there to protect just Chris Martin or other millionaire artists , it’s there to protect the works of the people who created the product. Ya know business law. …or are you suggesting commercial law should just be enforced when “slightlyrightly” feels like it. This isn’t a netball club fundraiser , its a political propaganda video from a man who says his party is the natural party of business and law. It’s a shambles. National are always a shambles , meanwhile under Labour the “World Bank” calls us one of the easiset places to do business in the world. I want John Key to start talking real policy and its’ implications not about how he once pushed his sister through a door. …and I want business law respected , especially intellectual property.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:07 pm
“demonstrably not Clocks”
my sweet lord….he’s so fine….google both phrases, massive, massive legal precedents.
ya can’t rip someone off , business laws devised to reward and safeguard the producer.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Meanwhile under Labour our country stagnates while our democracy is set to become the most repressive in the world. Excellent. And we endure pithy chit chat about theme songs while Labour load the electoral dice. Filthy corruption !!
December 1st, 2007 at 9:26 pm
By bloody crikey, the use of well-known, or not well-known tunes, as advertising jingles, background music, et al., is commonplace. No story here JJ, sorry.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Dazzaman, the story is that we’re even entertaining such a non-discussion. It diverts attention away from our all powerful state gradually boiling the frog.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:31 pm
If you use music in an advertisement it cannot be exactly duplicated except with permission. I am not totally certain on this although the law may be similar to the use of print which is 10% of a publication along with reference & credit to author….not sure, took the copyright legislation paper a long time ago.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:31 pm
The music in the Key DVD sounds similar to “Clocks”, presumably intentionally. But you’d have to be deaf to confuse one for the other.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Roger KK, this thread is now dead for me! Adios
December 1st, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Come on David, kick your mates in the party
up the arse, all voters were not born after 67.
Tell them to buy or steal some decent music,
might I suggest a band with god on the lead
guitar.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:54 pm
I don’t think they could afford Eric Clapton.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:59 pm
KrazyKiwi:
Thanks for the link. But there’s really nothing to worry about:
So there – you have it from Dr Cullen.
More seriously, I’m interested to know how many countries are listed on the UN Development Programme’s Human Development Index. Hopefully we’ll be in the top half – to match Labour’s ambition to be in the top half of the OECD countries. Oh hold on.
December 1st, 2007 at 10:30 pm
OT: Peak, Think there are 177 countries on that index. Couldn’t find the index itself… just google references.
Also Nationmaster has all sorts of interesting statistical info by country.
December 1st, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Thanks KrazyKiwi.
I realise my post was off-topic, but figured this thread was pretty much dead anyway.
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:59 am
Thread dead or not.
Wo, I was suckered!! And the photo is definitely a composite too? I’m surprised the guardian has left it sitting there.
From wikipedia:
December 2nd, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Kia ora fullas, I’ve been away this weekend but it looks like you’ve been having fun.
IP, you say “At best they’ve got a few lines in the Herald” – it was on the front page mate, so get your facts straight.
David, you say “the music used in National’s DVD about John Key may be similiar enough to Coldplay’s Clocks to infringe copyright”.
We’ve put the two together over at the standard, and the evidence is pretty damning:
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=788
Keep spinning guys, it’s good for a laugh. I’m off to get drunk in the sun.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:51 am
The Standard can’t stand the idea that John Key is thrashing Helen in the polls. Instead they engage in dirty tricks to try and undermine the message. It isn’t working.
This seems to be the case indeed.
The recording studio manager I queried about this has indicated he would be available for comment regarding this, seeing as he’s had politicans contact him regarding this. If you wish to personally contact him, he is happy for you to do so to get a professional opinion on the similarity of the songs.
Contact me if you need his details.
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:41 am
i just posted this at the Standard. Lets see how long they leave it there.
PhilBest
Dec 3rd, 2007 at 11:30 am
The only people making any sense here are Dean and the others who actually know a bit about music.
“Clocks” by Coldplay, consists of one four-bar chord sequence: Tonic; Dominant minor; Dominant minor (again), Supertonic Minor.
And that’s it, for several mind-numbing minutes, which is how anyone with any REAL musical taste will regard any Coldplay song.
There have been ample legal precedents for what does or doesn’t constitute a breach of copyright on a song. The song “My Sweet Lord” by George Harrison, was held to be identical, over a reasonably long and distinctive sequence of chord changes and melody, to “He’s So Fine”, by the Drifters. Harrison himself agreed with the verdict, although most people were prepared to accept his assertion that the original song must have been in his subconscious since childhood, and his “plagiarisation” was unintentional. It would be unthinkable for artists of Harrison’s status to do this sort of thing deliberately.
A similar situation occurred with “Feelings” – identical to an earlier song called “Dime”. However, someone who had a go at the BeeGees over “How deep is your love” did not succeed, only because of a very minor difference.
Now in the case of the above songs, they were quite distictive regarding both chord sequence and melody, over as much as sixteen consecutive different chords. No-one has EVER established a legal copyright over a sequence of 3 chords. The legal precedents involve that this would be impossible and ridiculous. Could someone copyright the chord sequence for “Happy Birthday to You”? Or establish a copyright over the idea of painting a bowl of fruit, not just one particular painting, but of any painting of ANY bowl of fruit?
The riff in the John Key video is NOT “Clocks”, performed by Coldplay. It is the same chord sequence, played on different instruments and with a duple bicord rythmic motive instead of a 3-note arpeggio. That is different enough for the purposes of this debate. The “Auckland artist” may well have known what he was doing.
Graeme Downes might like to make a fool of himself over this, as of course it is a typical leftist ploy to extract mileage out of a framed-up political charge in the knowledge that by the time the record has been set straight, the ignorant public has well and truly got the false idea embedded in their tiny minds. (Like “Bush Lied”, same sort of thing.)
Chris Martin of Coldplay would be very, very stupid indeed to buy into this, because the same precedents that would protect the John Key video, protect Chris Martin himself from being sued over “Clocks” itself, as the clear-headed “Dean” has pointed out above. The examples given by Dean are all comparatively recent, and I have no doubt that musicologists that go back further will be able to trot out dozens of such examples, where the “Clocks” theme has BEEN DONE BEFORE.
Any real music buff is just plain derisive of how the pop music industry recycles the most inane catchy themes over and over for the ignorant teenagers and the tin-eared rockers. I always thought that people on the the hard left were frequently devoid of 1: Faith in a supreme being, and 2: a sense of humour. Now, I seem to find, they’re musical dumb-arses too.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Heh heh heh . . .
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:49 pm
wow, thanks dim, I had missed Philbests post, kind of says it all.
December 4th, 2007 at 6:30 am
Phil (from here on in shall be known as Party Political Broadcaster).
wow, where to start.
“No-one has EVER established a legal copyright over a sequence of 3 chords.”
Don’t know the answer, do you (or just hot air). But Carter USM had their asses sued when they used just 3 words “goodbye Ruby Tuesday”. The Rolling Stones Record company came down on them like a ton of bricks and Carter USM lost mega dollars. Despite those 3 words being buried in the middle of a song with nothing to do about the Rolling Stones or any of their subject matter.
“musical dumb-arses” Mate you look like such a dick-head with all of the above comments. “ignorant teenagers and the tin-eared rockers.” Far better if there was a little Shostakovich eh.
“BEEN DONE BEFORE” Yes maybe, but then they probably paid the copyright.
Your party political broadcast just seems so silly (if not a little brave in the face of the overwhelming evidence). Attack possibly the finest musician in NZ history.
“Happy Birthday to You” is actually copyrighted, just nobody pays it. Next point?
“Any real music buff is just plain derisive of how the pop music industry recycles the most inane catchy themes over and over” So the pop industry is inane. I’d say they are dam canny businesses. Are you singing the “I know art, and this ain’t art” line. Rather thin line of argument.
Their production company copied Clocks and nobody in Key’s staff picked it. Either they are all old farts or they didn’t care. Didn’t someone say to him “John how much did you pay for Coldplay – what a coup”.
GST and Copyright are not small matters and National has proven that it doesn’t understand either.