I'm going to tell you a true story, but instead of the name of the protagonist, think about your favorite artist. Think about your favorite musician, and think about your favorite song by that musician. Think about them bringing that song from nothing to something into your ears and bringing you so much joy.
Os voy a contar una historia real, pero en lugar del nombre del protagonista, pensad en un artista. Pensad en vuestro músico favorito, y pensad en la canción favorita de ese músico. Pensad en cómo de la nada crean una canción que os trae mucha felicidad.
Now think about your favorite musician getting sued, and that lawyer saying, "I represent this group. I think you heard their song and then you wrote yours. You violated their copyright."
Ahora imaginad a vuestro músico demandado y al abogado diciendo, “Represento este grupo. Has escuchado su canción y después has escrito la tuya. Has infringido su copyright”.
And imagine your musician saying, "No, it's not true. I don't think I've ever heard that song. But even if I did, I certainly wasn't thinking about them when I made my song."
Vuestro músico dice, “No, no es cierto. Creo que nunca he escuchado esa canción. Y aunque lo hiciera, no estaba pensando en ellos cuando estaba creando la mía”.
Imagine the case going to trial and a judge saying, "I believe you, I don't think you consciously copied that group. But what I think did happen is you subconsciously copied them. You violated the copyright, and you have to pay them a lot of money.”
Imaginad el caso llevado a juicio y un juez diciendo, “Te creo, no creo que les copiaste conscientemente. Pero creo que les copiaste de forma subconsciente.
Think about whether that's fair or just.
Has violado el copyright, y tendrás que pagar mucho dinero”.
This actually happened to George Harrison, the lead guitarist of The Beatles, and the group was The Chiffons, who's had a song "He's so fine, oh so fine." And George Harrison had a song, "My sweet Lord, oh, sweet Lord." But what neither George Harrison nor The Chiffons nor the judge, really, nor anybody else had considered, is maybe since the beginning of time, the number of melodies is remarkably finite. Maybe there are only so many melodies in this world. And The Chiffons, when they picked their melody, plucked it from that already existing finite melodic data set. And George Harrison happened to have plucked the same melody from that same finite melodic data set.
Pensad si es justo. Pues esto le pasó a George Harrison, el guitarrista de Los Beatles, y el grupo fue The Chiffons, que tenían una canción llamada “He’s so fine, oh so fine.” Y George Harrison tenía, “My sweet Lord, oh, sweet Lord”. Pero lo que realmente George Harrison ni The Chiffons ni el juez ni nadie consideró es que, quizás desde el comienzo de los tiempos, el número de melodías es notablemente finito. Quizás no hay muchas melodías en este mundo. Y The Chiffons, cuando eligieron su melodía, la cogieron de esa base ya existente de melodías finitas. Y George Harrison por casualidad eligió la misma melodía del repertorio de melodías finitas.
This is a different way of thinking about music in a way that judges and lawyers nor musicians have thought about. Because when those groups have thought about musicians, they think about them drawing from their own creative wellspring, bringing from nothing, something into the world. They have a blank page upon which they can put their creativity. That's actually not true. As George Harrison realized, you have to avoid every song that's ever been written, because if you don't, you get sued. If you're lucky, you pluck one of those already existing melodies that hasn't been taken. If you're unlucky, you pluck a melody that's already been taken. Whether you've heard that song or not, maybe you've never heard it before. If that happens, if you're lucky, you have a co-songwriter or somebody who says, that new song sounds a lot like that old song. And you change it before it goes out the door. Now, if you're unlucky, you don't have somebody telling you that, you release it out in the world, the group hears your song and they sue you for a song maybe that you've never heard before in your life. You've just stepped on a melodic landmine.
Esto es una manera diferente de ver la música de una manera que los abogados, jueces y cantantes no han visto. Porque cuando esos grupos pensaron en músicos, pensaron en ellos cogiendo de su propia fuente creativa, trayendo de la nada algo al mundo. Tienen una página en blanco donde pueden ser creativos. Esto no es cierto. George Harrison se percató de que tienes que evitar cada canción que ha sido escrita, porque si no, te demandan. Si tienes suerte, escoges una de esas canciones existentes sin elegir. Si no tienes suerte, coges una canción ya elegida. Si has escuchado una canción o no, igual no la has escuchado antes Si eso pasa, tienes suerte, tienes un co-compositor o alguien que te dice, que esa nueva canción se parece a una vieja. Y la cambias antes de que salga. Ahora, si no tienes suerte, no tienes a nadie que te lo diga, la sacas al mundo, el grupo escucha la canción y te demanda por una canción que quizás no has escuchado en tu vida. Has pisado un campo de minas melódico.
The thing is, this is the world before my colleague, Noah Rubin, and I have started our project. The world now looks like this. We filled in every melody that's ever existed and ever can exist. Every step is going to be a melodic landmine. And ironically, this is actually trying to help songwriters. Let me tell you how.
Así era el mundo antes de que mi compañero, Noah Rubin, y yo empezáramos nuestro proyecto. El mundo es ahora así. Hemos llenado cada canción existente y por existir. Cada paso es un campo de minas melódico. E irónicamente, esto está intentando ayudar a los compositores. Dejadme que os explique.
I'm a lawyer. I've been a lawyer since 2002. I've litigated copyright cases, I've taught law school copyright cases. I'm also a musician. I have a bachelor’s degree in music, I’m a performer, I'm a recording artist, and I also produce records. I'm also a technologist. I've been coding since 1985, for the web since '95. I’ve done cybersecurity, and I also currently design software. So that puts me right in the middle of a Venn diagram that gives me a few insights that if I were in any one of those areas I might not have had. And my colleague Noah Rubin, in addition to being one of the smartest people I've ever known, he's also a musician, and he's also one of the most brilliant programmers I've known. And between our work, we came to a realization that you may have had saying, "You know that new song? It sounds a lot like this other old song." And there's a reason for that. We've discovered that there is only so many melodies, there are only so many notes that can be arranged in so many ways. And that's different than visual art, where they're an infinite number of brushstrokes, colors and subjects that to accidentally do them is very difficult. Similarly with language, the English language has 117,000 words in it, so the odds of accidentally writing the same paragraph are next to zero. In contrast, music doesn't have 117,000 words. Music has eight notes. Do, Re, Mi, Fa, Sol, La, Ti, Do. One two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. And every popular melody that's ever existed and ever can exist is those eight notes.
Soy abogado. Soy abogado desde 2002. He llevado casos de copyright, los he enseñado en la universidad. También soy músico. Tengo una carrera en música, actúo, Tengo discos y también los produzco. También soy tecnólogo. Llevo codificando desde 1985, online desde el 95. He hecho ciberseguridad, y actualmente diseño software. Esto me coloca en medio de un diagrama de Venn que me da puntos de vista que si estuviera solo en uno de esos campos no hubiera tenido. Y mi compañero Noah Rubin, además de ser una de las personas más inteligentes que conozco, también es músico, y también es uno de los mejores programadores que conozco. Y en nuestro trabajo, nos dimos cuenta de que habréis dicho, “¿Conoces esta canción? Suena parecido a una canción vieja”. Y hay un motivo para eso. Hemos descubierto que hay melodías, que hay notas que se pueden ordenar de muchas maneras. Y es diferente al arte visual, donde hay un número infinito de brochadas, colores y temas que hacerlos de forma accidental es complicado. Lo mismo con la lengua, el inglés tiene 117.000 palabras, así que las probabilidades de escribir el mismo párrafo son casi cero. De lo contrario, la música no tiene 117 000 palabras. La música tiene ocho notas. Do, Re, Mi, Fa, Sol, La, Si, Do. Uno, dos, tres, cuatro, cinco, seis, siete, ocho. Y cada canción popular existente y por existir tiene esas ocho notas.
Now, it's remarkably small. I worked in cybersecurity, and I know if I wanted to attack your password and hack your password, one way to do it is to use a computer to really quickly say aaaa. No? Aab, aac, And to keep running until it hits your password. That's called brute-forcing a password. So I thought, what if you could brute force melodies? What if you could say, Do-Do-Do-Do, Do-Do-Do-Re, Do-Do-Do-Mi. And then exhaust every melody that's ever been. And the way the computers read music is called MIDI. And in MIDI it looks like this Do-Do-Do-Do, Do-Do-Do-Re.
Eso es muy poco. He trabajado en ciberseguridad, y sé que si quisiera atacar y hackear tu contraseña, una forma de hacerlo sería usar tu ordenador y poner aaaa, ¿no? Aab, aac, ... Y así hasta dar con la contraseña. A esto se le llama fuerza bruta. ¿Y si pudieras usar la fuerza bruta con las canciones? Y si pudieras decir, Do-Do-Do-Do, Do-Do-Do-Re, Do-Do-Do-Mi. Y agotar todas las canciones que han existido. Y los ordenadores leen música a través de MIDI. Y en MIDI es así Do-Do-Do-Do, Do-Do-Do-Re.
So I approached my colleague Noah, I said, Noah, can you write an algorithm to be able to march through every melody that's ever existed and ever can exist?
Así que le dije a mi compañero Noah, Noah, ¿podrías escribir un algoritmo donde podrías recorrer cada canción existente y por existir?
He said, "Yeah, I could do that."
Me dijo, “Sí, podría hacerlo.”
So at a rate of 300,000 melodies per second, he wrote a program to write to disk every melody that's ever existed and ever can exist. And in my hand right now is every melody that's ever existed and ever can exist. And the thing is, to be copyrighted, you don't have to do anything formal. As soon as it's written to a fixed, tangible medium, this hard drive, it's copyrighted automatically.
En un ratio de 300 000 canciones por segundo, escribió un programa para escribir cada melodía existente y por existir. Y aquí tengo cada canción existente y por existir. Y la cosa es que, para tener copyright, no tienes que hacer nada formal. Si está escrito en un medio fijo, tangible, como este disco duro, automáticamente tiene copyright.
Now, this leaves copyright law with a very interesting question, because you think about the world before and songwriters had to avoid every song that's ever been written, in red. Noah and I have exhausted the entire melodic copyright. So if you superimpose the songs that have been written, in red, with the songs that haven't yet been written, you have an interesting question: Have we infringed every melody that's ever been? And in the future, every songwriter that writes in the green spots, have they infringed us?
Esto nos deja con una pregunta interesante acerca de la ley de copyright, porque en el mundo de antes los compositores tenían que evitar las canciones escritas antes, en rojo. Noah y yo hemos agotado todo el copyright melódico existente. Si superponemos las canciones que han sido escritas, en rojo, a las canciones todavía sin escribir, se plantea una pregunta: ¿Hemos infringido cada melodía existente? Y en el futuro, cada compositor que escribe en los huecos verdes, nos ha infringido?
Now, you might think at this point, are you some sort of copyright troll that's trying to take over the world? And I would say, no, absolutely not. In fact, the opposite is true. Noah and I are songwriters ourselves. We want to make the world better for songwriters. So what we've done is we're taking everything and putting it in the public domain. We're trying to keep space open for songwriters to be able to make music. And we're not focused on the lyrics, we're not focused on recording, we're focused on melodies. And the thing is, we're running out of melodies that we can use. The copyright system is broken and it needs updating.
Ahora, igual pensáis, ¿eres algún tipo de troll del copyright que quiere dominar el mundo? Y diré no, absolutamente no. De hecho, soy lo contrario. Noah y yo somos compositores. Queremos mejorar el mundo para los compositores. Así que lo que hemos hecho es coger todo y ponerlo en dominio público. Abrimos espacios para que los compositores puedan hacer música. Y no nos centramos en la letra, no nos centramos en la grabación, sino en las melodías. Y la cosa es que apenas nos quedan melodías por usar. El copyright está roto y necesita actualizarse.
Some of the insights that we've received as part of our work is that melodies to a computer are just numbers because those melodies have existed since the beginning of time, and we're only just discovering them. So the melody Do-Re-Mi-Re-Do to a computer is literally 1-2-3-2-1. So really the number 1-2-3-2-1 is just a number. It's just math that's been existing since the beginning of time. And under the copyright laws, numbers are facts. And under copyright law, facts either have thin copyright, almost no copyright or no copyright at all. So maybe if these numbers have existed since the beginning of time where we're just plucking them out, maybe melodies are just math, which is just facts, which maybe are not copyrightable. Maybe if somebody's suing over a melody alone, not lyrics, not recordings, but just the melody alone, maybe those cases go away. Maybe they get dismissed.
Algo que hemos descubierto como parte de nuestro trabajo es que las melodías para un ordenador son números porque esas melodías han existido desde el comienzo de los tiempos, y ahora estamos descubriéndolas. Así la melodía Do-Re-Mi-Re-Do para un ordenador es 1-2-3-2-1. Así que realmente el número 1-2-3-2-1 es sólo un número. Son mates que han existido desde el comienzo de los tiempos. Y bajo las leyes de copyright, los números son hechos. Y bajo la ley de copyright, los hechos tienen algo de copyright, apenas copyright o no copyright. Así que si los números han existido desde el principio, cuando estamos escogiéndolos, quizás las melodías son solo mates, que son hechos, que no pueden tener copyright. Quizás si alguien demanda solo por la melodía, no por la letra, la producción, solo la melodía, quizás esos casos se eliminan. Quizás son desestimados.
Now you might say, well, what constitutes a melody? And we were initially going to take the entire piano keyboard and be able to do the entire keyboard. But we thought, let's focus on the vocal range, which is actually two octaves. And then we thought, no, actually we're thinking about pop music, which is the only thing that makes money that people sue over. So we looked at musicologists, and they have debated what is a motif, a short melody versus a longer melody. And we landed with 12 notes. And then we superimposed that number with songs that have either been litigated or threatened to be litigated. For example, The Chiffons had “He’s so fine, oh so fine.” Versus “My sweet Lord, Oh, sweet Lord.” Eight notes.
Ahora os preguntaréis, ¿qué constituye una melodía? Y al principio íbamos a coger todo el teclado del piano y crear todo el teclado. Pero decidimos enfocarlo en el rango vocal que son dos octavas. Y después nos decantamos por la música pop, que es lo único que da dinero y por lo que la gente demanda. Hablamos con musicólogos, y debatieron sobre qué es un motivo, si una melodía corta o larga. Y dimos con 12 notas. Y después superpusimos ese número con las canciones que han sido demandadas o a punto de estarlo. Por ejemplo, The Chiffons tenían “He’s so fine, oh so fine”. Versus “My sweet Lord, Oh, sweet Lord.” Ocho notas.
Doo doo doo doo doo doo doo. (Laughter) Doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo. That's so close.
Doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo. (Risas) Doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo. Se parecen.
(Laughter)
(Risas)
"Oh, I won't back down. No, I won't back down." Versus “Won’t you stay with me 'cause you're all I need." Ten notes.
“Oh, I won’t back down. No, I won’t back down.” Versus “Won’t you stay with me ’cause you’re all I need”. Diez notas.
Doo doo doo doo, doo doo doo doo. Versus Katy Perry's Doo doo doo doo, doo doo doo, doo. Last two notes are different. The jury didn't care, 2.8 million dollars.
Doo doo doo doo, doo doo doo doo. Versus Katy Perry: Doo doo doo doo, doo doo doo, doo. Las notas son distintas. No importó, USD 2,8 millones.
Audience: Ooh.
Audiencia: Ooh.
DR: So every song within that is within our parameters of eight notes up, major and minor, 12 notes across. So what you see in red is every popular melody that's ever existed and ever can exist. So all Noah and I had to do is to be able to exhaust that remarkably finite, remarkably small data set. There aren't that many of them. Eight up, 12 across.
Cada canción en ese espacio entra en nuestro parámetro de 8 notas verticales, mayores y menores, 12 notas horizontales. Lo que véis en rojo es cada canción popular existente y por existir. Así que lo que teníamos que hacer Noah y yo era agotar esa base de datos notablemente finita, pequeña. No hay muchas. 8 verticales, 12 horizontales.
You might say, Damien, songs are more than just melodies, there's chords too. And I would totally agree with you because it turns out that that's even easier. In 2017, Peter Burkimsher exhausted every chord. You can download it today in GitHub. We're instead focused not on lyrics, not on recordings, we're focused on melodies. And the thing is, we're running out because the song isn't just a single melody, but there are many parts to a song, and each part of that song can have many motifs and melodies within it. So each song can have up to ten melodies and motifs. So SoundCloud, which is a way that musicians can upload to this website and distribute their work, SoundCloud currently has 200 million songs, and the number of open spaces is shrinking exponentially. Because every basement musician is recording, and they’re recording and they’re uploading it to YouTube, to Spotify and to SoundCloud. And they are exhausting the entire mathematical data set. They're exhausting the open spaces. until there are not going to be any more left. What Noah and I have done is we're trying to preserve those spots that are left. We're trying to be able to take those green spots, put them in the public domain so that other people can be able to make them. Because we're running out.
Igual decís, Damien, las canciones son más que melodías, son acordes también, Y estaría de acuerdo contigo porque es incluso más fácil. En 2017, Peter Burkimsher agotó cada acorde. Los podéis descargar en GitHub. No nos centramos en la letra, en la producción, nos centramos en las melodías. Las estamos agotando porque esta canción no es solo una melodía, hay muchas partes en una canción, y cada parte puede tener varios motivos y melodías. Así que cada canción puede tener hasta diez melodías y motivos. Así que SoundCloud, donde los músicos pueden subir y distribuir su trabajo, SoundCloud tiene 200 millones de canciones, y los espacios abiertos disminuyen exponencialmente. Porque cada músico pequeño graba, y lo graban y lo suben a Youtube, a Spotify y a SoundCloud. Y están agotando toda la base de datos matemática. Están agotando los espacios hasta que ya no haya. Noah y yo hemos intentado preservar los espacios que quedan. Estamos intentando coger esos espacios verdes, ponerlos en dominio público para que la gente pueda hacerlos. Porque se están agotando.
The thing is we're just getting started because if you go to our website, AllTheMusic.info, you can not only download all the music we've made, which is a lot, you can also download the program that we used, and we're giving away the code for free so you can expand upon our work. Something I didn't tell you is that those eight notes that we did, as we speak right now, we've expanded that to 12 notes. So instead of just the white notes, now we've got the black notes, too. So we're covering jazz, classical music, and we think it's only a matter of time before somebody is going to expand that to do the entire piano keyboard and take our 12 notes and expand it to 100 with every rhythmic variation and every chordal variation till our remarkably finite mathematical data set gets further exhausted.
Recién estamos empezando porque si vais a nuestra página web, AllTheMusic.info, no solo podréis descargar la música que hicimos, que es bastante, sino también el el programa que usamos, junto con el código gratis para que podáis expandir nuestro trabajo. Lo que no os he contado es que esas ocho notas que hicimos, mientras estamos hablando, las hemos expandido a 12. Así que no solo tenemos las notas blancas, sino también las negras. Así que tenemos jazz, música clásica, y creemos que solo es cuestión de tiempo hasta que alguien lo expanda hasta todo el teclado del piano y desde las 12 notas pase a las 100 con cada variación rítmica y cada variación de acorde hasta que nuestra base de datos finita se expanda.
This is going to happen. And the thing is, how is the law going to respond? Because the thing is, we're not focused on somebody copying a previous person's melody. We're focused instead on somebody accidentally copying a song that they either have heard and forgotten about or have never heard before in their lives. And the chance of landing in an open spot is remarkably small, and it's shrinking every day. And the thing is, the odds of you as a songwriter getting sued are remarkably high. And if you get sued, you're going want to think about what a judge or a jury is going to think about, and they are going to think about two questions. The first question is: Is that previous songwriter’s copyright valid? Do they even have a copyright in that previous song? Second question is: Did you infringe their copyright? So to the first question, maybe the answer to that is no, because if they're suing just over the melody, maybe that melody's existed since the beginning of time. Maybe there are only so many notes that are math, that are not copyrightable. To the second question did you infringe, there are two sub questions. The first question is: Did you access, did you hear that previous song? And if so, are those two songs substantially similar? Now the first question: Did you access or hear that previous song? That's got a lot of problems, it's really problematic. And the reason for that is there are only a few cases where access is crystal clear. For example, John Fogerty was alleged to have infringed John Fogerty when he was part of Creedence. So clearly John Fogerty had access to John Fogerty songs. On the opposite end of the spectrum, on no access, what if a baby were to sing into their toy? And again, as soon as the toy recorder happens, it's copyrighted automatically, it's a fixed, tangible medium. So if a baby starts singing Da da da da da, da da da da da da. And a year later, Taylor Swift sings, "I stay up too late. Got nothing in my brain." Clearly, Taylor Swift has not infringed that baby because Taylor Swift has not heard that baby's recording, OK? Clear case of no access.
Va a pasar. Y la cuestión es, ¿cómo va a responder la ley? No nos centramos en que alguien copie una melodía. Nos centramos en que alguien copia una canción que, o bien ha escuchado y olvidado, o que nunca ha escuchado en su vida. Y la posibilidad de encontrar un espacio abierto es pequeña, y disminuye cada día. Y la cosa es que, la probabilidad de que seas demandado como autor es alta. Y si te demandan, tendrás que pensar en lo que el juez o jurado van a pensar, y pensarán en dos preguntas. La primera pregunta es: ¿Es válido el copyright anterior? ¿Tienen siquiera copyright en esa canción anterior? La segunda pregunta es: ¿Has infringido su copyright? La respuesta a la primera pregunta, podría ser no, porque si se demanda solo por la melodía, igual esa melodía ha existido desde siempre. Igual solo hay notas que son mates, que no pueden tener copyright. A la segunda pregunta, hay dos sub preguntas. La primera pregunta es: ¿Has accedido o escuchado esa canción? Si es así, ¿se parecen esas canciones? La primera pregunta: ¿Has accedido o escuchado esa canción? Esa pregunta es realmente problemática. Y el motivo es que solo hay unos pocos casos donde el acceso es claro. Por ejemplo, John Fogerty supuestamente infringió a John Fogerty cuando fue parte de Creedence. Claramente John Fogerty tenía acceso a las canciones de John Fogerty. En el lado opuesto del espectro, sin acceso, ¿y si un bebé cantara en un juguete? En cuanto el juguete empiece a grabar, tiene automáticamente copyright, en un medio fijo, tangible. Si un bebé empieza a cantar Da da da da da, da da da da da da. Y un año después, Taylor Swift canta, “I stay up too late. Got nothing in my brain”. Claramente, Taylor Swift no ha infringido a ese bebé porque Taylor Swift no ha escuchado la grabación del bebé. Caso claro de sin acceso.
But the thing is, almost none of the cases are that clear. What if there's a question mark as to whether the second person heard it or not? Maybe they heard it, maybe they didn't. Maybe they heard it and forgot it. Maybe they subconsciously infringed. These are all what the law calls fact questions. And the thing is, almost every copyright case that comes out is a fact question. Almost never is it as clear as John Fogerty or as clear as Taylor Swift. Almost every case is that middle section, that fact question. And the hard part about fact questions is they're notoriously hard to resolve at an early stage in the case, because when you think about a life span of a lawsuit, it starts out as a cease and desist letter. You need to pay me or I'll sue you. It goes forward and it's going to take years. And the thing about fact questions, they don't get resolved until the end of that process. That's what happened to George Harrison. After trial, the judge said, "I think you subconsciously infringed."
Pero la cosa es, casi ningún caso es tan claro. ¿Y si sale la pregunta de si la segunda persona la ha escuchado o no? Quizás sí, quizás no. Quizás sí y lo olvidaron. Quizás infringieron sin querer. Estas se llaman preguntas de hecho. Casi cualquier caso de copyright es una pregunta de hecho. Casi nunca es tan claro como John Fogerty o como Taylor Swift. Casi cualquier caso es el medio, la pregunta de hecho. Y lo complicado de las preguntas de hecho es que son difíciles de resolver en el comienzo del caso, porque cuando piensas en la duración de una demanda, empiezan con un cese y desista. Tienes que pagarme o te demando. Sigue y tardará años. Y las preguntas de hecho, no se resuelven hasta el final del proceso. Es lo que le pasó a George Harrison. El juez dijo, “Has infringido de forma subconsciente”.
So if you're a songwriter who's never heard a melody before, but you are approached by somebody saying you stole their song, what are you going to do? Sam Smith was approached by Tom Petty. Tom Petty said, “My song ‘Won’t Back Down’ sounds like your ‘Stay with Me.’” Sam Smith reportedly responded, "Hey, man, I've never heard your song before. That was written before I was born." But if I was in Sam Smith’s position, I would look at this long road ahead of me and the prospect at the end of a judge saying, you know, "I think you subliminally infringed." So what are you going to do? It's not surprising that Sam Smith made Tom Petty a co-songwriter, giving Tom Petty a lot of his songwriting royalties.
Si eres un compositor que no ha escuchado una melodía, pero alguien te dice que has robado su canción, ¿qué harías? Sam Smith fue abordado por Tom Petty. Tom Petty dijo, “Mi ‘Won’t Back Down’ se parece a tu ‘Stay with Me’”. Sam Smith a eso contestó, “Tío, nunca he escuchado tu canción. Fue escrita antes de que naciera”. Pero si estuviera en el lugar de Sam Smith, miraría a este largo camino delante y el desenlace al final de un juez diciendo, “Has infringido de forma subliminal”. ¿Entonces qué harías? No sorprende que Tom Petty sea el co-compositor de Sam Smith, dándole a Tom Petty muchos derechos de compositor.
Radiohead had a song, "And I'm a creep. I'm a weirdo." The Hollies said, "Hey, that sounds like our song." They made them co-songwriters
Radiohead tenían una canción, “And I’m a creep. I’m a weirdo”. The Hollies dijeron, “Eso parece nuestra canción”. Fueron sus co-compositores.
Lana Del Rey ironically, had a song that sounds like "Creep." Offered to make them co-songwriters, reportedly.
Lana Del Rey irónicamente, tenía una canción llamada “Creep”. Les ofreció ser sus co-compositores.
Katy Perry had a song that she testified and all of her co-songwriters testified, "I have never heard that previous song before in my life" and the other side didn't dispute it. They say, "We have no evidence that they actually heard the song, but we did have three-point-some million YouTube views, so they must have heard it." A jury agreed with them and Katy Perry was on the hook for 2.8 million dollars.
Katy Perry tenía una canción que aseguró y todos sus compositores aseguraron, “No he escuchado esta canción en mi vida” y la otra parte no se lo discutió. Dijeron “No tenemos evidencias de que escucharon la canción, pero tiene tres millones de reproducciones en YouTube, así que la escucharon”. El jurado estuvo de acuerdo y Katy Perry pagó USD 2,8 millones.
Now, if you are an accused songwriter who's never heard the song before, that is an untenable position. How are you going to avoid getting shaken down for something that you may have never heard? Shouldn't there be an easier way? Shouldn't there be a way that early on in that process for a judge or a lawyer to be able to have an early evidentiary hearing to say maybe melodies are math, which are facts which are not copyrightable. Or maybe there's no evidence showing that this later person has heard the earlier person's song. Maybe the idea of subconscious infringement goes by.
Ahora, si eres un compositor acusado que nunca ha escuchado la canción, estás en una posición difícil. ¿Cómo vas a evitar que te la claven por algo que nunca has escuchado? ¿No hay una manera más fácil? ¿No habrá una manera de que al comienzo del proceso un juez o abogado pueda tener algunas pruebas de que las melodías son mates, son hechos y por tanto sin copyright? O quizás no hay evidencias de que una persona ha escuchado la canción de otra. Igual la idea de infracción subconsciente se elimina.
Now if you are a songwriter, you should really care about this because each day you are walking in a minefield that you didn't even know was there. You’re trying to avoid every song, whether you’ve heard that song or not. And Noah and I, we're trying to preserve those open spaces so that you can be able to make the music in the public domain in a way that you've always thought it. The question is not: “Have I made this new song or not?” Because no song is new. Noah and I have exhausted the data set. The real question: "Is my song a green song, or is my song a red song?" Or perhaps the real question is: Should you have the blank page that everybody thinks is there in the first place?
Si eres compositor esto te debería importar ya que cada día estás en un campo de minas que ni sabías que había. Intentas evitar cada canción, la hayas o no escuchado. Y Noah y yo estamos intentando preservar esos espacio abiertos para que puedas hacer música en el dominio público de la manera que siempre quisiste. La pregunta no es: “¿He creado esta canción nueva o no?” Porque no las hay. Noah y yo hemos agotado la base. La pregunta real es: “¿Mi canción es una canción verde o roja?” O quizás la pregunta real es: ¿Deberías tener la página en blanco que todos creen que está allí desde el principio?
If you're a judge or a lawyer, think about having an early evidentiary hearing to be able to take the evidenciary burden from the defendant to prove negative that they've never heard that song and bring it back to the plaintiff where it belongs, that they have to prove that the other side heard the song. And they have to prove that that melody is more than just a fact.
Si eres un juez o abogado, plantéate tener una audiencia preliminar para quitar el peso de las pruebas del acusado para negar que nunca ha escuchado dicha canción y devolverlas al demandante, dónde pertenecen, que tiene que probar que el acusado la escuchó. Y tienen que demostrar que la melodía es más que un hecho.
And if you are a song lover, you should really care about this because the current state has a chilling effect on songwriters. Something that I haven't told you is that George Harrison, after the trial, he stopped writing music for a while. He told "Rolling Stone" that, after the trial, "It's hard to start writing again because every song I hear sounds like something else." There's a reason for that, George. Because there are only so many notes. There are only so many melodies. And the open spaces are running out exponentially.
Y si te gustan las canciones, esto te debería importar porque el estado actual es catastrófico para los compositores. Lo que no os he contado es que George Harrison, después del juicio, dejó de escribir música. Contó a “Rolling Stone” que, “Es difícil volver a escribir porque cada canción suena a algo diferente”. Hay un motivo para eso, George. Porque no hay muchas notas. No hay muchas melodías. Y los espacios abiertos se van perdiendo.
Now, ironically, Noah and I have made all the melodies and put them into the public domain in an effort to try to give songwriters more freedom, to be able to make more and more music and less fear of accidentally stepping on musical landmines. Noah and I have made all the music to be able to allow future songwriters to make all of their music.
Noah y yo hemos creado todas las melodías y las hemos hecho públicas en un intento de dar mayor libertad a los autores, para crear más y más música y menos miedo de pisar en minas musicales. Noah y yo hemos creado toda la música para que los futuros compositores puedan crear toda su música.
Thank you.
Gracias.
(Applause)
(Aplausos)