Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.
What is Loopy Pro? — Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.
Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.
Download on the App StoreLoopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.
Maybe I'm going deaf, Maybe I'm going blind, Maybe I'm out of my mind- You guessed it Blurred Lines
Ok, I hate to bring such a gossipy topic to our well-mannered forums, but if I have my say almost anywhere else, I'd be banned in short order.
So, here's my take. Patent lawyers got handed a bit of a defeat from the U.S. Supreme Court this past year in regards to software patent validity. So, all of these slimy, mopey lawyers realizing they'll have to change their model or sell their yacht think, hey, what if we changed copyrights into virtual patents! Hey, a patent will only last 15 years while copyright lasts the life of the author plus 70 years for individuals, and 95 years for corporate created works! Wow, if we turn copyrights into patents… money, money, money!!!
Seriously, if this stands, I don't see how an audio preset on any instrument which gets used in two different songs won't be considered to be infringing by one of the parties, while neither of them created the preset in the first place. It's not like Marvin Gaye invented the instruments used on his tracks or the sounds they produce.
The US public are way too dumb to realize how quickly avenues of expression will be completely shut down if we go down this path, especially as labels who are corporate owners of work (corporation produced) will start squashing everything independent, and those mega-corps will be frothing at the mouth to do so, and their barren-soul cash-worshipping henchman lawyers will be more than happy to play the role of the reaper.
If not them, it will be someone's great grandson's girlfriend who wants their third Ferrari.
Fuck the cartels and the little shits trying to emulate them, and all the dumb fucking citizens who think they have the capacity to have an intelligent opinion when all they've done is fed on the shadow marketing through the media payed for by the damn cartels, their filthy lawyers, and the nitwit inheritance class just trying to "get theirs" by screwing anyone else who dares to create.
Pardon my language all, just had to clear my mind.
Finally, I hope Weird Al has all his ducks in a row and kept documentation of every approval he's ever gotten. He's sitting on the biggest landmine in music.
Comments
I'm guessing the Gaye estate will lose on appeal, because AFAIK you can only copyright a melody, not a beat or a vibe/sound. Otherwise all of music is in trouble, mind you you're quite right, if it stands the lawyers and rights holders can get rich(er) sitting on what they have.
I am not willing to go quite that far with that argument.
It's more than just the sounds use, but the melodies. I think, in the specific case of "Blurred Lines", there was an obvious lift of another song with no monetary gain for the original author. Samples generally have to be cleared in this world.
Where my own argument gets muddy, and where my worry lies, is the main argument Marvin Gaye's estate used to win this case. Which was that Robin Thicke had said in an interview that Marvin Gaye is a major influence and how much he loves "Got to Give it Up". That was the ultimate factor in the decision, and that's unfortunate. The case could have been made on the similarities of the songs, themselves (again, I'm focusing on both melodies and sounds used, and just this specific case). I have to think that there was a bit of deviousness in the studio when "Blurred Lines" was created, when debating just sampling the Marvin Gaye song, or "Hey, we'll replay it, slightly change it, and bam! No clearance issues!".
Also, with Weird Al and similar potential situations, I'm thinking there's going to be a sort of Statute of Limitations applied, even if it wouldn't be officially enacted.
What do you believe to be sampled? The cowbell? Cause I don't hear it.
As far as I know, the case has nothing to do with sampling. The sounds on the Gaye track aren't really fit for sampling.
He's not saying anything is sampled, but rather that they took some of the original music and changed it a little to record the track. Who knows? You could argue the bass line is similar, but it's not the same. I thought you had to have 8 consecutive notes that were identical in pitch and timing for it to be considered plagiarism, and I don't think this passes that test.
Pharrell is on the record as saying he was influenced by Marvin Gaye and that song in particular, but that's not the same as actually copying the tune. I still think that the decision will be reversed on appeal.
The cowbell part is no small part of that song, though...and no I don't think it was sampled.
edit: And sorry, to clarify, I don't think they sampled anything, as @richardyot said
This is what I was asking about Richardyot. I think you're right, this will be appealed since the Gaye family are supposedly going to try to take the track off the market.
This was comedy, right? SNL reference (sorry, mandatory to ask when cowbells are involved)?
A swing beat on a cowbell was novel enough to claim infringement?
That's completely treating copyright like a patent if that is the case.
If they didn't use the exact same cowbell, or a sample of it, or even the same timing or tempo EXACTLY, then how could it possibly infringe?
We have a US populace which has somehow been brainwashed into believing that anyone can truly ever invent something completely new without standing on any other thought or invention created in the history of mankind. It's idiotic and baffling, though predictable, because this is the psychology corporations are relentlessly marketing to them.
I already said the cowbell's not the only part...and I'm not Marvin Gaye's estate so I'm not here to point out similarities.
Would you argue that "Ice Ice Baby" is not ripping off "Under Pressure"?
"If they didn't use the exact same cowbell, or a sample of it, or even the same timing or tempo EXACTLY, then how could it possibly infringe?"
That is the same argument Vanilla Ice used:
Again, Vanilla Ice is telling you specifically that he "sampled" it. What he is saying is that they sampled the audio, as in made a copy of the actual audio, sliced it, but did a different timing in a sequencer.
That is not the case here. Sampling has no part in this, and I'm not understanding why you are trying to mix the two.
Ice Ice Baby is a much clearer cut case than this one though, IMO at least.
Yeah, he obviously infringed on the sample, as did everyone else in rap during that era from Beastie Boys to Dre.
But this isn't a "sampling" case, so…
The reason I'm bringing sampling into this is because there are a lot of artists that want to use someone else's song when writing their own stuff, but don't want to pay the original artist for it. What a lot of these people will do is just recreate the song themselves in the studio to call it an original composition and try to claim no similarity to the original piece. This has happened many times and there have been court cases from it.
To me, that appears to be what happened in the case of "Blurred Lines" and I do think it's a conscious ripoff of "Got to Give it Up". How "exact" they are side-by-side isn't what I'd stress. For lack of a better term, it's a "vibe". I do think Marvin Gaye's estate had a valid claim. I don't agree with every aspect of the case, and I'd consider the monetary penalty to be quite exorbitant.
So who can put out a record with a similar "groove" to anyone else then? If that is really the case, I hope some jazz artists come out and swipe the Gaye family of all their ill-begotten gains. Those "grooves" existed long before that track came into existence.
Do you honestly believe Gaye invented that "groove"? That he wasn't inspired by someone else which he used to make that track?
Do you honestly believe he created that out of thin air?
Entire genres will be dead within a month if this type of BS goes unchecked.
The joke going around guitar forums is that the family with the rights to the oldest copyrighted 12-bar Blues recording will put all Guitar Centers out of business.
But that's not something that can be copyrighted - and rightly so, music would grind to a halt.
But it's something that can be argued in a civil court with better vocabulary to have more credence
EDM would be soooo toast!
You are implying way too much with my words...
I didn't say Marvin Gaye "invented" anything. Songwriting is not inventing and I never implied anything even close to that.
"Entire genres will be dead within a month if this type of BS goes unchecked."
This is hyperbole.
Not even close to hyperbole. Currently 6 billion + people on earth and anyone of them can own a timing and tempo apparently.
I call swing at 103 BPM!!!
You are going to come up with a new enough "groove" to make a living, when you're not just competing with the 6 billion+, but with those who aren't living as well through copyright "groove patents"?
6 billion grooves…
I like how we'd have the wonderful opportunity to play the lottery on new "groove" creation before releasing a track commercially.
There's really too many repercussions to count, but it really only will hit independent musicians who attempt to make a living through music, and sadly a lot of people are ok with that.
In a month? Ok...
Not typically very thin skinned, but comments like "The US public are way too dumb" rub me the wrong way. Sure, we have our share, but we're far from having a monopoly.
Interesting debate. It seems to be written in stone that a tune, and or words to a song can be copyrighted, but a 'style' or 'feel' is less protected. For example if someone like me was to recreate similar sounds to the instrumentation used in Kraftwerks Autobahn for example, perfectly do-able, even on an old iPad, and used them to put together a Kraftwerk style tune I'd probably get away with it. Like all the other Kraftwerk copyists. Yet it's undeniably their 'vibe' and something they put a lot of work into creating. Why should that be any less protected than some teddy boy who's spent half an hour stringing a few chords and words together? Why should any music be protected? After all in the visual arts you can create a copy of a painting without fear of prosecution, so long as you don't pass it off as the original.
And yet Daft Punk continues to rake in millions re-releasing other people's music under their own name.
If it goes unchecked, yes. It's known as the chilling effect on free expression. If a person can't aspire to make something because they will likely be sued if they succeed with it, they may reasonably not create something at all, because it would be expected that they had to invent something out of thin air, which no one has ever done in the history of the world.
I personally think it's ridiculous and quite hyperbolic to believe that no one will be comfortable making music anymore because they're afraid of potential litigation. I know the outcome of this case has absolutely zero bearing on my life or goals as a musician, regardless of any similarities someone may find between anything I make and anything else.
I don't really have anything else to add to this discussion though. I've made my thoughts known.
Are you a musician selling recordings? This could effect things, especially if not appealed.
I have no idea why you feel the need to be rude in this thread.
Sorry, realized I didn't originally write it correctly. My point was I am finding that the divide on most production forums is between those who sell recordings and those who don't.
I'm taking a break for awhile too, to see what else gets added to the discussion.
the most disturbing thing here... I did not realized Vanilla Ice was CGI !
And I hope he patented that hair.
I think this is bullshit. Pharell Williams is a creative musician without needing to pinch other peoples grooves. I find it really hard to imagine him sitting down listening to Gaye trying to get 'inspired'. To me, the feel is definitely similar with cowbells and bassline which by itself already would make someone notice the similarity. As far as the rest of the song it is totally vague. I don't know why but I can't help cringing when I see Gaye family punching the air. I hope there's an appeal otherwise we'll all need to invent our own genre in order to publish music without fear.
A friend recently texted me telling that a candy song in the new Legends of Oz movie is soooo like one of my tunes. Turned out that my song is called Candyman and the movie tune is about candy and lists all the candy types monosyllables to the rhythm of the groove. To be it was an obvious choice for that kind of stuff and even if I wrote the song 10 years ago I would never dream of accusing anyone even of there is a very good chance there's famous writers scanning SoundCloud to pinch ideas from musical nobodies. In fact that would be an ideal way for mr Williams to get away with nicking stuff, which I really don't think has happened.
Just my 5c
I don't think there's ANY doubt that the song in question is (at best) a "tribute" to "Got to Give it Up." They haven't tried to disguise that fact either.
Were they wrong? Only in the sense that it has made playing gigs miserable for about 5 minutes each night when that song is called... ;-)
But then again, no worse than many other songs that seem to please a crowd. It is one of the jobs I chose, its not the worst problem in the world. But I will stand by my statement that I despise it. Those involved in making it aren't too worried about my opinion I'm sure.