Katy Perry plagiarism verdict overturned on appeal

Daryl

Senior Member
Lawyers are not to blame here. They are not the ones who brought the suit.
Actually, some of the blame rests with "musicologists". They are supposed to be impartial witnesses, but they purposely skew the cases one way or the other, to suit their clients.

Realistically these sort of opportunistic claims should be shut down, as it totally flies in the face of, what all musicians know, the fact that all music is built upon the shoulders of past composers. The idea that any of us work in a vacuum is ludicrous.
 

Polkasound

Senior Member
Lawyers are not to blame here. They are not the ones who brought the suit.
Of course they brought the suit. I can't imagine that Flame would have filed it without legal representation. In fact, I'll even propose that Flame probably went to a lawyer to ask about potential copyright infringement, and it was the lawyer who said, "Yes, I can build a case," before rubbing his hands together like an evil scientist in a 1950s horror movie.

In my opinion, the lawsuit was motivated by greed, facilitated by a musicologist who sold himself out, and decided by jury of people who know absolutely nothing about the music business. I'm glad the jury's verdict was overruled.
 

dzilizzi

I just hang around pretending I know something
I'm hoping this is over. And they should make it big news. To me? I couldn't even hear how it was alike it was so buried in Katie's song.
 

Stringtree

Active Member
Has a dirgey "Moments in Love" feel anyway, both of them. There's probably no way we're writing new music unless we're on fire and forging ahead.

I'm with the lady. We need more in this business.

Greg
 

Michel Simons

Senior Member
Of course they brought the suit. I can't imagine that Flame would have filed it without legal representation. In fact, I'll even propose that Flame probably went to a lawyer to ask about potential copyright infringement, and it was the lawyer who said, "Yes, I can build a case," before rubbing his hands together like an evil scientist in a 1950s horror movie.
But that's their job, isn't it? Don't get me wrong, I too think that this and similar cases are ridiculous, but going to court defending clients is their way to make a living (and then some).

In my opinion, the lawsuit was motivated by greed, facilitated by a musicologist who sold himself out, and decided by jury of people who know absolutely nothing about the music business. I'm glad the jury's verdict was overruled.
I agree. And this whole trial by jury thing is to me an antiquated idea anyway. I was surprised how many countries still use that.
 

Polkasound

Senior Member
But that's their job, isn't it? Don't get me wrong, I too think that this and similar cases are ridiculous, but going to court defending clients is their way to make a living (and then some).
A defense lawyer, yes. But a prosecuting lawyer's decision to accept a civil case like this and bring it to court should be based on desire to right a wrong. Katy Perry didn't do anything wrong. I believe Flame's legal team probably felt Katy didn't do anything wrong, but knew they had a shot at winning a large sum of money anyway by playing the system, so that's what they did. That's why I'm especially happy a judge reversed the jury's verdict.
 

C.R. Rivera

Popper @ his favorite toy.
And this whole trial by jury thing is to me an antiquated idea anyway. I was surprised how many countries still use that.
Yes, because trial decisions by Judge Anti-aircraft Cannon fire, aka North Korea, is so much better for everything. And those of us old enough to remember, the enlightened Soviet Union used a jury-less process, often refered to as a Judge "9mm Heart Attack." :thumbsdown:
 

Michel Simons

Senior Member
A defense lawyer, yes. But a prosecuting lawyer's decision to accept a civil case like this and bring it to court should be based on desire to right a wrong. Katy Perry didn't do anything wrong. I believe Flame's legal team probably felt Katy didn't do anything wrong, but knew they had a shot at winning a large sum of money anyway by playing the system, so that's what they did. That's why I'm especially happy a judge reversed the jury's verdict.
Again, I'm happy too. I just don't think that even (or especially) prosecuting lawyers feel that their first priority is righting a wrong, but earning money.
 

GtrString

Senior Member
Actually, some of the blame rests with "musicologists". They are supposed to be impartial witnesses, but they purposely skew the cases one way or the other, to suit their clients.

Realistically these sort of opportunistic claims should be shut down, as it totally flies in the face of, what all musicians know, the fact that all music is built upon the shoulders of past composers. The idea that any of us work in a vacuum is ludicrous.
So, do you have any examples of this postulate? In what way has any musicologists skewed any of these cases?

Rather, the problem is that US courts uses layman jury's in these cases, and they do not have the trained skill to listen critically (with criteria) to music.

Consequently, this will roll forever with endless appeals, untill they actually listen to the musicologists. But I do agree that opportunistic claims like this should not be possible at all, its ridiculous!
 
Last edited:

Tim_Wells

Tim Wells
Don't know a thing about this case, but I'm glad it was over-turned. I think with the exploding proliferation of recorded music, that the burden of proof for plagiarism should be very high. The law should contain words like "flagrant" and "clearly intentional". Something that sounds similar just won't cut it.

I mean, how many of us are required to listen to reference tracks and to emulate them? That's been going on in pop music for decades.

Jerry Garcia said it nicely... "we're just very clever thieves".
 

GtrString

Senior Member
Yes -- this one. The plaintiffs used a musicologist who harped on one figure in Ms. Perry's song that remotely resembled the plaintiffs' arrangement.
Yes, but that will happen when the cases are ruled by laymans jury, because they dont have the technical knowledge, and will then focus on small resemblances in arrangement or other parts of the work (despite this is not technically correct). The musicologist‘s brief is then to support an argument on one side, not to rule the case. I will argue that the problem is not the musicologists, but the way they can be involved in this ruling system.

If musicologists should be used differently (and more properly), the whole ruling approach should be changed. Try read this paper on the subject, there is a lot to consider in these cases, and the main problem is how intellectual property is defined as well as the audience chosen in the cases. The problem is how the US courts have chosen to set this up, it is flawed.

A lot could be accomplished if the US courts changed the design of these rulings and extended the audience to be experts as well as consumers in these cases. A “hybrid“ approach as the researchers suggests in the paper..