Home

True story I was in an undergrad prelaw class and I was going to write a paper on copyright law.

It's undergrad so I was drunk all the time, so I posted that I was going to do an independent theoretical analysis. I incorrectly posted it would be subjective in nature and therefor inconclusive because I did not know the jurisprudence.

When I started learning the jurisprudence for copyright infringement I was like "shit fuck" I put it off for too long. So I didn't have time to transcribe this onto sheet paper and give an objective analysis.

It would be good to argue either way, but the best legal arguments are on Jason's side because the melody is so damning.

An argument for Dirks is basically "Jason is a nobody I've never heard this song".

Now what happened is both sides hired a musicologist, now the musicologist probably focused on the differences rather than the similarities, and perhaps was unfamiliar with the jurisprudence. I think also Dirks is a high powered guy.

But when I posted on my class I thought it was legally stolen. When I got drunk enough to listen to Dirks Bentley I was shamefaced I had posted that because I heard no similarities.

But after a short listen I noticed the melody, which is cleverly and intentionally altered and very damning when you combine the jurisprudence with Nashville (location) which implies access. Now that that and move logically into substantial similarity, and striking similarity (which negates access requirement) which in my opinion as a musician who has played all genres and knows music theory has been met.

When I'm in law school I will write a brief for each side. Dirks Bentley's brief will rely on his accomplishments, which are basically how many records he sold, and Jason is a nobody. Not good legal arguments, not objective, nothing really to do with the copyright jurisprudence. It's all bullshit but you have to be able to argue both sides in law school. And it's very hard to argue for Dirks, if you know music theory.

Unfortunately a jury is not going to understand music theory. I do want to be an attorney and I hope this doesn't offend anyone but judges don't even understand music theory.

mcir.usc.edu/cases/1970-1979/Pages/fergusonnbc.html

"But even indulging every permissible inference in favor of the plaintiff's affidavit to support what she must establish under the law, what the affidavit purports still falls far short of musicological Bach-like proportions."

The argument made is what I would make. Bach really sets the rules for music theory, polyphony and counterpoint voice leading. So I would trace it to Bach, music theory it's easy to make good legal arguments with it, it just by its nature is objective.

I had a teacher say though you can trace it to Bach, but you can trace a I IV V back further.

So the judge didn't understand the argument made, but held great reverence for Bach, and probably enjoyed his music.

My dad is an attorney and I talked to him about other options and he said there is an example where each side appoints an expert and they both agree on a third expert. If that is binding it would be good.

A huge disagreement with "The Case for a Specialized Music Tribunal" is setting a set number of notes for a melody, which most musicians incorrectly think it is three. Each phrase contextually would have a different number of notes, which is why if the jurisprudence is binding it could get pretty complex but you would feel like the work you did was setting good jurisprudence for those to come.

In Nashville I think a specialized music tribunal would be necessary. Copyright infringement is a big deal there, and it's all a poker game. Dirks held 7 deuce, but half the battle is handling it correctly. What happened to Jason was unfortunate.

In my opinion this would be the most egregious case of copyright infringement ever, except we only heard about it because Jason probably got a tip from a friend and was like well shit I gotta get drunk as fuck to listen to Dirks Bentley.

In short it's the only one we've heard of but it happens all the fucking time.