Wednesday, 14 November 2018


Hereby I submit a compilation of proposed points that in my opinion should be used to obtain more reasonable verdicts in plagiarism cases in the future. I'm not expected to submit any motions with points like these and get them any of them accepted. But I hope some day other experts will also realize the importance of these points.

The proposals:

1a) Do not allow to prepare comparative sheets for convincing jurors where the timing is not synhronized between the compared melodies. 
Explanation: It creates false impression of rhythmic similarity. See also Accidental Similarity.
Importance : High

1b) Not to accept mere pitch sequences or up-hold-down sequences without identic or close rhythmical placement appearing in the compared songs as evidence. Can also be handled by point 3.
Explanation: Accidental similarity.
Importance: Medium

2 About allowing recorded versions of the song to be played for jurors:
Once they allow it, they should also allow for the defendant party to play counter examples for the jurors with allegedly similar prior songs.
Importance: High

3) As a part of the jury instructions the jurors should be taught briefly and OBJECTIVELY about what is ususal and unusual level of melodic similarity. Visual charts are proposed to use. The content of these charts and related datas have to be checked and accepted by both of the oppopsite parties as a being correct and representative for pop music generally. My tests are covering only three randomly chosen songs, and further not randomly used ones (songs of cases). These tests should be extended and validate by respected experts as well. My blog articles are still lacking the necessary level of respect for getting referred.
Explanation: Accidental similarity.
Importance: High

4a) Not to allow mash-up mixes to be played for jurors.
4b) If they still allow it, they also should allow defendant party to play examples of non-similar songs mashed up. But we can save this latter step with point 4a.
Explanation: Mash-Up mixes
Importance: High

5) Using the similarity index calculation proposed on this page.
It may sound like self-advertising, but this algorithm is considering many relevant factors with reasonable weighting. It can objectively substitute many lengthy biased arguments pro and contra. Reasonable considerations of "constellations" is built in this algorithm. Respectable validation of this algorithm is needed.
Explanation: Similarity test algorithm
Importance: Medium/low

6) Not to accept constellation type arguments as evidences, unless the constelling factors don't occure simultaionously or subsequently.
Explanation: constelling points of similarities can be compiled for any randomly chosen two songs. A trained expert is able to creat such a list not to be occuring (all points) in any other two songs.
Song level: see the Dancer vs. Blurred Lines example in Blurred Lines analysis (appendix).
Similarly for melodies: see the Beethoven's Fifth vs. Got To Give It Up example.
Importance: High

7) Not to judge sound-alike arrangement as infringement. The core of infringements should be the melodies (~idea) instead of overall sound (~expression).
Explanation: just read the related dissent of Judge Jackqueline H. Nguyen.
Importance: High

No comments:

Post a Comment