1 00:00:00,200 --> 00:00:02,520 Speaker 1: Something else I wanted to talk about. And this has 2 00:00:02,560 --> 00:00:05,679 been going on for I don't know, a couple of 3 00:00:05,719 --> 00:00:07,919 years now, I guess, but you know, we do like 4 00:00:07,960 --> 00:00:09,359 to talk about these things that are going on in 5 00:00:09,359 --> 00:00:13,640 the music industry. Sometimes there is controversy and lawsuits and 6 00:00:13,679 --> 00:00:15,800 things like that. We talk a lot about AI and 7 00:00:15,800 --> 00:00:19,440 the effects of AI on music. But here's but this 8 00:00:19,600 --> 00:00:22,120 also kind of relates to a subject that comes up 9 00:00:22,239 --> 00:00:27,199 not only on this program, this particular news item, but 10 00:00:27,440 --> 00:00:30,600 also that comes up on retro Spectrum Radio with Polly C. 11 00:00:31,239 --> 00:00:34,200 Of course, if you don't know, I'm also Paully C's 12 00:00:34,240 --> 00:00:37,560 co host on Friday nights on retro Spectrum Radio here 13 00:00:37,600 --> 00:00:40,840 at WM and H. And we've done a number of 14 00:00:40,880 --> 00:00:44,200 shows now that Paul is put together on that show 15 00:00:44,200 --> 00:00:49,759 where we talk about plagiarism and artists suing other artists 16 00:00:49,799 --> 00:00:54,039 for plagiarism. In fact, we've done a couple of episodes 17 00:00:54,200 --> 00:00:57,960 entirely dedicated to led Zeppelin, the most plagiaristic Don't get 18 00:00:57,960 --> 00:01:00,399 me wrong, I'm a fan, but the most plagiarism stick 19 00:01:00,799 --> 00:01:03,600 band and music history. They've they even stole a song. 20 00:01:03,719 --> 00:01:05,560 Not only did they steal from a lot of blues artists. 21 00:01:05,560 --> 00:01:09,920 They even stole a song from Joan Bias. Yeah, it's wild. 22 00:01:09,959 --> 00:01:11,560 So you know, you can go back and check those out. 23 00:01:11,719 --> 00:01:14,280 And by the way, so when we're on when we 24 00:01:14,319 --> 00:01:17,400 do these shows on Retrospectrum Radio, you know, we'll we'll 25 00:01:17,400 --> 00:01:19,680 all kind of put our two cents in. Okay, is 26 00:01:19,719 --> 00:01:24,319 this a plagiarism or or is this someone making a 27 00:01:24,359 --> 00:01:27,719 false accusation? Is this particular song not plagiarized? 28 00:01:28,280 --> 00:01:28,480 Speaker 2: You know? 29 00:01:28,599 --> 00:01:32,719 Speaker 1: And I'm I'm the most lenient when it comes to that. 30 00:01:32,840 --> 00:01:35,319 I'm usually the first one to say not guilty. I 31 00:01:35,359 --> 00:01:38,000 don't think this particular instance is an act of plagiarism 32 00:01:38,079 --> 00:01:42,040 because I just I look at it as there are 33 00:01:42,159 --> 00:01:47,760 certain certain chord progressions that are just very common throughout 34 00:01:47,760 --> 00:01:52,359 pop music, and certain lyrical themes of course, and lyrical 35 00:01:52,400 --> 00:01:54,959 themes is gonna that's gonna play a part in what 36 00:01:55,000 --> 00:01:58,079 we're about to talk about this particular lawsuit and controversy. 37 00:01:58,280 --> 00:02:02,920 Certain lyrical themes that are very common, and you know, so, 38 00:02:02,920 --> 00:02:06,159 so I'm the least likely to say guilty, I think 39 00:02:06,159 --> 00:02:09,159 that this person committed plagiarism. I mean, there's some instances 40 00:02:09,159 --> 00:02:12,919 that are just undeniable, like like when Led Zeppelin stole 41 00:02:12,960 --> 00:02:16,000 all that music from those old blues artists, which they 42 00:02:16,039 --> 00:02:19,680 have been sued for in some instances successfully, in some 43 00:02:19,759 --> 00:02:24,719 instances not so much. But h but this one, the 44 00:02:24,759 --> 00:02:26,759 particular one, and this one we have not talked about 45 00:02:26,840 --> 00:02:30,280 on Retrospectrum Radio because this is something recent and we 46 00:02:30,280 --> 00:02:32,439 wouldn't on that show. We wouldn't talk about something as 47 00:02:32,520 --> 00:02:34,919 recent as this. But some of you may have heard, 48 00:02:34,960 --> 00:02:38,919 of course about the Miley cyrus Her song Flowers being 49 00:02:39,000 --> 00:02:43,599 sued by not actually by Bruno Mars directly, but by 50 00:02:43,639 --> 00:02:45,960 people who own a stake in the Bruno Mars song 51 00:02:46,319 --> 00:02:50,199 When I Was Your Man. And this one, this particular 52 00:02:50,439 --> 00:02:56,560 instance of someone claiming copyright infringement, this particular one drives 53 00:02:56,599 --> 00:03:01,159 me nuts. This one is really a reach, in my opinion. 54 00:03:01,199 --> 00:03:02,520 What do you what do you think, Jenny, do do 55 00:03:02,520 --> 00:03:06,439 you think this one's Yeah, this one, this one's a stretch. 56 00:03:06,840 --> 00:03:10,319 So this is frivolous, now, Jenny, Jenny found something that 57 00:03:10,360 --> 00:03:12,319 will give us an update on what's going on with this. 58 00:03:12,400 --> 00:03:16,000 But for those who don't know about this, yeah, this 59 00:03:16,120 --> 00:03:18,039 is frivolous, all right. So this is I've got an 60 00:03:18,120 --> 00:03:20,080 article here from Forbes that I think is the best 61 00:03:20,240 --> 00:03:25,599 explainer of what the initial lawsuit is about. Miley Cyrus 62 00:03:25,639 --> 00:03:30,000 tries uh tries getting suit that claims Flowers copied a 63 00:03:30,080 --> 00:03:34,360 Bruno Mars song dismissed. So this article is from last year, 64 00:03:35,240 --> 00:03:38,159 but it uh, and there have been multiple attempts, by 65 00:03:38,159 --> 00:03:39,719 the way to get this lawsuit thrown out. And I 66 00:03:39,759 --> 00:03:42,240 think it should be thrown out because I think it's ridiculous. 67 00:03:42,520 --> 00:03:45,599 But uh, you know, and I'm not you know, I 68 00:03:45,599 --> 00:03:47,199 don't have any personal stake in this, by the way. 69 00:03:47,199 --> 00:03:50,560 I'm not particularly a fan of either artist. I I 70 00:03:50,599 --> 00:03:53,520 respect them both tremendously. Of course. Miley Cyrus is an 71 00:03:53,520 --> 00:03:57,080 incredible singer and I certainly and Bruno Mars, you know, 72 00:03:57,080 --> 00:03:59,400 I respect as a singer and a songwriter and whatnot. 73 00:03:59,400 --> 00:04:01,800 I'm just neither of them have really put out anything 74 00:04:01,800 --> 00:04:05,960 that I personally am that into, but I do. Uh, 75 00:04:06,000 --> 00:04:09,360 but I respect them, of course. But here's so this 76 00:04:09,439 --> 00:04:13,120 is the explainer from Forbes Okay. Attorneys representing singer Miley 77 00:04:13,159 --> 00:04:15,639 Cyrus filed the motion in LA federal court to dismiss 78 00:04:15,639 --> 00:04:20,480 a lawsuit claiming that her song Flowers lifts lyrics and 79 00:04:20,639 --> 00:04:23,800 melodies from the twenty thirteen Bruno Mars song When I 80 00:04:23,839 --> 00:04:26,720 Was Your Man, arguing the lawsuit should be tossed because 81 00:04:26,720 --> 00:04:29,560 it only represents one of the songs for writers and 82 00:04:29,600 --> 00:04:33,600 not Bruno Mars himself, So it's not Bruno Mars. Bruno 83 00:04:33,639 --> 00:04:36,480 Mars is not the one bringing the lawsuit himself, but 84 00:04:38,199 --> 00:04:41,839 it involves his song when I Was Your Man. When 85 00:04:41,879 --> 00:04:43,319 I Was Your Man? Is that what it's called? Anyway, 86 00:04:43,680 --> 00:04:46,560 I'm so not a fan of I don't like the 87 00:04:46,680 --> 00:04:50,439 song to begin with when. 88 00:04:49,040 --> 00:04:49,439 Speaker 2: I Was Your Man. 89 00:04:49,519 --> 00:04:51,839 Speaker 1: Yet, I don't like the song to begin with but anyway, 90 00:04:51,959 --> 00:04:55,439 So here are some key facts. Cyrus's attorneys argue the 91 00:04:55,439 --> 00:04:59,839 company that filed the lawsuit, Tempo Music Investments and Investment Group, 92 00:04:59,879 --> 00:05:02,639 that it has acquired the rights to various artists catalogs, 93 00:05:02,959 --> 00:05:05,920 does not have standing to sue because it only owns 94 00:05:05,920 --> 00:05:08,399 a portion of the rights to the song. Temple Music 95 00:05:08,439 --> 00:05:13,399 previously acquired the rights to songwriter Philip Lawrence's catalog, so 96 00:05:13,519 --> 00:05:17,319 he's one of the writers of the song. Cyrus's attorneys 97 00:05:17,360 --> 00:05:21,040 say the Copyright Act only permits quote a legal or 98 00:05:21,079 --> 00:05:25,199 beneficial owner of an exclusive copyright unquote to sue for infringement. So, 99 00:05:25,199 --> 00:05:29,399 in other words, they're saying that the people bringing the lawsuit, 100 00:05:29,480 --> 00:05:31,439 they have not been harmed in any way, this doesn't 101 00:05:31,439 --> 00:05:35,079 affect them, and so forth. I'm kind of skipping through 102 00:05:35,079 --> 00:05:37,360 this because I want to get to the part where 103 00:05:37,680 --> 00:05:40,920 it explains why the suit itself is silly. Okay, So, 104 00:05:41,000 --> 00:05:47,439 Cyrus's attorneys claim the two songs have quote striking differences 105 00:05:47,480 --> 00:05:51,720 in melody, chords, other musical elements and words unquote, stating 106 00:05:51,759 --> 00:05:57,560 the plaintiff's claim the songs share quote musical building blocks unquote, 107 00:05:57,560 --> 00:06:01,480 including some chords and pitches, would not be protected by 108 00:06:01,519 --> 00:06:05,000 copyright law. So, in other words, my ree, Cyrus's lawyers 109 00:06:05,000 --> 00:06:13,160 are saying the two songs are really different. So you know, again, 110 00:06:13,240 --> 00:06:17,399 it's a reach. To suggest that there's a claim here 111 00:06:17,959 --> 00:06:20,759 of any kind is really a stretch, and we'll get 112 00:06:20,759 --> 00:06:23,240 into a little bit more of that in a moment, 113 00:06:23,279 --> 00:06:29,319 but okay. Forbes has reached out to Cyrus's lawyers and 114 00:06:29,519 --> 00:06:34,000 Tempo Music Investments for comment. Tempo Music Investments sued Cyrus, 115 00:06:34,040 --> 00:06:38,120 as well as companies that says distributed the song Flowers, 116 00:06:38,160 --> 00:06:43,680 including Sony Music, Apple, Target, and Walmart, alleging copyright infringement. 117 00:06:44,120 --> 00:06:49,079 The lawsuit alleged the song Flowers would not exist without 118 00:06:49,120 --> 00:06:56,680 the exploitation of Mars's song. Quote. Any fan of Bruno 119 00:06:56,720 --> 00:06:59,480 Mars's song When I Was Your Man knows that my 120 00:06:59,639 --> 00:07:04,639 resse Virus's Flowers did not achieve all of that success 121 00:07:04,759 --> 00:07:09,319 on its own unquote. The lawsuit states alleging that Flowers 122 00:07:09,680 --> 00:07:14,319 lifts quote numerous melodic, harmonic and lyrical elements of When 123 00:07:14,360 --> 00:07:18,519 I Was Your Man unquote. So here's the heart of 124 00:07:18,560 --> 00:07:22,680 the matter. The chorus of Flowers does appear to lift 125 00:07:23,040 --> 00:07:26,040 some of these statements. In the chorus of When I 126 00:07:26,160 --> 00:07:31,839 Was Your Man. In Flowers and Ode to Independence, Cyrus sings, quote, 127 00:07:32,480 --> 00:07:36,000 I can buy myself flowers, write my name in the sand, 128 00:07:36,560 --> 00:07:40,519 talk to myself for hours, say things you don't understand. 129 00:07:41,079 --> 00:07:44,279 I can take myself dancing. I can hold my own 130 00:07:44,360 --> 00:07:47,839 hand unquote. In the Bruno Mars song about a man 131 00:07:47,879 --> 00:07:51,879 expressing regret for failing to treat his lover well, he sings, quote, 132 00:07:52,160 --> 00:07:55,279 I should have bought you flowers and held your hand, 133 00:07:55,720 --> 00:07:58,639 should have gave you all my hours when I had 134 00:07:58,680 --> 00:08:02,040 the chance, take you you to every party, because all 135 00:08:02,120 --> 00:08:07,079 you wanted to do was dance. Unquote. Now let me 136 00:08:07,319 --> 00:08:14,519 just stop here for a moment. Obviously, yes, the song, 137 00:08:14,680 --> 00:08:18,120 the lyrics of the song that I mean, you could 138 00:08:18,120 --> 00:08:22,879 make this argument. The lyrics of the song Flowers by 139 00:08:22,920 --> 00:08:26,560 Miley Cyrus do seem to be what I would say, 140 00:08:26,920 --> 00:08:28,600 And we talked about this in the car. It's a 141 00:08:28,680 --> 00:08:34,240 direct response to the Bruno Mars song. Yes, that's not 142 00:08:34,399 --> 00:08:39,440 copyright infringement. That is referencing somebody else's creative work, referring 143 00:08:39,480 --> 00:08:42,320 to it. That's not the same thing as lifting elements 144 00:08:42,360 --> 00:08:42,960 from it. 145 00:08:43,799 --> 00:08:49,279 Speaker 3: If this is allowed to if this case prevails, it 146 00:08:49,519 --> 00:08:53,799 changes everything. You can't talk about anybody anymore. You can't 147 00:08:53,840 --> 00:08:55,159 say anybody else's name. 148 00:08:55,480 --> 00:08:57,759 Speaker 1: Maybe you can't write, Maybe you can't write songs about 149 00:08:57,799 --> 00:09:02,960 flowers because because Bruno Mars had a song that mentioned flowers. 150 00:09:03,120 --> 00:09:07,200 Speaker 3: Artists mentioned each other in songs all the time, you know, 151 00:09:07,399 --> 00:09:09,679 and play off of each other, sometimes. 152 00:09:09,279 --> 00:09:10,639 Speaker 4: Good, sometimes bad. 153 00:09:11,200 --> 00:09:14,720 Speaker 1: Yeah, there's you know, like there's tons of other rappers. 154 00:09:14,960 --> 00:09:16,679 Well yeah, of course, so all. 155 00:09:16,559 --> 00:09:19,600 Speaker 3: Rappers will get dude who listed another rapper in their song, 156 00:09:19,639 --> 00:09:20,639 because that happens a lot. 157 00:09:20,759 --> 00:09:23,440 Speaker 1: There's tons of examples of this in pop history. You know, 158 00:09:23,519 --> 00:09:28,080 I don't think you know when when Leonard Skinnard mentions 159 00:09:28,120 --> 00:09:30,799 in Sweet Home, Alabama, you know, I hope Neil Neil 160 00:09:30,840 --> 00:09:33,759 Young will remember the Southern Man. Don't need him around anyhow, 161 00:09:34,039 --> 00:09:36,879 you know, A direct response to Neil Young song Southern Man, 162 00:09:37,159 --> 00:09:40,240 Neil Young didn't sue them, say, oh, they they referenced 163 00:09:40,279 --> 00:09:42,759 my song, I'm gonna sue them, you know, I mean. 164 00:09:42,759 --> 00:09:45,279 And that was a very direct response. That was that 165 00:09:45,399 --> 00:09:48,720 was clear and unambiguous. Granted it was a they had 166 00:09:48,759 --> 00:09:51,080 a rivalry, but it was a friendly rivalry that there 167 00:09:51,120 --> 00:09:53,960 was a lot of mutual respect. But but but but 168 00:09:54,080 --> 00:09:58,600 but that's or or when uh in Surrender, when uh 169 00:09:58,639 --> 00:10:01,080 a cheap trick? They actually mentioned and kiss my name, 170 00:10:02,200 --> 00:10:03,679 you know in the song surrender. 171 00:10:04,039 --> 00:10:07,960 Speaker 3: Well, like we were talking in the car. Tori Amos 172 00:10:08,000 --> 00:10:12,000 and Trent Wesner have referenced each other in various ways 173 00:10:12,080 --> 00:10:15,240 in seeing each other's song lyrics and for topics. There's 174 00:10:15,279 --> 00:10:19,279 a one of Tory's songs mentions nine inch nails. But 175 00:10:19,519 --> 00:10:23,919 it's it's it's in, it's in reverence of one another. 176 00:10:24,480 --> 00:10:26,559 It's not even it's nothing bad. But one of the 177 00:10:26,559 --> 00:10:28,720 caveats about this case that I want to point out 178 00:10:28,840 --> 00:10:33,879 is that the person that is suing bought this half 179 00:10:34,000 --> 00:10:37,320 of the song as part of a catalog package. They 180 00:10:37,360 --> 00:10:39,799 weren't even in the picture when the song was created. 181 00:10:40,480 --> 00:10:43,840 They had nothing to do with it, zero to do it. Well, 182 00:10:44,519 --> 00:10:47,159 they're not a co writer, nobody. 183 00:10:47,320 --> 00:10:48,440 Speaker 4: They bought the. 184 00:10:48,480 --> 00:10:51,360 Speaker 3: Catalog, so now they own half the rights of this 185 00:10:51,559 --> 00:10:55,440 song and they're looking for a quick, get rich quick scheme. 186 00:10:56,360 --> 00:10:58,480 Speaker 4: It's scammy use of the chords. 187 00:10:58,519 --> 00:11:02,120 Speaker 3: It's totally frivolous, and it should be thrown out with prejudice. 188 00:11:02,159 --> 00:11:04,360 Speaker 4: In my opinion, I thought that's not what happened. 189 00:11:05,039 --> 00:11:10,039 Speaker 1: Yeah, it also says here. Cyrus released Flowers in January 190 00:11:10,039 --> 00:11:11,759 twenty twenty three, and it became one of the year's 191 00:11:11,799 --> 00:11:15,399 biggest hits. Flowers has been streamed more than two billion 192 00:11:15,480 --> 00:11:18,600 times on Spotify and won Cyrus two Grammy Awards for 193 00:11:18,720 --> 00:11:21,240 Record of the Year and Best Pop Solo Performance. When 194 00:11:21,279 --> 00:11:25,200 Cyrus released Flowers, fans noticed the similarities between the two songs, 195 00:11:25,360 --> 00:11:30,000 even causing When I Was Your Man to rise in streams. 196 00:11:30,039 --> 00:11:32,440 Billboard reported, so it made. 197 00:11:32,320 --> 00:11:33,519 Speaker 4: The money made the song more. 198 00:11:33,559 --> 00:11:35,840 Speaker 1: So that actually made the song more. It made the 199 00:11:35,879 --> 00:11:38,919 song it refers to more pop. And When I Was 200 00:11:38,919 --> 00:11:41,320 Your Man was already a huge hit. I just know 201 00:11:41,399 --> 00:11:44,519 that because I just remember hearing it a lot. But yeah, 202 00:11:44,519 --> 00:11:47,120 so it actually helped. It actually helped give When I 203 00:11:47,159 --> 00:11:53,720 Was Your Man a boost. So so again it's it's this, 204 00:11:54,679 --> 00:12:00,799 you know, this is all very silly. Let's see bill okay, 205 00:12:00,919 --> 00:12:03,960 Vanderbilt Law School again. This is from the Forbes article 206 00:12:04,440 --> 00:12:08,879 Vanderbilt Law School music law professor Joseph Fishman told Billboard 207 00:12:09,240 --> 00:12:12,840 Cyrus should not need to credit Mars and the other 208 00:12:12,919 --> 00:12:16,240 When I Was Your Man's songwriters, despite the similar lyrics. 209 00:12:16,559 --> 00:12:19,639 Even if the chorus of Flowers is deliberately a response 210 00:12:19,960 --> 00:12:23,360 to Mars's song because it does not appear to sample 211 00:12:23,519 --> 00:12:27,759 or interpolate the song's melodies. Quote, using one song to 212 00:12:27,840 --> 00:12:31,200 issue a retort to an earlier song is not, by 213 00:12:31,240 --> 00:12:35,759 itself infringement. John Mayer and Taylor Swift don't need to 214 00:12:35,840 --> 00:12:39,200 cross license everything when they write songs at each other. 215 00:12:39,600 --> 00:12:43,440 When I Was Your Man peaked at number one on 216 00:12:43,440 --> 00:12:46,240 the Billboard Hot one hundred and twenty thirteen and earned 217 00:12:46,360 --> 00:12:54,399 Mars a Grammy nomination. So that's that's where we are with. 218 00:12:56,120 --> 00:12:58,080 So that's what the suit is over. And by the way, 219 00:12:58,200 --> 00:13:02,960 so the songs them said, E don't sound anything alike. 220 00:13:03,120 --> 00:13:07,039 I will just pull up you know what, I'll play 221 00:13:07,080 --> 00:13:09,960 each of these just like to the chorus so you 222 00:13:10,000 --> 00:13:13,320 can hear. Oh maybe I can even find well, sorry, 223 00:13:13,399 --> 00:13:15,000 let me turn your mic back on. What's that? 224 00:13:15,039 --> 00:13:19,080 Speaker 3: They're not similar, No, they're not similar. The only similarity 225 00:13:19,399 --> 00:13:20,720 is the mutual reference. 226 00:13:22,080 --> 00:13:22,279 Speaker 5: You know. 227 00:13:22,840 --> 00:13:25,440 Speaker 3: He's singing, I'm gonna buy I should have bought you flowers. 228 00:13:25,440 --> 00:13:28,600 She's singing, I can buy myself flowers. It's just a 229 00:13:28,639 --> 00:13:32,679 woman's response. Yeah, and I think it's a great response. 230 00:13:32,720 --> 00:13:37,799 I think it's a great song. Yeah, in that regard, 231 00:13:37,960 --> 00:13:42,679 In that regard, right, does it matter? But this lawsuit 232 00:13:42,840 --> 00:13:46,360 is just somebody trying to get which quick oh yeah, 233 00:13:46,679 --> 00:13:48,159 off of other people's work. 234 00:13:48,960 --> 00:13:51,320 Speaker 1: I found something here on YouTube that kind of compares 235 00:13:51,720 --> 00:13:53,639 that kind of compares them. Let's let me play this 236 00:13:54,240 --> 00:13:56,559 just for for anyone who uh, you know, if you 237 00:13:56,559 --> 00:13:58,600 don't know the songs, and then you can make your 238 00:13:58,600 --> 00:14:01,120 own judgment here. But this is this is short, but 239 00:14:01,159 --> 00:14:03,240 it's a short dot comparison. 240 00:14:06,480 --> 00:14:11,720 Speaker 5: To your two time to realize we were good. 241 00:14:12,679 --> 00:14:16,799 Speaker 2: We were god kind of dream that can't be. 242 00:14:17,120 --> 00:14:23,840 Speaker 5: So we were right until we won't build a home 243 00:14:24,120 --> 00:14:29,399 and wash it burns. I should have brought your flowers. 244 00:14:30,960 --> 00:14:39,840 Lugging Bomas and flowers, run my name and sing dreams 245 00:14:41,120 --> 00:14:46,600 should a gig a armor hours with the head versha 246 00:14:47,960 --> 00:14:53,159 and I can hold money, I can love me better. 247 00:14:55,200 --> 00:14:59,600 You can't let me take care of everybody because all 248 00:14:59,720 --> 00:15:01,919 you I wanted to do us to. 249 00:15:03,600 --> 00:15:09,399 Speaker 2: I can take myself Patsy again, but she's dear soon 250 00:15:09,559 --> 00:15:15,480 with another move. Why do you want to leave you? 251 00:15:16,159 --> 00:15:19,399 I didn't want to lie side God. 252 00:15:19,879 --> 00:15:24,639 Speaker 5: Then remember I Yeah, I can love me bitter. 253 00:15:26,639 --> 00:15:43,480 Speaker 2: Yeah, I can love me bitter you cat baby. 254 00:15:49,799 --> 00:15:52,639 Speaker 1: Okay, So there you go. There's a comparison, a side 255 00:15:52,639 --> 00:15:54,799 by side, the comparison to some of the parts of 256 00:15:54,799 --> 00:15:58,600 each song. Yeah, completely different. I mean again, one is 257 00:15:58,679 --> 00:16:01,639 referencing the other, but they're they're very different. They're they're 258 00:16:01,679 --> 00:16:03,120 different in vibe and style. 259 00:16:03,440 --> 00:16:06,159 Speaker 3: If you can sue from a reference like that, then 260 00:16:06,639 --> 00:16:09,399 everything about music changes in every genre. 261 00:16:10,159 --> 00:16:12,159 Speaker 4: Well, it's like it's it's just too much. 262 00:16:12,840 --> 00:16:14,600 Speaker 1: Well, it's like the the Well you have. 263 00:16:14,600 --> 00:16:17,200 Speaker 3: A sentence like that's similar to my sentence, So now 264 00:16:17,240 --> 00:16:17,919 I can sue you. 265 00:16:18,120 --> 00:16:22,360 Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, that's uh. And again you could say the melodies. 266 00:16:23,200 --> 00:16:27,679 The melodies are vaguely similar, but again there are certain 267 00:16:29,600 --> 00:16:34,080 there are just certain chord progressions and melodies as well 268 00:16:34,120 --> 00:16:37,720 as lyrical themes that are just they're really common. And 269 00:16:38,639 --> 00:16:42,279 you know a great example of that. And and Tom Petty, 270 00:16:42,320 --> 00:16:44,720 I think, had the right attitude about this. If you're 271 00:16:44,799 --> 00:16:47,360 you know the song Danny California by the Chili Peppers, 272 00:16:47,519 --> 00:16:49,639 not Chili Peppers, that's my favorite Chili Pepper song. I 273 00:16:49,759 --> 00:16:52,799 always love that song. But when that song came out, 274 00:16:52,840 --> 00:16:56,960 people notice something about it. The not in the verses, 275 00:16:57,039 --> 00:17:03,639 but the chorus is exactly the same as Last Dance 276 00:17:03,679 --> 00:17:05,519 with Mary Jane. Oh no, I'm sorry, not the chorus, 277 00:17:05,559 --> 00:17:07,960 the verses, I have it backward. The verses are the 278 00:17:08,000 --> 00:17:12,279 same as Last Dance with Mary Jane by Tom Petty. Yeah, 279 00:17:12,359 --> 00:17:14,960 see exact same chord progression. It's even the same tempo, 280 00:17:15,119 --> 00:17:16,839 Like you could graft one on to the other. It's 281 00:17:16,880 --> 00:17:22,400 exactly the same. And somebody asked Tom Petty in an 282 00:17:22,400 --> 00:17:26,839 interview some I think it was a radio DJ asked him, 283 00:17:27,039 --> 00:17:28,799 or might have been in Rolling Stone, But somebody asked 284 00:17:28,839 --> 00:17:32,359 him because people were noticing this. You know, are you 285 00:17:32,440 --> 00:17:35,480 are you upset with the Chili Peppers? I don't know 286 00:17:35,319 --> 00:17:38,200 you Are you gonna sue them for stealing your song 287 00:17:38,319 --> 00:17:41,240 or something like that? And he said his response, which 288 00:17:41,279 --> 00:17:44,799 I thought was perfect, he said, well, if they stole it, 289 00:17:44,839 --> 00:17:46,839 they didn't steal it from me, they stole it from 290 00:17:46,880 --> 00:17:50,119 who from whoever I stole it from, because that chord 291 00:17:50,119 --> 00:17:54,039 progression is just very common. It's it's not it's not 292 00:17:54,119 --> 00:17:56,039 an original chord, you know. He's like, I didn't write 293 00:17:56,039 --> 00:17:58,920 that chord progression. Somebody somebody did. I don't know who, 294 00:17:59,319 --> 00:18:03,279 but I it somewhere. Well, yeah, and he was right. 295 00:18:03,400 --> 00:18:05,559 He was right to say that it's a very common 296 00:18:05,640 --> 00:18:10,000 chord progression. So that so he had the right attitude 297 00:18:10,000 --> 00:18:13,960 about it. But what I'm also thinking about, too is 298 00:18:15,480 --> 00:18:17,440 who's the guy, oh, I forget his name now, British 299 00:18:17,440 --> 00:18:19,200 guy with red hair. He's got a bunch of hits 300 00:18:19,359 --> 00:18:22,839 ed Oh ed Sharon when they tried to sue ed 301 00:18:22,920 --> 00:18:26,559 Sharon claiming, what's the name of that song I'll Be 302 00:18:26,599 --> 00:18:28,920 Loving You? I don't know the actual name is there, 303 00:18:30,079 --> 00:18:32,880 I'll be Loving You when we're seventy or something, And 304 00:18:33,200 --> 00:18:36,720 I hate that song. But but they tried to sue 305 00:18:36,799 --> 00:18:39,200 him saying that because it had a similar vibe to 306 00:18:39,279 --> 00:18:43,240 Let's Get It On by Marvin Gay. Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, 307 00:18:43,440 --> 00:18:45,880 it was a you know, in terms of the production 308 00:18:46,079 --> 00:18:48,519 of the song. It sounded similar to let's get it 309 00:18:48,559 --> 00:18:52,279 on and but he's been sued a few times too, 310 00:18:52,319 --> 00:18:54,519 and he never backs down to his credit, you know, 311 00:18:54,559 --> 00:18:58,680 he never settles, because again that's a that's another example 312 00:18:58,680 --> 00:19:01,440 of a very frivolous lie. It's like, okay, you can 313 00:19:01,519 --> 00:19:06,799 sue somebody because the vibe of the production style of 314 00:19:06,839 --> 00:19:11,200 their song is similar. Wow, like that the can of 315 00:19:11,240 --> 00:19:19,559 worms that would open up. So it's not right they 316 00:19:19,599 --> 00:19:24,240 walk away with money. Yeah, So so it's not right. 317 00:19:24,640 --> 00:19:27,119 By the way, I think, while we're at it, I 318 00:19:27,160 --> 00:19:29,799 think it would be interesting. I want to see, just 319 00:19:29,920 --> 00:19:37,519 quickly example of examples of songs that reference other songs, 320 00:19:37,559 --> 00:19:41,519 because again, what we're talking about with the Bruno Mars 321 00:19:41,599 --> 00:19:46,640 Miley Cyrus thing is you know, we gave some examples before, 322 00:19:46,880 --> 00:19:50,640 like a Cheap Trick referencing Kiss or Leonard skinnerd referencing 323 00:19:50,680 --> 00:19:55,359 Neil Young. Let's see, I just did a quick search. 324 00:19:55,440 --> 00:19:58,480 So here's some more examples. Uh, It's My Life by 325 00:19:58,519 --> 00:20:02,960 bon Jovie references for Rank Sinatra is My Way, Yes, absolutely, 326 00:20:03,160 --> 00:20:07,920 thunder Road by Bruce Springsteen mentions Roy Orbison, Come Together 327 00:20:08,000 --> 00:20:12,000 by The Beatles uses lyrics from Chuck berrys you Can't 328 00:20:12,039 --> 00:20:16,440 Catch Me. There's some artists here who are more obscure, 329 00:20:17,240 --> 00:20:19,759 like Nick Lowe. I mean, you know people who are 330 00:20:19,759 --> 00:20:22,440 really into indie music. No, Nick Lowe. He has a 331 00:20:22,440 --> 00:20:27,200 song called All Men Are Liars, which apparently directly references 332 00:20:27,319 --> 00:20:29,160 Rick Astley's Never Going to Give You Up. That one's 333 00:20:29,200 --> 00:20:33,880 kind of interesting. That's fun Yeah, that is funny. That 334 00:20:34,000 --> 00:20:37,880 is funny. But yeah, so I hope. So the latest 335 00:20:37,920 --> 00:20:42,799 on that you had the story? The update, There was 336 00:20:42,839 --> 00:20:44,720 an update from just a few days ago. Let me 337 00:20:44,720 --> 00:20:45,240 see if I can. 338 00:20:45,519 --> 00:20:47,440 Speaker 4: Yeah, the basic gist of it is. 339 00:20:47,400 --> 00:20:49,839 Speaker 1: That they're still trying to get it thrown out. 340 00:20:49,960 --> 00:20:51,960 Speaker 3: Well they had tried, Yes, they were trying to get 341 00:20:51,960 --> 00:20:54,000 it thrown out, but it was denied. 342 00:20:54,359 --> 00:20:58,240 Speaker 4: Yeah, it was trying to get a toss. It was denied. 343 00:20:58,359 --> 00:21:01,960 Speaker 1: Yeah, it's from Fox Business. This judge denies Miley Cyrus's 344 00:21:02,000 --> 00:21:04,680 attempt to dismiss lawsuit comparing Flowers to Bruno Mars song. 345 00:21:04,960 --> 00:21:08,279 Temple Music and Miley Cyrus in September sued Miley Cyrus 346 00:21:08,279 --> 00:21:11,680 in September for similarities between the songs. Says here. A 347 00:21:11,759 --> 00:21:15,440 judge denied Cyrus's attempt to throw out copyright lawsuit against 348 00:21:15,440 --> 00:21:20,720 a pop star. Temple Music Investments lawsuit against Cyrus alleging 349 00:21:20,720 --> 00:21:24,039 similarities between her Grammy winning song Flowers and Bruno mars 350 00:21:24,160 --> 00:21:26,279 Is when I was her man will move forward after 351 00:21:26,440 --> 00:21:32,680 Judge Dan D. Pregeran Pregerson rather denied her requests. Tuesday, 352 00:21:32,720 --> 00:21:35,839 Fox Business can confirm Tempo Music acquired the rights to 353 00:21:35,920 --> 00:21:38,240 the song after buying the catalog of Philip Lawrence, a 354 00:21:38,279 --> 00:21:42,839 co author of the song. By the way, Yeah, and 355 00:21:42,880 --> 00:21:45,960 it just goes on. Basically this this dismissal failed, but 356 00:21:47,160 --> 00:21:50,640 we're in agreement. I think right that this this lawsuit 357 00:21:50,680 --> 00:21:56,920 is silly and schemes, so frivolous lawsuit should be dismissed. 358 00:21:56,759 --> 00:21:59,039 Speaker 4: Should be totally dismissed with prejudice. 359 00:21:59,039 --> 00:22:00,720 Speaker 1: We will keep an eye on it going forward.