Ed Sheeran Copyright Lawsuit (1 Viewer)

[bigbottom]

Trial ongoing where Ed Sheeran is being sued by the heirs of the late "Let's Get It On" songwriter Ed Townsend, who allege the British singer ripped off the tune with "Thinking Out Loud".

Ed Sheeran Says He's 'Done' If He Loses in 'Let's Get It On' Copyright Lawsuit: 'I Work Really Hard'

Sheeran was sued by the heirs of the late "Let's Get It On" songwriter Ed Townsend, who allege the British singer ripped off the tune with "Thinking Out Loud"

people.com

Thoughts?

Did Ed Sheeran Copy Marvin Gaye's "Let's Get It On"?

Ed Sheeran is being sued, again, this time for allegedly copying Marvin Gaye’s classic hit “Let’s Get it On” in his 2014 Grammy-winning song “Thinking Out Lo...

youtu.be

My view is that while the chord progression is similar, the melody is completely different. Heck, there are tons of songs that use the same chord progression. I mean everyone has seen that Axis of Awesome 4 chords video, right?

 

[rockaction]

From what I've read, pretty much every music journalist or aficionado is hoping this lawsuit fails. The "Blurred Lines" that we talked in another thread about was bad enough, but this time Gaye's estate (and therein lies the problem) is jealously looking to extract revenue from a fairly simple (by most accounts) chord progression.

 

[jobarules]

What a joke

 

[Joe Bryant]

I know nothing about the suit but in general, this feels like a difficult issue. On an infinitely smaller scale, I've experienced some of this with people using our work. So I kind of get it.

On the other hand, most everything has "some" element of earlier work. And when you're dealing with a finite number of notes and chords, it seems some combinations will invariably carry over.

But you also obviously can't plagiarize word for word. Or note for note.

It feels like it gets difficult as it's a decision somewhere on the scale in determining where too much is too much.

 

[whoknew]

I'm not musically smart enough to fully understand whether this opinion is overstating it, but I'd welcome others' opinion. If this lawsuit is successful, will there be just far reaching and negative consequences for the future of music?


The Ed Sheeran Lawsuit is a Threat to Western Civilization. Really.

 

[Todem]

It’s completely ridiculous. Just insane honestly.

 

[sho nuff]

The defense calls...Vanilla Ice

 

[Willy]

I never understand why some of these win while others that are far more obvious never even come up. We've Seen a lot of songs that borrowed a lot more than that. At a high level, I thought that melody and lyrics were the only things that were off limits from copying without credit and those songs share neither so I don't get it.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I'm not musically smart enough to fully understand whether this opinion is overstating it, but I'd welcome others' opinion. If this lawsuit is successful, will there be just far reaching and negative consequences for the future of music?


The Ed Sheeran Lawsuit is a Threat to Western Civilization. Really.

This has happened many times including George Harrison and John Fogerty as defendants and Tom Petty as a plaintiff.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I'm not musically smart enough to fully understand whether this opinion is overstating it, but I'd welcome others' opinion. If this lawsuit is successful, will there be just far reaching and negative consequences for the future of music?


The Ed Sheeran Lawsuit is a Threat to Western Civilization. Really.

This has happened many times including George Harrison and John Fogerty as defendants and Tom Petty as a plaintiff.

The one I remember most was the Led Zeppelin one where they had to change the songwriting credits on their first album.

 

[McBokonon]

I hope Sheeran wins simply because he sponsors Ipswich Town’s kits.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I am not much of a Sheeran fan, but I hope he wins. This stuff happens all the time, and the only reason he is getting sued is because he is hugely popular. I have heard plenty of underground artists borrow from others and no one ever cares, but as soon as Sheeran does it, the lawsuit comes flying simply because there is big money to be made by getting a co-writing credit on a financially successful hit.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

No particular opinion on this one specific case, but our copyright laws are nuts and need serious reform. For example, I'm not sure that any legitimate social goal is being achieved by having copyrights last longer than the life of the artist. I was immediately triggered by reading the phrase " . . . sued by the heirs of . . ." in the OP because I'm increasingly convinced that that should not be a thing.

 

[rockaction]

No particular opinion on this one specific case, but our copyright laws are nuts and need serious reform.

The problem is that the impetus for reform is trumped by lobbying dollars. The original copyright term was fourteen years with an extension of another fourteen. Today, it's the life of the author plus another seventy years. That's insane as a policy and restricts the use of information by tipping the scales in favor of the author vs. the public's interest in having information be free. Copyright, as a doctrine, is supposed to promote the progress of science (useful arts being the patent law clause) by balancing the incentive to create with the public's right to the creation, but it seems that these days it's promoting wealth for those who had no part in the creation of the thing while blocking the public domain element of the doctrine.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

IMHO- Gwen Stefani ripped off the Dr. Mario theme which I think was ripped from the baseline of LL Cool J’s “I’m Bad”.

 

[Zow]

It’s completely ridiculous. Just insane honestly.

It presumably passed summary judgment so it’s probably not ridiculous and insane.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

My view is that while the chord progression is similar, the melody is completely different. Heck, there are tons of songs that use the same chord progression. I mean everyone has seen that Axis of Awesome 4 chords video, right?

The defense team actually played that Axis of Awesome video as part of their statement: https://variety.com/2023/music/news...ets-thinking-out-loud-stand-trial-1235597495/

 

[Moe.]

Is Marvin Gaye’s estate particularly overzealous about this stuff? Seems like it’s them doing the suing on a lot of these.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Is Marvin Gaye’s estate particularly overzealous about this stuff? Seems like it’s them doing the suing on a lot of these.

Their theme song seems to be "Let's Get It On"

 

[bigbottom]

My view is that while the chord progression is similar, the melody is completely different. Heck, there are tons of songs that use the same chord progression. I mean everyone has seen that Axis of Awesome 4 chords video, right?

The defense team actually played that Axis of Awesome video as part of their statement: https://variety.com/2023/music/news...ets-thinking-out-loud-stand-trial-1235597495/

That is awesome (pun intended)!

 

[Don Quixote]

Chord progression does seem pretty different from stealing melody. This seems pretty different from the time Rod Stewart went on a bender in Brazil during Carnival and stole the melody from Taj Mahal from the guy in my avatar for Da Ya Think I’m Sexy:

Link

Before he’d head to the studio for Blondes Have More Fun, Stewart would do what immensely famous people did in the late ’70s: He went on a bender in Rio during Carnival, alongside maybe the only two active musicians more popular than him in 1978, Freddie Mercury and Elton John. The reconstituted “Taj Mahal” was, as Stewart writes in Rod, “everywhere” when he, Mercury, and John were tying several ones on. The song burrows its way into Stewart’s medulla oblongata to the point that when he’s in front of a microphone, trying to write a melody for his “disco song,” out comes the melody from “Taj Mahal.”

He did settle with Jorge Ben, and agreed to donate royalties to UNICEF. It sounds like no altruistic intentions with this lawsuit.

 

[Todem]

It’s completely ridiculous. Just insane honestly.

It presumably passed summary judgment so it’s probably not ridiculous and insane.

Ridiculous and insane.......final answer.

 

[Zow]

It’s completely ridiculous. Just insane honestly.

It presumably passed summary judgment so it’s probably not ridiculous and insane.

Ridiculous and insane.......final answer.

Oh, okay. Makes sense. I mean, what would a judge know about the law and specifically pled facts anyway?

 

[rockaction]

Oh, okay. Makes sense. I mean, what would a judge know about the law and specifically pled facts anyway?

Allowing a jury to determine what is copying and what isn't is based on doctrinal developments created by the judges you're praising, yet is actually close to insane. The standard for determining substantial similarities in musical composition copyright claims rests with juries and was a circuit court development, so there's that. Judges are certainly not infallible -- especially when they're creating doctrines -- when it comes to music law. Putting expert judgments in the hands of laymen is a fool's errand, and they should re-work the doctrine that allows (actually calls) for it.

 

[Zow]

Oh, okay. Makes sense. I mean, what would a judge know about the law and specifically pled facts anyway?

Allowing a jury to determine what is copying and what isn't is based on doctrinal developments created by the judges you're praising. But it's "insane" for determining substantial similarities in musical composition copyright claims, so there's that. Judges are certainly not infallible - nor are doctrines -- when it comes to music law.

I'm simply talking about how summary judgments generally gatekeep "ridiculous" and "insane" lawsuits from advancing to a jury.

 

[Brony]

punitive damages. Sue everybody

 

[Todem]

It’s completely ridiculous. Just insane honestly.

It presumably passed summary judgment so it’s probably not ridiculous and insane.

Ridiculous and insane.......final answer.

Oh, okay. Makes sense. I mean, what would a judge know about the law and specifically pled facts anyway?

Please..........subjective case 1000%........I laugh at these type of lawsuits most of the time unless it is a legit stolen song. Not the case here. Not at all. Could care less about the Judge and bringing it to trial.....when ultimately it’s a ridiculous grasping lawsuit to get money. Happens all the time.

 

[Todem]

Oh, okay. Makes sense. I mean, what would a judge know about the law and specifically pled facts anyway?

Allowing a jury to determine what is copying and what isn't is based on doctrinal developments created by the judges you're praising. But it's "insane" for determining substantial similarities in musical composition copyright claims, so there's that. Judges are certainly not infallible - nor are doctrines -- when it comes to music law.

I'm simply talking about how summary judgments generally gatekeep "ridiculous" and "insane" lawsuits from advancing to a jury.

When it’s a subjective lawsuit about art......and I use my common sense listening.....to the the argument....yeah.....they can take a hike in my book.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

It’s completely ridiculous. Just insane honestly.

It presumably passed summary judgment so it’s probably not ridiculous and insane.

Ridiculous and insane.......final answer.

Oh, okay. Makes sense. I mean, what would a judge know about the law and specifically pled facts anyway?

Please..........subjective case 1000%........I laugh at these type of lawsuits most of the time unless it is a legit stolen song. Not the case here. Not at all. Could care less about the Judge and bringing it to trial.....when ultimately it’s a ridiculous grasping lawsuit to get money. Happens all the time.

Tom Petty won his suit against Sam Smith - considering this was late in Petty’s career I’m skeptical it was a money-grab.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

I didn't think it was Gaye's estate suing, but Ed Townsend's. Maybe I've got that wrong, but I saw a comment or two here that it was the Gaye estate.

Doesn't matter because this is a ridiculous lawsuit. I've heard "Let's Get It On" 100s or1000s of times, and Sheeran's record sounds nothing like it.

In the "Blurred Lines" mess, the connection to "Got To Give It Up" was much easier to identify.

John Fogarty once got sued for plagiarizing his own songs.

 

[Todem]

It’s completely ridiculous. Just insane honestly.

It presumably passed summary judgment so it’s probably not ridiculous and insane.

Ridiculous and insane.......final answer.

Oh, okay. Makes sense. I mean, what would a judge know about the law and specifically pled facts anyway?

Please..........subjective case 1000%........I laugh at these type of lawsuits most of the time unless it is a legit stolen song. Not the case here. Not at all. Could care less about the Judge and bringing it to trial.....when ultimately it’s a ridiculous grasping lawsuit to get money. Happens all the time.

Tom Petty won his suit against Sam Smith - considering this was late in Petty’s career I’m skeptical it was a money-grab.

Some are absolutely legit....but a lot of frivolous and money grabs.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

It’s completely ridiculous. Just insane honestly.

It presumably passed summary judgment so it’s probably not ridiculous and insane.

Ridiculous and insane.......final answer.

Oh, okay. Makes sense. I mean, what would a judge know about the law and specifically pled facts anyway?

Please..........subjective case 1000%........I laugh at these type of lawsuits most of the time unless it is a legit stolen song. Not the case here. Not at all. Could care less about the Judge and bringing it to trial.....when ultimately it’s a ridiculous grasping lawsuit to get money. Happens all the time.

Tom Petty won his suit against Sam Smith - considering this was late in Petty’s career I’m skeptical it was a money-grab.

Some are absolutely legit....but a lot of frivolous and money grabs.

But we wouldn’t know which are legit and which are not until a there’s a lawsuit/trial.

I’m not saying Sheehan is liable here - but by my ears the chord progressions are nearly identical. Personally I doubt that’s why the song is popular- and agree with those that surmise it’s likely not purposeful stealing but just part of the song writing process - but we’ll see.

 

[Willie Neslon]

I think it's a better lawsuit than the Blurred Lines case and the Gayes won that one. Same almost everything except the melody and a slight key change. Unintentional I'm sure but chords, beat, tempo identical. Going to come down to who has the best lawyers.

 

[Osaurus]

Pretty sure his cat is behind this

 

[Mrs. Rannous]

I think it's a better lawsuit than the Blurred Lines case and the Gayes won that one. Same almost everything except the melody and a slight key change. Unintentional I'm sure but chords, beat, tempo identical. Going to come down to who has the best lawyers.

If I compose a waltz, am I ripping off Johann Strauss? The two songs just aren't really alike. If they were, half of all calypso songs would be cribbing from the other half.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

It’s completely ridiculous. Just insane honestly.

It presumably passed summary judgment so it’s probably not ridiculous and insane.

Substantial similarity is a quintessential jury question so it would be very unlikely to get thrown out on summary judgment.

I don't think it's an existential threat to the music industry or anything because it's pretty much the same fact pattern as the George Harrison/Chiffons case that has annoyed law students for forty years. The Blurred Lines ruling is more problematic, IMO, because you really can't argue that they share melody at even the most granular level. They're different basslines and different cowbell lines. In this case, I can be persuaded that at least the most relevant part of each chorus are pretty much the same bar. I think there should be some kind of de minimus exception where similarity at that level of granularity is OK, but I don't think any court has so held (I did judge a moot court at UVA once on that issue).

 

[Doug B]

Tom Petty won his suit against Sam Smith - considering this was late in Petty’s career I’m skeptical it was a money-grab.

Nitpick -- it never went to court. Quick and solid read below:

Sam Smith sued for copyright infringement

Takia Black, Staff Writer Copyright infringement in the music industry happens. Known for his hit song “Stay With Me”, three time Grammy-nominated artist Sam Smith has been hit with copyright issues. Sam Smith quietly settled a lawsuit with singer-songwriters Tom Petty and Jeff Lynne. Petty and...

thegeorgeanne.com

 

[Todem]

It’s completely ridiculous. Just insane honestly.

It presumably passed summary judgment so it’s probably not ridiculous and insane.

Substantial similarity is a quintessential jury question so it would be very unlikely to get thrown out on summary judgment.

I don't think it's an existential threat to the music industry or anything because it's pretty much the same fact pattern as the George Harrison/Chiffons case that has annoyed law students for forty years. The Blurred Lines ruling is more problematic, IMO, because you really can't argue that they share melody at even the most granular level. They're different basslines and different cowbell lines. In this case, I can be persuaded that at least the most relevant part of each chorus are pretty much the same bar. I think there should be some kind of de minimus exception where similarity at that level of granularity is OK, but I don't think any court has so held (I did judge a moot court at UVA once on that issue).

My ears hear two completely different songs.

I have heard dozens....and dozens of rock songs that sound quite similar.......it is flattering when some things are recycled over and over.....a definite regularity in the world of rock music. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard The Who’s Baba O’Reily chord progression used in a so many other rock songs......with zero lawsuits.

This is plain and simple frivolous based on simply listening to the songs.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I didn't think it was Gaye's estate suing, but Ed Townsend's. Maybe I've got that wrong, but I saw a comment or two here that it was the Gaye estate.

Doesn't matter because this is a ridiculous lawsuit. I've heard "Let's Get It On" 100s or1000s of times, and Sheeran's record sounds nothing like it.

In the "Blurred Lines" mess, the connection to "Got To Give It Up" was much easier to identify.

John Fogarty once got sued for plagiarizing his own songs.

I think what got Thicke in trouble for Blurred Lines is that he and Pharrell loudly and publicly asserted that they were influenced by Got to Give It Up. But again, while the influence may be clear (in the same way that Uptown Funk sounds like it came off Ice Cream Castles), there was no melody copied. Homage should not be a copyright violation. The problem is that there's not really a "legal" issue for an appellate court to review. The jury is charged with determining whether the two compositions are substantially similar. Factual conclusions can't be overturned on appeal unless they are "clearly erroneous," and it's not like jury verdicts tell you whether they've applied the correct standard.

 

[Willie Neslon]

I think it's a better lawsuit than the Blurred Lines case and the Gayes won that one. Same almost everything except the melody and a slight key change. Unintentional I'm sure but chords, beat, tempo identical. Going to come down to who has the best lawyers.

If I compose a waltz, am I ripping off Johann Strauss? The two songs just aren't really alike. If they were, half of all calypso songs would be cribbing from the other half.

I'm am not an attorney but I believe that is public domain. Someone else would probably know for sure.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

It’s completely ridiculous. Just insane honestly.

It presumably passed summary judgment so it’s probably not ridiculous and insane.

Substantial similarity is a quintessential jury question so it would be very unlikely to get thrown out on summary judgment.

I don't think it's an existential threat to the music industry or anything because it's pretty much the same fact pattern as the George Harrison/Chiffons case that has annoyed law students for forty years. The Blurred Lines ruling is more problematic, IMO, because you really can't argue that they share melody at even the most granular level. They're different basslines and different cowbell lines. In this case, I can be persuaded that at least the most relevant part of each chorus are pretty much the same bar. I think there should be some kind of de minimus exception where similarity at that level of granularity is OK, but I don't think any court has so held (I did judge a moot court at UVA once on that issue).

My ears hear two completely different songs.

I have heard dozens....and dozens of rock songs that sound quite similar.......it is flattering when some things are recycled over and over.....a definite regularity in the world of rock music. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard The Who’s Baba O’Reily chord progression used in a so many other rock songs......with zero lawsuits.

This is plain and simple frivolous based on simply listening to the songs.

I don't think there's any doubt that as complete songs, there are substantial differences between Lets Get It On and Thinking Out Loud. This comes down to a 2 or 3 second portion of each song. Whether when Ed sings "THINKING OUT LOUD" he's copying the composition of when Marvin sings "Let's GET IT ON!!!" (meaning in the insistent part in the second part of the song, not in the more questioning vein of the phrase in the first part of the song). The test, for better or worse, does not require the entire songs to be similar.

 

[Mrs. Rannous]

I think it's a better lawsuit than the Blurred Lines case and the Gayes won that one. Same almost everything except the melody and a slight key change. Unintentional I'm sure but chords, beat, tempo identical. Going to come down to who has the best lawyers.

If I compose a waltz, am I ripping off Johann Strauss? The two songs just aren't really alike. If they were, half of all calypso songs would be cribbing from the other half.

I'm am not an attorney but I believe that is public domain. Someone else would probably know for sure.

I said "ripping off", not some legal thing.

 

[Willie Neslon]

I think it's a better lawsuit than the Blurred Lines case and the Gayes won that one. Same almost everything except the melody and a slight key change. Unintentional I'm sure but chords, beat, tempo identical. Going to come down to who has the best lawyers.

If I compose a waltz, am I ripping off Johann Strauss? The two songs just aren't really alike. If they were, half of all calypso songs would be cribbing from the other half.

I'm am not an attorney but I believe that is public domain. Someone else would probably know for sure.

I said "ripping off", not some legal thing.

Well then the answer is no. This is an apples and oranges comparison imo.

 

[Runkle]

Given some of the stupid stuff that's already been allowed to be trademarked and copyrighted, I'm surprised no one has just gone and copyrighted individual notes.

You wanna use a C-sharp? Pay the Elvis Presley estate. B-flat belongs to Fats Domino. And you better believe you're gonna owe Mama Cass if you try and sing some Es.

 

[rockaction]

Given some of the stupid stuff that's already been allowed to be trademarked and copyrighted

Trademarking is weirder because it can be more exclusionary than copyright, which has built-in mechanisms at common law for independent creation and protection from short phrases being copyrighted (doctrine of merger). Trademark law generally falls under statutory or common law purview while the terms of copyright and patent are determined by Congress and the judiciary when applicable. It is Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution for patents and copyrights. The governing laws of trademark law stem from the Lanham Act at the federal level, and various state and common laws.

At least that's what I remember. Any practitioners are welcome to chime in and correct me.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

No particular opinion on this one specific case, but our copyright laws are nuts and need serious reform. For example, I'm not sure that any legitimate social goal is being achieved by having copyrights last longer than the life of the artist. I was immediately triggered by reading the phrase " . . . sued by the heirs of . . ." in the OP because I'm increasingly convinced that that should not be a thing.

Yes, since the Disney Copyright Extension Act, we're going decades without any new art entering the public domain.

Just the details of this case, which isn't particularly unique, spell out how insane the property regime actually is. Sheeran is being sued for allegedly appropriating a few notes of a song that was forty years old at the time he wrote Thinking Out Loud, which if it is derived from Let's Get It On at all, is at least a greatly transformative work. Both the breadth and the duration of copyright protection is kind of absurd.

Meanwhile, if Ed Sheeran had just recorded a note for note cover of Let's Get It On, he would have paid a modest mechanical license fee (which is a weird holdover from player pianos). If he had used the entire melody of Let's Get It On in a way that could be said to have commented and critiqued the original song (as the Two Live Crew argued they did with Oh, Pretty Woman) he would not have infringed under the parody extension of the Fair Use doctrine.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I should amend myself a bit here. I just saw a YouTube video from Rick Beato that got served to my timeline (gotta love that algorithm that knows anything I've spoken about today). It appears the crux of the similarity is in the slow, sparse piano part that features in the "groove" if not the melody of each song. The duh, DUH, duh duh. The chords are a bit different, but the progressions do sound very similar. So I was wrong about the extent of the allegations of what was "copied." It's a bit more substantial that what I understood it to be, although I'd also say that it's almost impossible that type of progression was unique to Let's Get It On in 1974. Again, I agree with Beato in that I think there are certainly more similarities here than what I heard in Blurred Lines to Got to Give It Up. In a sane statutory scheme, maybe we allow this kind of infringement analysis and then just use the damages analysis to let jury's conclude that the amount copied was modest enough to only support nominal damages. Unfortunately, the Copyright Act has a statutory damages clause assigning $150,000 of damages for EACH unauthorized copy, which again, is orders of magnitude over the license fee Sheeran would pay for just recording a faithful cover of Let's Get It On. It's all so gloriously stupid.

Link to the YouTube video

 

[Mrs. Rannous]

I think it's a better lawsuit than the Blurred Lines case and the Gayes won that one. Same almost everything except the melody and a slight key change. Unintentional I'm sure but chords, beat, tempo identical. Going to come down to who has the best lawyers.

If I compose a waltz, am I ripping off Johann Strauss? The two songs just aren't really alike. If they were, half of all calypso songs would be cribbing from the other half.

I'm am not an attorney but I believe that is public domain. Someone else would probably know for sure.

I said "ripping off", not some legal thing.

Well then the answer is no. This is an apples and oranges comparison imo.

No, it isn't. Just change the music type to ska or anything else with a standard beat.

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

I didn't think it was Gaye's estate suing, but Ed Townsend's. Maybe I've got that wrong, but I saw a comment or two here that it was the Gaye estate.

Doesn't matter because this is a ridiculous lawsuit. I've heard "Let's Get It On" 100s or1000s of times, and Sheeran's record sounds nothing like it.

In the "Blurred Lines" mess, the connection to "Got To Give It Up" was much easier to identify.

John Fogarty once got sued for plagiarizing his own songs.

I think what got Thicke in trouble for Blurred Lines is that he and Pharrell loudly and publicly asserted that they were influenced by Got to Give It Up. But again, while the influence may be clear (in the same way that Uptown Funk sounds like it came off Ice Cream Castles), there was no melody copied. Homage should not be a copyright violation. The problem is that there's not really a "legal" issue for an appellate court to review. The jury is charged with determining whether the two compositions are substantially similar. Factual conclusions can't be overturned on appeal unless they are "clearly erroneous," and it's not like jury verdicts tell you whether they've applied the correct standard.

The biggest problem for the Blurred Lines case is how bad Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke were as witnesses. Uncooperative, dismissive and they didnt even try to explain the differences.
In one of the Led Zeppelin lawsuits, Jimmy Pages was able to explain the chord differentiations and cane off as an expert and credible witness. Williams and Thicke, not so much. In fact they were as bad as possible.

After all the people adjudicating on these cases have no musical training, are poorly equipped to understand subtle differences and rely heavily on expert testimony. Its a flawed process.

 

[rockaction]

Yes, since the Disney Copyright Extension Act

I see what you did there. Lol. And Mickey is coming up soon, according to Google.