Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

But the argument is that it takes something away from the artiste. That it's not only like stealing but that it is actually stealing.

So what is it? Is it taking something away from the original creator (and the creator before him/her) or is it not.



I think the legal system deals with that. If you believe that you are losing money due to somebody else stealing your intellectual property then you can sue.

I would not equate copying necessarily with stealing but each copy that is made of your software/music whatever will dilute it's value to an extent unless there is some compensation. Commercial software hopes you will compensate by paying money, OSS hopes you will compensate by providing code or some other service.


But it's not the actual copy but the ip.

So it's not really any different, besides of course that transcribing someone's licks and incorporating it into your own style isn't going to get exposed.


What do you mean "isn't going to get exposed" , people complain all the time that certain songs re-use riffs from older songs.

Your argument seems to boil down to what the minimum unit of valid IP is. This is a complex issue and is often fought in courts.

Taking a riff from someone elses song and rebuilding a new song around it requires a lot more creativity time and money than simply copying and redistributing the song.

Copyright isn't so much for protecting an "idea" as such (that's what patents are for). It is to stop somebody reproducing a complete piece of work without prior agreement.

Let's say I build a new type of software and publish it, then somebody else thinks that is a good idea and builds their own version that is similar to mine (without re-using my source code). I would view that as flattery and competition. However I have a strong first mover advantage and whilst they may have learned from some of my mistakes they still have to actually do the work of creating their software which puts us economically on a relatively even footing.

Suppose instead they simply redistribute my software with their logo on it for half the price then they have a strong economical advantage because they didn't have to invest the initial development costs that I did.


Please re-read what this is about.

Are musicians stealing from other musicians when they transcribe a song or a riff or a chord progression, or a signature sound?

If they are then all musicians are stealing all the time.

If it's not then copying music isn't stealing either.


I'm sorry but are you trolling me on purpose?

I deliberately did not equate anything with stealing and you haven't responded to the overall point of my previous post.


Do you know what trolling is?

Let me rephrase then.

Is it different from an ip point of view if you transcribes riff or a chord progression from other musicians?

In other words is it ok when the musicians do it?


Yes, it is different for reasons already discussed.

Why would it be different for musicians?




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: