🚀Watch this video essay ad free (with bonus content) on nebula🚀 nebula.tv/videos/adam-neely-the-grotesque-legacy-of-music-as-property/

The amount of law suits happening over chord progressions is actually scary. Especially with jazz being built on borrowing

Another great example of the "citation" idea in action: Lil Nas X sampled a Nine Inch Nails instrumental to create Old Town Road. When Trent Reznor got contacted by his legal team about this rapper blowing up using one of his songs, they were pressuring him to sue. But Trent told them, "No, don't sue the guy; just get him to add a songwriting credit." The rest is history.

Adam’s advocating for a return to 90’s style big paragraphs of influences in liner notes and I’m here for it.

I remember humming out a riff one day in my head and I was really excited to pick up guitar and work on it. Not long after I realised it wasn't my own but something I realised was part of a song I had listened to a few weeks earlier. I feel influences are a massive part of music too and have their part to play in this discussion. Someone might involuntarily plagarise or borrow and perhaps sometimes not realise because it just hooked its way into their head and came out while song writing.

Average scholar: uses Plato’s theory of forms to explain the idea/expression dichotomy Adam, a true intellectual: *SANDWICHES*

The fact that Blue's Clues uses the I Got Rhythm melody sent me into a nostralgia trance I wasn't expecting today

My Master's Thesis was titled 'A Critique of Musical Copyright as it Relates to the Allocation of Publishing Rights' and I covered a lot of the stuff in this video. Super interesting stuff. The main take away I got while researching and writing my paper is that the current system of musical ownership is simply unsustainable. It was always unsustainable, but considering the rate of musical creation has increased tenfold since the 1990s, it's just a joke at this point. I proposed a few alternative methods to the problem of musical ownership in my thesis. Would be happy to share them.

"Calvinistically predetermined," Ecclesiastes, and "he who is without sin...." Adam is flexing some theological background here. ❤

As a ghost writer for several djs, I was once sued by one for accidentally re using a (simple) bassline across 2 different producers tracks. For decades in the pop/ dance field I had long used the term "monkeys and typewriters" referring to law of infinite probability. The lawsuit was drawn out and agitated hugely by the suing dj's wife, who flat refused to believe me that there were only 12 notes in music, never mind 7 in a typical song or even less in a house bassline! She just wouldn't accept it, music was still magical to her and she was adamant I had done it consciously / maliciously.

A well known local case here in Australia involved Greg Ham of 80s band Men At Work and their famous hit 'Land Down Under' - an innocuous question on a music quiz show in 2010 suggested that the flute line in the intro performed by Ham was taken from a popular children's song 'Kookaburra' that was written in the 1930s - A company who had purchased the rights to that and other similar songs in the 1990s then immediately took Men At Work and EMI to court for copyright, in which they won the case - They recieved 5% of backdated royalties for the song, and sent Greg Ham into a state of depression as he was concerned that his legacy would be known for plagiarism. He died in 2012 to due a suspected heart attack in what was a rather sad end and no doubt the court case would have been a contribution to his death - The company that won the case has had literally zero contribution to the world of music - disgusting result

I really appreciate the motivation behind your "citing sources" idea, but I have some thoughts: A lot of the time I don't think people who write music really know what their influences are, exactly; that's true for me, anyway, as someone who occassionaly writes music in the Western classical tradition. The influences that musicians take from are so diverse and wide ranging, it's probably impossible to be accurate in citing your musical influences. It might be interesting, though, to see if this requirement would change the way music is written. If it did, would that be "bad?"

7:04 It was at this moment that I not only sustained major psychic damage but also realized "wow I really was basically shown jazz musical concepts that are comforting at a really early age"

Even if copyright was reduced back to a more sane duration of, say, 20 years - the lifespan of patents in most countries - it'd be a damn sight less creatively stifling than the status quo, despite not being particularly satisfying from a philosophical POV.

It’s always surprising and upsetting to see how many musicians, artists, designers, and creators are on social media, forums, and other internet communities staunchly enforcing an “anti-piracy” mindset because they believe deeply that copyright law protects them and other artists. In large part, copyright lawsuits and dmca action have become opportunities for supermassive corporate entities to advertise a fable of “protecting the little man” without ever having to show where the money they collect is going. Newsflash, artists: it’s not going to other artists!

Even though I have a composition degree, I hardly ever compose and primarily identify as an arranger and keyboardist. The fact that most new compositions already draw so heavily on existing music is an illustration of why arranging is often quite satisfying for me - it's a lot of the same activity, but without the pressure of coming up with original melodies, which was never a strong suit of mine.

I got a copyright strike on KZfaq for 2 minutes of me playing a C note with no other instruments or rhythms happening

Citation is actually a pretty big piece of certain folk traditions, especially in live performance. It’s expected within certain circles that performers not only explain the history of the piece, but their own history with it: who they learned it from and what version they learned.

The state of copyright lawsuits in the music business always feels like this sickening, atrocious thing happening right in front of me that I can do nothing about. It gives me some solace to see someone like Adam working to inform the public on how this can be better.

Hearing the Thelonius over and over made me think of, "He's making a list, checking it twice, going to find out who is naughty and nice." Not 1 for 1, but my brain connected the two. Return idea to sender. What's sad about the music litigation is that it isn't about music, but has a large impact on people who make and sell it.

Holy crap the entire intro I knew that lick was sooo familiar to me. Of course it's Blue's Clues I almost spit my coffee

I always love when Father Neely sprinkles some of his musical knowledge into his sermons!

Biig Renaissance music and music publishing nerd here (I have an actual PhD on the subject) and I am jumping in the comments (without having watched the whole video 'cause I am too excited) to say that basically, even then, music copyright was basically a biiiig clusterfuck. Publishers of printed music "pirated" each other's books all the time, everybody published official "copyrighted" stuff but also clandestine stuff, and the fancy copyrights you got from the king or your local authorities only worked when said authorities actually bothered enforcing them... Basically, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

The segment on sandwiches and music creation blew my mind. For one, because when you said that most people only have a daily, intimate relationship with consuming music rather than creating it ... I've assumed that everyone goes through their day, singing and composing their own backtracks to their lives. And then when you mentioned mysticism around production ... such mysticism doesn't exist for me with music, but it DOES exist with food production 😵‍💫. To me, of COURSE you can't own a musical idea - that's as silly as claiming copyright over English grammar. Yet it was unexpected to hear that most recipes cannot be copyrighted. What a spectacular analogy.

I've been writing music for 35 years and this video blew me away. Such an honest and interesting take on what music really is from a compositional perspective. Thanks Adam, you rock! 😄

If ever I were on a jury I’d say, “Bach already wrote all the order of notes that sound good.” Great video, Adam (as always).

The ascending riff Monk used in Rhythm-Na-Ning also appears in Pokemon's "Follow Me" music as well as St. Vincent's "Pills"

"Minor Swing" by Djano Reinhardt for a nice, minor inflected, french cafe flavored "I Got Rhythm" melody. (also, labor theory of value ftw)

ChatGPT just made this video even more relevant. How does copyright/licensing work when the author is an AI built by a private company that takes a user’s unique prompt and uses a data set of others’ copyrighted work to generate something new?

Fascinating video. As a former lawyer (I consider myself an escapee) and guitar player I struggle with idea that we can judge plagiarism in music from a score. I think 12Tone did a video saying notation is NOT music. We have to listen to it otherwise we are trying to judge a painting by only reading the names of the colours used. One additional thought. Individual rights are supposed to protect the individual from monopoly power (money or swords). This starts with "get off my land" and extends to anything that can be treated as giving value. That requires a means of exploiting that value. But the modern means of exploitation make monopoly almost inevitable. Music is not like language. Copyright may work for novels but not for chord changes and notation will not work at all for much of modern music. To be honest I don't know what the answer is but clearly there is something wrong with the current system.

My favorite example of how I feel like it should be, is somebody asked The Strokes where they got the idea for the riff in "Last nite". And Julian Casablancas said "You know that song american girl by tom petty? Yeah we stole that riff" And nobody was mad because the way in which it was used was unique, and it was a clear inspirational moment to make a completely new song

This is THE Joseph Campbell comparative mythology take on copyright. So well researched. Thank you for doing this.

You’re amazing - thank you so much from a School Band teacher who taught in 50 schools on 5 continents. You’re 100% correct and 0% wrong. Cheers!

I once got a copyright claim from a company claiming to own the composition rights to Dvorak, who died in 1904. Someday I'll release my cello metal arrangement of Dvorak.

As a non native speaker, I always felt awkward to pronounce 'rural'. Nice to see a native speaker with the same struggle. XD Also, amazing video as always!

I put this video on as some "noise" while I ate the sandwich I just made. This video hit me in so many ways that I didn't expect lol. I have such an odd relationship with originality and quoting in music. As a kid, I used to go out of my may to not learn guitar licks because I felt I was not improvising if I was stringing them together. It had to be me and the 12 notes and nothing more. In hindsight I can now see how a nobody in the music industry like myself could have been so passionate about following copyright laws very strictly. I suppose as a kid I never really thought about large firms buying up music publishing and fishing for infringement cases. I think this is one of the best copyright youtube videos I've watched. I've seen quite a few from lawyers, musicians and streamers but none of them make you think much. Also having a love for science, I feel almost embarrassed that I have never thought of the concept of citation in music creation. I've enjoyed other videos by Adam more (ie. favorite interval...still kills me. I just checked) but somehow he made this video about copyright (and sandwiches) that hit me hard intellectually and emotionally...well played, sir.

It feels like you just ctrl-F melodies/chord progressions and find instances of them being used across all genres and time periods. I'm so impressed by the depth of your research!

I'm glad you continue to come back to this subject, once again your video essays are thorough and thought provoking. I have a couple of comments: 1) The citation system in academia (at least in the sciences) is less about credit and more about justifying your arguments. Credit is important too, but I would argue it's secondary, at least in practice, as the main aim in scientific publishing is not to applaud your peers, but to advance knowledge. In music, as in literature, paraphrasing and quoting as an artistic device would suffer from being burdened with credits in the way you suggest: these quotes are often intended to be obscure, and part of the pleasure derived from the work is to recognise them without being told. But there is a deeper problem with this idea, which is that it doesn't solve the root cause of this mess - indeed it contributes to it - which I am more and more convinced is... 2) ... that we live in a culture dominated by monetisation to the exclusion of all else. Not by money per se, mind (though that too), but specifically the idea that everything that can be monetised has value, and everything that can't does not. A rich, living, shared and public musical tradition would be valuable to a society - it might increase social cohesion and happiness and strengthen relationships (including business relationships). But that's hard to monetise. So we end up in an absurd situation where laws are written from a short term monetary perspective (how much is art worth in terms of dollars) which might benefit a single person or a small group, with no regard to the broader public. So yes, this problem with copyright is directly linked to broader problems with modern technocratic democracies, where governments seek control over the people and defer to entrenched minority interests with power. But the important point here is what you mentioned in your video: that the people making the decisions and controlling the narrative are not musicians, but businessmen and lawyers, i.e. folk who do not or cannot understand the art, and care little of the broader social consequences. Their lens is narrow and out of focus, and they convince jurors and governments that it is the correct lens. Ultimately copyright will always be an imperfect tool. Not having it all would certainly lead to outright copying of complete works, but it is ludicrous to copyright such short phrases or fragments - you may as well copyright four word sequences in literature. The problem clearly arises as to where to draw the line, and that problem has driven us down closer and closer to the building blocks - the musical atoms if you will - themselves. But it could be much, much less imperfect, to the point that it might actually be useful (I would argue it is not at all useful to the broader culture as it stands), and this could be as simple as (i) reducing copyrights to 20 years maximum (10 even), and (ii) using the "complete work" as the test. This means that a work which differs even quite slightly could arguably be called new. People tend to know when something is the "real thing" or not quite intuitively, and will always seek out that original if they like it. If they can't tell the difference, then it's probably too similar and can be deemed a direct copy. There will be for sure some fringe cases which will cause problems, but the musical culture will be freed, and meanwhile nobody can just republish your work without themselves reworking it thoroughly enough. Of course to get to that point would require a serious paradigm shift in politics! Keep up the good work, and keep talking about this!

Adam's videos need to be used in college classrooms. Clear main idea, effective structuring and flow of points, extensive research, awareness of the audience, relevant topics, creative and original voice...

The only possible shortcoming of a citation system may be subconscious influences. An artist may have an idea for a melody, thinking they came up with it, not realizing it’s from a game soundtrack they heard a year ago - or even another artist that this artist admires and actively listens to.

I've been following your youTube presentations for several years now, and this is one of the best (so far). Having been a faithful watcher, I would like to point out the significant improvement in your standard of living (the background stuff). It's nice to see that a practicing musician can make a decent living at their art (craft, whatever). It's also wonderful that you have kept the (literally) 'found art' on the wall, which, I might add is pretty cool.

The realization of where I know that melody when you showed blues clues absolutely blew my mind. I grew up with that show. And as a musician today I personally hold the belief that if someone is inspired by my music, they are free to use that inspiration to build off of it or use part of it to create something new. I am by no means famous. Barely popular, if that. But I would feel honored to know someone used my art to create more art.

Suddenly the Psychostick song "This is Not a Song, It's a Sandwich!" makes perfect sense. Thank you, Adam.

This is honestly one of your most thoughtful videos ever. Great work!

I spent a significant amount of time pausing this video, so I could write my own thoughts on this topic...only to ultimately delete them all because you hit every point I wanted to make. Nicely done! The odd thing is that, as an artist who will likely never achieve fame or fortune, I actually love the idea that somebody will hear my music and love it enough to be _influenced._

I think the citation idea is brilliant. It may even lend a new sense of seriousness to modern music. And let's keep in mind, this is already a common practice in hip hop music because of sampling. If we consider the gangster rap of the early 90s, Dr Dre borrowed heavily from Parliament funkadelic and did not shy away from giving them credit. The result was a lot of kids who are into Dr dre, Snoop Dogg and others eventually learn about George Clinton and '70s funk. Everybody won.

Thanks for Your elaborations, Adam! There's one problem I see with Your proposed citation based system: When composing, I have very ofted found ideas, that I had to realize were not my own. Given the vastness of the world of music, it would be almost impossible to find the source of an idea, if it isn't being chosen consciously. I try to not "steal" ideas, but if I find a melodic motive and can't find it in the music I remember having heard before, I claim it as my own. The apple on the roadside tree, so to speak.

This is an amazing video, man. I have listened to many discussions about copyright and this is the first one that massively shifts my understanding of it. Plus you have some super-clear and concise musical theory in the middle.

I have been waiting for this one for years. Thanks a million for making this. 🙏🏼

Something something copywrong

As a young music student, I think it's important to realize that we shouldn't let the fear of being unoriginal stop us from trying to compose. I know of loads of people who have said, "I try composing things, but then I realize that it's just a popular song that I've heard before." Of course it is. That's how the composing process starts. very few small ideas are original, but how we develop them will always be at least a little bit unique to us. At the very least, we will learn a bit about the structure of the music we've heard before which was memorable enough to stick in our brains and come out in our composing.

I always love how you put these videos together - excellent writing and composition. This one unsurprisingly particularly amused this one-time philosophy major with grad degrees in theology. I enjoy music so much and wish I understood it better. This channel is a huge help and really entertaining along the way.

Another great example of this kind of situation is the similarity between Carlos Lyra's "Maria Moita" and possibly the one most recognisable guitar solo ever (Deep Purple's "smoke on the water"). It was an example I was expecting to see in the video.

While I think the citational system you propose is a very interesting thought experiment, I feel like there would probably be some major problems if it were actually put into place. For cover songs, or sample-heavy music, it might work well enough since the provenance of the cited work is pretty clear. But I'm not sure it would always be so straightforward to identify 'prior art' for most compositions that are seemingly new. There have been times where I've revisited songs that I wrote after several years and realized, 'hey, that riff is sort of like the riff from song X that I've listened to a lot'. Likely this is no coincidence; I heard song X and subconsciously added its performance techniques, its chords, its melodic ideas to my repertoire, and later on when writing music these ideas resurfaced. The problem is, had you asked me right after I wrote it, I may well have failed to realize where these ideas were coming from. In other words, a citational system puts an additional burden on the composers of new music. Perhaps at times there is an obvious answer to how the cite one's sources, but I can imagine that especially for complex music written by a person who has extensive, eclectic tastes, it would take a lot of time to go through the possible sources of musical influence to ensure they were not leaving anything out. And insofar as time is a resource, one which is often interchangeable with money, such a system gives a distinct advantage to artists with money - those with the backing of a major record label, or new artists who have existing wealth. Less popular, less wealthy artists are at risk of failing to meet the requirements of this kind of system. There are other problems too. What if I wrote a song substantially similar to song X, but in fact I had never heard song X? It's possible for multiple musicians to stumble upon the same idea independently. Does the prior art get credit in this circumstance? If so, does everybody now need to cite Riehl and Rubin in every seemingly 'new' melody? And if not, how can we prove whether an artist heard some apparent music influence?

This is my favorite video you’ve ever made. You put so many things I’ve been thinking about it into clear, accessible, and well-researched terms. The sandwich analogy (and the note about the mysticism of musicmaking) is super appropriate, as is your citation proposal. Thank you.

Your knowledge of jazz and music history overall is very impressive!

What a totally excellent analysis! This is something I've been thinking about for many years and it's amazing to see Adam explain this with so much pedagogy behind it- must have had great mentors and role models! Great video!

22:38 That is a very bold assumption indeed. After all many people who watch this channel are also musicians. Also a really excellent video. Thank you.

A lot of things about Adam's videos are amazing but one thing that always boggles me is how he manages to stich so cleanly different cuts, with his speech in perfect continuity, when the two sections in question were obviously shot not only in different locations but different days and different setups lol. I wonder if he watches the last bit of video before starting to record the next bit so he can continue the line exactly where he'd stopped.

I think that it's a bit problematic to propose that composers should quote where they got their ideas from. Because though some composers and songs are really inspired in something they heard, sometimes something may be composed out of no clear reference. And even if the composition is actually very similar to some compositions from the past, sometimes who composed later never heard that song or heard and didn't even remember. As you said in the video, there are some very common ideias to play in instruments like the guitar. So it might be easy that someone can't quote where the exact idea came from, also because only a few people who compose are musical researchers, or people with a wide repertoire and musical theory knowledge. Thus, I think the system you propose might be problematic in many cases. Maybe not, but I think it's worth to think about that too

This and Tom Scott's video on copyright are some of the best things I've seen on KZfaq - such well-made videos. Looking forward to watching some of videos referenced here.

I like your idea about the citation system, but I feel like it’s just different. Artists are always influenced by others, but, unlike academics, aren’t going around citing their work. The few songs I’ve written were likely influenced by *many* artists, but I can’t directly trace that influence. I don’t know where it came from. It just sounded good. And I don’t have the knowledge or skill to parse the chord progressions in the music I listen to.

I think you just independently conceptualized Creative Commons. It currently has about as much legal authority as open source software licenses, insofar as they're not codified into law, but this exists. I would absolutely love seeing a later follow-up video exploring and shedding a brand new light on Creative Commons from your musical perspective!

Thanks Adam, a really interesting video. Great stuff.

I love everything about this video. Thank you.

Music/philosophy/economics, three of my fave things to think about. This is a brilliant thought-provoking and well-researched essay. It's really good and I like the concept of citation sans ownership. Throughout the vid I was thinking of the egregious example of jimmy Page copying the way Bert Jansch played Blackwaterside, itself a traditional (I think) tune. I think Bert would have liked a citation, a nod to his creative labour, people could have discovered his recordings and Page could just have feel better about himself.

Laughed out loud at “this is a good Christian video” 😂 Excellent video Adam. These long form video essays are some of your best work. This topic is only going to continue to keep becoming more relevant so I’m happy you took it on in depth

You never cease to surprise me with your research. Even after studying music at a grad level experience every video you give constantly adds to my knowledge. Thank you so very much and great respect on your content. Valuable as shit even on KZfaq.

This is so good. Thanks Adam for shining so much light on this. As a producer I've had hundreds of conversations about this with musicians and listeners only to realize that A) none of it really makes sense to me (and that's why it's so damn hard to learn) B) when I finally grasp any of the systems that govern the musical copyright, I usually heavily disagree with it on a moral plane. Keep on doing the hard work!

God bless you, dude. This is the role of the public intellectual: explaining the deep silliness of the assumptions underlying musical copyright decisions from an informed perspective.

I thought about how to 'solve' intellectual property quite a lot before and also arrived on a citational system, but you worded it a lot better than I did

Every judge on the planet needs to watch this video. Twice. EDIT: And every lawyer thinking about bringing one of these stupid cases forward. "You watch the video yet? How many times?"

Hey Adam! Thanks for such an enlightening video!

Made me smile seeing you mention Eliminate. The guy is a beast at sound manipulation and production!

So the last point, which is - this copyright thing limiting your creativity in studio - is so depressing and discouraging. I felt it so much while using samples in my own work. So many songs are now collecting dust in "cool but i'm afraid" folder on my harddrive. And everytime, even if i know, that thing i used is practically unrecognisable, and it have almost nothing to do with the original, sample is so short, so flipped and processed beyond any recognition - it still creeps in my mind time to time, that it is somehow copyright "protected". Yeah I know that nobody gives a damn about some noname nobody artist in some 3'rd world country, but this thoughts anyway appear time to time in my head for many years. And for some time recently, as this points about copyright started and continue to rise, and this situation is talked about more and more I decided something important for myself. All this big tech companies, huge lawyers, dehumanising corporations, total control of people's lives and thoughts, freedom of speech and freedom of movement. They just monetize and take control of our freedom of expression. And I decided at least for myself, that I've had enough. From this time i will do whatever i want with whatever i have. I will not steal someone's work and call it mine, as it was never my intent. I don't give a damn about copyright laws, because they as of right now are completely stupid and make no sence. And if this corporate dogs would try to take my work down and bring me to court - just they try. I will fight till the end, and will not hand myself out to them alive. Let this be the precedent.

I'd love such a citation system! The amounts of musical rabbit holes I could fall into by working my way back from the songs I love... I'd take that a thousand times over the illusion of originality

This was a good, well thought out video, and even still I was surprised to hear rent seeking in particular brought up. Your videos are always more than I expect them to be and I always learn so much.

I largely agree on most things you said in this video. The one exception is your idea that a songwriter should cite their inspirations/sources. It works in academics, because you can make a statement and find a past academic who said that before and quote them. However, implementing this in music would be immensely complicated. Less experienced and young songwriters might not fully understand their influences, but they can still go viral thanks to the internet, like TikTok. Then they'd get into legal trouble because they didn't clearly say where the ideas came from, because they themselves might not even be sure. Or someone might be making music and not have their sound figured out yet... realistically some might start thinking of their influences, but others might just write what sounds good to them without knowing why. And what about subconscious influences? What if I heard a song as a six-year-old that I have long forgotten about, that subconsciously influenced melodies I gravitate towards? Would I need to write the Teletubbies, The Wiggles, Hi 5, Hungarian folk music I heard growing up, and the alphabet song down every time I make a song that miiiight have been influenced by these things? Additionally, due to the death of the CD and the dominance of music streaming, the average person's musical influence is significantly more diverse than ever before. Most people don't just listen to one genre anymore, which has inspired creatives to make countless new subgenres with their own micro-niche. It's entirely possible for someone to make music that perfectly fits the description of a hyper-specific subgenre and not know the name of it, or the fact that there's more music out there just like it. It's the same problem as with the current copyright system, people can easily come up with the same or a similar idea independently, or in a way that is directly influenced but unintentional because it's subconscious. This isn't to say that this idea of citing your inspirations is impossible to implement, but to make this idea work it would need to be very well thought-out for these sort of situations. Especially in the ever-changing digital landscape where information is instant and culture and society can be drastically different from one year to another. A law change like this would need to be future-proof in the same way the current laws are not

Off topic but the bass playing on Marvin Gaye's "Let's get it on" is killer man.. Winton Felder is such a killer musician.

This was great! I liked the long form and you kept the pace up so I felt like I was getting a good idea of the nuance without getting mired in it.

This is brilliant and highly thought-provoking Adam, cheers

As an aspiring composer whenever I come up with something new I’m always paranoid with the thought of “what if I accidentally stole this”.

I am ALWAYS looking forward to your video essays. They are really well-done, highly educational and I learn a lot about theory and music in general. A big thank you! 🙌🏻

I love your videos since I've discovered your channel around 2018 ! Enjoy the last days of 2022 Adam 🎶✨️ Greetings from Paris 🇫🇷

I have been a quiet fan of yours for awhile, but I had to speak up and commend you on this video. You are an important voice in music theory history.

I actually really like the citation system and when I make my own music I often inadvertantly have tried to do the same. There's this song called "Oh Montmarte" by Kristen Kristmason, an obscure Quebecois folk and jazz musician. Somehow though, my dad found her music some time in the early 2000s, probably a lucky find at the library. The lyrics are in French, I language I don't speak, though my father speaks it. I asked him what the lyrics meant one day and then wrote it down. I swapped some words around to make it sound good in English and have similar syllable characteristics to the French original. I play that song for people a lot and they ask me if I wrote it, and I say no but I translated it and also half the words are my own edits, but the original story is maintained for the most part, and also when I first learnt the song I learnt it by ear and actually learnt the chords slightly differently than what I've realized the real version is. So yeah, I kinda did write it. I'd say I wrote about 60% of the value of it when I play it. By any labour theory (which of course the US legal system does not recognize), I'd say I own it.

26:51 note: you can contribute to creating such a culture of sharing by licensing your work under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license. Under that copyright license, anyone who uses your music must a) cite you and b) give others the same freedoms you gave them, with their own music. The law could address a citation system individually similar to copyright. You'd just be able to sue anyone who doesn't cite you for some amount of statutory and/or actual damages. This is how Creative Commons and other free cultural licenses function, and they seem to function well, so I don't see why not. Perhaps enforcement could be delegated to larger organizations. I believe copyright should subsist for commercial usage (but only for like 10 years or so), so maybe such organizations would have a commercial incentive. I think not enough attention is paid to individual copying, since I think the utilitarian argument for copyright rests on the necessity of authors and musicians to produce works. As you mentioned, there is a special "class" of people who produce books and music, and copyright is designed to encourage that class to exist and continue functioning smoothly. However, the only purpose of the existence of such a class would be for enjoyment, and ultimately, it's the consumer class that does this. Therefore, to ensure this "transactional" process goes the way it should, consumers _also deserve rights._ It's currently the case that consumers aren't allowed to share an MP3 file with friends or peers, and I think a culture of sharing would be much more valuable. (Note that this also helps smaller authors who might not otherwise be able to access certain music.)

Your work is awesome, man! Thanks for sharing

I have always liked Adam Neely's channel, the content is always challenging, entertaining and educational. I'm so glad that he appears to be finally earning a living from all of that knowledge and hard work.

I feel like the proposed citation system wouldn't work for a number of reasons. Unlike when writing an academic paper, there's a large part of the process that happens subconsciously, both when consuming music as well as when writing. It would be by definition impossible for an artist to cite a song that influenced them subconsciously. Other issues might include WHO to cite (as established in the video, it's difficult to pinpoint who "owns" a musical idea) and WHEN to cite (at what point does a musical idea, for example a II-V-I, become public domain?)

For that entire first section I was praying and hoping you would bring up the blues clues part and when you played it i actually cheered. thank you funny music man

Really well researched and presented! Thank you for putting this together. You are instrumental in helping us get past the inhabitions that the fear of not being "original" can impose. Keep up the great work.

Very helpful Adam, informative, entertaining, and Brilliant! it poses a lot of questions for me, Thank you!

Great job Adam! This might be one of your best videos yet.

Oh Adam Adam thank you for this. I'm currently doing my dissertation on sampling in music and the devastating effects that copyright law has had on the culture, and this is beautiful summation of the history of music as intellectual property. May I add the real sinister aspect of musical copyright law, recorded sound, has taken this exploitation to an even higher level. Technology is currently in the works for major labels to add an inaudible 'tag' built into the metadata of any audio that would be automatically identifiable if even a NANOSECOND is used in a piece. If used in a belligerent fashion....it could give major labels an absolute authority over sampling in music in its entirety......

As usual, great video. Keep ‘em coming

I loved this video, and although I agree copyright laws are out of touch I don't think a citation mandate would be all that great. When I write music, I don't do research first. I just create based on instinct along with my accumulated knowledge and abilities. I may play something I've heard before, but who knows where it came from? I think copyright is obsolete and should be limited to lyrical content and the recording itself. Chord progressions and beats should just be considered tradition, shared knowledge. If you are writing original blues music then you are already very limited by the traditions of the form (beats and 12 bar chord progressions) . The only parts that may be considered original are your lyrical choices and whatever personal style you bring to the party. I think it's great to list your influences (in general) but to be obligated to do so for every piece you write would be a nightmare. This is a very thought provoking video. Thanks, Adam.

Adam, this is simply STUNNING. You keep outdoing yourself. And that's not easy considering the level of these pieces. Massive thanks!!!

Someone also needs to get this in front of Larry Lessig and the higher ups at Electronic Frontier Foundation. You all can help one another. Bravo man.

And another masterpiece of a video from the best man for the job.