Ed Sheeran wins Shape of You copyright case

[Grahambythesea]

Blues song writers will probably not be sued as they didn’t make any money from royalties.

[MacDaddy]

11 minutes ago, Grahambythesea said:

Blues song writers will probably not be sued as they didn’t make any money from royalties.

 

whereas Eric Clapton and Jimmy Page...

[fretmeister]

7 hours ago, Kev said:

Pedantic much?

 

A complete waste of everyone's time. Glad the lad can focus on just making music again now.

 

 

 

 

That's not pedantic, it's accurate.

Every case ever bought for any type of dispute at all is pedantic and it has to be. 

 

Hindsight doesn't work. If the other guy had shown ES had heard the song before then it certainly would not have been a waste of time, and with the granting of the declaratory relief it wasn't a waste of time for ES in any circumstance, even if the counter claim hadn't been made.

 

There was enough of a triable case to mean than ES had to put a hold on a couple of million quid pending the outcome.  And we also need to remember each side had their own music experts - those experts have to sign a Statement of Truth confirming that their duty is to the court and not their own client, and their pay is not allowed to be linked to the outcome of the trial. Trials proceeding because opposing experts cannot agree is common in all types of litigation where experts might be needed. Medical, engineering, accountancy etc etc.

 

There will now be another hearing about the costs. The usual outcome is that the loser pays the winners costs "on the standard basis" - that means any doubt as to the reasonableness of the costs is resolved in favour of the paying party - the LOSER of the main event gets the benefit of the doubt and the costs payable will be smaller. If the loser has done something particularly unwise or has failed to accept a sensible offer made by the winner then the court can punish them for wasting everybody's time for all or part of the costs by making an "Indemnity Costs" order where any doubt as to reasonableness of the costs is resolved in favour of the receiving party - the winner (ES) and then the loser will have to pay a higher percentage of the winner's costs. The costs order will decide whether the judge thought the matter was a waste of time as a whole or in part.

 

 

And now for the bigger picture - all cases form part of precedent. So while the other guy didn't get what he wanted, and ES did get the Order he wanted there might be other benefits from this case being run.

 

The judge's very careful and indeed pedantic review of the music led to a conclusion that the melody structure being argued about is very common and that there's nothing special about it. This decision will now be used as a basis to help decide whether other songs that are similar to each other in the same sort of way are just using a common melody structure or if there are genuinely unique elements that have been copied. It's not a binding decision as it's only in the High Court and not in the CA, but it will be powerfully persuasive.

 

It is now likely that a potential claimant in an IP related case will not even start the matter if the type of similarity doesn't go beyond the ES example.

On the flip side, any defendant will now find it easier to defend such an action bought by an unwise claimant.

 

It also means that if someone writes a song that last year they would not have released because it's too close to ES's song for the relevant few bars, they can now release it knowing ES probably can't sue them for that common element.

 

We all know how inadequate IP law is in the modern world and in the absence of parliament getting round to re-writing the law the way the law develops is through precedent.

 

So no - this hasn't been a waste of time. It's helped develop the law on the issue. Just like the process does in other areas of law where parliament has no interest in updating statute.

[Kev]

36 minutes ago, fretmeister said:

 

 

That's not pedantic, it's accurate.

Every case ever bought for any type of dispute at all is pedantic and it has to be. 

 

Hindsight doesn't work. If the other guy had shown ES had heard the song before then it certainly would not have been a waste of time, and with the granting of the declaratory relief it wasn't a waste of time for ES in any circumstance, even if the counter claim hadn't been made.

 

There was enough of a triable case to mean than ES had to put a hold on a couple of million quid pending the outcome.  And we also need to remember each side had their own music experts - those experts have to sign a Statement of Truth confirming that their duty is to the court and not their own client, and their pay is not allowed to be linked to the outcome of the trial. Trials proceeding because opposing experts cannot agree is common in all types of litigation where experts might be needed. Medical, engineering, accountancy etc etc.

 

There will now be another hearing about the costs. The usual outcome is that the loser pays the winners costs "on the standard basis" - that means any doubt as to the reasonableness of the costs is resolved in favour of the paying party - the LOSER of the main event gets the benefit of the doubt and the costs payable will be smaller. If the loser has done something particularly unwise or has failed to accept a sensible offer made by the winner then the court can punish them for wasting everybody's time for all or part of the costs by making an "Indemnity Costs" order where any doubt as to reasonableness of the costs is resolved in favour of the receiving party - the winner (ES) and then the loser will have to pay a higher percentage of the winner's costs. The costs order will decide whether the judge thought the matter was a waste of time as a whole or in part.

 

 

And now for the bigger picture - all cases form part of precedent. So while the other guy didn't get what he wanted, and ES did get the Order he wanted there might be other benefits from this case being run.

 

The judge's very careful and indeed pedantic review of the music led to a conclusion that the melody structure being argued about is very common and that there's nothing special about it. This decision will now be used as a basis to help decide whether other songs that are similar to each other in the same sort of way are just using a common melody structure or if there are genuinely unique elements that have been copied. It's not a binding decision as it's only in the High Court and not in the CA, but it will be powerfully persuasive.

 

It is now likely that a potential claimant in an IP related case will not even start the matter if the type of similarity doesn't go beyond the ES example.

On the flip side, any defendant will now find it easier to defend such an action bought by an unwise claimant.

 

It also means that if someone writes a song that last year they would not have released because it's too close to ES's song for the relevant few bars, they can now release it knowing ES probably can't sue them for that common element.

 

We all know how inadequate IP law is in the modern world and in the absence of parliament getting round to re-writing the law the way the law develops is through precedent.

 

So no - this hasn't been a waste of time. It's helped develop the law on the issue. Just like the process does in other areas of law where parliament has no interest in updating statute.

 

For Ed Sheeran, it has been a complete waste of time.  He doesn't want these cases.  He's said as much, its ruining music and ruining the creative process.  He will have a sense of vindication walking away from it, but on reflection was the stress of this case worth not just paying the guy off, as he had done before?  Perhaps not.  Of course, every court case helps establish case law, but I doubt this has done anything at all to prevent similar cases going forward.  Hopefully I am wrong.

[Nicko]

50 minutes ago, fretmeister said:

So no - this hasn't been a waste of time. It's helped develop the law on the issue. Just like the process does in other areas of law where parliament has no interest in updating statute.

It's been a complete waste of time for ES.  The lawyers however will have pocketed quite a few pennies so it's not a waste of time for them and the precedent set will allow them to make much more money in the future arguing whether this precedent applies to the next case they bring.

 

Whilst I agree with your summary the claim related to a specific section of the song and the similarities noted by the judge are specific to use of a fairly common progression consisting of 1 min3, 4, 5.  The precedent set is that common standard progressions are no longer covered by IP - and that's probably how it should be.  

[fretmeister]

13 minutes ago, Nicko said:

It's been a complete waste of time for ES.  The lawyers however will have pocketed quite a few pennies so it's not a waste of time for them and the precedent set will allow them to make much more money in the future arguing whether this precedent applies to the next case they bring.

 

Whilst I agree with your summary the claim related to a specific section of the song and the similarities noted by the judge are specific to use of a fairly common progression consisting of 1 min3, 4, 5.  The precedent set is that common standard progressions are no longer covered by IP - and that's probably how it should be.  

 

 

Why does everything come down to lawyers earning money?

Lawyers exist only because their clients do stuff they shouldn't have done, or because someone else's client did something they shouldn't have done and the wronged person needs to have it put right. Lawyers wouldn't be needed if people kept to their obligations.

 

It's a pathetic argument. What next? Accountants being happy about tax rule changes? Doctors being pleased about over time because of a pile-up?

Lawyers only do what their clients tell them to do. They don't do anything on their own. Just like accountants / surveyors / even plumbers.

 

 

Edited April 8, 2022 by fretmeister
spelling.

[Nicko]

3 hours ago, fretmeister said:

 

 

Why does everything come down to lawyers earning money?

Lawyers exist only because their clients do stuff they shouldn't have done, or because someone else's client did something they shouldn't have done and the wronged person needs to have it put right. Lawyers wouldn't be needed if people kept to their obligations.

 

It's a pathetic argument. What next? Accountants being happy about tax rule changes? Doctors being pleased about over time because of a pile-up?

Lawyers only do what their clients tell them to do. They don't do anything on their own. Just like accountants / surveyors / even plumbers.

 

 

That may have been the case some time ago, but in the modern world we have become litigious with law firms constantly encouraging us to take action when, not only did we realise we had not been wronged, but in some cases the only winners are the lawyers.  "Come and get something for nothing and we will only take a fee if we win" adverts are everywhere.

 

And yes, some accountants exist solely to find loopholes in new tax legislation, just as some plumbers profit from new regulations.  The difference is that those tax arrangements and regulations change in principal to fund public service and protect consumers.  Law develops through aggressive litigation that benefits few other than the lawyers.

 

Are you a lawyer by any chance?

 

[skankdelvar]

TBPH, were I Mr Sami Chokri I might have raised an eyebrow on first hearing Shape Of You. IMHO the passages in dispute, though brief, are almost identical.

 

Still, the law has spoken and Mr Sheeran may now access his royalties.

 

 

 

 

[Kev]

21 minutes ago, skankdelvar said:

TBPH, were I Mr Sami Chokri I might have raised an eyebrow on first hearing Shape Of You. IMHO the passages in dispute, though brief, are almost identical.

 

Still, the law has spoken and Mr Sheeran may now access his royalties.

 

 

 

 

I'd be astounded if you could find me a pop progression as simple as that that cannot be matched against another.  It's a farce, a pathetic attempt by a failing musician to make money off of the success of another. The fact Sheeran let it get to court, considering previous situations, should tell you all you need to know about whether he "copied" it or not.

[Downunderwonder]

10 hours ago, fretmeister said:

And we also need to remember each side had their own music experts - those experts have to sign a Statement of Truth confirming that their duty is to the court and not their own client, and their pay is not allowed to be linked to the outcome of the trial. Trials proceeding because opposing experts cannot agree is common in all types of litigation where experts might be needed. Medical, engineering, accountancy etc etc.

I did not know these details. Parties should have to register all experts about to be consulted or they will shotgun the field until they get the opinion they want.

 

Something tells me there must be plenty of 'experts' who routinely find 'similarities' and collect their fee.

 

The judge seems to have been much better informed on this one. <similarities don't cut it, case closed>.

[Greg.Bassman]

It is always a shame to see things like this. I feel that a lot of these lawsuits are just money and/or attention grabs anyway. Songwriters will get to the point where they are too afraid to write anymore, or at the least, the process will feel less natural because everyone will be so self-conscious. Instead of allowing themselves to relax and let the creativity flow, they will be constantly thinking ‘I hope this does not sound like something else!’.

[fretmeister]

10 hours ago, Nicko said:

That may have been the case some time ago, but in the modern world we have become litigious with law firms constantly encouraging us to take action when, not only did we realise we had not been wronged, but in some cases the only winners are the lawyers.  "Come and get something for nothing and we will only take a fee if we win" adverts are everywhere.

 

And yes, some accountants exist solely to find loopholes in new tax legislation, just as some plumbers profit from new regulations.  The difference is that those tax arrangements and regulations change in principal to fund public service and protect consumers.  Law develops through aggressive litigation that benefits few other than the lawyers.

 

Are you a lawyer by any chance?

 

no win no fee means that many cases are not taken on in the first place due to the ending of legal aid in 99% of civil matters.

 

And if a matter is taken on and then is either abandoned later or lost at trial then the lawyers have effectively funded the claimants action and then not actually been paid a penny. That’s not even covering the overhead. That’s a massive loss.

 

No win no fee retainers were introduced by government because the govt wanted to remove legal aid from as many civil matters as possible.

 

More people do know their rights now and that’s a very good thing. The amount of serious injury and fatal accidents at work has plummeted since no win no fee was introduced because employers actually discovered it was cheaper to properly protect their employees. The employers didn’t do it out of the goodness of their hearts! Nothing else ever improved that situation as much as that single change.

 

Yes, the lawyers got paid just like every other profession. But the benefits were to every single employee in the country who had concerns about the safety at their place or work. Once again, the way to avoid paying lawyers is to not break the law in the first place.

 

As another example the case of RvR in 1991. Before that case it was impossible for a husband to be accused of rape of his own wife. Before that date the marriage was deemed to be unconditional consent to sex. A man could hold his wife down every day and violate her and there wasn’t even anything the police could do. The thankfully aggressive lawyers ran it all the way to the House of Lords to get the interpretation of the law changed. Parliament updated statute later on. It needed the aggressive lawyers to get the law changed. That benefited every woman in the country.

 

Similar approaches had equally wide benefits regarding asbestos exposure , smoking risks, clinical negligence and informed consent to surgical risks etc etc. 

 

 

 

Calling it aggressive as an insult is pointless. It’s always 2 or more opposing views that need a referee to sort it out. It’s never pleasant and it is always a last resort because the opposing parties cannot agree on something. But it’s the clients that decide on the approach and give the instructions to their lawyers and as long as those instructions are lawful the lawyer must follow them. 

 

The way litigation is conducted is set by parliament, and the way lawyers are paid is also set by parliament and various sub committees parliament sets up. The lawyers operate within those rules or they get struck off. 
 

A lawyer is only a spokesman for their client. They often do not share the same views as their client. There is a reason why the cab rank rule exists for barristers, to make sure everyone gets representation if they need it.

 

A good recent example of this is Dinah Rose QC. She took instructions to defend the homophobic policies of the Cayman Islands in the Privy Council. She is not homophobic. The issue to be resolved was were the policies unlawful. Personal views do not come into it. Refusing the instructions was not an option.

 

As for my job, my job is all about challenging lawyers fees and setting budgets for high value litigation. It’s my job to make sure litigation spending is proportionate so nobody spends a million quid to sue over a £10,000 dispute but also to make sure that the parties understand what needs to be spent to actually achieve a resolution to the dispute. The parties then get to make an informed choice and give their instructions to their lawyers.
 

I’ve been doing this work for over 20 years and I am well aware of the problems in the system but the concerns you raise are not within them.

 

 

[fretmeister]

5 hours ago, Downunderwonder said:

I did not know these details. Parties should have to register all experts about to be consulted or they will shotgun the field until they get the opinion they want.

 

Something tells me there must be plenty of 'experts' who routinely find 'similarities' and collect their fee.

 

The judge seems to have been much better informed on this one. <similarities don't cut it, case closed>.

Not in music cases. There just aren’t enough music cases for that to make a difference. And if they do swap experts and decide not to rely on a report then they can’t recover the fees from the other side. Do that a couple of times and all of a sudden you are in a loss unless the claim is for a massive amount of money.

 

Medicine is very difficult though. Ask 100 consultants and you’ll get 100 different expert opinions. But there are thousands of those cases so it is easy for a party to have a look at court reports and see which experts tend to lean one way or the other. The availability of those reports is good though. It’s easy enough to object to experts who don’t have a roughly equal split of claimant and defendant instructions.

 

And the experts sign a declaration that they recognise their duty is to the court and not the person instructing them. They can get in serious trouble if they breach that.

[Nicko]

28 minutes ago, fretmeister said:

no win no fee means that many cases are not taken on in the first place due to the ending of legal aid in 99% of civil matters.

 

And if a matter is taken on and then is either abandoned later or lost at trial then the lawyers have effectively funded the claimants action and then not actually been paid a penny. That’s not even covering the overhead. That’s a massive loss.

 

No win no fee retainers were introduced by government because the govt wanted to remove legal aid from as many civil matters as possible.

 

More people do know their rights now and that’s a very good thing. The amount of serious injury and fatal accidents at work has plummeted since no win no fee was introduced because employers actually discovered it was cheaper to properly protect their employees. The employers didn’t do it out of the goodness of their hearts! Nothing else ever improved that situation as much as that single change.

 

Yes, the lawyers got paid just like every other profession. But the benefits were to every single employee in the country who had concerns about the safety at their place or work. Once again, the way to avoid paying lawyers is to not break the law in the first place.

 

As another example the case of RvR in 1991. Before that case it was impossible for a husband to be accused of rape of his own wife. Before that date the marriage was deemed to be unconditional consent to sex. A man could hold his wife down every day and violate her and there wasn’t even anything the police could do. The thankfully aggressive lawyers ran it all the way to the House of Lords to get the interpretation of the law changed. Parliament updated statute later on. It needed the aggressive lawyers to get the law changed. That benefited every woman in the country.

 

Similar approaches had equally wide benefits regarding asbestos exposure , smoking risks, clinical negligence and informed consent to surgical risks etc etc. 

 

 

 

Calling it aggressive as an insult is pointless. It’s always 2 or more opposing views that need a referee to sort it out. It’s never pleasant and it is always a last resort because the opposing parties cannot agree on something. But it’s the clients that decide on the approach and give the instructions to their lawyers and as long as those instructions are lawful the lawyer must follow them. 

 

The way litigation is conducted is set by parliament, and the way lawyers are paid is also set by parliament and various sub committees parliament sets up. The lawyers operate within those rules or they get struck off. 
 

A lawyer is only a spokesman for their client. They often do not share the same views as their client. There is a reason why the cab rank rule exists for barristers, to make sure everyone gets representation if they need it.

 

A good recent example of this is Dinah Rose QC. She took instructions to defend the homophobic policies of the Cayman Islands in the Privy Council. She is not homophobic. The issue to be resolved was were the policies unlawful. Personal views do not come into it. Refusing the instructions was not an option.

 

As for my job, my job is all about challenging lawyers fees and setting budgets for high value litigation. It’s my job to make sure litigation spending is proportionate so nobody spends a million quid to sue over a £10,000 dispute but also to make sure that the parties understand what needs to be spent to actually achieve a resolution to the dispute. The parties then get to make an informed choice and give their instructions to their lawyers.
 

I’ve been doing this work for over 20 years and I am well aware of the problems in the system but the concerns you raise are not within them.

 

 

Of course some lawyers bring cases which are designed to challenge existing legislation but the vast majority apply the law blindly even when it's patently unfair, or use the minutae of a situation in order to apply a precedent of a law that was never designed to apply to the case in point.  Lawyers are required to represent their clients and will try to apply any precedent they can to win the case even when they know their client is in the wrong.  It doesn't make the legal system better.

 

[fretmeister]

36 minutes ago, Nicko said:

Of course some lawyers bring cases which are designed to challenge existing legislation but the vast majority apply the law blindly even when it's patently unfair, or use the minutae of a situation in order to apply a precedent of a law that was never designed to apply to the case in point.  Lawyers are required to represent their clients and will try to apply any precedent they can to win the case even when they know their client is in the wrong.  It doesn't make the legal system better.

 

I’m sorry but that’s nonsense.

 

”follow the law blindly” - as opposed to what? Ignore the law? That would be unlawful!

 

And it’s the clients that bring the cases, not the lawyers. The lawyers do as they are instructed.

 

In the UK a lawyers first duty is to the court, not their client. Other jurisdictions are different.

 

Lawyers are not allowed to lie for their client. That’s why a criminal lawyer will never ask their client if they did it. They will ask how they want to plead. If the client says they did it and then says they want to still plead not guilty then The lawyer has to withdraw or not offer any evidence. Cannot lie for their client.

 

And you are missing the subtleties too. Often lawyers represent people who know they are wrong. It’s those people who need representation the most! The lawyers job then isn’t to “get them off” it’s to make sure the punishment or penalty is correct and proportionate and within the law. It is not a binary job in the slightest.

 

If a claimant lawyer goes to trial and relies on a precedent judgment that for whatever the dispute is awarded 50,000 then the defendant is entitled to show a precedent that only awarded 20,000 on similar facts.

 

Cases are not just about winning or losing. Sometimes it’s about controlling the extent of the win / loss.

 

Every one of these sorts of threads shows that misinformation and misunderstanding is rife and confirms the need for civics and basic law to be in the national curriculum.

 

The old “ignorance of the law is no defence” has to apply for obvious reasons, but the state should also have to make an effort to educate too.

 

Edited April 9, 2022 by fretmeister

[leftybassman392]

@fretmeister Thank you for your contributions to this thread. I'm not interested enough in the outcome of the case to care much either way, but it is refreshing to hear from somebody who knows how it actually works.

Edited April 9, 2022 by leftybassman392

[Dad3353]

The System is harder to defend when, despite winning a long legal battle conducted by my father (I shan't offer details...) on behalf of his colleagues, up to the highest court in the land, where Queen's Council gave in his favour, the judgements were never applied, and a whole generation of employees were swindled out of a great part of their pensions. Justice is not always served, even if one wins one's case, where there is no leverage to obtain the redress that the courts awarded. There is, in many instances, a parallel system, where politics and 'power' come into play, and The Little Man has no chance. It's little wonder that the confidence is so eroded, and the reputation so tainted. 

[fretmeister]

22 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

The System is harder to defend when, despite winning a long legal battle conducted by my father (I shan't offer details...) on behalf of his colleagues, up to the highest court in the land, where Queen's Council gave in his favour, the judgements were never applied, and a whole generation of employees were swindled out of a great part of their pensions. Justice is not always served, even if one wins one's case, where there is no leverage to obtain the redress that the courts awarded. There is, in many instances, a parallel system, where politics and 'power' come into play, and The Little Man has no chance. It's little wonder that the confidence is so eroded, and the reputation so tainted. 

I agree completely.

 

Any judgment without the ability to enforce it is useless.

 

The best way to start to restore confidence is civics and basic law at school. Have an electorate that is genuinely educated about how the system should work so they know when certain groups of people are taking the fosters.

 

Calls for civics and law at school have been made for years. Makes you wonder why those in the highest positions of power don’t want an educated voter.

 

I did actually start the application process to retrain as a teacher with a view to teaching humanities / A-level law, but the training period with zero or extremely low income was impossible to work round. My wife is unable to work full time so we couldn’t afford to live if I stopped working to study.

 

I was most upset. I feel very strongly about it, but I can’t make us homeless.

[Nicko]

2 hours ago, fretmeister said:

Lawyers are not allowed to lie for their client. That’s why a criminal lawyer will never ask their client if they did it. They will ask how they want to plead. If the client says they did it and then says they want to still plead not guilty then The lawyer has to withdraw or not offer any evidence.

I refer the Council for the defence to the current trial of Ali Harbi Ali as an example of a QC defending a not guilty plea in a case where the defendant admits a killing.  It will be interesting to see what the defence claims to qualify this as justifiable, or will they simply claim insanity?

[tauzero]

10 hours ago, Kev said:

I'd be astounded if you could find me a pop progression as simple as that that cannot be matched against another.  It's a farce, a pathetic attempt by a failing musician to make money off of the success of another. The fact Sheeran let it get to court, considering previous situations, should tell you all you need to know about whether he "copied" it or not.

 

It's been said several times already in this thread that Sheeran didn't "let it" get to court, he took it there as a pre-emptive action.

[fretmeister]

21 minutes ago, Nicko said:

I refer the Council for the defence to the current trial of Ali Harbi Ali as an example of a QC defending a not guilty plea in a case where the defendant admits a killing.  It will be interesting to see what the defence claims to qualify this as justifiable, or will they simply claim insanity?

Again that’s not a problem.

Admitting a killing is not the same as admitting murder or manslaughter.

Could be self defence, pre-emptive strike, diminished responsibility, lots of things. Can even be an accident with no criminal liability.

 

And even when a client admits a murder to his lawyer (not the court or police) he is allowed to refuse to enter a plea and make the prosecution prove their case. The lawyer is allowed to test the prosecutors evidence but not offer any evidence on behalf of his own client. In reality this hardly ever happens.

 

But why can it be done? Be cause Innocent until proven guilty. It is the state’s job to prove to the jury that it happened.

 

This assumption of innocence until proven otherwise is a vital part of a fair system. The state isn’t limited to the crap legal aid rates that the defendant has. The state can spend millions on a prosecution if they want. It’s such an uneven playing field that innocence must be the starting point.

 

Again this is basic jurisprudence that should be learned at school.

 

But even in the event of an actual murder guilty plea that person requires representation to ensure that the minimum imprisonment tariff is set correctly in line with the sentencing guidelines set by parliament.

 

Theres an old saying that guilty people actually need lawyers more than the innocent ones because of the imbalance.

 

 

If you want something to be angry about with good reason then try these 2.

 

1: If you are not eligible for legal aid so you have to pay your own lawyer and you are found Not Guilty then the state does not have to reimburse your costs even if clearing your name made you bankrupt and homeless.

 

 

2: If you are wrongfully convicted and later an appeal finds you not guilty then unless another person is found guilty of that offence the government position is that the question of guilt is not yet resolved so you get zero compensation for being locked up for 20 years.

Then, if another person is convicted so you can get compensation (you’ll love this) your room and board expenses from being in prison are deducted from the compensation amount, because you would have needed to pay for them outside anyway.

 

Be angry about stuff like that. 

[MGBrown]

2 hours ago, leftybassman392 said:

@fretmeister Thank you for your contributions to this thread. I'm not interested enough in the outcome of the case to care much either way, but it is refreshing to hear from somebody who knows how it actually works.

Quite agree! 

[Delberthot]

I think that you're all missing the point which is that Ed Sheerhan is terrible.

[Kev]

2 hours ago, tauzero said:

 

It's been said several times already in this thread that Sheeran didn't "let it" get to court, he took it there as a pre-emptive action.

As opposed to settling out of court as he has done with other cases without "letting" it go to court, which is what I was referring to.

[skankdelvar]

14 hours ago, Kev said:

It's a farce, a pathetic attempt by a failing musician to make money off of the success of another.

 

You are Ed Sheeran's mum and I claim my £5.00

 

Seriously, though, the two passages are pretty much identical but the matter under review was whether Sheeran had copied the other bloke's work. I'm happy to believe he didn't and that the 22 million songs / 12 notes argument is pertinent in the case. 

 

I note that Mr Sheeran has engaged the services of a cinematographer to place his songwriting sessions on the record. Laudable, I'm sure, but who is to say they won't turn the camera off when Ed puts on some Marvin Gaye and licks the nib of his 'lucky pencil'?

 

I do not know but I think we should be told.