Wow, Ok @emarieyyehoshi. i will give this a try. I watched the video and it discussed Katy Perry and Led Zeppelin lawsuit which is kinda similar to the current issue with Cupid and Seventeen. As per the atty, he said both cases didnt merit copyright infringement. https://twitter.com/emarieyyehoshi/status/1295182991002460160

One of the arguments stated were these: The issue was that Katy Perry's Dark Horse has the same key as the Joyful Noise. But court said expression that are standard or common are not protectable by copyright law since they're building blocks of music.

With that in mind, the reason why court decided that Katy Perry won and didnt infringe copyright was because artist of Joyful Noise wasnt able to defend the originality of his "ostinato", since the keys he said were copied can be heard to other songs too...

In analogy, left and right and cupid shuffle sounds different (for me); yet some say the beats are the same. Following the video's legal analogy, Cupid has to defend and prove the originality of his beats. However, some say the beats are easy to reproduce https://twitter.com/candybeomgyu/status/1294934951322890240?s=19

Furthermore, I dunno if its just me, these beats arent d same & yet it sound alike. If he's claiming its "his beats",am i hearing it on other songs too? If we relate it to that video,is that arrangemnt what they call building blocks of music,& thus are not protected by copyright?

Some insists that the beats were the same too; but there are people with musical background who says Left and Right beats are NOT a copy of his beats. Analysed by those who know music, they aren't the same.

Someone even did this: https://twitter.com/hongryshua/status/1294503915321344000?s=19

And this: credits to the video owner. There are a lot more of stuff like these actually.

To quote the video: "A selection of a song is only infringed if the two works SUBSTANTIALLY share the same combination of PROTECTABLE elements." If the analogies I discussed above holds, then is it correct to assume SEVENTEEN didnt infringe anything?

As per the lyrics Left and Right, some non fans say it is too much of a coincidence; but non-fans dont know Seventeen often uses the words Left and Right in their lyrics, such as in Boom Boom and Bring It.

And finally, Mr Cupid often points out Blurred Lines case on his posts in IG as a precedent case; but...

Legally, Cupid must have been thinking he has a chance because he has a precedent case with the Blurred Lines case; but the Katy Perry case was, if Im not mistaken, more recent and I think it is a good precedent case for Seventeen. A stalemate then?

I have yet to see a thread detailing arguments for Cupid Shuffle, all r just d usual "It sounds the same" comments; so I have no opinion yet in favor of Cupid's side, (not to mention the lowkey defamation he is doing against svt but let's not drag him; it'll reflect poorly on us)

Im not an expert either, but I am the type who wants facts-based opinion more than just opinions. So among those observations above, I believe that there is no copyright infringement here UNLESS i see new INFO that proves otherwise or if Woozi himself admits it (not pledis).

Cupid deserves credit IF PROVEN in court; but there is also possibility that Pledis might just pay him to settle regardless of the truth; since its more practical & less expensive. I hav experience in DOLE employee settlement cases & i know managements usually prefer it this way.

In the end, these r all just my opinions based on d facts I saw in d Internet. We wont rlly know whats true since this is a musical and business discourse. Either way I hope this gets settled OR clarified soon.

@pledis17_STAFF, pls take care of d boys. It's in ur hands now.