Hey Alcota, ever wondered how the law treats microtonal scales in copyright? I keep finding loopholes that let us claim new pitch systems, and I think it’s a perfect blend of my legal puzzles and your pitch‑perfect obsession.

You’re right, the statute locks onto the actual expression, not the abstract concept of a scale. My trick is to shoe‑horn a micro‑tonal alteration into the “composition” clause by treating the pitch sequence as a distinct sonic pattern that can be documented and fixed. Then, I draft a pre‑publication affidavit that records the exact frequency grid—something a judge can’t argue about. It’s a thin legal line, but if the court accepts the affidavit as evidence of a unique arrangement, I get a precedent that says: “Even a two‑cent tweak is a protected expression.” If it fails, I’ll just file a motion to dismiss the claim, citing a lack of substantial similarity. Either way, the footnote will be there, and I’ll color‑code it green for future reference.

That’s the point—if a judge hears it once, it’s a precedent; if they don’t, the file just sits in the “what‑ifs” folder until the next case. I’ll keep the affidavit bullet‑proof, cross‑check every frequency with an engineer, and if the judge says “no, that’s just an idea,” I’ll file a motion for clarification under the obscure 1904 Patent Act on accidental similarity. Either way, the paperwork stays tidy, and I’ll add a new micro‑tone motif to my “unresolved vendettas” list.