Marvin Gaye fam wins suit against Blurred Lines writers, precedent bans all music

Hygro

Hygro

soundcloud.com/hygro/
Joined
Dec 1, 2002
Messages
26,757
Location
California
http://www.vox.com/2015/3/10/8187225/robin-thicke-blurred-lines-gaye

he jury found Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke guilty

After Robin Thicke's hit "Blurred Lines" permeated American popular culture in the summer of 2013, questions were raised about the originality of the song, particularly the composition in the background and the rhythm section. The Gaye estate, which represents the late Marvin Gaye's two children, Frankie and Nona, threatened to sue Thicke for his song on the grounds that it sounded too similar to Gaye's 1977 hit "Got to Give It Up."

Thicke, Pharrell, and T.I. responded to the threats by preemptively suing the Gaye estate. At the time, Thicke's lawyer said that "the intent in producing 'Blurred Lines' was to evoke an era," and that the Gaye family was "claiming ownership of an entire genre, as opposed to a specific work, and Bridgeport is claiming the same work."

Thicke, though, had already made some key mistakes. He told GQ in a May 2013 article that "Got to Give It Up" was one of his favorite songs. The Gaye family, of course, cited this as evidence that Thicke had stolen the song.

By April 2014, Thicke had adjusted his story. He claimed he was high on Viocodin and had very little to do with the writing or creation of "Blurred Lines."
Click to expand...


So now there's only legally about 80 copyrighted songs in the world if we follow this logic to its conclusion. :wallbash:

The songs are similar, but not even that similar. It isn't sampled, the arrangement structure is different, which drums are emphasized are different, and the lyrics are quite distinct.

Pure garbage.
 
A lot of songs use samples and parts of other songs... and that to me seems a lot "worse" in terms of stealing than just sort of writing a similar melody or having a similar beat.


Link to video.

"Stealing" parts of other songs and remixing them to make something new isn't that uncommon.. A lot of hits were created that way. It's sort of what music is all about - you take existing ideas and you make them into something new. This has been going on for a long time and copyright laws are seriously out of whack with reality.
 
This ruling really pissed me off and the only thing that pissed me off more than the ruling was the reaction of Marvin Gaye's children. They broke down in tears and exclaimed how happy they were to be set free of the yoke that Williams and Thicke had placed on them. :rolleyes:

That's such a heavy burden to bear, cashing your daddies royalty checks your whole freaking life without being productive.


I really have no idea how this lawsuit even come about. Are there no fair use standards? Because as Hygro points out, this precedent is really bad for the music industry.

Next we're going to have movie studios suing themselves for every single unnecessary comic boot hero sequel and reboot.
 
Wow.
Under those standards ID software could have shut don the entire FPS genre when such games were still caled Doom clones.
 
Zelig said:
I've long ago written off the authority of anyone in America to determine copyright for music.
Click to expand...

Thank you Disney.
 
I think lawsuits like this once again bring to the surface the overall weakness of the music industry that Napster laid bare.

The quality, artistry and especially originality of music has declined substantially with the rise of electronic music and sampling. In the past, when a top level artist released an album or new piece of music, they would sometimes take years working on it, and this was reflected in the quality. Nowadays, artists poop out songs as often as they poop out poop and the quality is... well... poop.

So people felt no desire to buy these poop "albums" with 5-10 songs, 4 of which were "remixes" which half of the time were the same lyrics over a "sampled" instrumental. People would just download the one "hit" song. It got so bad that some of the "hits" were sampled from other "hits" that were still playing on the radio! :shake: ... It was understandable that people stopped buying and started downloading for free. Those lazy hacks didn't deserve any money for the ripped-off regurgitated crap they were churning out.

So now we have the same issue from a different angle. To Thicke & Co, I would say simply... "Compose a song, with actual instruments and actual written music and you wont have to worry about getting sued. Stop copying, stop imitating, create something new and you can't be sued for copying.":aargh:

Also... full disclosure... I detest "Blurred Lines"... I change the station every time it comes on. I find it to be a lazy, lazy song, unworthy of a talented singer (or producer/composer), like Thicke and Pharell.
 
Software copyright is dumb as hell too. Problem being, we need it, it's useful, but it needs to actually expire in a reasonable time frame. But it aint going to expire. Bankers and babies squatting over the graves of great inspiration shouting that the best is behind us so we need to stifle that which is new. It's like eating the young.
 
One of the main problems IMO is that copyright/IP laws are written by people who are trying to make the most money from what they already own.. and not by people who are trying to give us the best laws possible. The laws are designed with corporations in mind, not citizens.
 
Another example of how people who actually know the medium don't get to give any input on laws regarding the medium?
 
hobbsyoyo said:
Next we're going to have movie studios suing themselves for every single unnecessary comic boot hero sequel and reboot.
Click to expand...
Imagine the first movie to have a warehouse shootout collecting all subsequent movies' incomes for it.
GoodSarmatian said:
Wow.
Under those standards ID software could have shut don the entire FPS genre when such games were still caled Doom clones.
Click to expand...
"But we now aim with a mouse and use swat guns!"
"Too bad, it's the same!"

Farm Boy said:
Software copyright is dumb as hell too. Problem being, we need it, it's useful, but it needs to actually expire in a reasonable time frame. But it aint going to expire. Bankers and babies squatting over the graves of great inspiration shouting that the best is behind us so we need to stifle that which is new. It's like eating the young.
Click to expand...
nicely put :eek2:

Sommerswerd said:
I think lawsuits like this once again bring to the surface the overall weakness of the music industry that Napster laid bare.

The quality, artistry and especially originality of music has declined substantially with the rise of electronic music and sampling. In the past, when a top level artist released an album or new piece of music, they would sometimes take years working on it, and this was reflected in the quality. Nowadays, artists poop out songs as often as they poop out poop and the quality is... well... poop.

So people felt no desire to buy these poop "albums" with 5-10 songs, 4 of which were "remixes" which half of the time were the same lyrics over a "sampled" instrumental. People would just download the one "hit" song. It got so bad that some of the "hits" were sampled from other "hits" that were still playing on the radio! :shake: ... It was understandable that people stopped buying and started downloading for free. Those lazy hacks didn't deserve any money for the ripped-off regurgitated crap they were churning out.

So now we have the same issue from a different angle. To Thicke & Co, I would say simply... "Compose a song, with actual instruments and actual written music and you wont have to worry about getting sued. Stop copying, stop imitating, create something new and you can't be sued for copying.":aargh:

Also... full disclosure... I detest "Blurred Lines"... I change the station every time it comes on. I find it to be a lazy, lazy song, unworthy of a talented singer (or producer/composer), like Thicke and Pharell.
Click to expand...
I think you forgot how trashy and unoriginal most songs were back in the day. Meanwhile here's sampling + electronic


Link to video.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom