A federal jury found that Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams lifted "Blurred Lines" from Marvin Gaye
68 replies, posted
you should of seen the video of the family (aka owner of the songrights that didn't do shit in music anything because the actual musician died) squabble and fake cry in the tv news segment
as long as you're not lifting the exact audio from a track, it's all fair.
It's lame as hell, and should be pointed out how bad of a musician you would be, but still should be legal.
upcoming: unique melody progressions count as intellectual property
Even though it's similar, I don't think it's copyright infringement...
[editline]11th March 2015[/editline]
I mean cmon these are far more similar:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN2AdOjI4FI[/media]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRYFKcMa_Ek[/media]
[editline]11th March 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=EcksDee;47300225]As much as I think Thicke is the Thickest cunt to ever exist, I don't see how this warrants a payout like that.[/QUOTE]
I think the jury are total idiots. Where is the malice?
Unless the copying is absolute then this kind of case of really ridiculous.
[editline]11th March 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=code_gs;47297935]I'd like to see how the plaintiff pulled off the case still[/QUOTE]
So in the court of law it's copyright infringement to play a song that is evidence for copyright infringement? :pwn:
Musicians copy all the time, sometimes it's on purpose sometimes it's not. Jamiroquai, basically my favourite, band has lifted/borrowed/stolen (Jay Kay pretty much admitted this on the covers of the remasters) some stuff from earlier funk musicians as well - the most egregious examples being Alright/Could heaven ever be like this and When you gonna learn/Los Conquistadores Chocolates. I think credit should always be given, but no one would ever mistake those songs for each other; they're very much their own thing. 2pac then went on to use the bass line from "Manifest Destiny" and the cycle continues, though it's definitely more accepted in rap music.
Same applies to blurred lines and got to give it up - yeah, there are some definite similarities, but these songs have two very different sounds and sounds. Thicke isn't cannibalizing Gaye's sales.
Similarity is vague at best.
Does this set a precedent for more copyright stupidity?
They should really start fining every modern pop "country" artist then for every song they've ever written. It literally almost all sounds the same.
There was even that mash-up of several songs youtube video someone did about that.
The only similarities I hear are the beats per minute. Piss off. Gaye's children just looking for some easy cash
You want to hear what an actual rip off sounds like, Satriani's If I Could Fly and Coldplay's Viva la Vida
Any sympathy I could have had for this lawsuit was totally lost when I read this quote:
[QUOTE]Nona Gaye, Marvin Gaye’s daughter, reportedly wept in court as the verdict was read and later told the Associated Press, "Right now, I feel free. Free from... Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke's chains and what they tried to keep on us and the lies that were told.”[/QUOTE]
What the fuck
My mom was ecstatic that the Gaye side won because "I love Marvin Gaye"
[QUOTE=J!NX;47297924]What the hell does this all mean?
you can't make a song if it's sorta like another?
I'm lost[/QUOTE]
it's a lot more than "sorta" like it, it's a straight ripoff
[editline]11th March 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=TheTalon;47301511]The only similarities I hear are the beats per minute. Piss off. Gaye's children just looking for some easy cash
You want to hear what an actual rip off sounds like, Satriani's If I Could Fly and Coldplay's Viva la Vida[/QUOTE]
yeah the tempo is the same. so is the chord progression and key and vocal melody and literally everything else. the presentation is slightly different but not incredibly so
[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;47300617]I don't get music plagiarism. Lets say someone makes a song which is pretty good, but not the best. You have the skills to make it better. Yet, if you do, you get sued for copyright? How does that make sense. You're delivering a better product to consumers... You're delivering it later, so the original artist also got paid for their work over months of exclusive sales before your song comes out.[/QUOTE]
Because "make it better" is subjective? I think they should have to put a visible label on their albums stating which songs aren't theirs.
I've listened to that comparison video a bunch of times, and I'm not hearing the similarities at all in bass or percussion at all. Not a fan of Thicke's at all, but I really can't hear any similarity in that way.
i only feel bad for pharrell here, but yeah just because it's a little bit similar doesn't mean they should pay that amount of money, the whole music industry would be fucked if that's how things were
this bitch
[QUOTE= Marvin Gaye's fake ass fucking daughter][crying] I feel free.. from Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke’s chains.. and what they tried to keep on us and the lies that were told[/QUOTE]
How about fixing the system so that copyright isn't still valid after [B]35 fucking years[/B]
[QUOTE=orgornot;47302310]How about fixing the system so that copyright isn't still valid after [B]35 fucking years[/B][/QUOTE]
It's okay to steal, as long as you steal from old people!
[QUOTE=orgornot;47302310]How about fixing the system so that copyright isn't still valid after [B]35 fucking years[/B][/QUOTE]
intellectual property doesn't stop being intellectual property after 35 years. How would you feel if you were a famous musician and suddenly stopped getting royalties on your early albums even though your music was still selling?
It's a proven scientific fact that the harsher the copyright laws are, the less artists will be motivated to release or create art. Tough copyright laws literally kill creativity.
[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;47302496]It's a proven scientific fact that the harsher the copyright laws are, the less artists will be motivated to release or create art.[/QUOTE]
Source?
How long copyright should last is one debate. How much should be awarded in a lawsuit is another debate. Whether or not this was done on purpose(theft) is another debate.
The debate I'm addressing in this thread is does the new song resemble the old song in enough ways to call it infringement? Yes I think it's clear it does.
Whether or not Gaye's family is fake or unsympathetic has nothing to do with anything.
ok now I think this pharrell infringement thing makes sense
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qbwl2otbxo[/media]
[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;47302496]It's a proven scientific fact that the harsher the copyright laws are, the less artists will be motivated to release or create art. Tough copyright laws literally kill creativity.[/QUOTE]
Sorry but when someone says "It's a proven scientific fact" I immediately raise my eyebrow big time
I personally think sheet music shouldn't be the only factor in copyright cases involving music. Really dumb copyright laws as usual.
[QUOTE=AK'z;47302920]ok now I think this infringement makes sense
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qbwl2otbxo[/media][/QUOTE]
Doing a cover of somebody elses song is not copyright infringement.
Playing somebody elses record as a DJ does not count as copyright infringement.
And honestly, this case should not have been considered copyright infringement.
I deal with this bullshit all the time. Nearly every producer I've ever worked with or met has had something terrible to say about the severely outdated copyright laws in the music industry. These laws were made in a time where sampling wasn't a reality. There was no such thing as sampling.
I'm all for providing royalties to the original producers if you lift their actual samples. It's their work, they should be paid if someone else uses it. But there is one important factor that comes into play, and most producers recognize it, It has to ACTUALLY be the sample. It can't just be an arrangement or drums that kinda sound like it. It has to BE that exact sample. And thats why I hate the current infrengement laws in this industry. They conclude that just because it has the same hit structure makes it close enough to sue for royalties.
Why did anybody ask this vital question: How many possible drum patterns are there? and how many of those patterns have been used and reused?
Thats like suing every producer ever that used the Amen break after it first showed up in "amen brother" by George Cylvester in 1960.
So why is this the case? I certainly don't know. It all seems very selective, and very very bullshit.
I'd also like to say how much better the music industry would be off if copyright infringement was thrown out the window and anybody was free to sample, resample and produce anyway they wanted without having to worry about being sued.
It would be a very creative era for music.
Unfortunately music isn't even about the music for most of these guys. And thats why things are the way they are.
[quote]I'd also like to say how much better the music industry would be off if copyright infringement was thrown out the window and anybody was free to sample, resample and produce anyway they wanted without having to worry about being sued.
It would be a very creative era for music.[/quote]
If this were the case people would not be able to make a career as musicians, which means a lot less musicians would exist and the ones that did wouldn't be able to put as much effort, time or money into it.
[quote]The cash, which is $4 million in damages[/quote]
I'd like to know how these damages were estimated.
The song has been out 40 years and the original artist is dead.
In fact, if nothing else, I'd be willing to bet that Blurred Lines boosted the popularity of the original song.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;47303403]If this were the case people would not be able to make a career as musicians, which means a lot less musicians would exist and the ones that did wouldn't be able to put as much effort, time or money into it.[/QUOTE]
That simply isn't true. It would still be just as hard to have and maintain a band, and especially with producers, this already exists... it's called remixing.
There would virtually be no difference to the music industry other than you would hear a lot of sampling from other music in lots of different varieties of genre, the music industry would stop making money largely off of suing, and the music industry would reach a golden age of creativity, even more so with free resampling. You might be under the impression that resampling = the death of originality. That's wrong because resampling would only make originality that much more sought after.
Would it be illegal to do a shot-for-shot recreation of the Matrix?
or a shitty attempt at a modern artist's painting? What about a perfect attempt at one?
These aren't rhetorical, I'm genuinely curious.
I know Dealextreme (not a small retailer) sells Leonid Afremov replica paintings for about the same price as the actual artist. -snip- I think it's a bigger issue that creativity is being limited for every single artist rather than Robin Thicke's songwriters stealing bass lines from a 40 year old song.
Heh, look at those.
[video=youtube;KrZHPOeOxQQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrZHPOeOxQQ[/video]
[video=youtube;80xpgxR121A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80xpgxR121A[/video]
[video=youtube;vFPajU-d-Ek]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFPajU-d-Ek[/video]
[QUOTE=DiBBs27;47303537]That simply isn't true. It would still be just as hard to have and maintain a band, and especially with producers, this already exists... it's called remixing.[/QUOTE]
'Cool song, excuse me while I go distribute it for lower than your price and give you nothing.'
You know there are good reasons copyright laws exist in the first place right?
[QUOTE=DiBBs27;47303372]Doing a cover of somebody elses song is not copyright infringement.
[/QUOTE]
No you completely misread that post you plum.
I just realised Justin Timberlake performing that song reminded me exactly of Robin Thicke's song.
What the fuck? I'm sorry but I hear no similarities between the two songs except for a similar beat.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.