Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams hit for 7 mil in "Blurred Lines" verdict

Mar 10, 2015#1

GasBandit

Wasn't quite sure whether I should put this under music or politics, but here goes.

A jury found that "Blurred Lines" does indeed infringe on "Got to Give it Up" by Marvin Gaye, and ordered Thicke and Williams to pay 7.4 million to Gaye's children.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...s-copyright-trial-verdict-20150310-story.html

On the one hand, I always crack a smile when musical charlatans get comeuppance... but on the other hand (as many of you will no doubt recall) I am a vocal critic of standing copyright law, especially where it pertains to music, movies, TV shows and books.

It's been almost 40 years since "Got to Give it Up" was published, Gaye died over 30 years ago. We've argued back and forth about exactly how long a copyright should extend - I think the middle-of-the-road argument was author's life plus 7 years? Or was it 20? or something like that. In any case, I can see a strong argument for saying it's time for Gaye's (grown-ass) kids to get weaned off the royalties teat by now.

Mar 10, 2015#2

Charlie Don't Surf

it would be nice if that much money were donated to battered women's shelters and rape crisis centers too

Mar 10, 2015#3

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
it would be nice if that much money were donated to battered women's shelters and rape crisis centers too

As tiresome as your continued tendency to chime in with your own personal irrelevant axes to grind is, if the Gaye kids REALLY wanted to rub their victory in Thicke/Williams' faces, that's exactly what they'd do - turn around and donate that money as you describe.

But somehow I don't think they will, due to the same motivation that led them to sue in the first place.

Mar 10, 2015#4

Charlie Don't Surf

I don't think it's irrelevant when the song in question is transparently about how fun and cool it is to sexually assault women

Mar 10, 2015#5

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I don't think it's irrelevant when the song in question is transparently about how fun and cool it is to sexually assault women

That wasn't what was on trial, though, and has no bearing on copyright law or the originality of the work in question.

Mar 10, 2015#6

Bowielee

To be fair to Charlie, it is one of the most date rapey songs ever written.

Mar 10, 2015#7

GasBandit

Bowielee said:
To be fair to Charlie, it is one of the most date rapey songs ever written.

Do you feel that lyrical content that is discomforting or disagreeable should have bearing on copyright ownership? Or that there should be some sort of authority that dictates what is acceptable to sing about?

Mar 10, 2015#8

Charlie Don't Surf

I never said the judge should have ruled them to donate money or whatever, again just an observation on the subject at hand, not a direct reply

Mar 10, 2015#9

GasBandit

Mar 10, 2015#10

Bowielee

GasBandit said:
Do you feel that lyrical content that is discomforting or disagreeable should have bearing on copyright ownership? Or that there should be some sort of authority that dictates what is acceptable to sing about?

How the hell did you get that out of what I said?

Mar 10, 2015#11

GasBandit

Bowielee said:
How the hell did you get that out of what I said?

I was trying to somehow connect the derailment back to the subject of the thread.

Mar 10, 2015#12

Bowielee

GasBandit said:
See also -

http://www.cracked.com/article_18431_8-romantic-songs-you-didnt-know-were-about-rape.html

Wow, they are WAY off about the song Father Figure.

Now let me think... why would a gay man write a song about love being a crime.... in the early 80s. You know, when sodomy was still illegal in many places.

Mar 10, 2015#13

GasBandit

Bowielee said:
Wow, they are WAY off about the song Father Figure.

Now let me think... why would a gay man write a song about love being a crime.... in the early 80s. You know, when sodomy was still illegal in many places.

When I was a kid in the 80s, and only half listening to song lyrics, I was under the impression that that song was literally George Michael singing to his (possibly adopted) offspring based upon the "I will be your Daddy" and "Put your tiny hands in mine" lines.

Mar 10, 2015#14

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
Do you feel that lyrical content that is discomforting or disagreeable should have bearing on copyright ownership? Or that there should be some sort of authority that dictates what is acceptable to sing about?

No, I most certainly do not believe there should be any such thing.

I hope this gets enough media attention to start actual copyright reform. Barring that, I would like to see whether or not there is a legitimate claim that the newer work was sufficiently "transformative" that this should not apply.
Also I feel the same about people who are obviously not Marvin Gaye continuing to profit from work done by Marvin Gaye that does not directly benefit Marvin Gaye himself in any way.

--Patrick

Mar 10, 2015#15

Yoshimickster

Bowielee said:
Wow, they are WAY off about the song Father Figure.

Now let me think... why would a gay man write a song about love being a crime.... in the early 80s. You know, when sodomy was still illegal in many places.

Yeah a lot of Cracked list have a weak point or two, like how in their "5 Cartoons That Tried (and failed) to tackle serious issues" list, where they mention how in the show they make Harley Quinn seem like SHE is to blame for her abusive relationship in the Joker even going so far to say "This fact is never explored or condemned in the show" even though in season four they actually DID explore/condemn their relationship in Harley's origin episode. Just...just lazy.

Mar 10, 2015#16

HCGLNS

Will this in any way affect

given that its source has legally changed?

Mar 10, 2015#17

PatrThom

No, because "Word Crimes" is protected under the 1st Amendment as "parody," regardless of its source material.

--Patrick

Mar 10, 2015#18

HCGLNS

Would it require a forced recall of previously published items citing the erroneous source and going forward all new printed material cites the proper source. So any single of Word Crimes thus published becomes a collectible?

Mar 10, 2015#19

PatrThom

No, because the source didn't actually change. The source is still "Blurred Lines." That didn't change. The legal case was not about whether Blurred Lines was an exact copy of Gaye's work, it was about whether or not it was similar enough in character that they should have sought the permission of the Gaye estate before release. People do covers all the time, it's just that they generally seek the permission of the rights holder before doing so. The giant jury award is because the song was found similar enough to where they should've sought permission...but didn't.

--Patrick

Mar 10, 2015#20

jwhouk

Uh, I've listened to the first verse or so of "Got To Give It Up", and I'm thinking that that song is more of a rip off of "Knock On Wood" that maybe Eddie Floyd's family should be getting ready to sue Gaye's family...

Mar 10, 2015#21

Ravenpoe

HCGLNS said:
Will this in any way affect

given that its source has legally changed?

Aaaaaunngh this video is like font porn.

Phew, I'm gonna need a minute.

Mar 10, 2015#22

PatrThom

Ravenpoe said:
Aaaaaunngh this video is like font porn.

That video is straight up brilliant in every way, not merely typographically. You could practically do a cinematic thesis on it.

--Patrick

Mar 10, 2015#23

jwhouk

No, we have too many college courses started over Weird Al songs as it is...

Mar 10, 2015#24

blotsfan

I've never gotten the date rape argument about blurred lines. He's trying to get a girl to cheat on her boyfriend with him, but the phrase "you know you want it" does not automatically mean rape. He isn't drugging her drink. He isn't forcing her. He's try to tempt her. Its slimy (intentionally), but its not rape.

Mar 10, 2015#25

PatrThom

Not enough, in my opinion.
I continue to assert that Al will someday be regarded as one of the great entertainers, like Victor Borge or Marcel Marceau.

--Patrick

Mar 10, 2015#26

Bowielee

blotsfan said:
I've never gotten the date rape argument about blurred lines. He's trying to get a girl to cheat on her boyfriend with him, but the phrase "you know you want it" does not automatically mean rape. He isn't drugging her drink. He isn't forcing her. He's try to tempt her. Its slimy (intentionally), but its not rape.

T.I. said:
Nothing like your last guy, he too square for you
He don't smack that ass and pull your hair like that
So I just watch and wait for you to salute
But you didn't pick
Not many women can refuse this pimpin'
I'm a nice guy, but don't get it if you get with me

He's also getting her high in the song lyrics.

That coupled with the "blurred lines" does indicate that the man singing doesn't understand the difference between a woman wanting him and not wanting him. He's basically berating her for coming to him and not putting out. Coercion of someone under the influence is also date rape, for the record.

Mar 10, 2015#27

Bowielee

GasBandit said:
When I was a kid in the 80s, and only half listening to song lyrics, I was under the impression that that song was literally George Michael singing to his (possibly adopted) offspring based upon the "I will be your Daddy" and "Put your tiny hands in mine" lines.

I mean, I see that could be an interpretation, but it assumes that it was written by a straight man, which it wasn't. See: Daddy Bear. Whether you agree with it or not, many gay men formed their own families and some relationships, particularly back when young gay men were displaced from their homes due to their sexuality did form ersatz paternal type relationships with older gay men, but there were also romantic trappings involved.

You do have to consider the time, place, and context of some stuff.

I think that's one of the reasons that the Blurred Lines thing is so egregious by comparison. In this day and age of awareness of no meaning no, the song comes of doubly unacceptable. Had this song been made in an earlier decade, it may have been just as sleazy, but wouldn't have been interpreted so harshly.

Mar 10, 2015#28

GasBandit

Bowielee said:
Had this song been made in an earlier decade, it may have been just as sleazy, but wouldn't have been interpreted so harshly.

A-la "Baby it's cold outside?"

Mar 10, 2015#29

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
A-la "Baby it's cold outside?"

Heck, even Mambo No. 5 seems sleazier (not rape-ier, just sleazier).

--Patrick

Mar 11, 2015#30

Bowielee

GasBandit said:
A-la "Baby it's cold outside?"

I can do you one grosser:

To be fair, it's meant to be comic.

Mar 11, 2015#31

PatrThom

Proprietary vibes: a new dawn for copyright trolls?
Basically, it's a collection of articles and discussion about whether or not you can actually claim copyright on "style."

--Patrick

Mar 11, 2015#32

jwhouk

It didn't quite work for Apple, did it?

Mar 11, 2015#33

blotsfan

PatrThom said:
Basically, it's a collection of articles and discussion about whether or not you can actually claim copyright on "style."

Taylor Swift sure can

Mar 11, 2015#34

PatrThom

jwhouk said:
It didn't quite work for Apple, did it?

I think I remember a whole lot of lawsuits filed about "look and feel" patents, but I don't remember what they were all about (that link has a big list).
I suppose the principles are relatable, though.

--Patrick

Mar 12, 2015#35

GasBandit

The "Blurred Lines" Verdict Is Bad News, Even If You Hate Robin Thicke

Mar 12, 2015#36

Bowielee

Thanks Disney.

No seriously, look it up. Most of the copyright bullshit that we know today was lobbied for by the "house of mouse".

Mar 12, 2015#37

GasBandit

Bowielee said:
Thanks Disney.

No seriously, look it up. Most of the copyright bullshit that we know today was lobbied for by the "house of mouse".

Oh, I know you to be correct for a fact, no worries. Disney is the Sauron of the copyright world.

Mar 12, 2015#38

sixpackshaker

Hopefully people will start writing original music again. I also want to abolish heavy sampling.

I wonder how much they would have to pay if the family was offered royalties up front for lifting the 10 or so seconds of the song that sounds exactly the same.

Mar 12, 2015#39

phil

I listened to both for a bit and kinda hear it? I mean the general funky beat I guess. I mean there's only so many ways you can mash notes together to make it sound good.

Most music sounds kind of alike anyway.

Mar 12, 2015#40

Chad Sexington

This website is fun: Sounds Just Like

I found it via this video:

But obviously rip-offs do happen, and artists -we can debate the remuneration- deserve credit where due.

Mar 12, 2015#41

PatrThom

Chad Sexington said:
This website is fun: Sounds Just Like.

FYI, some of those soundalikes did result in lawsuits.

--Patrick

Mar 12, 2015#42

jwhouk

Okay, I listened to one of the YT "comparison" videos.

If I were on the jury, I think I still would have gone, "You're kidding, right?"

Mar 12, 2015#43

Charlie Don't Surf

Walt Disney was a piece of shit

Mar 13, 2015#44

Ravenpoe

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Walt Disney was a piece of shit

This is likely true. Also possibly a genius. A piece of shit genius.

Mar 13, 2015#45

bhamv3

Ravenpoe said:
This is likely true. Also possibly a genius. A piece of shit genius.

I am no longer surprised when these two qualities overlap.

Mar 13, 2015#46

fade

GasBandit said:
See also -

http://www.cracked.com/article_18431_8-romantic-songs-you-didnt-know-were-about-rape.html

They're off about Baby it's Cold Outside. That's an easy target, but as better writers than me have pointed out, the woman in the song is actually giving consent using socially acceptable language of the day. He never forces her to stay--she's putting up the front required by contemporary society.

Mar 13, 2015#47

checkeredhat

phil said:
I listened to both for a bit and kinda hear it? I mean the general funky beat I guess. I mean there's only so many ways you can mash notes together to make it sound good.

Most music sounds kind of alike anyway.

Every time someone posts that Axis of Awesome video I am reminded of Rob Paravonian's Pachabel Rant:

Mar 14, 2015#48

Just Me

After I showed the gf the Pachelbel rant video we drove into the city for a stroll and among other things we had some chuckles at Pachelbel's grave. True fact!

Mar 14, 2015#49

chris

Chad Sexington said:
This website is fun: Sounds Just Like

I found it via this video:

But obviously rip-offs do happen, and artists -we can debate the remuneration- deserve credit where due.

Here is another website with more songs: That song sounds like

Mar 15, 2015#50

PatrThom

Muzzle still wet with his last kill, the hunter sets his sights on his next victim.

Marvin Gaye’s Family Suggests Pharrell’s “Happy” Could Be a Rip-off of Another Gaye Song

--Patrick

Mar 15, 2015#51

Ravenpoe

PatrThom said:
Muzzle still wet with his last kill, the hunter sets his sights on his next victim.

Marvin Gaye’s Family Suggests Pharrell’s “Happy” Could Be a Rip-off of Another Gaye Song

--Patrick

Well, they do both have things like 'notes' and 'rhythm'... seems suspicious to me.

Apr 23, 2015#52

PatrThom

Stumbled over this yesterday.

Was listening right along until it got to about 1:20 and then the "I've heard this before" hairs started to raise.
I puzzled over it for a while and then realized it was this:

Quick! Someone get those lawyers on the phone!

--Patrick

Forums