'Blurred Lines' verdict

In some ways it did, but the verdict concerns me.

There are literally millions upon millions of songs that have been made, and we have access to all of them thanks to the internet. These guys listen to music all day long. What keeps essentially every hit song from suffering the same fate? At some point the different beat, wording, and chords used should mean something here.

I think that a lot of this verdict has as much to do with Thicke's fall from grace and the revered status of Marvin Gaye as any actual theft. And I am already sick of Nona Gaye and her doing too much ass crying and hollering. She has had every opportunity and ended up with a lackluster career. And now she makes bank off a groove similarity to her Dad's music from people moderately (Thicke) to vastly (Williams) more talented than her.
 
Wow, I can really see a verdict like this becoming a hassle in the future for other artists as well. There are a lot of similarity out there in the music jungle and at the end of the day Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke probably won't go broke from having to pay the Gaye's partial profits... but smaller bands might.

If this is how it's going to look then what's to stop megalomaniac musicians from running around suing people for copyright infringement? (like Taylor Swift trademarking her lyrics...)
 
Well, we already saw that with the Rolling Stones suing The Verve for using their backing track in Bittersweet Symphony - IIRC the Stones get all the royalties from that song.
 
The core issue in these cases is usually: plaintiff must prove his/her ownership and that the defendant copied some protected parts of plaintiff's work.The plaintiff should also prove that the defendants had access to his work and that the two works are essentially similar.

Rampage said:
I think that a lot of this verdict has as much to do with Thicke's fall from grace and the revered status of Marvin Gaye as any actual theft. And I am already sick of Nona Gaye and her doing too much ass crying and hollering. She has had every opportunity and ended up with a lackluster career. And now she makes bank off a groove similarity to her Dad's music from people moderately (Thicke) to vastly (Williams) more talented than her.
Click to expand...

my sympathy for Nona stems from the arrogance of Thicke. He basically told her "don't compare MY 'work of art' to your dead father's music" & then preemptively SUED the Gaye Family to try to silence them! He even went so far as to basically say he was drunk/high & not even there & he STILL got credit for it.

& I find it hard to believe that Pharrell wasn't aware of "Got to give it up" or who made it. He has sampled many songs for alot of his material through the years.

In this day & age, w/ the internet & all, can't these ppl hire someone to check & make sure before they go forward, "just in case"? there's apparently an actual job title for this & it's called a "musicologist". but then again, like @Tribute said, what about smaller bands who might not have that in their budget.


Clara Oswald said:
Well, we already saw that with the Rolling Stones suing The Verve for using their backing track in Bittersweet Symphony - IIRC the Stones get all the royalties from that song.
Click to expand...

Yep! The Rolling Stones wore The Verve OUT on that LOL! You can also go back to George Harrison's "My sweet lord" vs the Chiffons' "He's so fine" or Michael Bolton's "Love is a wonderful thing" vs The Isley Brothers' "Love is a wonderful thing". In those cases, both George & Michael lost, badly & it was hard to believe that either of them hadn't heard of the songs they "borrowed heavily" from.
 
Last edited:
Michael Bolton's case is a far cry from Thicke's though. By the new Thicke standard, you could have WAAAAY more lawsuits. Essentially, they were penalized for creating a groove perhaps inspired by Marvin Gaye's song but different in every measurable way. Different key, different chords, phrasing, words... To take a classic example, it would be like Madonna paying Michael Jackson's kids for "Like a Virgin" having a very similar vibe to "Billie Jean". By traditional standards, that case is a no go. By this new standard Madonna would need to cut a check.
 
Rampage said:
Michael Bolton's case is a far cry from Thicke's though. By the new Thicke standard, you could have WAAAAY more lawsuits. Essentially, they were penalized for creating a groove perhaps inspired by Marvin Gaye's song but different in every measurable way. Different key, different chords, phrasing, words... To take a classic example, it would be like Madonna paying Michael Jackson's kids for "Like a Virgin" having a very similar vibe to "Billie Jean". By traditional standards, that case is a no go. By this new standard Madonna would need to cut a check.
Click to expand...

That's a very spot on observation.

But Madonna made no secret of her desire to whatever elements she could as she was hot on the heels of MJ in her rise to super stardom @ that time. Her manager at the time, Freddy Demann, was ALSO MJ's manager & it was his idea to use the billie jean-esque baseline for Like A Virgin to ensure it got attention & heavy radio play.

Thicke wants to act like it was some stroke of genius on his part & he disrespected the Gaye family. Alot of industry lawyers & insiders are saying that a big problem in this case was the negative PR HE generated. & that in theory, the Gaye family had an uphill battle, but Thicke definitely did not help his case.
 
LOL! And yeah, probably done. Nothing worse for a love ballad crooner than losing your love, especially when she is SO fine AND popular.

And I get that Thicke screwed the pooch here...but at some point that should not have to matter. Otherwise these all become popularity contests without regard to merit. And every time, the little guy will lose. Even in this Nona Gaye did not beat him, MARVIN GAYE did. I could care less in one way but in another, I hope this is a one-off and we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top