|
Post by Bonzo on Mar 11, 2015 13:11:21 GMT -5
www.vox.com/2015/3/10/8187225/robin-thicke-blurred-lines-gaye"In this case, the Gaye family argued Thicke had stolen the musical composition. That means that Gaye's voice, the percussion, and the backing vocalists could not be considered in this trial. Only the music of the song that Gaye originally wrote could be considered.
Basically, the sheet music was what was at stake here. The family couldn't play the recordings side-by-side in the trial because the judge worried that the performances of the songs might sway the jury. Eventually, the Gaye family was allowed to play a stripped-down version of the song for the jury."My ears aren't trained for this sort of music I guess. I think all this type of music sounds similar but I don't get how these 2 songs sound so much alike to sue and win over. What say you all?
|
|
cawgijoe
Emo VIPs
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it." - Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,928
|
Post by cawgijoe on Mar 11, 2015 13:18:54 GMT -5
From the couple minutes I heard it on the news, it was hard to tell apart. I understand the lawsuit.
|
|
|
Post by brand on Mar 11, 2015 13:18:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by djoel on Mar 11, 2015 13:36:35 GMT -5
Yeah from what I recall of the Marvin song, ( Claps, chants, etc) the beginning part does sounds similar, other than that I don't see it., or rather hear it.
I can listen to any of the links, I'm at work and our servers wont allow it.
Djoel
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Mar 11, 2015 13:47:03 GMT -5
Well now how about rap songs? Talk about sounding the same and even the words, too. Oh, but we're talking about music. Well then how about country and western songs? The songs do sound similar but then there really isn't anything new under the sun (aside from Atmos and the Apple watch, that is). You would think all the musical combinations, at least the ones that make technical sense, have been made, same as there's really no "new" book plot.
|
|
|
Post by ocezam on Mar 11, 2015 14:00:36 GMT -5
I can hear a similarity, but I wouldn't have agreed with the jury if I'd been in it. Close but no cigar IMO.
What I can't understand is why the jury wasn't allowed to compare the songs back to back in the trial. Isn't that the point?
|
|
hemster
Global Moderator
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,922
|
Post by hemster on Mar 11, 2015 14:25:49 GMT -5
From the couple minutes I heard it on the news, it was hard to tell apart. I understand the lawsuit. Well I heard it through the grapevine and it's not a blurred line. I can certainly hear the resemblance clearly. I understand Thicke and Williams's lawyer is filing an appeal. The appeals could go on for years.
|
|
|
Post by chaosrv on Mar 11, 2015 14:56:35 GMT -5
I think they weren't allowed to hear them side by side as their preference for a particular song would impede their ability to be impartial. Basically, the judge was afraid they would vote in favor of which ever song they liked.
|
|
cawgijoe
Emo VIPs
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it." - Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,928
|
Post by cawgijoe on Mar 11, 2015 15:14:16 GMT -5
From the couple minutes I heard it on the news, it was hard to tell apart. I understand the lawsuit. Well I heard it through the grapevine and it's not a blurred line. I can certainly hear the resemblance clearly. I understand Thicke and Williams's lawyer is filing an appeal. The appeals could go on for years. And the lawyers will be the real winners.
|
|
|
Post by ocezam on Mar 11, 2015 15:20:54 GMT -5
Well I heard it through the grapevine and it's not a blurred line. I can certainly hear the resemblance clearly. I understand Thicke and Williams's lawyer is filing an appeal. The appeals could go on for years. And the lawyers will be the real winners. As always...
|
|
|
Post by ÈlTwo on Mar 11, 2015 15:56:04 GMT -5
The rhythm is almost identical, the vamp in Blurred Lines sounds like they took the Marvin Gaye vamp from Got to Give It Up and just put it in a minor key.
I'd love to see the sheet music from both.
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Mar 11, 2015 16:30:12 GMT -5
I disagree with the ruling. Although similar, the songs are distinctly different. If a legal precedent is set that a previous song-owner can sue ANY future song that sounds similar, then the music business is out of business. Most "modern" songs of the past half-century are derivatives of music that came before. The judge has opened Pandora's box on this one.
|
|
geebo
Emo VIPs
"Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are driving taxicabs and cutting hair"
Posts: 24,214
|
Post by geebo on Mar 11, 2015 17:18:35 GMT -5
There is an obvious resemblance that I think has to be more than coincidence.
|
|
|
Post by bobcel on Mar 12, 2015 7:12:56 GMT -5
There is an obvious resemblance that I think has to be more than coincidence. I think artists are all influenced by others. Nothing wrong with that. I think it is ridiculous. Now here is a real coincidence.
|
|
geebo
Emo VIPs
"Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are driving taxicabs and cutting hair"
Posts: 24,214
|
Post by geebo on Mar 12, 2015 7:27:41 GMT -5
Being influenced is one thing. And it's a good thing. Being a copy cat is another. There are laws against it and a jury gets to decide the outcome.
|
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,261
|
Post by stiehl11 on Mar 12, 2015 8:12:17 GMT -5
I guess John Williams will be out of a job...
|
|
|
Post by ÈlTwo on Mar 12, 2015 8:21:32 GMT -5
I disagree with the ruling. Although similar, the songs are distinctly different. If a legal precedent is set that a previous song-owner can sue ANY future song that sounds similar, then the music business is out of business. Most "modern" songs of the past half-century are derivatives of music that came before. The judge has opened Pandora's box on this one. How has the judge opened a Pandora's Box? The jury made the findings of fact. In this case it is NOT how the two songs sound that was the issue on trial (that would only apply if they sampled Marvin Gaye), it was the actual sheet music. I didn't look to see if it was discussed anywhere, but in order for there to be a copyright infraction there would have to be a copying of a significant or recognizable portion of the Gaye song. I would love to see copies of the recorded scores side by side, because that is the only issue that should have been considered by the jury. Copyright was originally meant to protect an exact representation for a limited time; the music industry and Hollywood have killed that by getting the law changed to continually extend the length of copyright protection. The 1909 Copyright law granted the right for 28 years, with the right to renew in the final year for another 28 years, for a total of 56 years. Without going through all the special extensions that were passed in the 60's, the renewal was increased to 47 years in 1976 (75 total years), and then to 67 years in the 1998 act ( the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Sonny Bono Act, or (derisively) the Mickey Mouse Protection Act). Those terms are for works made for hire, a work owned by the author is life plus 70 years. Will this be reversed on appeal, or sent back for a new trial, I couldn't tell you unless I saw the actual papers. Moreover, this case should probably be limited to the facts of the case, since it seems that Robin Thicke's own words were the ones that swayed the jury: Pharrell and I were in the studio and I told him that one of my favorite songs of all time was Marvin Gaye’s ‘Got to Give it Up.’ I was like, ‘Damn, we should make something like that, something with that groove.’ Then he started playing a little something and we literally wrote the song in about a half hour and recorded it.Robin Thicke from GQ May, 2013, and then in Billboard: Pharrell and I were in the studio making a couple records, and then on the third day I told him I wanted to do something kinda like Marvin Gaye’s ‘Got to Give it Up,’ that kind of feel ’cause it’s one of my favorite songs of all time. So he started messing with some drums and then he started going ‘Hey, hey hey .. ‘ and about an hour and a half later we had the whole record finished.Add all that in to the fact that Thicke actually started the litigation, that's right, he asked the courts to declare that Blurred Lines did not infringe Got To Give It Up, the Gaye estate counter-sued alleging infringement; you read that right, Pharrell Williams, Robin Thicke and Clifford Harris were the plaintiffs, and Bridgeport Music, Gaye's ex-wife and his kids were the defendants. There is much more to this case than the headlines.
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Mar 12, 2015 8:41:03 GMT -5
I guess John Williams will be out of a job... Absolutely true! No modern music person/band I know of has begged/borrowed/stolen more than Jon Williams. He's a master at it.
|
|
|
Post by ÈlTwo on Mar 12, 2015 9:42:00 GMT -5
As long as the music is more than 95 years old, he's in the clear
|
|
geebo
Emo VIPs
"Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are driving taxicabs and cutting hair"
Posts: 24,214
|
Post by geebo on Mar 12, 2015 9:43:43 GMT -5
I disagree with the ruling. Although similar, the songs are distinctly different. If a legal precedent is set that a previous song-owner can sue ANY future song that sounds similar, then the music business is out of business. Most "modern" songs of the past half-century are derivatives of music that came before. The judge has opened Pandora's box on this one. How has the judge opened a Pandora's Box? The jury made the findings of fact. In this case it is NOT how the two songs sound that was the issue on trial (that would only apply if they sampled Marvin Gaye), it was the actual sheet music. I didn't look to see if it was discussed anywhere, but in order for there to be a copyright infraction there would have to be a copying of a significant or recognizable portion of the Gaye song. I would love to see copies of the recorded scores side by side, because that is the only issue that should have been considered by the jury. Copyright was originally meant to protect an exact representation for a limited time; the music industry and Hollywood have killed that by getting the law changed to continually extend the length of copyright protection. The 1909 Copyright law granted the right for 28 years, with the right to renew in the final year for another 28 years, for a total of 56 years. Without going through all the special extensions that were passed in the 60's, the renewal was increased to 47 years in 1976 (75 total years), and then to 67 years in the 1998 act ( the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Sonny Bono Act, or (derisively) the Mickey Mouse Protection Act). Those terms are for works made for hire, a work owned by the author is life plus 70 years. Will this be reversed on appeal, or sent back for a new trial, I couldn't tell you unless I saw the actual papers. Moreover, this case should probably be limited to the facts of the case, since it seems that Robin Thicke's own words were the ones that swayed the jury: Pharrell and I were in the studio and I told him that one of my favorite songs of all time was Marvin Gaye’s ‘Got to Give it Up.’ I was like, ‘Damn, we should make something like that, something with that groove.’ Then he started playing a little something and we literally wrote the song in about a half hour and recorded it.Robin Thicke from GQ May, 2013, and then in Billboard: Pharrell and I were in the studio making a couple records, and then on the third day I told him I wanted to do something kinda like Marvin Gaye’s ‘Got to Give it Up,’ that kind of feel ’cause it’s one of my favorite songs of all time. So he started messing with some drums and then he started going ‘Hey, hey hey .. ‘ and about an hour and a half later we had the whole record finished.Add all that in to the fact that Thicke actually started the litigation, that's right, he asked the courts to declare that Blurred Lines did not infringe Got To Give It Up, the Gaye estate counter-sued alleging infringement; you read that right, Pharrell Williams, Robin Thicke and Clifford Harris were the plaintiffs, and Bridgeport Music, Gaye's ex-wife and his kids were the defendants. There is much more to this case than the headlines. So in the words of the late Paul Harvey, now "the rest of the story..."
|
|