|
|
Post by Bonzo on Mar 12, 2015 9:59:25 GMT -5
People are saying the Gayes are likely to go after Ed Sheeran next for his current #1 ballad. Personally I hear more similarity here than on the Thicke one. Marvin Gaye – Let’s Get It On youtu.be/3j3okb3kutsEd Sheeran – Thinking Out Loud youtu.be/lp-EO5I60KA |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Mar 12, 2015 10:18:41 GMT -5
OK - makes more sense now.
|
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Mar 12, 2015 10:34:31 GMT -5
Maybe there's a good opportunity for someone to be a "copycat broker" - search for songs that sound like they violate copyrights and then charge a finders fee for that. Seems like it's a field ripe for picking.
|
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Mar 12, 2015 19:23:59 GMT -5
Maybe there's a good opportunity for someone to be a "copycat broker" - search for songs that sound like they violate copyrights and then charge a finders fee for that. Seems like it's a field ripe for picking. That's the Pandora's box, bad news for the music industry, good news for lawyers. |
|
|
|
Post by ÈlTwo on Mar 12, 2015 20:12:48 GMT -5
Still not the Pandora's Box.
What is this broker going to do, contact the "original" copyright holder and tell them a song infringes their copyright? Not worth litigating unless the copy has made a huge income; if Mr. Indie writes a song that copies significant portions of another song, and he nets all of $20,000 it's just not worth the expense of the experts and costs of litigation, even if you recovered the whole $20,000. And if the song is very popular, you can bet the copyright holder ain't gonna need no broker to tell them.
How much is this broker going to be paid, and by whom? The 'broker' can't bring the lawsuit, they don't own the rights so they don't have the right to enforce the copyright. In fact, most of the copyrights are licensed to big corporations, and they have the only right to bring the lawsuit.
That's another little catch in Williams v. Gaye, EMI actually held the right to pursue copyright violation, but they refused, despite the Gaye family requesting they do so (that is why EMI is a defendant on the Gaye's counterclaim).
Only believe half of what you're reading in the popular press because they don't know diddley about intellectual property, but they do know that shouting doom and gloom sells.
|
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Mar 12, 2015 23:17:55 GMT -5
You're right that all copies wouldn't be worth litigating, but it's obviously a new source of revenue. I think the decision is unfortunate.
|
|
|
|
Post by ÈlTwo on Mar 13, 2015 7:44:37 GMT -5
You're right that all copies wouldn't be worth litigating, but it's obviously a new source of revenue. I think the decision is unfortunate. Just for clarity's sake, remember this was a jury trial, and the jury rendered the verdict, not the judge. There may be a problem with the law, which can only be changed by the legislative branch. There may be an issue with the trial judge's instructions and what he allowed during trial, and that is what will be up on appeal. IMHO, neither recorded version of the songs should have been played in court. Blurred Lines was partially played as recorded, only a stripped down version of the Gaye song was played; it should have only been a stripped down version of each song, only because without that you need an entire jury that reads music. Still, this is not what Variety, et al are making it out to be, it is limited to the facts of the case, see Thicke's admission. It is a Federal case, so if the appeal wends its way to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, then there might be a broad based decision (Intellectual Property matters are supposed to go to the CAFC before the Supreme Court). If this case gets heard by the Supreme Court (not likely), there is no telling what those 9 drunken bastards will do.  |
|
geebo
Emo VIPs 
"Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are driving taxicabs and cutting hair"
Posts: 24,212
|
Post by geebo on Mar 13, 2015 8:44:54 GMT -5
You're right that all copies wouldn't be worth litigating, but it's obviously a new source of revenue. I think the decision is unfortunate. Just for clarity's sake, remember this was a jury trial, and the jury rendered the verdict, not the judge. There may be a problem with the law, which can only be changed by the legislative branch. There may be an issue with the trial judge's instructions and what he allowed during trial, and that is what will be up on appeal. IMHO, neither recorded version of the songs should have been played in court. Blurred Lines was partially played as recorded, only a stripped down version of the Gaye song was played; it should have only been a stripped down version of each song, only because without that you need an entire jury that reads music. Still, this is not what Variety, et al are making it out to be, it is limited to the facts of the case, see Thicke's admission. It is a Federal case, so if the appeal wends its way to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, then there might be a broad based decision (Intellectual Property matters are supposed to go to the CAFC before the Supreme Court). If this case gets heard by the Supreme Court (not likely), there is no telling what those 9 drunken bastards will do.  |
|
|
|
Post by djoel on Mar 15, 2015 10:38:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by djoel on Mar 15, 2015 10:40:01 GMT -5
People are saying the Gayes are likely to go after Ed Sheeran next for his current #1 ballad. Personally I hear more similarity here than on the Thicke one. Marvin Gaye – Let’s Get It On youtu.be/3j3okb3kutsEd Sheeran – Thinking Out Loud youtu.be/lp-EO5I60KAWow really, I must be going deaf at my old age  |
|
|
|
Post by robertoflay on Mar 18, 2015 18:13:52 GMT -5
People are saying the Gayes are likely to go after Ed Sheeran next for his current #1 ballad. Personally I hear more similarity here than on the Thicke one. Marvin Gaye – Let’s Get It On youtu.be/3j3okb3kutsEd Sheeran – Thinking Out Loud youtu.be/lp-EO5I60KAWow really, I must be going deaf at my old age |
|
|
|
Post by thepcguy on Mar 18, 2015 19:21:08 GMT -5
Over the weekend, The Sun reported that Sam Smith had quietly and amicably settled a copyright dispute with Tom Petty over the likeness between Smith's three-time Grammy-nominated "Stay With Me" and Petty's Full Moon Fever hit "I Won't Back Down," co-written with ELO's Jeff Lynne. In a statement to Rolling Stone, Smith's reps have confirmed that "Stay With Me" is now co-credited to Petty and Lynne, adding that while there are undeniable "similarities" between the two singles, it was a "complete coincidence." Read more: www.rollingstone.com/music/news/sam-smith--tom-petty-settlement-20150126#ixzz3UmoYsOa5 Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook |
|
