Blurred Lines verdict

Home Forums Share It! Blurred Lines verdict

Viewing 9 posts - 31 through 39 (of 39 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #20701 Reply
    MichaelL
    Participant

    If the ripoff were a song that had stylistic similarities yet an identity of its own (melody, chord structure, etc) I do feel that it is within the ballpark of okay, whereas the straight out theft of a track such as that is surely a violation. Kind of apples and oranges, IMO.

    Similar to what I said about using a Harmon mute and Miles Davis. The Edge cannot copyright the use of delay on guitars.

    But…if someone did a straight knock-off of “Pride” or the 10 millionth rip of “Clocks” and then their cue was ripped off in a YT video…who’s the thief?

    Can the library writer go after the unauthorized YT use, or could U2 and Coldplay go after them both?

    #20703 Reply
    Desire_Inspires
    Participant

    Marvin Gaye’s estate didn’t sue simply because Marvin’s song was an inspiration for Blurred Lines. They sued because Blurred Lines was a huge success. Songs that don’t generate enough money or notoriety will still be mostly forgotten. This lawsuit is about money, not music.

    #20707 Reply
    MichaelL
    Participant

    They sued because Blurred Lines was a huge success. Songs that don’t generate enough money or notoriety will still be mostly forgotten.

    Thank you for reinforcing what I said earlier.

    And…if the song hadn’t become a major hit and earned huge amounts of money they wouldn’t have been a target, like every other Marvin Gaye knock-off that didn’t generate a lawsuit.

    šŸ˜‰

    #20708 Reply
    Michael Nickolas
    Participant

    Kind of makes you ask “what’s going on”? šŸ™‚

    #20709 Reply
    woodsdenis
    Participant

    As that old music saying goes “Where there’s a hit there’s a writ”

    #20720 Reply
    woodsdenis
    Participant
    #20721 Reply
    MichaelL
    Participant

    +1

    It’s funny how often estates come out of the woodwork when they smell money.

    He added that “this matter is not finished by any stretch of the imagination

    Good for him! It should be appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court.

    IMHO the verdict is a wrong application of the law.

    #20725 Reply
    Art Munson
    Keymaster

    This getting really silly now.

    Yep, heard that yesterday. Talk about greed!

    It should be appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court.

    I was just saying that to Robin the other day. I could imagine a whole bunch of deep pocketed artists and companies pooling their resources to take this to the Supreme Court.

    Hmmm, maybe the Supreme Court could sue Motown for using the group name “The Supremes”. -:)

    #20814 Reply
    MichaelL
    Participant

    BTW. It’s worth noting that Williams & Thicke sued the Gaye estate first, seeking what is known as a declaratory judgment by the court that “Blurred Lines” did not infringe. They opened the can of worms first!

    Here are some more thoughts in the NY Times

    http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/03/17/robin-thicke-pharrell-williams-and-a-blurry-copyright-law?rref=homepage&module=Ribbon&version=context&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Room%20for%20Debate&pgtype=blogs

Viewing 9 posts - 31 through 39 (of 39 total)
Reply To: Blurred Lines verdict
Your information: