Blurred Lines

[re:dream]

didn't pharell and thicke both say they were listening to marvin gaye and trying to come up with something like that right before they wrote the song?
I don't have direct quotes but I think I read something like that somewhere or heard it reported.

personally I could care less, I think it's better in the long run for samplist as this will encourage more original sample use and samplist will up their sample game. I love sampling and anything that pushes the skills forward is cool with me, and as far as pharell and thicke no matter the court ruling they are biters, where I come from biters get thrown off stage

Thank you. Musicians and composers are reflexively getting outraged out of concern for their own potential sampling and covering self-interests.

I dunno. I am not outraged. I am just baffled and a bit alarmed I just can't see how this ruling is good in law. It's not in line with American and international copyright law as I understand it. It means that the test for copyright infringement is not if you copied the actual notes, but a sort of vague feel. And that's worrying, because it just means it creates a situation where whoever has the most lawyers can press and win a suit like this

[starving student]

I know, it's funny cause thicke owes his whole career to marvin gaye and has never minced words about it until now. I think the moral of the story is that trying to be marvin gaye can cost you upwards of 7 million but being yourself is free.

Justin Timberlake has a successful career as Michael Jackson but at least his music is original and/or he goes through the proper permission channels when needed.

exactly. although he works with pharell too and probably is thanking his lucky stars that nobody's after him

[starving student]

didn't pharell and thicke both say they were listening to marvin gaye and trying to come up with something like that right before they wrote the song?
I don't have direct quotes but I think I read something like that somewhere or heard it reported.

personally I could care less, I think it's better in the long run for samplist as this will encourage more original sample use and samplist will up their sample game. I love sampling and anything that pushes the skills forward is cool with me, and as far as pharell and thicke no matter the court ruling they are biters, where I come from biters get thrown off stage

Thank you. Musicians and composers are reflexively getting outraged out of concern for their own potential sampling and covering self-interests.

I dunno. I am not outraged. I am just baffled and a bit alarmed I just can't see how this ruling is good in law. It's not in line with American and international copyright law as I understand it. It means that the test for copyright infringement is not if you copied the actual notes, but a sort of vague feel. And that's worrying, because it just means it creates a situation where whoever has the most lawyers can press and win a suit like this

surely thicke had the most lawyers though right?

[beats me]

didn't pharell and thicke both say they were listening to marvin gaye and trying to come up with something like that right before they wrote the song?
I don't have direct quotes but I think I read something like that somewhere or heard it reported.

personally I could care less, I think it's better in the long run for samplist as this will encourage more original sample use and samplist will up their sample game. I love sampling and anything that pushes the skills forward is cool with me, and as far as pharell and thicke no matter the court ruling they are biters, where I come from biters get thrown off stage

Thank you. Musicians and composers are reflexively getting outraged out of concern for their own potential sampling and covering self-interests.

I dunno. I am not outraged. I am just baffled and a bit alarmed I just can't see how this ruling is good in law. It's not in line with American and international copyright law as I understand it. It means that the test for copyright infringement is not if you copied the actual notes, but a sort of vague feel. And that's worrying, because it just means it creates a situation where whoever has the most lawyers can press and win a suit like this

I don’t know how this pertains to copyright law or international law but I’m going to throw out the term “evidence beyond a reasonable doubt” which is used in convicting criminals in the US. If you look at the history and influence of the making of this track and listen to the end result it’s beyond a reasonable doubt long before you start nitpicking music theory.

The main thing that makes me that most people seem to ignore is everybody on trial here has been in the music business long enough to know better and shouldn’t be acting stupid about it. All the debate out there seems to either be “They stole!” or “This could have a far reaching impact on my bedroom music producing”.

[re:dream]

I dunno. That's not either of my arguments. But you seem to be very committed to your views, so let me not bore you with mine.

[beats me]

I dunno. That's not either of my arguments. But you seem to be very committed to your views, so let me not bore you with mine.

It won’t bore me and I’ll try to simmer down with my responses.

[starving student]

C'mon Re:Dream, I'm interested in your thoughts especially about how they even said they were channeling marvin...


on another note as long as at the end of this thread we are hating hiphop or kanye west I'll be satisfied.

[Steve Glen]

I think that this is a civil suit and not a federal/criminal case.

And I think evidence beyond a reasonable doubt only refers to criminal cases, not civil... even though there was a jury. ..?

Interesting case for sure.

[Steve Glen]

Are you saying that it seems like the Performers were outperformed by lawyers and Gaye's family (re:'free from the shackles'quote.)

Yes, they should pay up.

[Treshell]

Good.

Intro was about a blatant as Kanye West's Avril 14th ripoff.

[beats me]

I think that this is a civil suit and not a federal/criminal case.

And I think evidence beyond a reasonable doubt only refers to criminal cases, not civil... even though there was a jury. ..?

Interesting case for sure.

Hmm. Again, I don’t know how copyright law works, but the world knows OJ Simpson beat the criminal murder charge but lost the civil side of that in about 10 minutes.

[H20nly]

I wonder if that group Technotronic from like 1989 will sue themselves for using the same same beat in all their songs... they even admit it in one of them - "this beat is this beat is this beat is Technotronic"

[beats me]

I wonder if that group Technotronic from like 1989 will sue themselves for using the same same beat in all their songs... they even admit it in one of them - "this beat is this beat is this beat is Technotronic"

Throw C & C Music Factory in there as well.

[Matt_Quinn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziz9HW2ZmmY

The similarities are mostly in texture. Drums, percussion, synth bass. Sparse arrangement with lots of space in the bass line; four on the floor kick pattern.

To my knowledge you can't copyright instrumentation, orchestration, or texture and the notes and rhythms in the bass are not similar enough to warrant a ruling of copyright infringement.

Similar overall feel, yes, but nothing in there is identical. I don't know if those are the original keys in that youtube comparison I posted above, but you can't copyright a key either.

This, end of story. Jesus, just play each bass line and you'll realize they aren't the same, at all. This ruling is insane and will hopefully be overturned on appeal.

[beats me]

Not that Robin Thicke is an international treasure of raw talent, but if this case was against Justin Bieber I highly doubt the outrage and analysis would be as high. FACT!