|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 11, 2015 22:16:52 GMT -6
The beat is similar...maybe they'll get another $7 Million...Just ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Mar 11, 2015 22:20:16 GMT -6
It was poorly played, but still, it's a crock of poop, they should have let the jury hear both tunes, you cant copyright drum grooves...right? Thats the only thing in the tune thats similar, the sparse bassline drops differently. you can't argue with non-copywritten elements in court. they could only argue with the elements stored in the copyright, and the copyright predated submission of recordings as the allowed method for defining the copyright. Unless y'all want to pay the fee the Copyright Office charges to see the actual copyright, all this talk of what was compared in court is hearsay and a crock of poop. I'm curious what the actual copyright for the song says, personally. Y'all need to check out this tho: www.showbiz411.com/2015/03/11/another-lawsuit-robin-thicke-stole-this-marvin-gaye-song-too-listen |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Mar 11, 2015 22:33:14 GMT -6
It was poorly played, but still, it's a crock of poop, they should have let the jury hear both tunes, you cant copyright drum grooves...right? Thats the only thing in the tune thats similar, the sparse bassline drops differently. you can't argue with non-copywritten elements in court. they could only argue with the elements stored in the copyright, and the copyright predated submission of recordings as the allowed method for defining the copyright. Unless y'all want to pay the fee the Copyright Office charges to see the actual copyright, all this talk of what was compared in court is hearsay and a crock of poop. I'm curious what the actual copyright for the song says, personally. Y'all need to check out this tho: www.showbiz411.com/2015/03/11/another-lawsuit-robin-thicke-stole-this-marvin-gaye-song-too-listenlmao! dudes in some deep poop! |
|
|
|
Post by donr on Mar 11, 2015 22:43:46 GMT -6
It was poorly played, but still, it's a crock of poop, they should have let the jury hear both tunes, you cant copyright drum grooves...right? Thats the only thing in the tune thats similar, the sparse bassline drops differently. you can't argue with non-copywritten elements in court. they could only argue with the elements stored in the copyright, and the copyright predated submission of recordings as the allowed method for defining the copyright. Unless y'all want to pay the fee the Copyright Office charges to see the actual copyright, all this talk of what was compared in court is hearsay and a crock of poop. I'm curious what the actual copyright for the song says, personally. Y'all need to check out this tho: www.showbiz411.com/2015/03/11/another-lawsuit-robin-thicke-stole-this-marvin-gaye-song-too-listenHow was the Williams/Thicke version copyrighted? I never have submitted sheet music for copyright, always a sound recording, even for the Composer/Author copyright, but I understand that's the way it was traditionally done (by people who can write a chart.  ) As for the other example, Thicke didn't change the key. Man, there's things you can do to avoid training the plagiarism crosshairs on your ace. But a point needs to be made, does a songwriter have rights to the STYLE of a song? That's sketchy. Does George Thorogood need to pay Muddy Waters? Or does Muddy need to pay someone else? Or can we all make a living doing this, thank you very much. |
|
|
|
Post by donr on Mar 11, 2015 22:56:05 GMT -6
Ah, geez. news.yahoo.com/blurred-lines-verdict-strikes-fear-songwriters-233941179.html;_ylt=AwrBJR645ABVEw0A_yjQtDMDQuote from Greg Wells in the article: "It's just a huge nail in the coffin for an already six-foot-under music industry. Now none of us have any idea what's going to win a lawsuit," said songwriter Greg Wells, who has co-written with superstars Adele and Katy Perry. "It reaffirms to me that for most ordinary people, music sounds like Japanese to them if they're not Japanese. This just takes the fear knob and cranks it to 11 for people who do what I and Pharrell do for a living," he told AFP. |
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Mar 11, 2015 23:23:39 GMT -6
As for the other example, Thicke didn't change the key. He didnt' change ANYTHING except the lyrics. everything else was a verbatim replication of the original Gaye song. it's laughable, esp. if he didn't get a license to do that. |
|
|
|
Post by donr on Mar 12, 2015 0:03:50 GMT -6
As for the other example, Thicke didn't change the key. He didnt' change ANYTHING except the lyrics. everything else was a verbatim replication of the original Gaye song. it's laughable, esp. if he didn't get a license to do that. Cripes, maybe that kind of cynicism is generational, I dunno. Everybody steals, but there's traditionally been respect for the creator and personal pride about taking what's come before and making it your own. But there should be arbitration and settlements for this stuff. By professionals. I'd hate to think that Robin Thicke's attitude is typical of Western Culture for his generation. But the thing is, "Blurred Lines" IS a legitimate smash. It's not channeling Marvin Gaye. Yeah, you think Marvin, if you know the music, but it's NOT Marvin. It's it's own song. Back to the comparison of Muddy Waters' "I'm A Man," and George Thorogood's "Bad To The Bone." Does every song in perpetuity have to pay Muddy for the riff that goes bah, DAH, dah dah.. before the lyric? |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 12, 2015 7:51:35 GMT -6
Damn - and listen to this...
Marvin Gaye's "Dance With Me" and Thicke's "Love After War"...Seems to be a pattern. I would imagine that the cumulative evidence wasn't allowed, but it sounds like this was a premeditated occurrence. It probably went down like, "He man - looking for songs for my next album - wanna do something like Marvin Gaye..." Starting to look pretty fishy, but I still think BL's is different enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 12, 2015 7:56:55 GMT -6
It was poorly played, but still, it's a crock of poop, they should have let the jury hear both tunes, you cant copyright drum grooves...right? Thats the only thing in the tune thats similar, the sparse bassline drops differently. you can't argue with non-copywritten elements in court. they could only argue with the elements stored in the copyright, and the copyright predated submission of recordings as the allowed method for defining the copyright. Unless y'all want to pay the fee the Copyright Office charges to see the actual copyright, all this talk of what was compared in court is hearsay and a crock of poop. I'm curious what the actual copyright for the song says, personally. Y'all need to check out this tho: www.showbiz411.com/2015/03/11/another-lawsuit-robin-thicke-stole-this-marvin-gaye-song-too-listenThat's egregious. This shows premeditation. Always two sides to the story. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Mar 12, 2015 10:43:11 GMT -6
Incompetent lawyers...
All of this is fallout from Napster when Marvin's family and every other artist and producer watched most of their royalty income vanish. Marvin didn't write many of his hits so the family's income was mostly artist royalties.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoff738 on Mar 15, 2015 19:55:37 GMT -6
you can't argue with non-copywritten elements in court. they could only argue with the elements stored in the copyright, and the copyright predated submission of recordings as the allowed method for defining the copyright. Unless y'all want to pay the fee the Copyright Office charges to see the actual copyright, all this talk of what was compared in court is hearsay and a crock of poop. I'm curious what the actual copyright for the song says, personally. Y'all need to check out this tho: www.showbiz411.com/2015/03/11/another-lawsuit-robin-thicke-stole-this-marvin-gaye-song-too-listenThat's egregious. This shows premeditation. Always two sides to the story. Apparently it's now credited solely to Marvin: link
Cheers, Geoff |
|
|
|
Post by formatcyes on Mar 15, 2015 21:18:11 GMT -6
WOWThat's egregious. This shows premeditation. Always two sides to the story. Apparently it's now credited solely to Marvin: link
Cheers, Geoff His song's are different enough. My first impression of this tune was Micheal Jackson. This is complete nonsense. Marvin is pushing up the daisies anyway, even if it was one hundred percent copyed it's not costing his estate any money. They have suffered no loss. Not like the Marvin sound is 100% original anyways. So now a couple of chords a drum beat and some backing vocals lets you lay claim to a "tune" WHAT THE F&*^%K. |
|
|
|
Post by formatcyes on Mar 15, 2015 21:24:29 GMT -6
Every tune has been done before and will be done again there is simply not enough notes to go around. Unless you are copyed 100% including all the words and you are suffering a loss IE you had it it stolen (author) before you made any money. Shut up. If you don't I will sue your ass....... no wait that won't help this sueing situation... 8)
|
|
|
|
Post by geoff738 on Mar 15, 2015 21:43:39 GMT -6
Apparently it's now credited solely to Marvin: link
Cheers, Geoff His song's are different enough. My first impression of this tune was Micheal Jackson. This is complete nonsense. Marvin is pushing up the daisies anyway, even if it was one hundred percent copyed it's not costing his estate any money. They have suffered no loss. Not like the Marvin sound is 100% original anyways. So now a couple of chords a drum beat and some backing vocals lets you lay claim to a "tune" WHAT THE F&*^%K. Not Blurred Lines. I was referring to a different song that is apparently on an earlier disc. Somewhere in the stuff I quoted there's a link to the two songs. If you have a listen, I think you'll agree that in this case it's pretty blatant. It's Marvin's song with different words. Hope that clarifies things a bit. Cheers, Geoff |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Mar 15, 2015 22:28:13 GMT -6
i'm all for guys keeping their property, it's your given right. If you wrote a tune that someone ripped verbatim, then you aren't getting paid and you may just have to give up your career in music to clean toilets while some asshole is taking your money. There is a balance that needs to be struck, the fact is if you took away the drum part from blurred lines, you'd never make the connection to Marvins tune, it a travesty. Now the other tune was straight stolen and he should eat shit on that one IMO
|
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Mar 17, 2015 8:36:27 GMT -6
The moral of the story is to "keep your mouth shut." That's usually a sound principle, but as the lawyer says in the video above, Pharrel/Thicke should have gotten a license from the Gaye estate- which was a 50% share of "Blurred Lines". Amazing to me given that besides a sense of the groove- which the drummer layed down and didn't get a penny from this lawsuit- the songs don't sound anything alike. I think the bottom line is that lawyers are seeing a very lucrative market here and going after it. It's like lawsuits over the use of colors to me. "Oh my God, he used colors that look like Van Gogh. Sue him." LOL. |
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Mar 17, 2015 9:16:27 GMT -6
the songs don't sound anything alike.  are you deaf? lol |
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Mar 17, 2015 9:24:54 GMT -6
the songs don't sound anything alike. are you deaf? lol You know what , Chuck? Be respectful. I didn't come here for another place where people don't show common respect. If you disagree, that's fine. But show some respect, OK. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 17, 2015 14:14:48 GMT -6
Come on, Chuck.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Mar 17, 2015 14:38:23 GMT -6
the songs don't sound anything alike. are you deaf? lol if he's deaf i'm deaf, because if you subtract that drum groove, those song are no more alike than 1,000,000 others. Shit man, i'm old as fuck and grew up with marvin on the radio, when i heard that blurred lines tune for the 3,000th time, it STILL never occurred to me the similarities, now those other tunes are a different story, a blatant rip imo. |
|
|
|
Post by formatcyes on Mar 17, 2015 17:26:06 GMT -6
The key is different, the chord progressions are different, the words are different, as is the song structure. I don't think hearing a different tune implies you are deaf. Quite the opposite infact.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 17, 2015 17:41:00 GMT -6
Traditionally, infringement had to be proven by several factors - not entirely sure exactly what they were - but it was something like having to follow the top line melody/chord structure for more than four measures. Then they had to prove that the person had access to the copied material - which in this case wasn't hard. I haven't listened to both all the way down in the last bit, but I would HIGHLY doubt there's a place where these two songs have the same top line melody for more at least 4 melodies. This will be appealed and the Gaye family will lose. If this is the bar for "copying" then we're all in a shit load of trouble. Can a sax player pick up a sax without sounding like David Sanborn or if they're lucky, Charlie Parker? Could a knucklehead juror tell them apart? Probably not. This is dangerous.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Mar 17, 2015 18:27:41 GMT -6
(make sure you look at jiminy right after you read 8)
they're gonna take us for all we make! lol
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 17, 2015 19:31:36 GMT -6
That was the look right before you murdered him.
|
|
|
|
Post by levon on Mar 18, 2015 0:31:27 GMT -6
(make sure you look at jiminy right after you read 8) they're gonna take us for all we make! lol They can have 50% of my Pandora royalties. I pay in postal stamps.  |
|
)
are you deaf? lol
