As I understand it, copyright law at the time Got To Give It Up was released applied to sheet music, so the case was won because Blurred Lines was similar to the sheet music Marvin Gaye wrote, not the actual recording. The actual Marvin Gaye recording wasn't played in court, just a recreation of the sheet music.

Which makes the verdict quite strange. Maybe it was the right verdict, but reached for the wrong reasons.

I find it strange that people with no musical merit whatsoever are able to make decisions like this. It's all wrong IMO.

I don't agree with this decision, and that's from somebody who has very little time for Thicke or Blurred Lines. Seems like that guys life is a crisis right now

Does he regret his plagiarised song about date rape?

I doubt it, but I hope he does.

Robin thicke last album was just love songs dedicated to his ex wife in a desperate attempt to try and get back with her..and it flopped so hard. selling only about 550 copies in the UK and Canada, so embarrassing for him. no wonder she didnt take him back *cringe*

He really messed things up didn't he?

I have no sympathy.

Playing up to the cameras? I'm sure they are all worth several million already.

Lived up to his name.

I think people forget that Robin Thicke had a very succesful career before Blurred Lines, but the controversy over it seems to have finished him as an artist.

That's what makes it a bit depressing he chucked it all away for a few frolics by the looks of things

I think his career is over. It's kinda tragic but he was such a creep it's hard to feel very sympathetic. It's a morality tale.
Personally I don't think the melody of Blurred Lines iis the same as the marvin Gaye song- so to that extent I think the verdict is unfair. Even if I dislike the song.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFER9-JvKdg&t=57

ANOTHER ONE?

I think Robin Thicke will be the fall guy out of this as I think Pharell will still produce hits and collaborate with other artists, whereas Thicke is not that strong as an artist. In fact he is quite weak.

Well they would try for "Happy" wouldn't they? It's the natural next step. Pharrell has a similar voice to Gaye so they're probably going to go though his whole catalogue now comparing it with Gaye's.
I like Pharrell, he's a talented (and very rich) guy and the Gaye family have tasted his blood now. Personally I don't believe that Pharrell copied Got to Give It Up. Anyone with a ounce of soul would have been influenced by Gaye.

Pharrell admits to being influenced by Marvin Gaye but that's not surprising considering how brilliant (and influential) Marvin Gaye is. Ed Sheeran has been influenced by Van Morrison (Think Out Loud/ Crazy Love) but influence is not the same as copying.

There was musicologists evidence that showed 8 phrases which were very similar between 'Blurred Lines' and 'Got to give it up', that was expert evidence which influenced the jury no doubt. There will be an appeal I suspect. The verdict may tarnish Williams more than Thicke as Pharrell is seen to be writer.

I'm 'happy' if people listen to more Marvin Gaye and Van Morrison, that would be the best outcome.

As pointed out in the comments below that video, Marvin Gaye didn't write Ain't That Peculiar. So any claim for plagiarism would have to be made by the actual writers, Pete Moore, Smokey Robinson, Bobby Rogers and Marv Tarplin (or their estates).

Also pointed out in those comments, "There is a difference between songs sounding the same and sounding good together". A mash-up is when two songs sound good together, in this case assisted by pitch-shifting, which would not be acceptable as evidence in court!

I thought the crying from the daughter was so OTT
Anyone would of thought she had just been found not guilty for murdering someone.

The problem is there are only so many different notes and guitar riffs in the world eventually they will run out and they are bound to start sounding the same.

I once read in the 90's someone saying all music notes would be used up by 2004.

At some point someone has to agree this concept will happen or music will die.

The whole family have come across really badly throughout this whole affair to be honest. The dramatics haven't done than any favours either. Nothing but moneygrabbers as far as i'm concerned, a bit like those Jacksons.

Tbh, I don't keep up with the latest news regarding people I have little interest in. I also don't read any celeb mags so perhaps that's why the hysteria you mention has passed me by.

I'm surprised that Robin Thicke only made $15 million from a song that was the most-played and most-bought song of the year in the UK and the US in the year it was released.

The most ridiculous thing about this is that there still exists copyright on a 40-year-old song by a man who's been dead for over 30 years.

I mean, seriously? IMO, copyright's should end when the person/creator dies.

Why on earth does his daughter deserve millions of pounds 40 years later?

But why should one songwriter get paid for another songwriter's work? It's a basic human right: if you create something, you own it unless you agree to transfer ownership to someone else. The length of the term of copyright is not the issue here because if Williams and Thicke[ plagiarised Gaye they should not make money from it.

On the other hand, if they didn't plagiarise him - which may still be the eventual ruling when this goes to appeal - the length of the term of copyright is still irrelevant because they will have been shown to have written the song themselves.

So no, it's not ridiculous at all. It's only a problem if people plagiarise other people, which they absolutely should not do.

I'm surprised he made that much to be honest. Singles are sold so cheaply these days that I imagine most of his profits came from other sources.