DS Forums

 
 

Robin Thicke loses 'Blurred Lines' lawsuit


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 13-03-2015, 14:24
spkx
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 14,185
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.
He's dead and has been for 30 years, human rights don't come into it.

All creative works should go out to the public domain once someone dies IMO. Perhaps 10 years after but not more than 30 years down the line, especially for something as silly as this.

I mean it's not as if it's a blatant copy, and key it's not like the RT song affected sales of MG song, ie.there's been no loss.
spkx is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 13-03-2015, 14:33
Inkblot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: West London
Posts: 24,303
He's dead and has been for 30 years, human rights don't come into it.
That's just plain wrong. It's never OK to copy someone's work for your own gain.
Inkblot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2015, 21:33
446.09375
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 794
Stupid ruling. The songs are so different. Similar rhythm but the feel of each song is utterly different.
This has to be overturned, surely?
Remember back when there were a load of songs that all had the same sounding beat as Soul II Soul's Back to Life? That wasn't a problem, so why should Thicke's be so wrong? I think DJ's around the world should ban Marvin Gaye tracks so that the revenue stream dries up for these money grabbing b-----ds living off their dead relative's work.
446.09375 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-03-2015, 00:35
rfonzo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,640
For thieves they still made plenty of money
I think of them as 2 kids going into an exam with pice of paper with some of the answers on it and then copying it once they see the test paper.
rfonzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-03-2015, 00:44
mialicious
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: London
Posts: 3,846
Agree that its a stupid decision. Music should stand on the shoulders of what has come before thats how it grows. They are keeping the vibe going. Its not like its a blatant rip off it just has a similar groove. Pharrell and Robin T are victims of there own success because it was such a huge selling song.
mialicious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-03-2015, 00:59
ScottishWoody
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Fife
Posts: 13,810
Just listened to the Marvin Gaye song ... Sounds nothing like it!! Was this jury made up of feminists?
ScottishWoody is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 14-03-2015, 13:12
scrilla
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,642
I think DJ's around the world should ban Marvin Gaye tracks so that the revenue stream dries up for these money grabbing b-----ds living off their dead relative's work.
What a horrible notion: one of the greatest artist's catalogue banned, whilst we get to listen to the likes of Robin Thicke and Pharrell. *shudders*

Personally I don't believe that Pharrell copied Got to Give It Up.
Pharrell actually set out to do that when Robin Thicke said that it was one of his favourite songs. Of course their lawyer tried to suggest totally otherwise in court.
They'd even taken pre-emptive legal action in an attempt to stop Marvin's family from suing for plagiarism. Sounds like a case of 'our lawyers will be bigger than your lawyers', so it is understandable how Nona felt about it. They could have used a sample or interpolation of Got to Give It Up but they decided to go for 100% of the song writing credits. Enough elements were borrowed to give it a very similar vibe, while being in a different (major) key and not copying a succession of notes. I don't trust the verdict though because I see it as copying the style and not the musical notation.
scrilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-03-2015, 13:41
0...0
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: I like to singy singy singy...
Posts: 17,646
Reminds me of this:
http://m.digitalspy.co.uk/music/news...itar-riff.html
0...0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-03-2015, 15:53
nic6
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 385
A blatant rip-off I am glad the Marvin Gaye estate won.
nic6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-03-2015, 17:43
boddism
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: South Coast
Posts: 16,038
Just listened to the Marvin Gaye song ... Sounds nothing like it!! Was this jury made up of feminists?
Do feminists have bad hearing??
boddism is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-03-2015, 14:05
Steady40
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,928
Do feminists have bad hearing??
He's probably implying that the verdict was because Robin Thicke is sexist.

Not right but I guess if he'd been more likable over the last two years he may not have got sued. Sometimes people have their own agenda for personal reasons.

there are similarities between the two songs, but no more than many other songs out there.
Steady40 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 19:34.