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.

That's just plain wrong. It's never OK to copy someone's work for your own gain.

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.

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.

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.

Just listened to the Marvin Gaye song ... Sounds nothing like it!! Was this jury made up of feminists?

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*


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.

Reminds me of this:
http://m.digitalspy.co.uk/music/news...itar-riff.html

A blatant rip-off I am glad the Marvin Gaye estate won.

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.