Comment by alexjplant | Hacker News Reader

Comment by alexjplant | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

That decision was ridiculous. It's pretty obvious that the Robin Thicke song is a $1.50 Great Value version of "Got To Give It Up" because of the aesthetic similarities but they have nothing to do with each other melodically or harmonically... "Blurred Lines" sounds like I V with a walk at the end whereas "Got To Give It Up" is more like a I IV V. The vocal melodies aren't the same nor is the bass. They have different arrangements. The percussion isn't the same.

The only things they have in common are vibes (in the contemporary sense, not vibraphones). Two dudes singing about sex in falsetto at 120bpm over prototypical R&B/funk elements isn't special. If that's the bar for copyright infringement then 99% of the popular music canon is illegally-derivative. Marvin Gaye was a singular talent but that doesn't mean that his heirs should be able to collect money every time somebody plays an electric piano bassline and sings about making whoopie in alto II.

It was ridiculous but I think it’s important to note it was a jury trial:

1) They had a musician come in and deconstruct the songs, and she showed that many of Blurred Lines elements copied the “rhythm” and “feel” of the sheet music, not the master recording.

2) Robin Thicke said in an interview he told Pharrell they should make something with the groove of Got To Give It Up.

As a non-musical person in a jury, those points are convincing enough that there was intent to copy the song even if the final song is clearly different. Though, it should never have been down to a jury and judge to decide.

Even more hilarious, a couple of years ago the Gayes tried to sue Pharrell because of an interview where he mentioned again Got To Give It Up was inspiration for Blurred Lines. Luckily that failed, but they definitely have it in for Pharrell it seems.

That same jury would have a very hard time processing the fact that all music is based upon the music that came before. Before you know it the JS Bach estate (if there is such a thing) ends up owning all of the music made after the 16th century and we should all be very lucky that Hildegard von Bingen was a nun from a very early age.

Ah but that would be perfect because then all music would be freely available via public domain, recordings exempted of course.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com