Brian Wilson, Bonnie McKee and Others React to 'Blurred Lines' Verdict | Hacker News Reader

Brian Wilson, Bonnie McKee and Others React to 'Blurred Lines' Verdict

latimes.com

30 pointsgdubs14 comments

> Marvin Gaye's biographer, David Ritz, sided with Gaye's family, though he said he's uncertain whether from a legal standpoint "Blurred Lines" technically infringes the copyright on Gaye's song. But looking at the case in reverse he argued that the jury's verdict was justified because, "There would be no 'Blurred Lines' if there had not been 'Got to Give It Up.' It never in a million years would have happened."

By that definition almost every song-writer since since ~1967 owes Bob Dylan some money, and Dylan owes half that money to Woodie Guthrie who owes it to a thousand other musicians that came before him.

Blurred Lines has had a target painted on it from the beginning, I've never seen a song so hated. I've even heard feminists refer to it as a "date-rape anthem." (edit: see the almost instantly killed comment in this thread that just says "Finally". People hate the song so much that they don't care if it sets bad legal precedent so long as something bad happens to Robin Thicke.)

Worse than no copyright law, maybe worse than bad copyright law is vague copyright law that's selectively enforced to police message and content.

There is a book that tries to chronicle these musical influences: http://www.amazon.com/Sounds-Like-Teen-Spirit-Ripped-Off/dp/.... Its pretty much impossible to come up with a modern pop song that doesn't borrow heavily from other musicians.

It would turn the whole music business into a giant MLM scheme.

Well, sure, I think the song sucks. I think Thicke is a douche, the lyrics are creepy, and the music is derivative...

...but that's fine. I'm sure some music expert/snob could point out how many of my favorite songs were great (when so-and-so originally did them) but that shouldn't be the basis for a copyright suit.

You can argue over who is talented, who is original, who's a hack, and who's derivative all day but unless you're just jacking an entire song or sampling large portions of it without altering it or licensing the samples, then it's just art as art has always been.

There will always be artists who are inspired by previous material and there will always be shameless hacks who just imitate whatever is popular to make a buck but I don't think it's something that fits with the stated purpose of copyright.

As you say, musical styles and conventions get picked up and reworked all the time. It's like this case vindicated every dad who ever said your music "all sounds the same".

Could the rights holders of Marvin Gaye's work be sued for copyright infringement of an older, yet still quixotically copyrighted, work? Not only would such a move highlight everything wrong with the verdict, but it would also be quite poetic.

Bridgeport Music themselves pointed out that Funkadelic's Sexy Ways (1974) is similar to Blurred Lines--and so transitively it's similar to Got to give it up (1977), right? But Bridgeport owns the catalog of Gaye and Funkadelic.

George Clinton's take: https://twitter.com/george_clinton/statuses/3682102168289320...

Statute of limitations is 3 years from last date of infringement (which I guess is today since this music is all still being sold).

> "We need everything we can get to protect the commodity of intellectual property."

Protection from what? It sounds to me that this verdict will not protect musicians and songwriters, but put them in danger of litigations.

The two songs are hauntingly similar. Is that wrong though? I think fair use has a shortcoming in that what Weird Al does is technically ok (even though he asks permission) since it's parody, yet something like this is still infringement. The originality and creativity in both are similar, yet one's a joke so it's fine.

Weir Al's versions are parodies yes, but they are also cover versions - they are never claimed as original aside from their satirical lyrics.

How has Mark Ronson not been sued into oblivion?

It was a good verdict. If Marvin Gaye's grandkids (or the grandkids of whoever it is that has the rights to that song) can't collect a tax on anything even remotely similar for all of eternity...

Well, maybe Margin Gaye will stop writing songs.

We can't have that.

Not sure if you're making an attempt at a joke but Gaye has been dead for quite some time now.

I can assure you that it's a joke.

The argument is not particularly novel, but it's an important one.

I'm honestly confused by the level of downvoting on it.

Me too. I thought the sarcasm was spot on. Eternal copyrights FTW! Think of the Children!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com