Me being a "everything is a conspiracy" buff Am wondering who initiated all this. Who be Thicke's  business associates? Could they have aligned themselves with associates of Marvin's to get the ball rolling in the courts for future suits to consolidate and restructure the money flow back into the hands of the music industry execs etc.? Were Marvin's kids sitting around and one of them said " I think that song I heard sounds just like Got to Give It Up! Let's call a Lawyer!"?
 
 
P.S. Pistolpeter says he likes the idea of craig copywriting Am. he says yes yes Bupu will owe him a forture! Bupu will yes

It's  the illuminati!

The lawyers are going to have a field day with this. Anything that sounds anyway close to another song is now fair game. To make matters worse, the only thing that was supposed to be decided here was the sheet music (remember, the MG song was copyrighted before the updated copyright laws went into force. Only the sheet music was supposed to be the focus of the trial - which should have meant a very short trial and decision). Yet the decision was not made on the sheet music, but rather the 'sound'. If that decision stands based on earlier copyright law, it does not bode well for songs that sound similar or have a similar feel created after the extension of the copyright laws.
 
On the other hand, it might be worthwhile getting the bag of popcorn and watch the industry sharks eat each other. For an industry (not music, but industry) that is dying, this isn't gonna make things any better for them.

MandolinPicker
The lawyers are going to have a field day with this. Anything that sounds anyway close to another song is now fair game. To make matters worse, the only thing that was supposed to be decided here was the sheet music (remember, the MG song was copyrighted before the updated copyright laws went into force. Only the sheet music was supposed to be the focus of the trial - which should have meant a very short trial and decision). Yet the decision was not made on the sheet music, but rather the 'sound'. If that decision stands based on earlier copyright law, it does not bode well for songs that sound similar or have a similar feel created after the extension of the copyright laws.
 
On the other hand, it might be worthwhile getting the bag of popcorn and watch the industry sharks eat each other. For an industry (not music, but industry) that is dying, this isn't gonna make things any better for them.

A case like this is why we have courts with humans looking beyond strictly the literal verbiage of the law. The flipside of determing a case like this based on strictly sheet music makes it far too easy to simply plagiarize by taking existing sheet music and moving/transposing just enough to steal via loophole. Don't  get me wrong. This is certainly  not a black and white issue and i know from experience and listening to a wide range of music that coincidence is not only possible but inevitable. I would just hope each case is evaluated on its on merits. i have heard songs that sound far more similar than this, yet I believed it was coincidence. I have also heard actual samples manipulated to the point where the original artist would not recognize the song.  As stated, I would be far more inclined to believe this was coincidence if the producer did not have a long history of creating similar sound alikes.
 
What disturbs me about the outcome is that the excessive nature could lead to an avalanche of greedy relatives looking for anything remotely similar to a song they have rights to. This would have a similar effect to the changes in sampling laws in the 90s has to modern pop. Producers , most of which abandoned sampling because greedy relatives were getting compensated beyond what was reasonable, would likely abandon making songs influenced by vintage music just to be safe.  

jbow
Hahaaaa. Busted! I did not like Blurred Lines and especially didn't like the video. Robin reminds me of a modern slo sort of Monkees thing but without the talent. It bothers me when someone gets the spotlight and IMO, they have not earned it, but that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
I bet they have spent everything that they had left... good luck coming up with something original!
 
J

Due to this being in the news this week, I looked up both tracks on YouTube and saw the Blurred Lines video for the first time. Now I have seen some videos in my time which could certainly be said to have a misogynistic element to them, but at least have some saving grace due to some talent, or tongue in cheek element from the participants in the video (MC Hammer 'Cant touch this' or Robert Palmer 'Simply Irresistible' ) However the Blurred Lines video I was actually cringing when watching it. I cant imagine who thought it was a good idea...and yes, it is a blatant rip off of Marvin Gaye...

i didn't even want to touch how repulsive i find the song and video.  Fortunately, there was a lot of backlash once people noticed how jacked that song is his career went straight to the toilet.

Who's "Marvin Gave?" 

The Kiosk Project

jbow
Hahaaaa. Busted! I did not like Blurred Lines and especially didn't like the video. Robin reminds me of a modern slo sort of Monkees thing but without the talent. It bothers me when someone gets the spotlight and IMO, they have not earned it, but that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
I bet they have spent everything that they had left... good luck coming up with something original!
 
J

Due to this being in the news this week, I looked up both tracks on YouTube and saw the Blurred Lines video for the first time. Now I have seen some videos in my time which could certainly be said to have a misogynistic element to them, but at least have some saving grace due to some talent, or tongue in cheek element from the participants in the video (MC Hammer 'Cant touch this' or Robert Palmer 'Simply Irresistible' ) However the Blurred Lines video I was actually cringing when watching it. I cant imagine who thought it was a good idea...and yes, it is a blatant rip off of Marvin Gaye...

Having now watched the video and listened to the song twice, I have changed my position on the matter entirely. I don't care whether they did or didn't rip off Marvin Gaye, but just for producing such a loathsome piece of misogynistic, predatory muck, they deserve to lose every penny they made from it.
 
I thought Whitesnake in the '80's were bad...

The funny thing about Thicke is he toiled along for years singing mostly romantic ballads, often dedicated to his wife, that made him popular on radio stations targeted towards black people. It is sad that his brief visit to the top of the pop world was a song opposite of what his longtime fans were used to. First time I heard the song I thought "Marvin" and then " this song is so 'rapey' and disgusting" and yet our pop cultue embraces it. He had a few songs that could easily be wedding staples and yet the song our culture embraced was the mysoginistic one. This says as much about us collectively as it does him.

It was obviously a complete rip off. All they did was change the words and music. It was a crap song before and after.