craigb
Yeah!  What's going on?
 

I see what you did there!!

It's all bollocks. I listened to both songs and can say that they were both R&B. That's all. To my ears this was not a rip off at all, it is a song that represents a genre'. 
 
I can hardly wait to see a big artist getting an interview and being asked what their musical influences were. Influences? Nope, not me, I lived in a bubble so I wouldn't be contaminated by success.
 
And I don't for a minute believe they were suing for the memory of a departed loved one. If they were, they should donate the proceeds to a retirement home for old musicians. It wont happen because they did it to line their pockets.

I think there will eventually be a right to copy law because all the possible nice sounding combinations will at some time in the future be used.

Even the horrendous sounding ones have been taken.
 
We call them Hip Hop.
 
(I'm kidding, of course.)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(...or Am I?)

This is a bit silly question but if I would at some point make a great song would it be safe from some nasty plagiarism guy if I just put it in Soundcloud to be freely played? Would my copyrights be 'undeniable'?

It's not a silly question. "Are you going to eat all of that becan?" That's a silly question. 
 
There's a difference between what is legally permissible and what people will do. Some laws vary in different countries. In general, you own the copyright when you write a piece of music. Whether you post the song in the Songs forum, Soundcloud, EweToob, or anywhere else, you still own the copyright. Legally, someone else can't steal your work and claim it as their own. If some nefarious scum steals your song (definitions obviously vary), you are legally entitled to sue the miscreant for any damages. Whether or not you can win depends on a number of things. Registering your copyright may support your claim to your material, but proving copyright infringement is not as straightforward as some might like to believe. (Apparently, proving there was no infringement is difficult as well.)

Ok. Thanks for the answer UbiquitousBubba.

And of course no surprise.... according to the latest news they're going to seek an appeal of the decision. I hope it don't cost them more than 7.4 million.

Labels, producers should be more focused on coming up with unique (new) rather than digging up old trends and/or following the current trend ((as explained in my previous post)) ironically they (major labels, producers, writers) think its a safer bet to follow a trend.
 
Trends: I know this is the case because I've sat in meetings with major labels and publishers in regards to production i.e. they use other writers/musicians they have signed for ideas. You cannot copyright an idea, aww heck you cannot copyright chord progressions either.  Anyway, they gave me a recording by another writer/musician ideas / techniques, and yes I didn't feel comfortable about that... Publishers and labels will shape the music direction, production and selection of songs as they see fit and if you say nay? Since this was a period of see how it goes prior to signing a long-term contract... Of course, there's the door, goodbye. In my case, this wasn't the only reason, they claim too difficult to market as is, would cost too much. Its also worth mentioning that the Australian market is much smaller compared to for example, Europe and the US. So, this brings us back full circle to what I said in regards to Trends, they want to play it safe? Ironic eh and worse, the writer/musicians are to blame and take the full brunt of the responsibility if they're taken to court.
 
@ Kakku, Copyright is automatic (as UB explained). IMHO, its best to hold on to your works (songs) and not do what most musicians do, which is to upload just about all their music and provide these sites free content 'Royalty Free' and possibly in worse case scenario, 'Exclusive Rights', in other-words, you get nothing whereas the CEOs of such music sites will make a lot of money, which they invest in magnificent properties, yachts and other luxuries. 
 
That said, first up register a label (R) registered trademark will do and register your works to ASCAP or BMI, your works are registered with both you AND a registered label (which is also you) -- This will also give you more clout in recouping royalties and negotiating business deals, especially if you sign with a major label, if so? Your label becomes the sub (partner) for which they (major label) cannot take more than 50% royalties (usually musicians/writers with no strings attached the deal is 85% to the major label)!   And if the latest copyright reforms specifically in favor of writers/performers is accepted? It will see a more simplified process of registering that ensures proper (complete) protection of copyrights for both the writers, performers and sound recordings.  It will also see a fair-share of royalties based on the acceptance that more and more professional writers/musicians are opting to be independent i.e. have their own registered label, in most cases effectively give them more clout on the negotiation table with major partners (e.g. Labels, Publishing/Licensing, Royalties)! 
 
Part of the reason why the music business is so messed up, is because of Internet and rapidly evolving business tactics / schemes and also is in part due to musicians, for several reasons.... The main reasons being;
 
1... Most musicians/writers are doing it for 'Art' and 'Enjoyment' whilst providing music sites 'Free' content (see my above explanation in regards to music sites, CEOs). These music sites are protected (legal) due to musicians accepting terms i.e. 'Royalty Free'. The other reason being;
 
2.. Most musicians don't know the business side of the equation let alone willing to learn more about branding and marketing strategies. The other reason being;
 
3.. Most musicians/writers do not register their works properly (entirely/completely)!
 
To conclude, its best to hold off / limit uploading songs to music sites, until your best works of art (music) is ready for release, but prior to that make sure all works are properly registered (also see my sticky topic; Resources in the Song Forum > copyright protection, registering)!  It is also worth knowing that: Distributors should not take a slice of your royalties and hit you with recurring distribution fees. The only exception is retailer commission, which is standard trade practice.   A good distributor will also provide a means to include marketing although usually its what is called; Kick Start marketing and it involves closer work-ties with them, you also need to plan way ahead of release.  In regards to marketing strategies, you need to keep the momentum rolling once the Kick Start engages.  Distributors will also have options to release music videos that ensure greater monetization i.e. give you the best solution for recouping royalties and possibly also advertising revenue options. When music videos are professionally released (distributed) they usually include the label (I explained the benefits of that earlier)!  Kakku, I hope this helps set you on the right path. Wish you great success!
 
 

kakku
This is a bit silly question but if I would at some point make a great song would it be safe from some nasty plagiarism guy if I just put it in Soundcloud to be freely played? Would my copyrights be 'undeniable'?

Whether you put it on Soundcloud for free, or license it to a publisher, or release your own recording of the piece really is  not relevant as far as copyright goes. In the US, you will not be able to sue someone who infringes until you register the copyright, but you can do that after the infringement has happened. If you wait to register, you will not be able to win court costs or statutory damages, however. And if you register the song with the Copyright Office, you will establish prima facie evidence of authorship (which can still be successfully challenged). Some countries, like Austraila, do not even have provisions for registration of a copyright, so less paperwork, and even less certainty about protection.
 
If your song is on Soundcloud before the infringing copy is ever public, you might be able to show that the copier might have heard your song and did not just write a significantly similar song independently , and you would be in a better position to show that your song might have been written before his if he decides to sue you for infringement. But nothing would prevent someone else from finding your song on Soundcloud and claiming that it was so similar to their previously written or released song that it was clearly infringing their copyright. After all, if a song is on the internet, anyone might have heard it, and might have copied parts of it even if unconsciously, which might make proving that your work was original even harder.
 
Incidentally, by putting it on SoundCloud, you will have published it, and you will give anyone the right to record their version of your song by paying you a mechanical licensing fee.

SGodfrey
Interestingly, for some bizarre reason they were not permitted to play the entire Marvin Gaye song in court - only extracts!  The LA Times said:-
 
"The eight-person jury, most of whom appeared to be more of Gaye's generation than Thicke and Williams' demographic, heard "Blurred Lines" several times during the trial and twice watched the raunchy music video — but never got to hear the full recording of 'Got to Give It Up.' Because laws when Gaye wrote the song allowed only the sheet music composition, not the sound recording, to be copyrighted, jurors heard short snippets and a stripped-down version created by Thicke and Williams' musicologist with just Gaye's vocals over a bass line and chords on a keyboard."
 
That's crazy and a miscarriage of justice in my opinion!

I am not sure what part that restriction had in shaping the verdict. Much of the similarity, which the jury apparently found significant, is in the "sound" of the production. By being unable to hear the full version, a lot of that spurious and potentially confusing noise should have had less influence. If the jury had confined their decision to what is normally considered protected content in music there would be little basis for the award. A jury of trained musicians would have been aghast that the suit was ever brought. But in the US we pretend that randomly selected citizens can make distinctions which they are untrained to recognize, and depend on their ability to decide which of two teams of bought and paid for expert witnesses are telling them the truth when they are confused by technical issues. The style, flavor and color of the two songs are similar. The music and lyrics are pretty easily distinguishable. Good luck to anyone writing original material if style becomes the deciding issue.
 
For an example of how a musicalogical analysis of these similarities is even less convincing than listening to the full versions:
http://joebennett.net/2014/02/01/did-robin-thicke-steal-a-song-from-marvin-gaye/