scriptgirl said:

Nona seems off her nut in that clip.

And let me just say one thing-someone else noted and it was here on Prince.org, that Pharrell was damn lucky Prince didn't go after him for damn near copying the beat from Nasty Girl for Slave 4 U by Britney, cause that for sure is the same damn beat.

I said it when that song came out and everyone said I was crazy.

Oh THAT was me. And I still stand by my words.

The SAD part about all of this is that Pharrell & Robin have stated in the past that they Loved Marvin's music....When I first heard the song I Loved it and I did not think anything of it until the news broke...Then I listened to "Got to Give it up" and bust out laughing cuz I knew they went into the studio and sampled the song like crazy....I think the settlement should have been much more but I'm glad the Gaye family got justice...This was all about Protecting a Legacy.....Pharrell & Robin's career will survive this..

Chancellor said:

The SAD part about all of this is that Pharrell & Robin have stated in the past that they Loved Marvin's music....When I first heard the song I Loved it and I did not think anything of it until the news broke...Then I listened to "Got to Give it up" and bust out laughing cuz I knew they went into the studio and sampled the song like crazy....I think the settlement should have been much more but I'm glad the Gaye family got justice...This was all about Protecting a Legacy.....Pharrell & Robin's career will survive this..

All lawsuits could've been avoided from the beginning by crediting Marvin Gaye as co-writer for Blurred Lines. Just like that, the Marvin Gaye estate would have received their share of the royalities on the same day that Robin, Pharrell, & T.I. received their shares.

[Edited 3/11/15 4:35am]

nd33 said:

The Gaye children must have AMAZING lawyers, because their case was flimsier than a wet paper bag.

.

This case will be appealed, but for the mean time, this is what plagarism looks like:

And that took a couple of weeks to resolve...

.

In contrast, this is what it looks like when you're desperately trying to prove something that is contentious to say the least:

http://www.hollywoodrepor...lurred.pdf

.

I say all that as a huge Marvin Gaye fan, but a bigger fan of music itself. I have no desire to ever hear Blurred Lines again, but there are many genres I love, which contain thousands of songs that use similar rhythms, instrument choices and production techniques as were the similarities in this case.

.

Disco, reggae, ska, punk and on and on....you could find 100's if not 1000's of songs in many genres that share more in common than BL/GTGIU ever have.

.

This is not good for the music industry, but it is GREAT for the law industry! If you love lawyers and support their endeavours to have a constant stream of lucrative work, then this is a landmark day (for now)

Pretty much.

The jury probably just went with their IMO sentiments and felt that Thicke and Pharrell should be punished for obvious dishonesty during the trial. It's depressing to think that now the general public seem to think it's been "proven in court" that the songs are "identical" also as far as the sheet music was taken into consideration. Could the members of the jury even read music themselves? All they probably got from it were the interpretations and the "conclusions" the hired musicologist had written in addition to the examples provided in the notation form. The data that's printed in the notation form really should not be taken as an evidence in favour of the Gaye family.

Someone just pointed this out to me...I guess it's next on the hit list for the Gayes. The drums on this are even closer to GTGIU, almost sounds like a sample of it....And a party crowd talking in the background....that's copyrighted too now right?

.

.

Perhaps this is all a symptom of people not paying attention to songwriting anymore and are blinded by the production treatment?

.

I just took another look at that pdf.

One of the main "similarities" the musicologist points out even in the summary there's no guitar on either song. wtf

[Edited 3/11/15 4:12am]

deebee said:

Got to pay it up.

Exactly...so I don't see how this ruling will hurt any of those involved careers' at all. Just pay the money and move on.

How the 'Blurred Lines' case could have chilling effect on creativity

Randall Roberts

LOS ANGELES TIMESrandall.roberts​@latimes.com

March 6, 2015

The weeklong trial has featured pop singer Robin Thicke sidling up to a piano to play songs by U2, the Beatles and Michael Jackson. Superstar producer Pharrell Williams attempted under oath to parse the difference between vibe and theft.

Testimony in the Los Angeles federal court proceeding seeking to determine whether Thicke's groove-heavy, cowbell-driven 2013 pop hit "Blurred Lines" infringed on Marvin Gaye's 1977 hit "Got to Give It Up" has been nothing if not entertaining.

But let's not mince words: The lawsuit being litigated against Thicke, producer-songwriter Williams, rapper T.I. and their song is about cash, not artistic theft. If it hadn't hit big on the charts, no lawsuit.

Specifically, the case is mostly about Thicke's ill-advised reference to Gaye's song during interviews and the bid by Gaye's estate and publishers to take advantage of the fuzzy line between inspiration and infringement, and monetize it.

Regardless of the ultimate verdict, the suit could have a chilling effect on creators, especially in an era when most every song in recorded music history can be accessed in seconds. What artist will acknowledge specific inspiration when it could be used as evidence in a copyright infringement suit?

"Feel but not infringement," Williams said on the stand of the differences between his track and "Got to Give It Up," which showcases Gaye's inimitable falsetto and disco-inspired rhythm. "I must've been channeling that feeling, that late-'70s feeling," he added. The Gaye estate, wrote Williams' legal team, is "claiming ownership of an entire genre, as opposed to a specific work."

Thicke even distanced himself from having much of a role in the creation of his biggest hit, claiming to be "high on Vicodin and alcohol" when he arrived at Glenwood Place Studios in Burbank.

That's quite the admission, considering the track was one of the biggest of 2013. Before "Blurred Lines," Thicke was a notable purveyor of blue-eyed soul. His work with Pharrell, one of most successful hitmakers of the past decade, helped make Thicke a household name and a earned him a sit-down with Oprah Winfrey.

By the time the final arguments were delivered Thursday and the case sent to the jury, questions about the creative process and the art of the song had been explored in detail. In an attempt to define boundaries of expression and composition that have been historically — and rightly — vague, jurors were fed details on the legalities of inspiration. Those issues are the meatiest to contemplate because to these ears, a side-by-side comparison of the songs in question reveals profound similarities in feel but hardly egregious and obvious enough to earn the Gaye estate a payout.

Which is to say, what else is new? Pop music is at its base a form of creative theft, one in which each new generation of artists builds on the vibes and ideas that influenced them during formative years.

For every visionary are a hundred thieves, and the only difference is one celebrates his theft while the others claim ignorance. What, after all, was Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five's "The Message" but a politicized riff on the Sugar Hill Gang's party anthem "Rapper's Delight"? Ray Charles' classic "What'd I Say" echoes recordings as far back as the late 1920s.

Bob Dylan can't release a new song without somebody screaming theft. Dylan's response, as told to Mikal Gilmore in Rolling Stone: "Wussies and ... complain about that stuff. It's an old thing — it's part of the tradition. It goes way back."

From a legal standpoint, the issue is whether "Blurred Lines" is an original work or "shares defining compositional elements" with Gaye's song. This distinction explains why George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord" was found in 1976 to have infringed upon the Chiffons' hit "He's So Fine." The chorus and the vocal melody are virtually identical. Ditto Michael Bolton's "Love Is a Wonderful Thing," which was found to have lifted parts of an Isley Brothers song of the same name and resulted in an award of $5.4 million in 1994.

One key difference in 2015, though, is that outside sounds are so easily accessed in the studio. Where once an artist could be inspired only by music he or she had already heard and processed, immediate access to millions of musical ideas is now a search engine away. As a result, the recording studio is not the artistic bunker it once was but porous to all copyrighted work available on YouTube, Spotify, iTunes and other services.

Marvin Gaye's children believe the song "Blurred Lines" is a little too much like their father's "Got to Give it Up" to be coincidence.

Want a vibe like Gaye's "Sexual Healing"? Pull up the track on Spotify and listen to how they pulled it off. It's a genius song, so why not riff on its structure? As long as an artist doesn't swipe the lyrics or swipe the main melody, where's the harm?

In court, Williams said that Gaye's work is sacrosanct, so, he asked, why would he want to steal it?

"The last thing you want to do as a creator is take something of someone else's when you love him," he said.

Producer Brian Eno, responsible for seminal work with artists including U2, David Bowie, Coldplay,

Devo and others, told me a few years ago that this new openness marks a vital shift. He noticed that during recent recording sessions artists often referenced old recordings as part of the creative process. We suddenly refer to music a lot in a way that never used to happen.

"When you went into the studio in the past, you went to a space that was actually, deliberately sealed off from music, because the only music you were supposed to be hearing in there was yours," he said. "And this sudden thought that the whole library of recorded music is there and available to you as reference material, really, I think that's changed the way people work a lot. So as a composer, I think it makes a really big difference, because it sort of erases history in a way."

That flattening of era, genre and production techniques has helped spawn a mix-and-match pop music world in which a Motown-suggestive backbeat can couple with a mid-'90s Chicago house rhythm and a grand production sound inspired by "Pet Sounds"-era Beach Boys to create something new.

What occurred in the studio with "Blurred Lines" was that sort of history eraser and is similar to what occurs regularly. The difference is that "Blurred Lines" hit the profit bull's-eye. It spent three months at No. 1 on Billboard's Hot 100 and has earned $16 million, according to testimony.

As it was rising, Thicke told Billboard that at a August 2012 session, he had had Gaye on the brain.

[Edited 3/11/15 7:07am]

[Edited 3/11/15 7:08am]

NaughtyKitty said:

How the 'Blurred Lines' case could have chilling effect on creativity

Randall Roberts

LOS ANGELES TIMESrandall.roberts​@latimes.com

March 6, 2015

The weeklong trial has featured pop singer Robin Thicke sidling up to a piano to play songs by U2, the Beatles and Michael Jackson. Superstar producer Pharrell Williams attempted under oath to parse the difference between vibe and theft.

Testimony in the Los Angeles federal court proceeding seeking to determine whether Thicke's groove-heavy, cowbell-driven 2013 pop hit "Blurred Lines" infringed on Marvin Gaye's 1977 hit "Got to Give It Up" has been nothing if not entertaining.

But let's not mince words: The lawsuit being litigated against Thicke, producer-songwriter Williams, rapper T.I. and their song is about cash, not artistic theft. If it hadn't hit big on the charts, no lawsuit.

Specifically, the case is mostly about Thicke's ill-advised reference to Gaye's song during interviews and the bid by Gaye's estate and publishers to take advantage of the fuzzy line between inspiration and infringement, and monetize it.

Regardless of the ultimate verdict, the suit could have a chilling effect on creators, especially in an era when most every song in recorded music history can be accessed in seconds. What artist will acknowledge specific inspiration when it could be used as evidence in a copyright infringement suit?

"Feel but not infringement," Williams said on the stand of the differences between his track and "Got to Give It Up," which showcases Gaye's inimitable falsetto and disco-inspired rhythm. "I must've been channeling that feeling, that late-'70s feeling," he added. The Gaye estate, wrote Williams' legal team, is "claiming ownership of an entire genre, as opposed to a specific work."

Thicke even distanced himself from having much of a role in the creation of his biggest hit, claiming to be "high on Vicodin and alcohol" when he arrived at Glenwood Place Studios in Burbank.

That's quite the admission, considering the track was one of the biggest of 2013. Before "Blurred Lines," Thicke was a notable purveyor of blue-eyed soul. His work with Pharrell, one of most successful hitmakers of the past decade, helped make Thicke a household name and a earned him a sit-down with Oprah Winfrey.

By the time the final arguments were delivered Thursday and the case sent to the jury, questions about the creative process and the art of the song had been explored in detail. In an attempt to define boundaries of expression and composition that have been historically — and rightly — vague, jurors were fed details on the legalities of inspiration. Those issues are the meatiest to contemplate because to these ears, a side-by-side comparison of the songs in question reveals profound similarities in feel but hardly egregious and obvious enough to earn the Gaye estate a payout.

Which is to say, what else is new? Pop music is at its base a form of creative theft, one in which each new generation of artists builds on the vibes and ideas that influenced them during formative years.

For every visionary are a hundred thieves, and the only difference is one celebrates his theft while the others claim ignorance. What, after all, was Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five's "The Message" but a politicized riff on the Sugar Hill Gang's party anthem "Rapper's Delight"? Ray Charles' classic "What'd I Say" echoes recordings as far back as the late 1920s.

Bob Dylan can't release a new song without somebody screaming theft. Dylan's response, as told to Mikal Gilmore in Rolling Stone: "Wussies and ... complain about that stuff. It's an old thing — it's part of the tradition. It goes way back."

From a legal standpoint, the issue is whether "Blurred Lines" is an original work or "shares defining compositional elements" with Gaye's song. This distinction explains why George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord" was found in 1976 to have infringed upon the Chiffons' hit "He's So Fine." The chorus and the vocal melody are virtually identical. Ditto Michael Bolton's "Love Is a Wonderful Thing," which was found to have lifted parts of an Isley Brothers song of the same name and resulted in an award of $5.4 million in 1994.

One key difference in 2015, though, is that outside sounds are so easily accessed in the studio. Where once an artist could be inspired only by music he or she had already heard and processed, immediate access to millions of musical ideas is now a search engine away. As a result, the recording studio is not the artistic bunker it once was but porous to all copyrighted work available on YouTube, Spotify, iTunes and other services.

Marvin Gaye's children believe the song "Blurred Lines" is a little too much like their father's "Got to Give it Up" to be coincidence.

Want a vibe like Gaye's "Sexual Healing"? Pull up the track on Spotify and listen to how they pulled it off. It's a genius song, so why not riff on its structure? As long as an artist doesn't swipe the lyrics or swipe the main melody, where's the harm?

In court, Williams said that Gaye's work is sacrosanct, so, he asked, why would he want to steal it?

"The last thing you want to do as a creator is take something of someone else's when you love him," he said.

Producer Brian Eno, responsible for seminal work with artists including U2, David Bowie, Coldplay,

Devo and others, told me a few years ago that this new openness marks a vital shift. He noticed that during recent recording sessions artists often referenced old recordings as part of the creative process. We suddenly refer to music a lot in a way that never used to happen.

"When you went into the studio in the past, you went to a space that was actually, deliberately sealed off from music, because the only music you were supposed to be hearing in there was yours," he said. "And this sudden thought that the whole library of recorded music is there and available to you as reference material, really, I think that's changed the way people work a lot. So as a composer, I think it makes a really big difference, because it sort of erases history in a way."

That flattening of era, genre and production techniques has helped spawn a mix-and-match pop music world in which a Motown-suggestive backbeat can couple with a mid-'90s Chicago house rhythm and a grand production sound inspired by "Pet Sounds"-era Beach Boys to create something new.

What occurred in the studio with "Blurred Lines" was that sort of history eraser and is similar to what occurs regularly. The difference is that "Blurred Lines" hit the profit bull's-eye. It spent three months at No. 1 on Billboard's Hot 100 and has earned $16 million, according to testimony.

As it was rising, Thicke told Billboard that at a August 2012 session, he had had Gaye on the brain.

"Pharrell and I were in the studio making a couple records," Thicke said, "and then on the third day, I told him I wanted to do something kinda like Marvin Gaye's 'Got to Give It Up,' that kind of feel 'cause it's one of my favorite songs of all time. So he started messing with some drums, and then he started going, 'Hey hey hey...,' and about an hour and a half later, we had the whole record finished." He later said he was boasting about his input.

The lawsuit being litigated against Thicke, producer-songwriter Williams, rapper T.I. and their song is about cash, not artistic theft. If it hadn't hit big on the charts, no lawsuit. Pictured are Verdine White, Robin Thicke and T.I. at the 2014 Grammys. (Rob Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

There's one lesson to be learned, surely: Riff all you want on old stuff while brainstorming ideas. Just don't talk about it, hey, hey, hey, and make sure to erase your Spotify history before leaving the studio. Hey, hey, hey.

http://www.latimes.com/en...tml#page=1

Just adding this writer's POV for the sake of discussion. Thoughts?

[Edited 3/11/15 7:07am]

[Edited 3/11/15 7:08am]

this is a huge moment in the music industry....maybe the musicindustry can become the recording industry once again in due time

for way too long, this overabundance of sampling has totally discredited the amazing work of those artists who actually made the music that's been hijacked....the great luminaries from all cultrual backgrounds who never got the credit they should during the years of authenticity

because of sampling was no longer allowed, today's present day musical representatives would be forced to come up w/their own work

Scorp said:

NaughtyKitty said:

How the 'Blurred Lines' case could have chilling effect on creativity

Randall Roberts

LOS ANGELES TIMESrandall.roberts​@latimes.com

March 6, 2015

The weeklong trial has featured pop singer Robin Thicke sidling up to a piano to play songs by U2, the Beatles and Michael Jackson. Superstar producer Pharrell Williams attempted under oath to parse the difference between vibe and theft.

Testimony in the Los Angeles federal court proceeding seeking to determine whether Thicke's groove-heavy, cowbell-driven 2013 pop hit "Blurred Lines" infringed on Marvin Gaye's 1977 hit "Got to Give It Up" has been nothing if not entertaining.

But let's not mince words: The lawsuit being litigated against Thicke, producer-songwriter Williams, rapper T.I. and their song is about cash, not artistic theft. If it hadn't hit big on the charts, no lawsuit.

Specifically, the case is mostly about Thicke's ill-advised reference to Gaye's song during interviews and the bid by Gaye's estate and publishers to take advantage of the fuzzy line between inspiration and infringement, and monetize it.

Regardless of the ultimate verdict, the suit could have a chilling effect on creators, especially in an era when most every song in recorded music history can be accessed in seconds. What artist will acknowledge specific inspiration when it could be used as evidence in a copyright infringement suit?

"Feel but not infringement," Williams said on the stand of the differences between his track and "Got to Give It Up," which showcases Gaye's inimitable falsetto and disco-inspired rhythm. "I must've been channeling that feeling, that late-'70s feeling," he added. The Gaye estate, wrote Williams' legal team, is "claiming ownership of an entire genre, as opposed to a specific work."

Thicke even distanced himself from having much of a role in the creation of his biggest hit, claiming to be "high on Vicodin and alcohol" when he arrived at Glenwood Place Studios in Burbank.

That's quite the admission, considering the track was one of the biggest of 2013. Before "Blurred Lines," Thicke was a notable purveyor of blue-eyed soul. His work with Pharrell, one of most successful hitmakers of the past decade, helped make Thicke a household name and a earned him a sit-down with Oprah Winfrey.

By the time the final arguments were delivered Thursday and the case sent to the jury, questions about the creative process and the art of the song had been explored in detail. In an attempt to define boundaries of expression and composition that have been historically — and rightly — vague, jurors were fed details on the legalities of inspiration. Those issues are the meatiest to contemplate because to these ears, a side-by-side comparison of the songs in question reveals profound similarities in feel but hardly egregious and obvious enough to earn the Gaye estate a payout.

Which is to say, what else is new? Pop music is at its base a form of creative theft, one in which each new generation of artists builds on the vibes and ideas that influenced them during formative years.

For every visionary are a hundred thieves, and the only difference is one celebrates his theft while the others claim ignorance. What, after all, was Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five's "The Message" but a politicized riff on the Sugar Hill Gang's party anthem "Rapper's Delight"? Ray Charles' classic "What'd I Say" echoes recordings as far back as the late 1920s.

Bob Dylan can't release a new song without somebody screaming theft. Dylan's response, as told to Mikal Gilmore in Rolling Stone: "Wussies and ... complain about that stuff. It's an old thing — it's part of the tradition. It goes way back."

From a legal standpoint, the issue is whether "Blurred Lines" is an original work or "shares defining compositional elements" with Gaye's song. This distinction explains why George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord" was found in 1976 to have infringed upon the Chiffons' hit "He's So Fine." The chorus and the vocal melody are virtually identical. Ditto Michael Bolton's "Love Is a Wonderful Thing," which was found to have lifted parts of an Isley Brothers song of the same name and resulted in an award of $5.4 million in 1994.

One key difference in 2015, though, is that outside sounds are so easily accessed in the studio. Where once an artist could be inspired only by music he or she had already heard and processed, immediate access to millions of musical ideas is now a search engine away. As a result, the recording studio is not the artistic bunker it once was but porous to all copyrighted work available on YouTube, Spotify, iTunes and other services.

Marvin Gaye's children believe the song "Blurred Lines" is a little too much like their father's "Got to Give it Up" to be coincidence.

Want a vibe like Gaye's "Sexual Healing"? Pull up the track on Spotify and listen to how they pulled it off. It's a genius song, so why not riff on its structure? As long as an artist doesn't swipe the lyrics or swipe the main melody, where's the harm?

In court, Williams said that Gaye's work is sacrosanct, so, he asked, why would he want to steal it?

"The last thing you want to do as a creator is take something of someone else's when you love him," he said.

Producer Brian Eno, responsible for seminal work with artists including U2, David Bowie, Coldplay,

Devo and others, told me a few years ago that this new openness marks a vital shift. He noticed that during recent recording sessions artists often referenced old recordings as part of the creative process. We suddenly refer to music a lot in a way that never used to happen.

"When you went into the studio in the past, you went to a space that was actually, deliberately sealed off from music, because the only music you were supposed to be hearing in there was yours," he said. "And this sudden thought that the whole library of recorded music is there and available to you as reference material, really, I think that's changed the way people work a lot. So as a composer, I think it makes a really big difference, because it sort of erases history in a way."

That flattening of era, genre and production techniques has helped spawn a mix-and-match pop music world in which a Motown-suggestive backbeat can couple with a mid-'90s Chicago house rhythm and a grand production sound inspired by "Pet Sounds"-era Beach Boys to create something new.

What occurred in the studio with "Blurred Lines" was that sort of history eraser and is similar to what occurs regularly. The difference is that "Blurred Lines" hit the profit bull's-eye. It spent three months at No. 1 on Billboard's Hot 100 and has earned $16 million, according to testimony.

As it was rising, Thicke told Billboard that at a August 2012 session, he had had Gaye on the brain.

"Pharrell and I were in the studio making a couple records," Thicke said, "and then on the third day, I told him I wanted to do something kinda like Marvin Gaye's 'Got to Give It Up,' that kind of feel 'cause it's one of my favorite songs of all time. So he started messing with some drums, and then he started going, 'Hey hey hey...,' and about an hour and a half later, we had the whole record finished." He later said he was boasting about his input.

The lawsuit being litigated against Thicke, producer-songwriter Williams, rapper T.I. and their song is about cash, not artistic theft. If it hadn't hit big on the charts, no lawsuit. Pictured are Verdine White, Robin Thicke and T.I. at the 2014 Grammys. (Rob Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

There's one lesson to be learned, surely: Riff all you want on old stuff while brainstorming ideas. Just don't talk about it, hey, hey, hey, and make sure to erase your Spotify history before leaving the studio. Hey, hey, hey.

http://www.latimes.com/en...tml#page=1

Just adding this writer's POV for the sake of discussion. Thoughts?

[Edited 3/11/15 7:07am]

[Edited 3/11/15 7:08am]

this is a huge moment in the music industry....maybe the musicindustry can become the recording industry once again in due time

for way too long, this overabundance of sampling has totally discredited the amazing work of those artists who actually made the music that's been hijacked....the great luminaries from all cultrual backgrounds who never got the credit they should during the years of authenticity

because of sampling was no longer allowed, today's present day musical representatives would be forced to come up w/their own work

.

I'm all for live musicians too, but you do realise there was no sampling in Blurred Lines, right?

.

nd33 said:

Scorp said:

this is a huge moment in the music industry....maybe the musicindustry can become the recording industry once again in due time

for way too long, this overabundance of sampling has totally discredited the amazing work of those artists who actually made the music that's been hijacked....the great luminaries from all cultrual backgrounds who never got the credit they should during the years of authenticity

because of sampling was no longer allowed, today's present day musical representatives would be forced to come up w/their own work

.

I'm all for live musicians too, but you do realise there was no sampling in Blurred Lines, right?

.

I didn't say he sampled it,

he hijacked it which is even worse

by sampling, he would have had to issue credits, but by hijacking it, he tried to claim it as his own....

kenkamken said:

Scorp said:

kenkamken said:

Great slapdown by Nicholas Payton... https://nicholaspayton.wo...nes-vol-3/

Lolllllllll Now that's what I'm talking about The breakdown

.

We went through that on here over a year ago. He's pretty much all right including that Pharrell mispoke about the song key. But he's still not saying anything about the actual melodic or lyrical content being the same so it doesn't really help clarify anything. He's just having a good old rant.

.

Does anyone think this sounds like GTGIU? Explain.

.

.

[Edited 3/11/15 10:00am]

Just don't add a cowbell to your songs. It might end up costing you seven million bucks.

novabrkr said:

Just don't add a cowbell to your songs. It might end up costing you seven million bucks.

Exactly.

I didn't think it sounded at all like Got To Give It Up when I heard it performed on "classroom instruments" on Jimmy Fallon.

I received an email from one of my suppliers of software with the following subject today:

SAFETY ALERT: Samples that won't get you sued‏

nd33 said:

The Gaye children must have AMAZING lawyers, because their case was flimsier than a wet paper bag.

.

This case will be appealed, but for the mean time, this is what plagarism looks like:

And that took a couple of weeks to resolve...

.

In contrast, this is what it looks like when you're desperately trying to prove something that is contentious to say the least:

http://www.hollywoodrepor...lurred.pdf

.

I say all that as a huge Marvin Gaye fan, but a bigger fan of music itself. I have no desire to ever hear Blurred Lines again, but there are many genres I love, which contain thousands of songs that use similar rhythms, instrument choices and production techniques as were the similarities in this case.

.

Disco, reggae, ska, punk and on and on....you could find 100's if not 1000's of songs in many genres that share more in common than BL/GTGIU ever have.

.

This is not good for the music industry, but it is GREAT for the law industry! If you love lawyers and support their endeavours to have a constant stream of lucrative work, then this is a landmark day (for now)

from where I'm sitting.............looks like theft 2 me. Those changes are an obvious attempt 2 conceal the theft.

Vanilla Ice: 2015 Edition

CharismaDove said:

Vanilla Ice: 2015 Edition

yeesss

Scorp said:

CharismaDove said:

Vanilla Ice: 2015 Edition

yeesss

His explanation might have been more ridiculous though

What did Vanilla say?

Graycap23 said:

nd33 said:

The Gaye children must have AMAZING lawyers, because their case was flimsier than a wet paper bag.

.

This case will be appealed, but for the mean time, this is what plagarism looks like:

And that took a couple of weeks to resolve...

.

In contrast, this is what it looks like when you're desperately trying to prove something that is contentious to say the least:

http://www.hollywoodrepor...lurred.pdf

.

I say all that as a huge Marvin Gaye fan, but a bigger fan of music itself. I have no desire to ever hear Blurred Lines again, but there are many genres I love, which contain thousands of songs that use similar rhythms, instrument choices and production techniques as were the similarities in this case.

.

Disco, reggae, ska, punk and on and on....you could find 100's if not 1000's of songs in many genres that share more in common than BL/GTGIU ever have.

.

This is not good for the music industry, but it is GREAT for the law industry! If you love lawyers and support their endeavours to have a constant stream of lucrative work, then this is a landmark day (for now)

from where I'm sitting.............looks like theft 2 me. Those changes are an obvious attempt 2 conceal the theft.

The document simply cherry picks a few short lines that look similar on the first couple of glances. As you can see on closer inspection, not even the time values on those parts match. The "strongest" case presented as far as the melodic lines are concerned is the first example, but if you try to sing those lines that are picked out over each other they really don't match at all.

Most people agree that the bass is very similar and some of the sung parts on "Blurred Lines" seems to be derived from the bass, so that could be what so many are hearing as indicating that "they are the same song". In any case, the "forensic musicologist" that has signed under that document doesn't even bring up any similarites between the verses and the choruses.

It's a different song sung over background music that's modeled after the intro of "Got To Give It Up". There's really nothing more to it. The rest is just comparable to looking for figures in the clouds.

scriptgirl said:

What did Vanilla say?

They're referring to the time when Vanilla Ice got sued by David Bowie & Queen for sampling the basslines of Under Pressure during the making of Ice Ice Baby.

I was watching News One with Roland Martin on Sunday and he mentioned he was

playing Got To Give It Up around one of his young nieces and she thought it was

Blurred Lines. If a youngster can point it out how the hell a grown ass man

can't figure it out.

phunkdaddy said:

novabrkr said:

phunkdaddy said:

I was watching News One with Roland Martin on Sunday and he mentioned he was

playing Got To Give It Up around one of his young nieces and she thought it was

Blurred Lines. If a youngster can point it out how the hell a grown ass man

can't figure it out.

Exactly.