Robin Thicke Burn In HELL

Horseleech said:I understand people not liking Robin Thicke (I can barely look at the guy), but this verdict is complete, 100% bullshit.





These songs don't even have the same melody or chord progression, which are the accepted benchmarks for copyright claims.





The same groove? Since when is that a crime? Well, get ready for 10,000+ lawsuits on that basis wherein 95% of the songs people here ride for get taken off the market.













Is Bruno Mars shitting in his loafers right now?
 
Lines are blurred in this argument because Thicke is such an insufferable doof. It feels like he should pay money to Marvin Gaye's family to make amends for every time they're mentioned in the same sentence. Still, the ruling is bogus. If making derivative songs is copyright infringement than 90% of the musicians on this planet are breaking the law daily.
 
JonnyPaycheck said:lemme understand you guys.





you all got into old soul records because of rap music right?





the guys that sampled lots of old soul records, without clearing most of them, because this shit is an art. right?








ok




Thicke case is a different ball game.


Imo teens rapping over a loop or samples in the pioneer years 80s / 90s is not the same as setting a precedent as a million dollar pop singer to repeatedly jack or outright 'cover' another singer in the 2000/10's passing it off as his own creation and then preemptively sueing instead of just sampling or recreating, acknowledging and paying publishing rights and moving on.





Erick Sermon's 'Music' or Oddisee 'aint that peculiar' being examples of how incorporating Marvin should be played in this era.





 
Horseleech said:I understand people not liking Robin Thicke (I can barely look at the guy), but this verdict is complete, 100% bullshit.





These songs don't even have the same melody or chord progression, which are the accepted benchmarks for copyright claims.





The same groove? Since when is that a crime? Well, get ready for 10,000+ lawsuits on that basis wherein 95% of the songs people here ride for get taken off the market.













This x100000000000 (and also what Johnny said). This is a horrible precedent for music and really makes no sense (no matter how much you can't stand Thicke). This shouldn't be about him.
 
staxwax said:JonnyPaycheck said:lemme understand you guys.





you all got into old soul records because of rap music right?





the guys that sampled lots of old soul records, without clearing most of them, because this shit is an art. right?








ok




Thicke case is a different ball game.


Imo teens rapping over a loop or samples in the pioneer years 80s / 90s is not the same as setting a precedent as a million dollar pop singer to repeatedly jack or outright 'cover' another singer in the 2000/10's passing it off as his own creation and then preemptively sueing instead of just sampling or recreating, acknowledging and paying publishing rights and moving on.





Erick Sermon's 'Music' or Oddisee 'aint that peculiar' being examples of how incorporating Marvin should be played in this era.










except this is about copyright, not creativity. I love Oddisee, but no way he cleared that.





EDIT: on the discogs page for the Oddisee release it says "This release had legally been offered as a free available download in the world-wide-web." Not sure what that means, but free doesn't mean legal.
 
The law doesn't create an exception for people of a particular city and decade (NYC in the 80s, or whatever amorphous "justifiable for da kulcha" shit toward which people feel affectionately), either art is somewhat elastic and is open to include interpretation, influence, or even re-use in creative fashion - or it is some shit that gets decided by poorly informed judges and juries who have little if any understanding of it.





if you are "for da kulcha, yo" then there is no way this is a good decision for you. no matter how you feel about Thicke, Pharrell, or the song in question.
 
I believe in the intelligence of juries.


Most of the time they do a good job of weighing the evidence given and following the judges instructions.





If they got it as wrong as people think, there will be no trouble over turning the verdict on appeal.
 
The Gaye family has been presented in the press as poor downtrodden victims.


One member is going around saying they are Free at last from the oppression of Thicke and Williams.


Millionaires just don't get it.
 
meistromoco said:Horseleech said:I understand people not liking Robin Thicke (I can barely look at the guy), but this verdict is complete, 100% bullshit.





These songs don't even have the same melody or chord progression, which are the accepted benchmarks for copyright claims.





The same groove? Since when is that a crime? Well, get ready for 10,000+ lawsuits on that basis wherein 95% of the songs people here ride for get taken off the market.













This x100000000000 (and also what Johnny said). This is a horrible precedent for music and really makes no sense (no matter how much you can't stand Thicke). This shouldn't be about him.




You can't even copyright a chord progression (think every blues song ever). Traditionally it's only melody and lyrics, neither of which apply in this case.


I'm still trying to figure out this ruling.


The Gaye family claimed the bassline and cowbell were copied (which should be meaningless legally even if that were true, which it's not), and the jury was told that it didn't have to be identical to be infringement.


Williams knew exactly what he was doing, which parts he could take and what had to be altered. He basically took GTGIU and removed the traditionally legally protected parts. It's what he does, and he's deft at it. I'm still in shock at this ruling.
 
This ruling is an overstep of the purpose of copyright and it comes within a long history of copyright-creep. It creates dis-incentives for cultural production without balancing it with meaningful incentives. No one is making music because they think some douchy pop singer is going to make a derivative song 35 years later. Instead, this ruling will likely inhibit creativity by pushing producers to rely on chord progressions, production techniques, instrumentation, and arrangements that are so commonplace at they are not reminiscent of any specific song or artist. A victory for blandness.
 
:waaambulance:





Sample, cover, and imitate to your hearts content, just make sure you (or your record company) can pay the bill.





Otherwise, "it aint a crime if you dont get caught".





Blurred lines is incredibly similar to Got to give it up; its the first thing I thought of when i first heard it, and thicke and co tried to get a little too slick. I happen to agree with this verdict. Wether or not this is 'a bad thing for music/creativity' remains to be seen. I call bullshit.





Record store guys circle jerking in smug mutual approvement on an old ass website, now there's a victory for blandness.


Comicbookguy.gif
 
I have been informed:


"The Ninth Circuit's test for measuring similarity in copyright cases is whether the ordinary observer would consider the two works substantially similar in their 'total concept and feel.' "





Which is different from what I had read elsewhere.
 
staxwax said::waaambulance:





Sample, cover, and imitate to your hearts content, just make sure you (or your record company) can pay the bill.





Otherwise, "it aint a crime if you dont get caught".





Blurred lines is incredibly similar to Got to give it up; its the first thing I thought of when i first heard it, and thicke and co tried to get a little too slick. I happen to agree with this verdict. Wether or not this is 'a bad thing for music/creativity' remains to be seen. I call bullshit.





Record store guys circle jerking in smug mutual approvement on an old ass website, now there's a victory for blandness.


Comicbookguy.gif





LOL





You're the one who started by posting a video where the artist did give proper credit on the album for that particular track.





But by your standard all these songs are stolen because of similarity of some sort.














By your standards, a lot of artist are assholes. Example, Bruno Mars is fucked...






































Oh crap Usher. Watch out for Homer suit.














That's a quick sample of easy arguments to be made for frivolous lawsuits and how ridiculous it all is.
 
thing is, this isn't a ruling. it's a jury decision, and it's common knowledge that it's a total crap shoot whether juries will actually apply the law anywhere close to correctly to the facts they're shown.





what'll really be interesting is if/when there's an opinion on this written from a Court of Appeals judge. if she upholds this verdict, that'll be big, big news.





everyone who says that "BL" immediately made them think of "GTGIU" misses the point. it only should've been about the compositions, & I don't see how the Gayes' expert musicologists could be convincing about how the compositions are substantially similar.





biggest takeaway: if the artist being sued is going to be extremely unlikable to a jury, just settle.
 
I can't understand how people can hate this dude [em]so much[/em] that they're supporting this judgement. Similar groove??? GTFOHWTBS





Really unbelievable, especially from supposed hip hp fans. Shameful, reflexive sheet.
 
staxwax said::waaambulance:





Sample, cover, and imitate to your hearts content, just make sure you (or your record company) can pay the bill.





Otherwise, "it aint a crime if you dont get caught".





Blurred lines is incredibly similar to Got to give it up; its the first thing I thought of when i first heard it, and thicke and co tried to get a little too slick. I happen to agree with this verdict. Wether or not this is 'a bad thing for music/creativity' remains to be seen. I call bullshit.





Record store guys circle jerking in smug mutual approvement on an old ass website, now there's a victory for blandness.


Comicbookguy.gif





Rage on dude, but I guarantee you that at least 75% of the music you ride for is "incredibly similar" to some earlier music and could also get sued on the same grounds.





But you don't hate those people so that wouldn't be right.
 
like I said - whether or not this is in fact a copyright infringement under the letter of the law or not, Thicke has been covering/ripping off Gaye for a while now (even that trouble man rip off isnt touted a as a gaye cover, you have to read the small print to figure that out - hes still passing it off as his song imo), and blurred lines is just the latest bite in that vein. For him to flat-out deny and preemptively sue in this instance seems totally out of line and unnecessary as he should have just settled and move on.


So yeah, this bitch slap of an outcome seems well deserved imo.


I guess it will be a while before we hear the next gaye inspired thicke 'homage'.





as for Bruno Mars Usher et al getting sued - :ehh:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hawkeye
DOPE NWA ARTICLE / LA TIMES
Replies
11
Views
806
Strut Central
Swayze
S
Top Bottom