Robin Thicke Burn In HELL

staxwax said: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:




Ahhh, got it, I misunderstood you.





I thought we were talking about copyright law and creative license. You're actually saying something much simpler -- it's ok to interpret and build on the sound of the artists that preceded you, just as long as Staxwax doesn't think you're a lame.





That makes [em]much[/em] more sense.
 
Ahhh, got it, I misunderstood you.





I thought we were talking about copyright law and creative license. You're actually saying something much simpler -- it's ok to interpret and build on the sound of the artists that preceded you, just as long as Staxwax doesn't think you're a lame.





That makes [em]much[/em] more sense.
Click to expand...




Robin-Thicke-Photographed-by-Terry-Richardson3.jpg



'interpret and build on'





Ahaha, yup.


I take it the thread title ROBIN THICKE BURN IN HELL mislead you into thinking this would be a finely balanced debate on copyright law and creative license. Doh!





The opinions expressed here represent my own and [em]not[/em] those approved by a committee of musical legal eagles wringing their hands in agony at the misfortune this outcome represents for the arts. Ohh, the precedent, the precedent.





weeping+man+lightened.jpg
 
staxwax said: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.




Settling is what happens in 99.9% of copyright disputes.


We never hear or know about them.


There are claims filed against every hit song.
 
the reason for the pre-emptive suit was that the parties involved could not agree on a settlement amount. saying that "they just should've settled" is like saying "the Yankees would have won if only A-Rod had hit two more homers".





everyone knows the Gaye estate is extremely expensive. Even the original clearance being demanded was 5-10x what big, well-known publishing concerns charge. the pre-emptive suit was a bad idea but they were going to get taken to the cleaners regardless. obviously, they should've paid the exhorbitant clearance and kept it moving. I don't think you can blame them for having an what was up until this point an accurate understanding of copyright law, though.





Gaye's family apparently is going to go after "Happy" for sounding like "Ain't That Peculiar" now. Of course, the elements they share can be found in literally hundreds of soul songs. But that will be the legacy of this ridiculous verdict.
 
Hey Paycheck,





I am sure you are right about why this went to trail.


I agree that it is a ridiculous verdict in the common sense sense.





In the legal sense, if this is indeed a "ridiculous verdict" it will be over turned on appeal.


Even if it is not a RV the $ amount will most likely be lowered on appeal.





The MGE lawyers were most likely working on contingency. They would not have gone to trail unless they were convinced they had a strong case.


The defendants would not have gone to trail unless they (and their attorneys who were working for fee) thought they had a strong case.





Personally I think our copyright laws are due for an overhaul.


Copyrights are important. "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." says the Constitution.





Today's laws distort the meaning of 'limited'.


Today's laws hamper the 'progress of useful arts'.


Today's laws extend the meaning of authors to include their heirs.


IMO





"The Congress first exercised its copyright powers with the Copyright Act of 1790. This act granted authors the exclusive right to publish and vend "maps, charts and books" for a term of 14 years. This 14 year term was renewable for one additional 14 year term, if the author was alive at the end of the first time. With exception of the provision on maps and charts the Copyright Act of 1790 is copied almost verbatim from the Statute of Anne.[3]"





I would support something along these lines.
 
anyhow


didn't berry gordy extort and rob most of his artists?


I reckon that marvin must've had a sweetheart deal thru marriage for the estate to be gripping so hard?
 
The way I understand it, Gordy had a paternalistic control over many of his artists.





What Mary Wilson describes in her book is an example. After a string of hits the members of the Supremes were told to go find a house. They each found big house in an upscale neighborhood. Motown bought the houses for them. They were given credit cards to all the Detroit department stores. They could spend as much as they liked, and Motown picked up the bills. Of course a fair contract would have bought all that, plus put money in the bank.





HDH were paid millions by Motown. But they never received royalty checks. Just salary and bonuses. Around 1970 everyone started asking for accounting*. HDH sued for accounting and found they were owed millions more. They settled and left the company.





As record companies go they were better than most independents, not much worse than most majors.





Lots of Motown stars have different gripes, but I don't think any say extort and rob.





*There are no RIAA gold records for 60s Motown hits because RIAA demands documentation of units sold.
 
http://www.noise11.com/news/stevie-wonder-says-blurred-lines-is-nothing-like-got-to-give-it-up-20150313
 
DOR said:http://www.noise11.com/news/stevie-wonder-says-blurred-lines-is-nothing-like-got-to-give-it-up-20150313




Pharrell's lawyer came up with a helluva analogy:





“Pharrell has readily admitted that Marvin Gaye is one of his idols, but it’s silk and rayon,” King said in his statement. “If this is the way the law is going to go, then the creator of rayon better look behind him for lawsuits from the owners of silk, because, even though they feel the same they are structurally, completely different just like these songs.”
 
nothing to add to the robin thicke conversation. however, this is still one of my favourite marvin homages/rip offs...





 
I thought it sounded like Marvin the first time I herd it but assumed they had paid for some sort of sampling replay. Given that touble man song it seems pretty obvious thicke has to know he's ripping off Marvin. He didnt help his case saying he was too high to remember.





The bigger issue is that the judge established some sort of new precedent where you can sure for "feel" which is a very slippery slop. If that's the case James Browns estate can go ballistic on every funk band ever.
 
"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.' "
 
Personally I think our copyright laws are due for an overhaul.


Copyrights are important. "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." says the Constitution.





Today's laws distort the meaning of 'limited'.


Today's laws hamper the 'progress of useful arts'.


Today's laws extend the meaning of authors to include their heirs.


IMO





"The Congress first exercised its copyright powers with the Copyright Act of 1790. This act granted authors the exclusive right to publish and vend "maps, charts and books" for a term of 14 years. This 14 year term was renewable for one additional 14 year term, if the author was alive at the end of the first time. With exception of the provision on maps and charts the Copyright Act of 1790 is copied almost verbatim from the Statute of Anne.[3]"





I would support something along these lines.
Click to expand...




You can thank Walt Disney for the extension of CR protection.
 
A few years ago I went to a 2 yr. old's birthday party at Alan Thicke's house in Hollywood. It was Alan's grandson. Not from Robin, but from Robin's brother, who was the voice of Dennis The Menace in the 1980s. It was a pool party. I swam, and even peed in Alan Thicke's toilet. His ex-wife was an actress on Days of Our Lives. I recognized her from when I was a kid and my mom used to watch that show.





Robin Thicke did not attend. Neither did kirk Cameron.



 
The grammar makes it confusing. I swam in his toilet and peed in his pool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hawkeye
DOPE NWA ARTICLE / LA TIMES
Replies
11
Views
799
Strut Central
Swayze
S
Top Bottom