
Pharrell Williams: $7.3M Blurred Lines verdict threatens all artists - bruna597
http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/20/8262343/blurred-lines-copyright-verdict-williams-creativity
======
nakedrobot2
OK, I just listed to both.

They are not similar enough. I'd say that sure, there was clearly some
inspiration, as with all art. Sometimes there is more sometimes there is less,
sometimes the inspiration is obvious.

This lawsuit definitely does set a dangerous and unfortunate precedent. Can't
say I'm surprised about it. :(

~~~
danbmil99
Worked for years in music biz -- saw numerous cases of this level of "copying"
\-- the groove, a similar bass line etc -- this was never, ever enough to sue
much less win.

The standard in my mind for actual musical theft is George Harrison's "My
Sweet Lord" vs Spector's "He's So Fine" \-- a clear rip-off, chords, melody,
both verse and chorus. But Lines vs Gaye, it's just not enough.

The jury must be tone deaf.

~~~
stolio
People __hate__ the song. Since it came out feminists have attacked it as a
"date-rape anthem"[0] and Robin Thicke has become the poster boy for
everything wrong with world.

It would be a pretty big coincidence if this copyright case and the level of
hate the song has received have nothing to do with each other. The feminists I
know are giddy about this.

[0] - I heard that, looked up the lyrics and immediately dismissed it.

~~~
stolio
You could at least explain why you're downvoting? Is it

    
    
      * Suggesting this is a fishy case of copyright infringement?  
      * Pointing out a powerful political group has been attacking the song since it came out? 
      * Disagreeing with their half-baked critique of the song?
      * Or maybe because I noticed that they're now celebrating the verdict?
    

This is a discussion board after all.

~~~
snowwrestler
Probably because it's speculation with no tangible proof behind it, and not
even a plausible mechanism for the connection. Is the judge a militant
feminist or something? How would these two things even relate to each other?

~~~
stolio
_Now_ we need tangible proof? _Now_ somebody speculating on the internet is
unacceptable?

When Robin Thicke was attacked for penning a "date-rape anthem" were you the
voice of reason in that conversation encouraging people to actually look up
the lyrics and act like adults?

Yeah, I'm looking for a reason this verdict came out because the case for
actual copyright infringement is really weak.
[http://flavorwire.com/508795/heres-why-the-blurred-lines-
cop...](http://flavorwire.com/508795/heres-why-the-blurred-lines-copyright-
decision-is-wrong)

Related, do you think the public perception of 2 Live Crew had nothing to do
with them losing their case and having to go all the way to the Supreme
Court[0]? Justice isn't blind, the law generally doesn't favor pariahs and
social outcasts. All it would take to turn the jury against Thicke would be
one or two jurors who halfway through the trial remembered it's "that date-
rapey song". I don't think that's very far-fetched.

I have no idea what the judge's personal politics are beyond knowing that
Obama appointed him which means he probably leans left. Overall it's been a
pretty weird case[1].

[0] - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-
Rose_Music,_I...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-
Rose_Music,_Inc). [1] -
[http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/marvin-
gaye-s...](http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/marvin-gaye-song-
trial-judge-article-1.2095786)

------
wahsd
Another good case why inheritance should simply not exist beyond some
practical level.

You die, your live's work should become public domain, meaning, no one can use
it and pervert it or change it or use it for profit, but it should not be
controllable or some "estate", i.e., your parasitic children and dependents,
start suing to extract even more undeserved, unearned, and unwarranted wealth.

~~~
GolfyMcG
This is an overly extreme opinion. We are not simply born in isolation -
totally separate beings from one another. It's in our nature to perpetuate
society as we see fit and that is not only through actions as we live but also
through your progeny - whether they're students or children.

Perhaps you wish to see the world become less dependent on fossil fuels and
you've spent your life building a business and cultural following in green
tech. You've shared your opinions on why it's so important with students,
twitter followers, employees, as well as your children. Why is it not your
prerogative to give those you trust the ability to continue your work?

Obviously there are people who don't leave behind progressive and innovative
marks on the world, but perhaps they just want the world to be a little bit
less dumb and they believe their children are moving the world in that
direction (which I think most parents believe of their children). Why can't
them give them every advantage they wish to?

Not all children are parasitic and their wealth isn't unearned. It was earned
by their parents and rather than shuffling it into a fund for the "public
good" they can choose to leave it to their children. The public (including you
and I) are just as undeserving of Marvin Gaye's wealth and intellectual
property as his children.

On the other hand, these songs don't sound that similar to me and this lawsuit
is bullshit.

~~~
humanrebar
Agreed. Also, it's important to provide incentive for people to work hard and
make good financial decisions even after they are set up for life.

If, once you had your retirement set, you could only pass a small percentage
of your income on to your friends and family (IANAL... and charities?), then
why keep working? What about the people making valuable contributions to
society: inventors, doctors, entrepreneurs, etc? Doesn't society have an
interest in encouraging them to work past having $X million in their bank
accounts?

~~~
judk
It is possible to give away money before you die.

------
hackerboos
I think many people know that this ruling is not some test-case that will
unleash a wave of lawsuits.

People have been successfully sued for less than this, many times before...

[http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/sam-smith--tom-
petty-...](http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/sam-smith--tom-petty-
settlement-20150126)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_plagiarism#Cases](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_plagiarism#Cases)

~~~
3JPLW
To me, the Sam Smith "Won't Back Down" case was much more straight-forward:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkcZV97O3pw](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkcZV97O3pw)

But that's a very simple chord progression with common vocal hits, whereas
this case seems to hinge on a very distinctive bass line and percussive style.

~~~
Lewton
Much more straight-forward. Much closer to being the same thing.

Would still have been pretty ridiculous if a verdict had been made that this
counted as copyright infringement. (They settled it amicably)

------
EvanAnderson
The situation surrounding "Blurred Lines" gives me a feeling of crushing
sadness. It seems, to me, that the legacy of perpetual copyright (and the
death of the public domain, as a result) will be a future in which the
creation of new art is discouraged for fear of attracting the litigious
attention of the zombie estates of dead artists or the corporate "owners" of
the rights of prior works.

~~~
fixermark
Creation of legitimate new art through the "proper" channels, as opposed to
back-alley off-the-radar art where artists get compensated by the goodwill of
an audience.

As we've seen with the growth of media content on the web, creators gonna
create. Whether compensation for one's creation is something shared among many
creators fairly in the light of day or consolidated in the hands of a few
(while the rest scrape at charity) is really the question that this sort of
legal decision raises.

~~~
EvanAnderson
It's not so much lack of compensation that seems chilling to me, as it is the
prospect of the work of my creative expression being snuffed-out. Granted,
I've never had any major creative ambitions (certainly nothing I tried to seek
compensation from), but these types of verdicts come up in my mind whenever I
think about personal creative expression. Were I compelled more strongly to
create art perhaps I'd be less concerned, but my thoughts turn first toward
personal liability when I think about sharing any of the photos or music that
I've created with others.

------
_0ffh
Yeah, yeah, same old, same old.

If it's not "Look! Pirates! We're all going to die!!! We need to strengthen
copyright NOW!"

Then it's: "Ouch! I lost a copyright lawsuit! We're all going to die!!! WHO is
responsible for this insanity?"

~~~
baldfat
Not all same old!

Same old = copyright laws are broken

New = this decision makes it even further broken

~~~
_0ffh
Same old = copyright laws are getting more and more broken

------
nissimk
Listen for yourself:

[https://youtu.be/ziz9HW2ZmmY](https://youtu.be/ziz9HW2ZmmY)

~~~
falcolas
Interesting. The basic percussive, vocal and guitar riffs are clearly based
off the original, though the modern version is more polished and better
packaged. The lyrics are definitely different between the two, changing the
meaning and full structure of the song.

I'm not sure this justifies a copyright infringement, particularly in the era
of remixes. If we can legally use actual samples of another song to build your
own, why is a re-imagining which builds upon and modifies the original
illegal?

~~~
talmand
From my understanding none of those things were used in the comparison nor any
samples actually used. It was that the new song "sounds like" the old song is
the criticism. Which could be expanded to mean the person who created a genre
of music owns it.

If a musician can be sued for being inspired by another, then dark times are
ahead for all musicians.

"What was your inspiration for this song?" "No comment."

~~~
fixermark
Agreed.

It's worth remembering that nobody knows the original composer of the
"Superman" theme. While John Williams is credited with arranging the cinematic
version, his arrangement was based on the television show theme. That theme
was purchased _sans-crédit_ from a French artist via a system intentionally
architected to leverage the at-the-time gaps in international law to minimize
Hollywood's cost burden for music scores.

To maintain this protection, they intentionally did not track the pedigree of
the theme. This is a loss for history.

------
shillster
Imaginary property rights strike again!

------
adamboulanger
The real travesty of the blurred lines case is that data science was not used,
from what I gather, at any point. At a minimum, the two tracks could have been
compared as to quantifiable similarity using any number of methods. EchoNest,
and other recommendation approaches, convolutional neural nets, etc.

The lack of computational methods to abstract and describe the material on
either side is particularly bizarre considering the judge's decision to
preclude original song material from being played by the Gaye family. I'm
convinced that science, rather than expert insider testimony that culminated
in a courtroom live-performance jam, could have prevailed.

------
bruna597
I think this is stupid. "Feelings" aren't copyrightble.

~~~
hawkice
Let's step back a little. The story is clearly written to trigger outrage --
really, meant to trigger your precise response. So, let's spend a google
seeing if there are elements of this story that were left out due to not
fitting the narrative (note: this isn't to say the decision wasn't stupid, or
that you are wrong in any factual sense).

Okay, so first that that pops up is that the children of Marvin Gaye were the
ones being sued. It's also revealed that Williams describes the issue in such
a way that makes it sound like he wrote Blurred Lines in an hour while this
Marvin Gaye song was playing in the room (just to be clear, for a typical
length pop song, writing it in an hour is _remarkably, exceptionally fast_).

Now, surely this is enough to have us step back and be slightly more
circumspect about this -- whatever the facts are, they are neither simple nor
provided in the article. Honestly, I'd wait for a legal analysis. Lawyers are
not so exceedingly stupid as to think feelings are copyrightable, and neither
is the judge who issued the fines.

~~~
Lewton
> (just to be clear, for a typical length pop song, writing it in an hour is
> _remarkably, exceptionally fast_).

I think you'd find that the vast majority of pop hits are written fairly
quickly. Yes producing, recording, finishing a pop song, adding everything
that makes a pop song.. pop... can take a long time. But the actual writing is
literally just

1\. Get an idea

2\. put it into the standard pop song structure

Especially for someone like Pharrell who has probably written a hundred songs
or so.

It's by no means _remarkably, exceptionally fast_.

Edit:

Look at the way Notch writes code. Yes okay, we could call it remarkably fast.
But he does it consistently. It's not a surprise when he finishes a game
during a game jam.

Just as I do not find it surprising that one of the most accomplished
songwriters of his generation writes a song in an hour

~~~
gd1
Sia supposedly wrote Rihanna's Diamonds in 14 minutes.

~~~
Lewton
also Nickelback - How You Remind Me was written in 15

~~~
hawkice
Okay, at some point this counts as improvised. We're talking about lyrics,
percussion, bass guitar and other instruments (at least in the case of Blurred
Lines, where the writing of the lyrics and instrumental tracks were what was
in question). Assuming you have only two hands/ears with which to write/play
with the sound of, that's writing at nearly 1/2 the speed it is performed (and
could be considered near-live writing if you aren't da Vinci'ing it).

~~~
Lewton
He doesn't write the chorus four times :P

------
badmadrad
I know alot of people hate "THE MAN" and this is opportunity to do so but you
all sound like this to me:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29wNCH4RBrk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29wNCH4RBrk)

These songs are very extremely similar. There is a fine line between being
influenced and covering(or sampling) music. I think this song crosses that
line. People get sued all the time for sampling without clearing the sample.
To essentially copy distinct percussion and rhythms and keyboard rhythm and
melody would definitely fall under infringement in my eyes since as any
producers would tell you those elements drive the entire song. Even how the
song starts with open percussion elements is the same. Its almost like the
Mcdonalds vs Mcdowells absurd argument and just a clever way to steal ideas
without paying tribute to the individuals who originated and copyrighted those
ideas.

------
AndrewKemendo
Everything is cyclical, including people filing suit or otherwise causing
problems for those accused of being a copycat.

------
6stringmerc
_Cough_ Bullshit _cough_

There is a really big difference between taking "inspiration" from an artist's
style or a certain song's sound versus sitting down, listening to a song, and
writing one in the same tempo that hits the same cues just by fiddling with
the scale a little bit. Pharell is totally trying to argue a different point
than what the lawsuit was about, and he's goat roping as many other things in
as he can to try and save face. It's absolutely laughable for him to say "This
is about protecting the intellectual rights of people who have ideas" when he
just lost a lawsuit based on taking something from another artist.

Look, I'm all for revising the copyright laws on the books, cleaning up some
of the issues regarding sampling, and eventually modernizing the commercial
avenue by which musicians and other artists like cinema professionals make
their money. Genuinely, I want to see things change for the better, not
constantly be lobbied and pushed the wrong direction by monied interests
(Disney) or legacy inheritors of material. The system is messed up, and I get
that, which is why I've avoided the "traditional" system and held on to my
rights through Copyright or Creative Commons for years and years and years and
have no plans to change that.

Pharrell had his chance ON THE STAND to make his case, and the jury didn't buy
it. The jury didn't listen to the recordings and render a verdict about the
"sound" or "inspiration" of the tune. The jury listened to the notes being
played based on the sheet music, and ruled that it was a ripoff. Why? Because
it was a ripoff. Pharrell got busted and now he's doing damage control PR.

Besides, the music industry has ALWAYS been tied up with lawsuits...which is
why people use caution when clearing samples (ex: Lemon Jelly), negotiating
songwriting credits before/after the fact (ex: Sam Smtih), or defending sync
rights when somebody is clearly trying to abuse the system (ex: GoldiBlox vs.
Beastie Boys).

Oh, and don't forget the most typical lawsuits in the music business: artists
suing the big labels for screwing them out of money:

[http://www.completemusicupdate.com/article/universal-
prepari...](http://www.completemusicupdate.com/article/universal-preparing-to-
settle-digital-royalty-class-actions/)

Not that many who sympathise with Pharrell will give this the time of day, but
I do think the Gaye family's public statement is a very coherent explanation
and should be held up for comparison purposes:

[http://www.completemusicupdate.com/article/open-letter-
from-...](http://www.completemusicupdate.com/article/open-letter-from-family-
gaye/)

------
empressplay
Think of a song as something that can be distilled down to a formula. That
formula is the 'essence' of the song -- the "groove" for lack of a better
term.

Williams' song basically adapted 'the groove'. If I was on that jury I would
have probably voted the same way. Inspiration is one thing but adaptation is
another.

