

Brian Wilson, Bonnie McKee and Others React to 'Blurred Lines' Verdict - gdubs
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/la-et-ms-blurred-lines-reaction-brian-wilson-bonnie-mckee-20150314-story.html#page=1

======
stolio
> Marvin Gaye's biographer, David Ritz, sided with Gaye's family, though he
> said he's uncertain whether from a legal standpoint "Blurred Lines"
> technically infringes the copyright on Gaye's song. But looking at the case
> in reverse he argued that the jury's verdict was justified because, "There
> would be no 'Blurred Lines' if there had not been 'Got to Give It Up.' It
> never in a million years would have happened."

By that definition almost every song-writer since since ~1967 owes Bob Dylan
some money, and Dylan owes half that money to Woodie Guthrie who owes it to a
thousand other musicians that came before him.

Blurred Lines has had a target painted on it from the beginning, I've never
seen a song so hated. I've even heard feminists refer to it as a "date-rape
anthem." _(edit: see the almost instantly killed comment in this thread that
just says "Finally". People hate the song so much that they don't care if it
sets bad legal precedent so long as something bad happens to Robin Thicke.)_

Worse than no copyright law, maybe worse than bad copyright law is vague
copyright law that's selectively enforced to police message and content.

~~~
pat2man
There is a book that tries to chronicle these musical influences:
[http://www.amazon.com/Sounds-Like-Teen-Spirit-Ripped-
Off/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/Sounds-Like-Teen-Spirit-Ripped-
Off/dp/1583480234). Its pretty much impossible to come up with a modern pop
song that doesn't borrow heavily from other musicians.

------
possibilistic
Could the rights holders of Marvin Gaye's work be sued for copyright
infringement of an older, yet still quixotically copyrighted, work? Not only
would such a move highlight everything wrong with the verdict, but it would
also be quite poetic.

~~~
logn
Bridgeport Music themselves pointed out that Funkadelic's _Sexy Ways_ (1974)
is similar to _Blurred Lines_ \--and so transitively it's similar to _Got to
give it up_ (1977), right? But Bridgeport owns the catalog of Gaye and
Funkadelic.

George Clinton's take:
[https://twitter.com/george_clinton/statuses/3682102168289320...](https://twitter.com/george_clinton/statuses/368210216828932096)

Statute of limitations is 3 years from last date of infringement (which I
guess is today since this music is all still being sold).

------
wodenokoto
> "We need everything we can get to protect the commodity of intellectual
> property."

Protection from what? It sounds to me that this verdict will not protect
musicians and songwriters, but put them in danger of litigations.

------
logn
The two songs are hauntingly similar. Is that wrong though? I think fair use
has a shortcoming in that what Weird Al does is technically ok (even though he
asks permission) since it's parody, yet something like this is still
infringement. The originality and creativity in both are similar, yet one's a
joke so it's fine.

~~~
mark_integerdsv
Weir Al's versions are parodies yes, but they are also cover versions - they
are never claimed as original aside from their satirical lyrics.

------
erok
How has Mark Ronson not been sued into oblivion?

------
NoMoreNicksLeft
It was a good verdict. If Marvin Gaye's grandkids (or the grandkids of whoever
it is that has the rights to that song) can't collect a tax on anything even
remotely similar for all of eternity...

Well, maybe Margin Gaye will stop writing songs.

We can't have that.

~~~
EC1
Not sure if you're making an attempt at a joke but Gaye has been dead for
quite some time now.

~~~
Dylan16807
I can assure you that it's a joke.

The argument is not particularly novel, but it's an important one.

I'm honestly confused by the level of downvoting on it.

~~~
PeterWhittaker
Me too. I thought the sarcasm was spot on. Eternal copyrights FTW! Think of
the Children!

