Pharrell Williams: $7.3M Blurred Lines verdict threatens all artists
1–10 of 65 posts
Re: Pharrell Williams: $7.3M Blurred Lines verdict threatens all artists
#2I think this is stupid. "Feelings" aren't copyrightble.
Re: Pharrell Williams: $7.3M Blurred Lines verdict threatens all artists
#3I think this is stupid. "Feelings" aren't copyrightble.
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.
Re: Pharrell Williams: $7.3M Blurred Lines verdict threatens all artists
#4I think this is stupid. "Feelings" aren't copyrightble.
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…
> (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
Re: Pharrell Williams: $7.3M Blurred Lines verdict threatens all artists
#5I 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-...
Re: Pharrell Williams: $7.3M Blurred Lines verdict threatens all artists
#6Listen for yourself:
Re: Pharrell Williams: $7.3M Blurred Lines verdict threatens all artists
#7I think this is stupid. "Feelings" aren't copyrightble.
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…
Thank you! Oh if you could only package that in an app. For every article I see, I get a notation "Story elements left out that didn't fit the narrative".
Re: Pharrell Williams: $7.3M Blurred Lines verdict threatens all artists
#8Listen for yourself: https://youtu.be/ziz9HW2ZmmY
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?
Re: Pharrell Williams: $7.3M Blurred Lines verdict threatens all artists
#9Listen for yourself: https://youtu.be/ziz9HW2ZmmY
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…
Remixes pay copyright royalties.
Re: Pharrell Williams: $7.3M Blurred Lines verdict threatens all artists
#10I think this is stupid. "Feelings" aren't copyrightble.
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…
Yeah, I'm a lawyer and the law is clear when it says what are the copyrightable things. A song that "reminds" of another isn't enough to be considered as a copy. If that were true, than we wouldn't have western movies or movies where a hero kills the villain to rescue an innocent girl. So, yeah, this is stupid.