Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pharrell Williams: $7.3M Blurred Lines verdict threatens all artists

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 65 posts

Re: Pharrell Williams: $7.3M Blurred Lines verdict threatens all artists

#21

Post by vacri »

falcolas wrote: post #8
nissimk wrote: post #6

Listen 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…

We don't seem to have listened to the same vocals. Gaye is singing in a falsetto. So, with significantly different pitch, different melody, different lyrics, different vocal 'hooks'... I just don't see how the vocals are clearly based off the original.

Re: Pharrell Williams: $7.3M Blurred Lines verdict threatens all artists

#22

Post by falcolas »

talmand wrote: post #17
falcolas wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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."

That's my concern as well. You can trace inspirations back throughout history. Paintings, music, writing - all benefit from previous works.

What happens in the print world when a the idea of a "revenge fantasy" becomes copyrightable? When the use of certain chord progressions can cost you the revenue from a particular song? When a movie containing "triumph in the face of adversity through superhuman powers" can't be done because someone else did it first?

Re: Pharrell Williams: $7.3M Blurred Lines verdict threatens all artists

#23

Post by talmand »

hawkice wrote: post #3
bruna597 wrote: post #2

I 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…

You seem to be leaving out the original lawsuit was filed for a declaration of non-infringement since there were inquiries as to why they didn't pay up to license the previous song. If they felt they didn't infringe then I see nothing wrong with such a preemptive lawsuit to avoid lots of legal paperwork arguing back-and-forth, which only helps the lawyers involved. Such an inquiry would most likely lead to a lawsuit anyway. Might as well roll the dice and go straight to court to get it settled. They simply lost. There's no reason to think nefarious reasons for the first lawsuit not being filed by the children.

Plus, unless you've worked with the person, I'm not sure you have a place in suggesting how long it takes them to accomplish a task.

Finally, there are stupid outcomes to legal cases all the time. Logic and justice do not always prevail in a court of law.

Re: Pharrell Williams: $7.3M Blurred Lines verdict threatens all artists

#24

Post by talmand »

vacri wrote: post #21
falcolas wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

We don't seem to have listened to the same vocals. Gaye is singing in a falsetto. So, with significantly different pitch, different melody, different lyrics, different vocal 'hooks'... I just don't see how the vocals are clearly based off the original.

That's because, from what I understand, the vocals weren't part of the comparison between the two songs.

Re: Pharrell Williams: $7.3M Blurred Lines verdict threatens all artists

#26

Post by gd1 »

Lewton wrote: post #4
hawkice wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Espe…

Sia supposedly wrote Rihanna's Diamonds in 14 minutes.

Re: Pharrell Williams: $7.3M Blurred Lines verdict threatens all artists

#27

Post by 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

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.

Re: Pharrell Williams: $7.3M Blurred Lines verdict threatens all artists

#28

Post by GolfyMcG »

wahsd wrote: post #15

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.

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.

Re: Pharrell Williams: $7.3M Blurred Lines verdict threatens all artists

#29

Post by Cthulhu_ »

wahsd wrote: post #16
nakedrobot2 wrote: post #11

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. :(

I listened to both before you did. I'LL SEE YOU IN COURT, YOU COPYING SCUM.

Hey I wrote a sentence once with the same feel of yours, MY LAWYER WILL CALL YOUR LAWYER

Re: Pharrell Williams: $7.3M Blurred Lines verdict threatens all artists

#30

Post by Lewton »

gd1 wrote: post #26
Lewton wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (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 Espe…

Sia supposedly wrote Rihanna's Diamonds in 14 minutes.

also Nickelback - How You Remind Me was written in 15
Post reply on HN