31–40 of 65 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_plagiarism#Cases
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.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remixes pay copyright royalties.
Given that remixing potentially falls under the "transformative" portion of fair use copyright exemptions, this doesn't seem like it's set in stone, legally. Of course, I imagine that most artists work out contracts with the copyright owners and simply pay the royalties simply because it's less expensive than a protracted copyright lawsuit. This doesn't make it a legal standard, however.
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. :(
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.
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?"
Same old = copyright laws are broken
New = this decision makes it even further broken
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.
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."
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's because, from what I understand, the vocals weren't part of the comparison between the two songs.
Vocals were included in falcolas's analysis.
Also, I've seen lots of commentary from supposed experts in the field that have concluded the opposite.
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.