Pharrell Williams: $7.3M Blurred Lines verdict threatens all artists • Hacker News Board

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

#51

Post by EvanAnderson » Fri, Mar 20, 2015, 4:43 PM UTC

fixermark wrote: post #33

EvanAnderson wrote: post #19

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.

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…

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.

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

#52

Post by geebee » Fri, Mar 20, 2015, 5:06 PM UTC

_0ffh wrote: post #18

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?"

I don't think the scenarios are all that similar.

The first is about taking a precise and full replica of a copyrighted work and putting it on a file sharing system.

The second is about borrowing, perhaps heavily, from a copyrighted work to create a derivative work.

I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to consider the first infringement and the second fair use.

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

#53

Post by adamboulanger » Fri, Mar 20, 2015, 5:44 PM UTC

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.

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

#54

Post by stolio » Fri, Mar 20, 2015, 7:00 PM UTC

stolio wrote: post #48

danbmil99 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 dismisse…

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.

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

#55

Post by wahsd » Fri, Mar 20, 2015, 7:32 PM UTC

username3 wrote: post #40

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.

What happens when a corporation dies or doesn't die?

Is that a joke, because corporations are people?

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

#56

Post by wahsd » Fri, Mar 20, 2015, 7:46 PM UTC

GolfyMcG wrote: post #28

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…

You are simply stuck in the current mindframe of thinking. It's not your fault or anything, especially considering that the whole notion of inheritance is rather deeply ingrained in many societies' culture, especially in contemporary America, where we fawn over aristocrats and dream about game of thrones.

Although I don't have the details fleshed out, the effect would be that in spite of what you may believe, the outcome is that the incentive to perform and improve and build would be wildly stronger than currently the incentive structure allows for. What if none of your success was taxed, i.e., taken away from you until your work was successful and you then were responsible to pay back society for all the social, intangible aspects that assisted in your success. You still get to enjoy the fruits of your labor, but you also cannot simply externalize costs and risks, while also not paying your investors ... society at large.

There is something inherently supremacist, hypocritical, manipulative, heinous, and rather racist about inheritance that simply perpetuates the evils of the past and undercuts an even remotely equal chance at life, more often than not simply determined based on race. But please also don't simply focus on the race aspect, because there is a larger issue at hand, that everyone, no matter their race should have the same or very similar advantages or opportunities in life not just the wealthy who happened to win the genetic lottery get to inherit all the cheat codes to life and those who lost the genetic lottery get to inherit all the pitfalls, traps, pain, suffering, and disadvantages.

It is one aspect that is absolutely required for humanity to evolve to the next stage if it wishes to progress beyond the current rather primal state we are still in. There is simply no other way than thinking bigger than the selfishness of giving your genetic mashup an unearned advantage over others of the human race. But like I said, it's only one of several things that have to change for humanity to evolve into the next level. No matter whether all other requirements are met, without that step, we will never evolve past the state we are currently in.

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

#57

Post by falcolas » Fri, Mar 20, 2015, 9:21 PM UTC

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.

My apologies - "vocals" was used in reference to the verbal percussion going on - the "hey"s littered throughout as part of the background melody.

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

#58

Post by snowwrestler » Fri, Mar 20, 2015, 10:36 PM UTC

stolio wrote: post #54

stolio wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dismisse…

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.

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?

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

#59

Post by stolio » Fri, Mar 20, 2015, 11:33 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #58

stolio wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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?

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...

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.... [1] - http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/marvin-gaye-s...

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

#60

Post by Lewton » Fri, Mar 20, 2015, 11:53 PM UTC

hawkice wrote: post #43

Lewton wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

also Nickelback - How You Remind Me was written in 15

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 wri…

He doesn't write the chorus four times :P