OK, I just listed to both.<p>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.<p>This lawsuit definitely does set a dangerous and unfortunate precedent. Can't say I'm surprised about it. :(
Another good case why inheritance should simply not exist beyond some practical level.<p>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.
I think many people know that this ruling is not some test-case that will unleash a wave of lawsuits.<p>People have been successfully sued for less than this, many times before...<p><a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/sam-smith--tom-petty-settlement-20150126" rel="nofollow">http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/sam-smith--tom-petty-...</a><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_plagiarism#Cases" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_plagiarism#Cases</a>
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.
Yeah, yeah, same old, same old.<p>If it's not "Look! Pirates! We're all going to die!!! We need to strengthen copyright NOW!"<p>Then it's: "Ouch! I lost a copyright lawsuit! We're all going to die!!! WHO is responsible for this insanity?"
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.<p>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.
I know alot of people hate "THE MAN" and this is opportunity to do so but you all sound like this to me:<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29wNCH4RBrk" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29wNCH4RBrk</a><p>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.
<i>Cough</i> Bullshit <i>cough</i><p>There is a really big difference between taking "inspiration" from an artist's style or a certain song's sound versus sitting down, listening to a song, and writing one in the same tempo that hits the same cues just by fiddling with the scale a little bit. Pharell is totally trying to argue a different point than what the lawsuit was about, and he's goat roping as many other things in as he can to try and save face. It's absolutely laughable for him to say "This is about protecting the intellectual rights of people who have ideas" when he just lost a lawsuit based on taking something from another artist.<p>Look, I'm all for revising the copyright laws on the books, cleaning up some of the issues regarding sampling, and eventually modernizing the commercial avenue by which musicians and other artists like cinema professionals make their money. Genuinely, I want to see things change for the better, not constantly be lobbied and pushed the wrong direction by monied interests (Disney) or legacy inheritors of material. The system is messed up, and I get that, which is why I've avoided the "traditional" system and held on to my rights through Copyright or Creative Commons for years and years and years and have no plans to change that.<p>Pharrell had his chance ON THE STAND to make his case, and the jury didn't buy it. The jury didn't listen to the recordings and render a verdict about the "sound" or "inspiration" of the tune. The jury listened to the notes being played based on the sheet music, and ruled that it was a ripoff. Why? Because it was a ripoff. Pharrell got busted and now he's doing damage control PR.<p>Besides, the music industry has ALWAYS been tied up with lawsuits...which is why people use caution when clearing samples (ex: Lemon Jelly), negotiating songwriting credits before/after the fact (ex: Sam Smtih), or defending sync rights when somebody is clearly trying to abuse the system (ex: GoldiBlox vs. Beastie Boys).<p>Oh, and don't forget the most typical lawsuits in the music business: artists suing the big labels for screwing them out of money:<p><a href="http://www.completemusicupdate.com/article/universal-preparing-to-settle-digital-royalty-class-actions/" rel="nofollow">http://www.completemusicupdate.com/article/universal-prepari...</a><p>Not that many who sympathise with Pharrell will give this the time of day, but I do think the Gaye family's public statement is a very coherent explanation and should be held up for comparison purposes:<p><a href="http://www.completemusicupdate.com/article/open-letter-from-family-gaye/" rel="nofollow">http://www.completemusicupdate.com/article/open-letter-from-...</a>
Think of a song as something that can be distilled down to a formula. That formula is the 'essence' of the song -- the "groove" for lack of a better term.<p>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.