Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Not looking for indie points / dubious badge of honour, but I don't think I've actually ever heard Blurred Lines.
bit like that
but I understand that's what it's supposed to be based on.
Give up all the money, I mean(!)
The money that is(!)
Ended up staying up far too late just listening to a shitload of Marvin Gaye albums.
was it more than 5?
But i didn't start listening until about midnight, so it felt like loads.
Is that all the models from the video? They must hate Robin Thicke even more than the rest of us.
Saw the Gaye family persons interview, pretty ridiculous hamming it up.
never listening to chart radio
never watching music TV
it was on the news for more than one reason (the music video, the music video being banned, the song being banned from SUs and miley cyrus)
it was played in shops
it was played in bars
it was everywhere
I've seen stills from the video; I'm aware of the Miley twerking controversy, rape controversy etc etc
I've just never knowingly heard it.
Maybe I'll go home later and listen to it and be like "oh... it's that song"
It's got a bassy bit in it that goes da-da da da-da
I heard a tiny bit on R4 this morning, the falsetto surprised me, think I was expecting a bit of a breathy george michael thing since that seems to be the look he's going for.
and being like "what's all the fuss about? I can't even pick out what this song sounds like"
Was pretty shite. I recognised that George Ezra song, and then I recognised a song as being the Kanye / Rihanna / Paul McCartney collaboration (because mention of Four Five Seconds had appeared on my facebook feed).
when I specifically did so on YouTube to see what the hoo-har was about.
VERDICT: A modern toe-tapper with no end of groove, but with lyrics painting a picture of a rather awful chap with unacceptable morals (although not quite as full on `rapey` as some commentators had suggested).
You've ripped off this dead guy's song! Now pay a load of money to, erm...his kids? Copyright should expire on DEATH imho.
(It was funny though when Oasis ripped off the Beatles so much they had to give a writing credit to...The Rutles)
With lots of good, solid evidence-based reasons why.
Then the EU actually increasing duration to be in line with the US, because they thought that authors (in the copyright sense) would move to the US to create things instead for the extra 20 years of copyright duration.
There should be some kind of central pot in every territory that is for copyright monies to be paid into for perpetuity. I reckon everyone should get the first 10-15 years of royalties then the rest goes in this pot and it's like that more or less forever.
Then you have an independent body administering who has to pay and their job is to penalise big business and political parties, etc. the most for wanting to use items, while making sure charities, individuals, not-for-profits, etc. can pay little or nothing for adapting or using these existing works.
On the other hand I really really really loathe the idea of business just making a huge pile of cash off well-known and loved stuff too.
Anyway, my vision is pure utopia. Obviously said independent body would end up like one of those big governing sports bodies that are corrupt as fuck and it would all end in a massive shitpile. :-/
the rapporteur is from the pirate party and it includes stuff like "Calls for the adoption of an open norm introducing flexibility in the interpretation of
exceptions and limitations in certain special cases that do not conflict with the normal
exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of
the author or rightholder; "
it'll never go through lol
because I though of marvin gaye when I first heard blurred lines
...apparently started this by launching a pre emptive suit or something along those lines?!?!
Then sought a declaration of non-infringement so they could address it on their terms?
Dunno, just speculating. It's not unheard of in my (related) line of work.
In this case it's basically a production similarity
I thought the chord progressions were the same as well.
I guess it's difficult though to draw a distinct line (no pun intended) between influence and plagiarism.
and the vibe is really quite distinctive and stand out....Marvin Gayes record was really quite unique when it was in the charts.
That would seem to be the most material aspect.....Pharrell even admitted to it in a round about way.
I distinctly remember hearing the Marvin Gaye song on the radio way back at the time and thinking how different it sounded, and then getting used to it an then loving it.
Rusty on my case law now, but it's a qualitative assessment on based on evidence and the facts of each case, so it's hard to provide a definitive statement about how much similarity there needs to be.
No idea what the US standard is though, so who knows.
Dibs on Bb if not.
and you want to persecute female guitar acts like Elastica but let the lads like Oasis off because rock is about BOYS, but music's a bit more complex than that, I think.
This definitely sounds really like Marvin Gaye's track. It does leave stuff wide open for more like this to come along, though.
Copyright is inherently very dodgy stuff but there isn't a good way around it either. If we cap it at a reasonable amount of, say, seven years that's good for people who want to build on someone else's work creatively, i.e. other artists (and this is how it was a few hundred years ago). But now we live in a wildly commercial world where you'd get companies just using that artist's work to make stacks and stacks of money.
Im quite glad that in this case there seems to be no injustice.....thickes song made a load of dosh and gave the guy huge fame, way in excess of talent or originality.....perhaps boosted by the exploitative video industry and shallow nature....
so it does not look too bad to see some of this largely undeserved reward for 'blurred lines' going back to the more talented and original originator of the sound/vibe
Oasis had to boot some Stevie Wonder rip-off off their second album at the last second because of threatened legal action didn't they?
Oasis's 1994 single "Whatever" was initially credited as being written by the band's lead guitarist Noel Gallagher; a subsequent lawsuit awarded a co-writing credit to musical comedian Neil Innes due to similarities to his song "How Sweet to Be an Idiot." Oasis were also successfully sued for $500,000 by The New Seekers after the 1994 song "Shakermaker" was alleged to have taken its melody from "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing". An Oasis song "Step Out," was originally intended for the (What's the Story) Morning Glory? album but was taken off after Stevie Wonder requested 10% of the royalties, as the chorus bore a similarity to his hit "Uptight (Everything's Alright)." Instead it was placed as a B-side on their 1996 single "Don't Look Back in Anger," and "Uptight" writers Wonder, Henry Cosby and Sylvia Moy received credit for writing the song, along with Noel Gallagher.
of this ever. Absurdly blatant. 99% of cover versions are less faithful to the original.
Yeah Line Up is blatant. Waking Up is no worse than most others (e.g. Cigarettes and Alcohol) in terms of 'similarity'.
Oasis got off lightly given their entire catalogue, really.
... which slightly undermines your point.
I wrote Line Up because that was ALSO sued, IIRC. Sorry.
I love that first Elastica record but they're pretty much two of the most shameless nickings ever
and they were as LAD-rock as they came.
(But I think theirs was an undeclared sample, wasn't it?)
However theirs wasn't a sample but it does sound identical.
Also, Andrew Oldham was massively litigious I recall hearing at the time, so they were on really dangerous ground there.
Can never get my head around why that happened.
I mean if they'd not put the strings on it would have been fine. It's kind of funny to me that they got slaughtered so strongly like that.
I guess it's so close they didn't really have a choice.
It sounds nothing like it. Completely understandable if all the royalties went to Oldham, but Keith Richards? Not for me Clive.
It's an orchestral working of the Stones' original.
Judgement is still ridiculously harsh from where I'm sitting.
You can't swagger down the street looking like that and not be lad-rock. No matter how good your first album was.
They became ladrock when that mostly-dull Oasis-like album got massive, though.
- Copyright is inherently very dodgy stuff
No it isn't. The basic principle of copyright is that if Person A expends time and effort creating a work of artistic merit for the population at large to enjoy, Person B shouldn't be allowed to simply copy and exploit said work without identifying Person A as the original author and, where necessary, compensating them.
That terms of protection are perhaps too long is a point of debate, but it doesn't change the underlying principle.
- It does leave stuff wide open for more like this to come along, though.
No it doesn't. Even assuming that the jurisdiction where the case is being heard has a common law system where case law can provide binding precedent (and many don't) copyright cases are decided completely on the merits of the facts in each individual case. While prosecution counsel will obviously seek to draw parallels to cases that have gone before, ultimately the judge will base his/her decision of the facts of the matter at issue.
- and you want to persecute female guitar acts like Elastica but let the lads like Oasis off because rock is about BOYS.
Don't even know where to begin with this. basically though, if you are using the Elastica/Wire example as a case of copyright principle/law being incorrectly applied, you really need to do a bit more research before spouting off on the internet
And it's actually Person C who's making mad bunse because Person B re-wrote and recorded a song by Person A?
but in the UK copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 75 years. If the work at issue is still within the 75 year period, Person A's estate would still own the copyright in the work.
I'm not quite clear how Person C comes into your scenario to be honest. Why is he or she making the money?
With regard to Person B, whether he/she was liable for copyright and to what extent infringement would depend entirely on the 're-writing'. If Person B effectively created an entirely new composition and were only 'inspired' by Person A's work, they may not be liable at all, but if the new composition utilised a 'substantial part' of Person A's work, they will be. There is obviously quite a bit of a grey area between these two positions
so Person B shouldn't be allowed to piggyback on that. Which is all well and good, but the whole thing falls down when Person A's kids sue Person B, no?
Current position is that copyright law (in the UK at least) in literary/musical work lasts for the life of the 'first author' plus an additional 70 years (and not 75 - sorry).
Therefore when Person A dies, his estate (whether his kids or someone else) still 'own' the work if it is within this 70 year period. They are therefore entitled to sue if that work is deemed to be infringed.
Whether this period is too long is currently under review at a lower governmental level I think (I'm not a copyright specialist). There are certainly fairly convincing arguments that it should be shortened and one of the major ones is, I think, the point that you are making - i.e. that the legal position does not reflect the 'basic principle' of copyright i.e. that copyright protection should extend to the author's work and not the author's and one or two generations of his/her family's work. When the legislation was originally drawn up it was felt that the author's family should also be allowed to benefit from the work, but many feel that the protection accorded is now unjustifiably long. I would actually agree with this.
My original point was probably made in haste to Theo's general point that all copyright is 'inherently dodgy' because it really isn't. There are certainly aspects of the implementation of the law of copyright that could definitely be improved though
In regards to the whole copyright debate - yo Chuck! Is they crazy?
Reading it back is a little strong. Wasn't intended to be snarky for the sake of it though. Just kind of annoys me when you see people say stuff like 'copyright = evil' without any justification or argument. You can kind of take it when its obviously from the ill informed 'stop impinging on my rights to get everything for free' brigade, but Theo generally talks intelligently on a variety of topics on here so it was a bit jarring to see it from him.
Anyway, point taken and apologies Theo
Because actually knowing what you were talking about seemed to be some kind of enormous faux pas.
aside from the legal rights and wrongs there is far too much abuse of the US patent system in technology (and software particularly) by the big boys (Microsoft's attempt to patent the IsNot operator in Basic stands out as a good example). Given that and the audience of the website, people there are going to be naturally biased against it, regardless of the legitimacy of the claims in law.
(I understand the strong bias against IP rights in a traditionally strongly FOSS-centric environment)
It's stuff like people getting modded +5 insightful for saying stuff like "it should be made a requirement that you're not allowed a patent unless you explain how to make the thing you're patenting!!", but pointing out that this has been a very strictly upheld part of existing patent law in every major jurisdiction for decades will get you abuse and a ton of downvotes.
It's just an echo chamber of people looking to their existing prejudices confirmed rather than actually having a good hard think about them. So, y'know, a lot like the rest of the internet really :P
It also doesn't help that the most common phrase on there seems to be "I am not a lawyer, but..."
Yeah, that's exactly it, isn't it? It's just the epitome of that internet nerd stereotype of "I don't actually know anything about this but since I'm so clearly smarter than everyone else I'm going to wade in anyway" thing.
I try to only be that obnoxious when it's stuff I actually do have some background in :)
I really don't like copyright in the way it now exists. I totally accept that people should have a right to get paid for what they do, and as I stated up there in response to Epimer, the problem is that you don't want corporations or the like to benefit from someone else's hard work.
But equally the soul of creation is to base your work on someone else's. That's how art evolves. The drivers behind these ridiculous copyright lengths are also companies with a vested interest in getting their slab of cash, which is a bit of a fucker. Walt "utterly evil" Disney was the driver on a lot of this, ironic given he effectively stole Mickey Mouse off pre-existing ideas that weren't strongly copyrighted in the days when he did it.
Even giving lifetime-only copyright seems crazy to me.
Incidentally, I don't see why it doesn't allow for a lot more of this sort of stuff to come through. I meant, of course, a fucking court case not a ruling always in favour of the person bringing the case. I'd imagine there are others out there who felt like their work was being ripped off but thought it couldn't be won.
Anyway, the Elastica thing was mainly shits and giggles, sorry. At the time they were being hit a lot harder than other artists, however. I always assumed a lot of this was down to them being on a genuine Indie label, where as Food and Creation both had majors backing them who were probably making the money regardless so didn't really care. But it was all part and parcel of the shit they got due to Justine always being Damon's girlfriend and having been Brett's. Weird narrative.
Because it restricts you from making/profiting from minor variations to existing works. This increased number of original works is for the benefit of the public.
I mean people who tend to be the creators of new works. The argument for strong copyright is rooted in the amount of money people can make off something and arguments about how it might improve things for the public by having more 'original works' just sounds like weak justification from the people making much money off copyright. Certainly if we want to go down that route we should outlaw remaking films and also doing sequels...
Don't agree with the waving away of the benefit to the public, as that benefit is kind of central to the notion of permitting a restriction of third party rights, but I started rambling so deleted it.
I don't understand your remakes/sequels point; they already *are* "outlawed" insofar as you need permission/a licence from the copyright holder of the original work to make them. The way around that is... to make a different, original work.
a lot of copyrighted works may not have existed in their exploitable form in the first place if it wasn't for 'the corporations'.
Your point about 'the soul of creation is to base your work on someone else's' is the crux of it. The proper application of copyright law shouldn't stop this. Copyright infringement should only kick in when it is considered the first work (or a substantial part thereof) has been *copied*. Therefore using someone else's work as inspiration only should leave you on the right side.
And also, I think a lot of what we're talking about stems from society being fucked up via capitalist worldviews in the first place. I mean, the logical reason for the effect of copyright is the acknowledgement that someone who writes a book or a piece of music or creates a painting, etc. won't be compensated enough based on that item alone to warrant them having done it.
Clearly there are also factors here around the ability to copy and broadcast things. 500 years ago it wouldn't much matter if someone else ripped off your band playing some songs because you could only make your money off performing directly to people.
I just feel like the narrative that we hang copyright off is fairly weird and attached to different times.
where robin thicke is singing into feet is my favourite bit in any video ever
but it would be interesting to see whether Blurred Lines lead to a rise in Marvin Gaye album sales once all the comparisons started appearing on youtube. Noel Gallagher must be shitting himself.
they even admitted to ripping it off when it came out.
Wanna hear Chopin giving Take That a no. 1 hit? Sure:
If someone can find that The Enemy thread that would be great.
It's not a song by Take That, though...
Could It Be Magic is note for note taken from Chopin:
Don't start getting dickish.
Donna Summer did the best version of it
Its just funnier if you imagine take that ripping off Chopin.
Jesus Christ guys.
that new(ish) Jamie T track Zombie
sounds a bit a lot like the Only Fools theme tune?
Is lots of this
Never understood how Madonna & Jellybean Benitez got away with ripping 'holiday' right off ABC & Trevor Horn
"Right now, I feel free," [Marv's kid] told reporters after the ruling. "Free from Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke's chains and what they tried to keep on us and the lies that were told."
And I thought there was nothing that would make me feel a modicum sympathy for Robin Thicke. Imagine feeling UNDER CHAINS of some bass notes from the 1970s being used in a song. Obviously you had nothing to do with the creation of either song. But still, the pain.
I think his family were ridiculously overwrought in the post-verdict press stuff, it's not like he was some impoverished artist who lost out on a career because someone else nicked his tune. I think it does set a dubious precedent, and you can see unscrupulous legal firms rubbing their hands with glee as they hunt through their itunes libraries looking for potential copyright issues.
the supremes singing 'keep me hangin on' (one of my faves)
but i dont think there was ever a case.....not that many notes are the same....but its the main hooks of each of the songs...the main strength of each song....and therefore feels like its just a new rock reworking of the original almost.
Here is the supremes
and here is U2....jump to 37 seconds to avoid the intro guitar buildup
I was amazed not every radio dj mentioned this....unless they hadnt heard the original supremes....but even this has been covered several times.
like coldplay do
srsly coldplay are the biggest plagiarists
Noah and the Whale rip off Brimful of Asha
let your kids sort it out. In court.
Ripped off Mogwai:
Dion - Only you know: https://youtu.be/z0dlPgCjzzU
Jarvis - Don't Let Him Waste Your Time: https://youtu.be/MX99zjDK-vo
(didn't read thread)
from cocteau twins
that you cant see it yet?
God I hate the guitar player, drummer and bass player in coldplay.
can't something now be done about The Enemy, so that we possibly eradicate any future 'new album coming soon' headlines...?
I didn't recognise it. It's not a great song, is it?