Blurred Lines...........GUILTY!

beats.pro said:
Click to expand...


Case closed............not guilty.......fuucking jury....

Of course they can end up in court again three more times due to similarities in other songs as well..........sad thing about it. Like that one group trying to sound like Give It Up but didn't sell to well.......they can sting that ass too. Stay tuned....
 
Last edited:
Exclusivo said:
Yep, tomorrow I'm going to start work on a new record, an instrumental album. All Marvin Gaye samples and I will put it out for free. I'll make sure to find the address of the son and send him a copy upon release. I can't wait for his aggravated response. I'm sure I'll be all over CNN in minutes.

I also look forward to the cease and desist letters I'll get from his lawyer which I'll politely disregard just so they take me to court to sue me for the big fat ZERO I made off the record and the pennies I made from the "related" publicity revenue.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't give you the time of day. Too busy spending 7 mill.

Laws man. In a perfect world the muscians playing the instrumentation who may have also added their "input" for different parts of the song should get a good piece of that money also. They should be able to sue and get a piece........BUT....that paperwork.......shit like that. Business everybody shady. Fuuckem. Pieces of paper with signatures is the American way.


We allow this shit to happen so fuuck it. Goes along with what I always say. We can make the changes necessary....it's just not programmed in us to move on it.
 
Last edited:
yokuzin said:
Wouldn't give you the time of day. Too busy spending 7 mill.
Click to expand...

Don't be silly. That 7 mill will disappear, and tomorrow the greed will kick back in. He'll probably come after my estate and bypass the limited liability my business registrations provide. He'll argue that it was all intended and therefore I'll be personally liable.

They'll get me to sell my house as if it's a divorce... I'll be homeless by the end of the week.
 
I'm siding with the family on this. Its the coldest, rawest form of business. People throwing to much emotion in it. We all producer's here, sure we all want to eat NOW...but at the end of the day...EVERYBODY DIES. Will your heir's feast or famine? The GAYE estate is about their money(ASSETS/INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY). So is every other fortune 500. This is what money, power and influence does....take over. Get you some.:cool:
 
Last edited:
stokeI said:
I don't think you understand how serious this is. No one invented music, everything is a bite of something. Should Jimmy Nolen's family sue the hole world for that "chank" guitar? How bout those TSOP disco drums everyone's been biting for decades?

Marvin Gaye was going for that Toto vibe when he made "Sexual Healing" and the guy who wrote the lyrics got no credit whatsoever
Click to expand...
Well, I'm not talking about sexual healing. And as our resident Neptunes expect, I'm surprised you give him a pass on this one. They are too smart, and their music over the past 5+ years (before happy) has been a careful recreation of vintage 60/70s sounds.
Pharell knew exactly what he was doing, and i don't how you can listen to the songs and not get that as one who has studied the neptunes.
I want everybody to get the cheddar they're owed, but in this specific case i can't give him a pass regardless of the precedent.
 
Blurred Lines Verdict In: Copyright Wins

Wow. Now I didn't see this coming. Too bad to because it was a really good song. A bit vulgar and I didn't care for the video but a good song. But this isn't about Blurred Lines. Its about infringing on someone else's work and calling it your own. Now I have seen quite a few threads on here with people asking whether or not this or that is legal to do with something made by someone else. Well, its not. If you didn't make it, tape it, record it, produce it, sing it, or anything related to the creative process LEGALLY then you had best treat it like a street drug and just say no. Corny yes I know. But its better than having to cough up 7m in damages. Wow.

EDIT: correction it wasn't sampled it was copied. apologies all.

Marvin Gaye's Family Seeks to Halt Sales of 'Blurred Lines' | Rolling Stone
 
Last edited:
First let me say that I appreciate copyright laws. They keep people from doing whatever they with your work without your permission.

With that said, I'm the type of person who would just 'roll with it' if someone sampled or interpolated my music and made a good record with it.

==> under the condition that I was cut in on a percentage of the profits and that the music wasn't used in something that I stood against. <==

I'd view it as a "win win" situation.

The two wins being that

1. My music lives on through the current artist (and their fan base), future generations

and

2. I collect some $$$ for the usage of my work.


Unfortunately, scenario's like this one seem to be filled with greed over everything...



Makes me wanna holler.....
 
acetheface954 said:
Wow. Now I didn't see this coming. Too bad to because it was a really good song. A bit vulgar and I didn't care for the video but a good song. But this isn't about Blurred Lines. Its about infringing on someone else's work and calling it your own. Now I have seen quite a few threads on here with people asking whether or not this or that is legal to do with something made by someone else. Well, its not. If you didn't make it, tape it, record it, produce it, sing it, or anything related to the creative process LEGALLY then you had best treat it like a street drug and just say no. Corny yes I know. But its better than having to cough up 7m in damages. Wow.

Marvin Gaye's Family Seeks to Halt Sales of 'Blurred Lines' | Rolling Stone
Click to expand...

But it wasn't a sample so it wasn't illegal, until now. It will be appealed, if Gaye's estate ends up getting anything, it won't be 7 mil
 
SFTRAXX said:
First let me say that I appreciate copyright laws. They keep people from doing whatever they with your work without your permission.

With that said, I'm the type of person who would just 'roll with it' if someone sampled or interpolated my music and made a good record with it.

==> under the condition that I was cut in on a percentage of the profits and that the music wasn't used in something that I stood against. <==

I'd view it as a "win win" situation.

The two wins being that

1. My music lives on through the current artist (and their fan base), future generations

and

2. I collect some $$$ for the usage of my work.
Unfortunately, scenario's like this one seem to be filled with greed over everything...

Makes me wanna holler.....
Click to expand...

I won't lie I mimic what I hear and sample some sounds. that's what electronic music is built on. doesn't make it right but that's the truth. but it's an entirely different ball game when you Vanilla Ice someone's work. now if someone can take it and create something entirely new from it then I say right on my brother right on. lol @"makes me wanna holler"


Rekordhead said:
But it wasn't a sample so it wasn't illegal, until now. It will be appealed, if Gaye's estate ends up getting anything, it won't be 7 mil
Click to expand...

thanks. I made the correction. with 7m on the line I'm sure you're right lol.
 
Rekordhead said:
But it wasn't a sample so it wasn't illegal, until now. It will be appealed, if Gaye's estate ends up getting anything, it won't be 7 mil
Click to expand...

It has always been illegal, again, Verve vs. Rolling Stones, many other cases. This is why I find this humorous. Guys who have dodged sampling thinking someone was gonna run up in your pockets are mind blown for no reason. If your music has a vibe or sound of a copyrighted piece, you can end up in the same situation once similarities are seen. NO ONE IS SAFE AND NEVER HAS BEEN.

I never would've done such a rip off in Pharrell's shoes. I would've known the song could've gotten too big. Which it did.

See, it's all about money in the end. James Brown's estate wouldn't waste time going after this....


But Blurred Lines did NUMBERS. Anytime you do numbers in music, someone's coming for you. Put 30% aside for taxes and another 30% for that situation that may pop up. Music 101.
 
Ha haa Pharrell and Robin Thicke got hit wit that hammer

[video]http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhYd5Gttaar6wB2ha1[/video]

7.3 million out of 17 million dats a hit right dur LOL!!!
 
mwandishi said:
Well, I'm not talking about sexual healing. And as our resident Neptunes expect, I'm surprised you give him a pass on this one. They are too smart, and their music over the past 5+ years (before happy) has been a careful recreation of vintage 60/70s sounds.
Pharell knew exactly what he was doing, and i don't how you can listen to the songs and not get that as one who has studied the neptunes.
I want everybody to get the cheddar they're owed, but in this specific case i can't give him a pass regardless of the precedent.
Click to expand...

Regardless of the precedent? Every time you make a song you're stealing a vibe/style/feel...doing it unconsciously and combining two or three different things into a "new" song doesn't make it any better. You just can't copyright a style or a feel. Marving Gaye doesn't own that feel and neither does his family.


Marvin Gaye's Family May Target Pharrell's 'Happy' Next | Rolling Stone

:sigh:
 
deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup said:
It has always been illegal, again, Verve vs. Rolling Stones, many other cases. This is why I find this humorous. Guys who have dodged sampling thinking someone was gonna run up in your pockets are mind blown for no reason. If your music has a vibe or sound of a copyrighted piece, you can end up in the same situation once similarities are seen. NO ONE IS SAFE AND NEVER HAS BEEN.

I never would've done such a rip off in Pharrell's shoes. I would've known the song could've gotten too big. Which it did.

See, it's all about money in the end. James Brown's estate wouldn't waste time going after this....


But Blurred Lines did NUMBERS. Anytime you do numbers in music, someone's coming for you. Put 30% aside for taxes and another 30% for that situation that may pop up. Music 101.
Click to expand...


the verve took the same melodies and notes as the rolling stones song. Blurred lines is very different than Gaye's song. There was no infringement here and I'm pretty sure copyright laws would make that clear. Nothing was copied.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top