" If Mr. Thicke and Mr. Williams had tried to create a new song and coincidentally infused “Got To Give It Up” into their work, instead of deliberately undertaking to “write a song with the same groove,” we would probably be having a different conversation."
I just don't really understand how you can copyright a groove. It's not a melody or a harmony or a rhythm or a horn chart. It's a feeling, isn't it? Or maybe I just don't understand what a groove is, which is possible. But if it's just a feeling, what possible value to society does copyrighting a groove have?
But yeah, preemptive litigation seems like a bad choice, as does taking this to a jury. I think really the whole thing may be more about lawyer arrogance than music.
Arrogance indeed, from the lawyers and from the record companies. They simply thought they had the power to muscle through the theft of Marvin Gaye's music.
Well before the lawsuit the Gaye family was being very noisy about the fact that Blurred LInes sounded just like Got to Give it Up, and the record companies thought they would be able to intimidate the Gaye family into shutting up and going away, but it backfired and here we are.
This has nothing to do with protecting 'artistry'. It has everything to do with money. That's why copyright laws are as ridiculously draconian as they are currently. As amc alludes, there is no possible societal value in copyrighting a groove.
The Gaye family, estate, and legacy were no way harmed by "Blurred Lines" and they shouldn't be rewarded with millions of dollars as if they were.
Craig, as a lawyer, you should know that everything has to do with money.
Always has, always will.
I don't begrudge the heirs of Marvin Gaye from profiting from his music, just as I hope you don't begrudge my heirs from profiting from my work.
Listen to the song it wasn't just the same groove, they stole the whole fucking song and relabeled it their own. They didn't write a new hook, they stole the whole fucking song. They didn't sample the music, they stole the whole fucking song They didn't use the same feel, they stole the whole fucking song
TI profited from Marvin Gaye's work because he put his rap on top of a stolen song and he was paid for that rap, so yeah he has to pay.
Okay, that was poor phrasing on my part. I have no problem with his heirs receiving funds from the ongoing sale of his music. I do have a problem with them profiting in the way they are in this instance.
They didn't steal the song; the song's still there. And the Gaye kids didn't lose any part of their inheritance. Well except for all the people who said to themselves, "today I really wanted to buy a copy of Got to Give It Up, but Blurred Lines has the same groove so I'll buy that instead", which is no one, anywhere, ever. This doesn't even seem like a copyright case, because nothing written was copied; seems more like, if anything, plagiarism.
And no, everything is not about money. The internet and the world are full of people making things because they love making things. Always has been, always will be (well the internet's new, but you know what I mean) I choose to believe that Marvin Gaye was one of those people, and that he would have made some great art even if he didn't get paid for it. Which is not the same as saying him or his children shouldn't get paid for his art.
(And I have to admit here, for the record, that I have no conscious idea of what either of these songs sound like.)
This thread has made me do the unthinkable - I actually listened to the stupid song. Must say, I hear more influence than same song.
Again, blundering idiocy to let it get in front of a jury, esp with the "same groove" statement out there. With the "license for sampling" cat out of the bag, these cases are only going to increase. It is the skeleton in hip-hop's closet. Going back to JuJ's original comment, if you sit down at the piano and set out to write a song, you are (almost) never going to have this kind of problem.
I will add, that song is a nasty piece of work; "You know you want it," etc. As Craig said, 'rapey'
For me Robin Thicke and Marvin Gaye's kids are peas in the same pod, spoiled entitled rich kids living large off of their parents, but that's the way our system works and I would swap places with them in a skinny minute if I thought it would get me a Bentley and chauffeur.
All I hear is Got to Give it up when I listen to the Robin Thicke song which is kind of ironic if you think about it, you know, Robin Thicke et al have got to give it up
By your logic if I have food in my fridge that is going bad and I am not going to eat it, but there are hungry people in my neighborhood who could use the food, you have the right to break into my house raid my fridge and start a buffet for the homeless on my front lawn.
Whether Marvin Gaye's heirs could sell it or not is not the issue, it was theirs to use or let go to waste as they saw fit.
And maybe Robin Thicke should have just paid the licensing fee from the get go.
Yeah, that doesn't logically flow from what amc said. He specifically said (and I agree) nothing was copied, thus there was no copyright infringement, thus (to use your words) nothing was stolen.
Also copyright infringement is not the same as breaking into someone's house. You don't go to jail for copyright infringement.
This whole discussion depresses me so much I can't even respond properly. The only thing I can say for sure is that copyright sucks.
Also, if you think that the music you grew up with is some sort of sacred cow that magically developed in a vacuum without heavy influence from the past, you're kidding yourself. There's a reason everything remind us of something.
Finding it really hard to get to an opinion on this one. The Gaye family's overblown talk about sacred duty and so on feels like hogwash. Having also made the mistake of looking up the video I find BL a terrible song with objectionable content and if possible an even more objectionable visual representation to go with it. This and the allegations of preemptive bullying and my general inclination to find it a good thing if black artists of the mid 20th C get their due inclines me to sympathize with it getting hammered, but that's not a legal argument, perhaps not even an ethical one, and I tend to agree with Craig that copyright has to have limits and is currently being driven by corporation profit not justice. Not being a musicologist I am not sure exactly how to draw those limits. With my editor/professor hat on I have had to deal with two substantial cases of plagiarism in the academy, but both amounted to there being identical paragraphs of text between source and target, so not much ambiguity.
"By your logic if I have food in my fridge that is going bad and I am not going to eat it, but there are hungry people in my neighborhood who could use the food, you have the right to break into my house raid my fridge and start a buffet for the homeless on my front lawn."
- that's not what amc2 was saying, but more than one serious ethical system has argued just this (maybe minus the breaking in and the front lawn). But that's another story.
No doubt, Blurred Lines is a horrendous song with a strong rape-apologist message. The video is disgusting at best. But that should never be part of the issue in this case.
@amclark2 "They didn't steal the song; the song's still there. And the Gaye kids didn't lose any part of their inheritance."
Intangibles such as software and music are not consumed as they are used. There is an unlimited number of times that we can listen to music. But when you take the creation of another and attempt to use it for your own purposes without just and proper compensation for that use, that is theft. The Gaye family has every right to expect recompense when Marvin Gaye's music is used by another regardless of whether its from Robin Thicke's douche baggery or me and you making illegal copies of his CD's.
"Well except for all the people who said to themselves, "today I really wanted to buy a copy of Got to Give It Up, but Blurred Lines has the same groove so I'll buy that instead", which is no one, anywhere, ever."
Translation: the Gaye family wasn't using the song for any useful purpose, Marvin Gaye certainly has no use for it now. They can't sell any more copies of a 30 year old song, we might as well be douche bags and pretend we wrote the song and make millions of dollars off of it. This is the equivalent of raiding the Gaye family fridge and setting up a buffet on their front lawn without their permission.
"The Gaye family's overblown talk about sacred duty and so on feels like hogwash."
Yes I understand how you might easily come to that conclusion, but I think it is an incorrect conclusion.
Many of us who consider ourselves fans of Marvin Gaye's music consider sacred to be the correct perspective for the curators of that work. Not in a religious sense but in reverence You see Marvin Gaye was the one, the Neo of modern black music. In fact many of us consider Marvin Gaye's "What's Going On" album to be the demarcation point for the beginning of modern black music. Marvin made the last turn in black music and everything since flows directly or indirectly from that corner.
So yeah, it is kind of sacred and the Gaye children damn well better know it.
But I didn't say any of that. My point's not that intellectual theft isn't still theft. It's that copying a groove doesn't take anything away from the owner, because you can't sell a groove. You can sell a thirty or forty year old song, but you can't sell a groove. Copying a groove is like if you have old lasagna in your fridge, and I decide to make lasagna for some homeless people and serve them on my lawn. A central idea of copyright law used to be that you can't copyright an idea. I just can't see how copyrighting a groove is any different than copyrighting an idea. And the sacredness talk doesn't help any. It just makes it clear that it's about perceived merit rather than protecting rights. Steamboat Willie will perpetually be copyrighted. Nobody ever better try to sound like Marvin Gaye.
jUj - I wasn't going to use the term, because I don't think accomplishes much, but every time you respond to one of our arguments you set up a strawman. Each time you completely change the argument to suit your response.
I would like to hear one response as to why, legally, a groove can be copyrighted in this case when it never has been before.
No, it's horseshit. Marvin Gaye was a phenomenal talent. But his music doesn't deserve any extra special protection from the government beyond what anybody else gets. The fact that he is sacred to you and millions of other people doesn't put him above any other creators.
And the fact that his family can even make a case that they deserve millions of dollars for something that they had absolutely no part in making is exactly what is wrong with copyright law.
Well firstly, I don't think its a groove, I think its the same song, a stolen song to be exact.
They knew exactly what they were doing when they stole it, and now they are caught and hiding behind artistic freedom.
Secondly, Marvin Gaye's music is just like any other intangible and doesn't deserve any special protection. But if you are going to steal it pays to choose your target wisely. If you rob a liquor store its just another robbery. If you rob a bank its a federal case and you are going to get a hell of a lot more resources brought to bear on your azz. Marvin Gaye is the bank. Everyday some poor schmuck who can't do anything about it gets his music stolen by someone more powerful.
"And the fact that his family can even make a case that they deserve millions of dollars for something that they had absolutely no part in making is exactly what is wrong with copyright law."
Where or who exactly would you suggest be the beneficiary of the millions of dollars that Marvin Gaye's music generates. See my response to Craig earlier.
This is a game of power and if you don't have any you can't play
Does this sound familiar? Is this a groove? Does this capture that seventies feel? I am sure one of you resourceful music enthusiasts has the wherewithall to determine if Jocko's estate made any payments to the rightful copyright holder.
I can't help you if you think it's the same song, because I only hear a cheap imitation - far from an exact copy.
As for who should get the money, whoever can sell it. At this point in time I think all of Gaye's music should be in the public domain, so the family members would be free to make money off of it and so would everybody else.
As for the Jackson song, seriously? That's not a similar groove, that's the same music slightly transposed. Which is why Dewey Bunnell got a songwriting credit and, most likely, some songwriting money.
Although I feel the copyright should have been up on "A Horse With No Name", too.
I feel that delicious cupcakes should be free for anybody who wants one but that's not how it works now is it.
Somebody has got to make the delicious cupcakes, and if I take the time to make delicious cupcakes then I need to be compensated fairly or I am not going to make any more delicious cupcakes, and then no one would get delicious cupcakes.
And if I make delicious cupcakes but die before I can sell them to anyone, then I want my kids to have the delicious cupcakes and decide what they want to do with the delicious cupcakes. They could eat them or sell them based on what they see as best for them.
So you and I agree, delicious cupcakes should be free for everyone, but that's not going to happen is it?
Cupcakes are product. Songs are property; the recording is the product, not the song. You establish your ownership of property knowing you may have to defend it against others who want to take it from you, or in the case of intellectual property, copy it without your permission.
I don't think anyone is saying "Blurred Lines" isn't a ripoff. What they're saying is that it's a ripoff of the recording, not the song. The recording, which is to say the sound, the style, the groove, the audible effects of the studio's technical limitations, or whatever, is something that traditionally hasn't been protected by the state.
So, I'll assume you think it should be protected by the state, and maybe you're right - but then, in theory at least, everyone who records tangos or house or dark-ambient or thrash or speed-metal could conceivably be sued under this precedent by everyone else who recorded tracks and albums in those genres before them, because to a jury, it will all sound the same, and the originator/innovator should therefore get... what, half? It will be a licensing nightmare. And then there will be endless legal battles to decide who the innovator was in any given artistic genre, ad nauseam. If you think patent trolling is bad, wait 'til you see what groove-innovator trolling will look like.
That's what people are worried about here, I reckon. Hopefully I'm wrong, but this does strike me as a potentially landmark case, if it survives the appeals process.
@jackedUPjazz - So you still don't understand the difference between intellectual property and physical property? You need to spend a few hours reading up on the topic, because comparing it to cupcakes is just ridiculous.
So just flood your local congressman/woman with calls letting them know that you feel the TPP should be passed as soon as possible because the government should prevent anything from ever entering the public domain again. Heaven forbid that Marvin Gaye's great-great-great-grandchildren not get paid every time someone uses a syncopated cowbell.
Comments
But still...
The letter says:
" If Mr. Thicke and Mr. Williams had tried to create a new song and coincidentally infused “Got To Give It Up” into their work, instead of deliberately undertaking to “write a song with the same groove,” we would probably be having a different conversation."
I just don't really understand how you can copyright a groove. It's not a melody or a harmony or a rhythm or a horn chart. It's a feeling, isn't it? Or maybe I just don't understand what a groove is, which is possible. But if it's just a feeling, what possible value to society does copyrighting a groove have?
But yeah, preemptive litigation seems like a bad choice, as does taking this to a jury. I think really the whole thing may be more about lawyer arrogance than music.
Well before the lawsuit the Gaye family was being very noisy about the fact that Blurred LInes sounded just like Got to Give it Up, and the record companies thought they would be able to intimidate the Gaye family into shutting up and going away, but it backfired and here we are.
The Gaye family, estate, and legacy were no way harmed by "Blurred Lines" and they shouldn't be rewarded with millions of dollars as if they were.
Craig
They're now asking the jury verdict be 'corrected' to require T.I. to pay them money. T.I. who had nothing to do with writing the groove and who only wrote his rap verse:
"Hustle Gang Homie
One thing I ask of you
Lemme be the one you back that ass up to
From Malibu to Paris boo
Had a bitch, but she ain't bad as you
So, hit me up when you pass through
I'll give you something big enough to tear your ass in two
Swag on 'em even when you dress casual
I mean, it's almost unbearable
In a hundred years not dare would I
Pull a Pharcyde, let you pass me by
Nothin' like your last guy, he too square for you
He don't smack that ass and pull your hair like that
So I'm just watching and waitin'
For you to salute the true big pimpin'
Not many women can refuse this pimping
I'm a nice guy, but don't get confused, this pimpin'"
Yeah, Marvin Gaye's artistry has a lot to do with that verse.
Craig
Always has, always will.
I don't begrudge the heirs of Marvin Gaye from profiting from his music, just as I hope you don't begrudge my heirs from profiting from my work.
Listen to the song it wasn't just the same groove, they stole the whole fucking song and relabeled it their own.
They didn't write a new hook, they stole the whole fucking song.
They didn't sample the music, they stole the whole fucking song
They didn't use the same feel, they stole the whole fucking song
TI profited from Marvin Gaye's work because he put his rap on top of a stolen song and he was paid for that rap, so yeah he has to pay.
The top line melody and lyrics are completely different. Copyright law (as ridiculously draconian as it is) has never protected beyond those items.
How anyone can say they stole the whole song, but wrote a new top line melody and lyrics is beyond me.
I do begrudge his heirs from profiting from his music. They had nothing to do with it.
Craig
His family is a different story.
Who would you suggest receive the profits from his work, the record companies, the government, maybe the homeless.
For my kids sake, I hope you are no where around when they probate my estate
Craig
And no, everything is not about money. The internet and the world are full of people making things because they love making things. Always has been, always will be (well the internet's new, but you know what I mean) I choose to believe that Marvin Gaye was one of those people, and that he would have made some great art even if he didn't get paid for it. Which is not the same as saying him or his children shouldn't get paid for his art.
(And I have to admit here, for the record, that I have no conscious idea of what either of these songs sound like.)
For me Robin Thicke and Marvin Gaye's kids are peas in the same pod, spoiled entitled rich kids living large off of their parents, but that's the way our system works and I would swap places with them in a skinny minute if I thought it would get me a Bentley and chauffeur.
All I hear is Got to Give it up when I listen to the Robin Thicke song which is kind of ironic if you think about it, you know, Robin Thicke et al have got to give it up
Hardy har har
By your logic if I have food in my fridge that is going bad and I am not going to eat it, but there are hungry people in my neighborhood who could use the food, you have the right to break into my house raid my fridge and start a buffet for the homeless on my front lawn.
Whether Marvin Gaye's heirs could sell it or not is not the issue, it was theirs to use or let go to waste as they saw fit.
And maybe Robin Thicke should have just paid the licensing fee from the get go.
Also copyright infringement is not the same as breaking into someone's house. You don't go to jail for copyright infringement.
Craig
be back soon
Also, if you think that the music you grew up with is some sort of sacred cow that magically developed in a vacuum without heavy influence from the past, you're kidding yourself. There's a reason everything remind us of something.
"They didn't steal the song; the song's still there. And the Gaye kids didn't lose any part of their inheritance."
Intangibles such as software and music are not consumed as they are used. There is an unlimited number of times that we can listen to music. But when you take the creation of another and attempt to use it for your own purposes without just and proper compensation for that use, that is theft. The Gaye family has every right to expect recompense when Marvin Gaye's music is used by another regardless of whether its from Robin Thicke's douche baggery or me and you making illegal copies of his CD's.
"Well except for all the people who said to themselves, "today I really
wanted to buy a copy of Got to Give It Up, but Blurred Lines has the
same groove so I'll buy that instead", which is no one, anywhere, ever."
Translation: the Gaye family wasn't using the song for any useful purpose, Marvin Gaye certainly has no use for it now. They can't sell any more copies of a 30 year old song, we might as well be douche bags and pretend we wrote the song and make millions of dollars off of it. This is the equivalent of raiding the Gaye family fridge and setting up a buffet on their front lawn without their permission.
@Germanprof
"The Gaye family's overblown talk about sacred duty and so on feels like hogwash."
Yes I understand how you might easily come to that conclusion, but I think it is an incorrect conclusion.
Many of us who consider ourselves fans of Marvin Gaye's music consider sacred to be the correct perspective for the curators of that work. Not in a religious sense but in reverence You see Marvin Gaye was the one, the Neo of modern black music. In fact many of us consider Marvin Gaye's "What's Going On" album to be the demarcation point for the beginning of modern black music. Marvin made the last turn in black music and everything since flows directly or indirectly from that corner.
So yeah, it is kind of sacred and the Gaye children damn well better know it.
I would like to hear one response as to why, legally, a groove can be copyrighted in this case when it never has been before.
Craig
And the fact that his family can even make a case that they deserve millions of dollars for something that they had absolutely no part in making is exactly what is wrong with copyright law.
They knew exactly what they were doing when they stole it, and now they are caught and hiding behind artistic freedom.
Secondly, Marvin Gaye's music is just like any other intangible and doesn't deserve any special protection. But if you are going to steal it pays to choose your target wisely. If you rob a liquor store its just another robbery. If you rob a bank its a federal case and you are going to get a hell of a lot more resources brought to bear on your azz. Marvin Gaye is the bank. Everyday some poor schmuck who can't do anything about it gets his music stolen by someone more powerful.
@thom
"And the fact that his family can even make a case that they deserve
millions of dollars for something that they had absolutely no part in
making is exactly what is wrong with copyright law."
Where or who exactly would you suggest be the beneficiary of the millions of dollars that Marvin Gaye's music generates. See my response to Craig earlier.
This is a game of power and if you don't have any you can't play
Does this sound familiar? Is this a groove? Does this capture that seventies feel?
I am sure one of you resourceful music enthusiasts has the wherewithall to determine if Jocko's estate made any payments to the rightful copyright holder.
As for who should get the money, whoever can sell it. At this point in time I think all of Gaye's music should be in the public domain, so the family members would be free to make money off of it and so would everybody else.
Although I feel the copyright should have been up on "A Horse With No Name", too.
I feel that delicious cupcakes should be free for anybody who wants one but that's not how it works now is it.
Somebody has got to make the delicious cupcakes, and if I take the time to make delicious cupcakes then I need to be compensated fairly or I am not going to make any more delicious cupcakes, and then no one would get delicious cupcakes.
And if I make delicious cupcakes but die before I can sell them to anyone, then I want my kids to have the delicious cupcakes and decide what they want to do with the delicious cupcakes. They could eat them or sell them based on what they see as best for them.
So you and I agree, delicious cupcakes should be free for everyone, but that's not going to happen is it?
I don't think anyone is saying "Blurred Lines" isn't a ripoff. What they're saying is that it's a ripoff of the recording, not the song. The recording, which is to say the sound, the style, the groove, the audible effects of the studio's technical limitations, or whatever, is something that traditionally hasn't been protected by the state.
So, I'll assume you think it should be protected by the state, and maybe you're right - but then, in theory at least, everyone who records tangos or house or dark-ambient or thrash or speed-metal could conceivably be sued under this precedent by everyone else who recorded tracks and albums in those genres before them, because to a jury, it will all sound the same, and the originator/innovator should therefore get... what, half? It will be a licensing nightmare. And then there will be endless legal battles to decide who the innovator was in any given artistic genre, ad nauseam. If you think patent trolling is bad, wait 'til you see what groove-innovator trolling will look like.
That's what people are worried about here, I reckon. Hopefully I'm wrong, but this does strike me as a potentially landmark case, if it survives the appeals process.
So just flood your local congressman/woman with calls letting them know that you feel the TPP should be passed as soon as possible because the government should prevent anything from ever entering the public domain again. Heaven forbid that Marvin Gaye's great-great-great-grandchildren not get paid every time someone uses a syncopated cowbell.