KVR Audio

trimph1 · Post by **trimph1** » Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:30 pm

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/08/ ... yes-family

Definitely weird times...

Tricky-Loops · Post by **Tricky-Loops** » Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:43 pm

...as preemptive strike...

tapper mike · Post by **tapper mike** » Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:48 pm

Oh npr is making that up.

Seriously, what a joke. The Gaye family now has more ammunition to go after Thicke with. It'll be a huge court drama with lots of lawyers making lots of money and who ever is presiding over the case will have undue attention from both the major publishing labels and the federal courts.

ntom · Post by **ntom** » Fri Aug 23, 2013 12:22 am

I heard about this, but now I am confused.
Is it the new pop artist suing the family of the old pop artist? or the other way around....if it's the first that this is REALLY dumb.

Tricky-Loops · Post by **Tricky-Loops** » Fri Aug 23, 2013 12:26 am

ntom wrote:I heard about this, but now I am confused.
Is it the new pop artist suing the family of the old pop artist? or the other way around....if it's the first that this is REALLY dumb.

The first, as preemptive strike because they're afraid of getting sued by the Gaye family...

ntom · Post by **ntom** » Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:17 am

Tricky-Loops wrote:
ntom wrote:I heard about this, but now I am confused.
Is it the new pop artist suing the family of the old pop artist? or the other way around....if it's the first that this is REALLY dumb.
The first, as preemptive strike because they're afraid of getting sued by the Gaye family...

toothnclaw · Post by **toothnclaw** » Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:51 am

So they are doing this:

Thicke and the other plaintiffs don't want money; they want the court to rule that "Blurred Lines" does not infringe on "Got to Give It Up."

to prevent this:

Members of Marvin Gaye's family have reportedly been asking for a cash settlement and threatening to sue, according to the Hollywood Reporter, which broke the story.

because:

The intent in producing "Blurred Lines" was to evoke an era. In reality, the Gaye defendants are claiming ownership of an entire genre, as opposed to a specific work.

Seems reasonable to me!

rifftrax · Post by **rifftrax** » Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:54 am

Actually, this is a perfectly logical legal maneuver. Essentially what it does is allow you to bring any potential lawsuit into the jurisdiction of where-ever the plantiff (in this case, that's a bit of a misnomer but essentially the person or group actually filing the case) resides or primarily does business in. You can only do it (however) if another party has threatened to sue or has intimates that they intent to do so at some time. It's a bit like home court advantage. I remember reading about it in a law book I had.

Apparently no lawyers here I guess.

Knowledge is power. Anyway.

A.M. Gold · Post by **A.M. Gold** » Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:59 am

It's still a boring song, and completely inferior to anything Gaye or Motown ever did. You can't sue that away.

Even if you have a bunch of nice titties in the video.

bronxsound · Post by **bronxsound** » Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:36 am

Titties of the year - no objections.
Song of the year - you must be kidding me.

Kriminal · Post by **Kriminal** » Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:50 am

Spot the old farts moaning about modern music....

debra1rlo · Post by **debra1rlo** » Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:50 pm

I feel bad now because I'm not a lawyer.

tapper mike · Post by **tapper mike** » Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:58 pm

The Defendants (Gaye Estate) may have a rough road on that one.

Especially both parts of Fogerty vs Fantasy.
Fogerty had proved to the courts that "Run through the jungle was not the same as "Old Man Down the Road."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogerty_v._Fantasy

Furthermore, preventing infringement is not the sole goal of the copyright law. To be sure, it is one goal, but it is not the only one, nor even the most important. "Creative work is to be encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an author's creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good." For this reason, it is just as important to encourage the litigation of meritorious defenses to copyright as it is to encourage the litigation of infringement cases in the first place.

awol9000 · Post by **awol9000** » Fri Aug 23, 2013 4:59 pm

I don't know how Blurred lines DOESN"T infringe. The beat is exactly the same as Gayes.

Come on Music label - get the clearance before release!

Compyfox · Post by **Compyfox** » Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:07 pm

toothnclaw wrote:Seems reasonable to me!

To me as well. Claiming that a whole music "genre" belongs to one family, and others can be sued up and down, would open doors for other idiots pulling the same.

This would ultimately destroy the whole music world. At least this is what I get out of the article.

Now imagine descendants of Mozart sueing every musician that is only scratching the surface of classic music - because "Mozard sculpted a specific genre".

How stupid is that?!

Copying part of a song however (as in form of sampling) without clearing rights, lies on a whole different ballpark. But with modern technology (and ton of knowledge!) it is possible to recreate such a vintage sound without sampling anything.

Honestly...You Can't Make This Up!!!