KVR Audio

elxsound · Post by **elxsound** » Sun Aug 25, 2013 6:29 am

Uncle E wrote:
elxsound wrote:Here's a group that beat them all to that
Not bad. They're no Robin Thicke, of course.

Look... on a serious note (and no not taking our conversation here too serious) but what an ass.

I just have to vent this one...

These guys have money, connections AND talent. Why ripoff a classic and then sue the Marvin Gaye family. The least they could have done is wait to be sued. That would have been bottom line, but then again why expect courtesy after they copied it in the first place.

trimph1 · Post by **trimph1** » Sun Aug 25, 2013 12:40 pm

elxsound wrote:
Uncle E wrote:
elxsound wrote:Here's a group that beat them all to that
Not bad. They're no Robin Thicke, of course.

Look... on a serious note (and no not taking our conversation here too serious) but what an ass.

I just have to vent this one...

These guys have money, connections AND talent. Why ripoff a classic and then sue the Marvin Gaye family. The least they could have done is wait to be sued. That would have been bottom line, but then again why expect courtesy after they copied it in the first place.

I still think it was an effective cover of that piece.

But...the lawsuit is just, to me anyways, another PR stunt.

aMUSEd · Post by **aMUSEd** » Sun Aug 25, 2013 12:53 pm

What a shitty song, I guess they put in the tits for people who couldn't be bothered to listen to the whole thing (tbh the sexism just makes it even shittier)

trimph1 · Post by **trimph1** » Sun Aug 25, 2013 1:03 pm

aMUSEd wrote:What a shitty song, I guess they put in the tits for people who couldn't be bothered to listen to the whole thing (tbh the sexism just makes it even shittier)

Think PR stunt...yuck.

aMUSEd · Post by **aMUSEd** » Mon Aug 26, 2013 12:10 am

Having listened to a few bars of it at least I don't think it's anything like that Gaye song. So I guess the real agenda behind this PR stunt is in order to associate their crappy song with a soul legend in the public eye (because nothing else is going to).

ZenPunkHippy · Post by **ZenPunkHippy** » Mon Aug 26, 2013 12:42 am

aMUSEd wrote:Having listened to a few bars of it at least I don't think it's anything like that Gaye song. So I guess the real agenda behind this PR stunt is in order to associate their crappy song with a soul legend in the public eye (because nothing else is going to).

*COUGH*

You cannot be too cynical these days

... and here we are ... once again ... doing the PR work for them

GRRRRRRRRRRR!

highkoo · Post by **highkoo** » Mon Aug 26, 2013 12:59 am

aMUSEd wrote:Having listened to a few bars of it at least I don't think it's anything like that Gaye song. So I guess the real agenda behind this PR stunt is in order to associate their crappy song with a soul legend in the public eye (because nothing else is going to).

And that is only the second prong!

Later, Thicke&Label will spin it all around and get publicity for being the good guys by paying Gaye's estate before being sued.

A stipulation for the payment will be a press conference wherein someone from the estate says they are 'happy', or 'proud', even. Might even mention 'legacy', or 'talent'.

Thicke will be wearing sunglasses.

So then he looks like a real stand up guy;
He is inspired, and endorsed, by some unquestionable classic stuff, and, he is willing to pay for it.
Cha-ching!
Hire me!

Uncle E · Post by **Uncle E** » Mon Aug 26, 2013 7:00 am

Here's what I posted to NPR:

"Shame on you, NPR, for baiting controversy just because an artist isn't on your cool list. When Coldplay much more blatantly sounded like Joe Satriani, you not only gave the article the neutral title (relative to this one) of "Did Colplay Plagiarize Guitarist Joe Satriani?" but you brought in an expert to defend Colplay.

Furthermore, shame on you for not educating your audience on copyright law. You write "it sounds so much like the Marvin Gaye song" when, in fact, the melody and lyrics are considerably different, which is most of what is copyrightable in American law. There isn't even any unlawful use of the sound recording (aka sampling). Quite frankly, there is nothing here the requires defending and it is only because of the ridiculously litigious society we've crafted for ourselves, which could unfairly hold the artist and their record label hostage while they fight to clear their names, that this kind of preemptive lawsuit even exists."

Let's see if their moderator lets it through.

rifftrax · Post by **rifftrax** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 7:33 pm

Tricky-Loops wrote:After all my experiences I wouldn't trust any lawyer. Most of them don't care about other people. Money is all they need.

I've consulted with (and know) a number of lawyers that aren't like this. There are divas like there are in any field of course, you've likely just gotten unlucky honestly.

deastman wrote:Rhythm is not covered by copyright.

I would love to see a legal source or precedent example where you can back that up.

debra1rlo · Post by **debra1rlo** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 7:37 pm

ZenPunkHippy wrote:
aMUSEd wrote:Having listened to a few bars of it at least I don't think it's anything like that Gaye song. So I guess the real agenda behind this PR stunt is in order to associate their crappy song with a soul legend in the public eye (because nothing else is going to).
*COUGH*

You cannot be too cynical these days

... and here we are ... once again ... doing the PR work for them

GRRRRRRRRRRR!

OMFG we were TWERKED!!!

trimph1 · Post by **trimph1** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 8:09 pm

debra1rlo wrote:
ZenPunkHippy wrote:
aMUSEd wrote:Having listened to a few bars of it at least I don't think it's anything like that Gaye song. So I guess the real agenda behind this PR stunt is in order to associate their crappy song with a soul legend in the public eye (because nothing else is going to).
*COUGH*

You cannot be too cynical these days

... and here we are ... once again ... doing the PR work for them

GRRRRRRRRRRR!
OMFG we were TWERKED!!!

Twerking is as Twerking does.

debra1rlo · Post by **debra1rlo** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 8:11 pm

trimph1 wrote:
debra1rlo wrote:
ZenPunkHippy wrote:
aMUSEd wrote:Having listened to a few bars of it at least I don't think it's anything like that Gaye song. So I guess the real agenda behind this PR stunt is in order to associate their crappy song with a soul legend in the public eye (because nothing else is going to).
*COUGH*

You cannot be too cynical these days

... and here we are ... once again ... doing the PR work for them

GRRRRRRRRRRR!
OMFG we were TWERKED!!!
Twerking is as Twerking does.

a twerk in the hand is worth two in the bush

BMoore · Post by **BMoore** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 8:21 pm

You need to get you head out of your ass, if you don't think those two songs are like.

And check Robin Thicke - Million Bollar Baby, and compare it to Marvin Gaye's Trouble Man.

It may be a legit cover, I don't know. But this Thicke dude has a thing for Marvin Gaye.

Uncle E · Post by **Uncle E** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 8:23 pm

debra1rlo wrote:a twerk in the hand is worth two in the bush

Whatever floats your fancy...

Uncle E · Post by **Uncle E** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 8:36 pm

BMoore wrote:You need to get you head out of your ass, if you don't think those two songs are like.

Of course they sound alike. That doesn't make it copyright infringement.

But this Thicke dude has a thing for Marvin Gaye.

Look, Thicke is a complete douche. If that were the only thing insinuated by the NPR article, this discussion would have stopped immediately. The Gaye family may well have LOTS of opportunities to take action against the guy and win, I just don't think they would win in the case of "Blurred Lines"

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