As Blurred Lines Trial Starts, Take A Listen To The Special 'Copyright Only' Remix That Jurors Will Hear
from the everybody-get-midi dept
A few weeks ago, we noted how the copyright case over whether or not Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke violated the copyright of Marvin Gaye with their song "Blurred Lines" was getting interesting, as it started to explore the somewhat blurry lines between what's actually covered by a copyright and what's not. Under the 1909 Act, under which Marvin Gaye's "Got to Give it Up" was recorded, only the specific sheet music is covered by the copyright, not the sound recording itself. And that represented a problem, since the Gaye Estate's attorneys wanted to play the original song, which has a number of similarities to Blurred Lines. But many of those similarities -- including the bass line and the party atmosphere in the background -- are not actually a part of the copyright covered composition. Thus, the judge told the Gaye family to figure out some way to create a recording that only included the copyright covered parts.The EFF's Parker Higgins predicted that such a recording "likely sounds like the MIDI version that auto-played on a Geocities home page, or a rendition by the animatronic band at Chuck E. Cheese." Well, the enterprising folks over at Ratter got their hands on the recording so that you can take a listen too:
The trial is currently going on and jury selection is certainly interesting, as they're asking people what kind of music they listen to and what they think of the famous video for "Blurred Lines" that included a bunch of naked models....
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: blurred lines, copyright, marvin gaye, pharrell williams, robin thicke
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
it will be glorious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And this has already been written about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No actually they sound very, very similar. I know that's not the point legaly but if you play both together at the same time (soundcloud won't let you - I downloaded both and played them through DJ mixing software) they match perfectly.
Bass rhythm, overall key, voice - in pitch and overall style, quick rapid short chord changes that match in key and changes. Even the the mid-range organ bassline matches, in timbre, sound and rhythm.
The two tunes played together overall sounds like that rare two records that are a mix DJ's dream - It's like they were designed to be play at the same time.
Now before you all jump down my throat, remember I'm not on Gaye Estate's side in anyway. I'm just being objective ( I am a musician) but the fact is Blurred Lines is pretty much based on Got to Give it Up.
I'm not saying it's wrong. But to say "they certainly sound quite different" is certainly wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This, of course, is of no use when comparing the two works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But, unrelated to that, one key point: the timbre and sound of things like the organ have nothing to do with this, and are not even the sounds from the original songs. They sound similar probably because they are both being played by the same MIDI instrument. But this is entirely about the notes, not the instruments playing them or anything specific about a given recording, which is the whole reason for this stripping-down exercise in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No... have you been following this case at all? The whole point of this dispute, and the whole reason these MIDI versions were made in the first place, is that the Gaye estate only holds copyright on the sheet music, not on the recording or any recorded elements like the specific style of instruments or their sound.
Moreover, these two examples are not the original songs — they are played on the same MIDI generator, using the same MIDI organ. So of course they sound the same. And of course that has nothing to do with this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"But this is entirely about the notes" Well if it was, then they would have a fair case for IP protection. Just as a book is all about the words, you can protect that.
"not the instruments playing them" Very true. Instruments don't play "them" unless of course they are programed to (very different caN OF WORMS)not the instruments playing them
"or anything specific about a given recording, which is the whole reason for this stripping-down exercise in the first place" Not quite that simple mate.
. But this is entirely about the notes, not the instruments playing them or anything specific about a given recording, which is the whole reason for this stripping-down exercise in the first place.
The or anything specific about a given recording, which is the whole reason for this stripping-down exercise in the first place.
or anything specific about a given recording, which is the whole reason for this stripping-down exercise in the first place. The Beastie Boys would like a word, like a word.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcy-MmpTkek
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This should be pretty easy to defend, as others have pointed out, but I can totally see the defense team f*cking it up, and allowing a confused jury to find in favor of the the plaintiff based on the clips "sounding similar." Hopefully not...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And yes, this is entirely about the composition, and nobody is saying that means there's no ground for copyright. THey are saying nothing that Thicke did infringes on the composition of the original.
What is your point about the Beastie Boys? That there have been other disputes where the recording does matter? Because nobody is denying that. This is a situation where it doesn't matter because the original work was copyrighted before it was possible to copyright recordings, and thus the copyright only covers the composition.
Honestly, it seems like you haven't read even the first thing about this case. You are ignoring all its key aspects.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Did you not understand that because I used the wrong word, or are you just being difficult for fun?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wereisjessicahyde
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The first one sounds like the Blurred Lines music with the Gaye vocals, and the second one sounds like the Blurred Lines vocals with something other than the Blurred Lines musice (maybe the Gaye music?).
That's hardly useful in comparing the two songs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ugh. Hate Facts. But if facts must be bandied: Bandy this: weren't two different performers singing from the SAME SHEET MUSIC? How could they not sound sorta similar? And if they're both vamping a bass in the same "style" (I use the word very loosely), wouldn't the vamped basses sound sorta similar? OK, very similar? Without any necessity to make an assumption (not fact) that one is based on the other?
Not based on each other. Based on the same base, which was the sheet music.
Is there something difficult about this concept?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sound the same?
Just have someone sing "The Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner" to the tune of the theme song of "Gilligan's Island," and a ton of Emily Dickinson's poetry, and then again Emily's poetry and "Yellow Rose of Texas."
The lawyers should be able to connect the dots from there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sound the same?
Sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sound the same?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1) hating these guys for potentially blocking other artists from being able to make a living.
2) hoping they win and the music industry grinds to a halt as lawyers search for bits of music that sound similar.
In fact the the anticipation to see (2) come to fruition is almost unbearable.
To see all markets saturated and no further practical way for the Big industries to peddle their stuff.
Mostly because I want to see what they'd do at that point, force us to buy their s**t at gunpoint?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blurred Lines
I have not read the pleadings in this case, so I don't know where the parties stand on state law issues, but readers should be aware that there are State © Laws that are not pre-empted by Federal law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]