Your opinion: Was "Blurred Lines" plagiarized?

Not plagiarized.

It was most definitely plagiarized.

Thank you Matt... I watched reports on the news as well as read about this online. I didn't know that they compared the sheet music. Interesting!

You the hottest bitch in the place.

Jay... I actually thought the same thing. It isn't unheard of for a composer to create the music but not be able to write the sheet music.

Virtually every song is documented on sheet music, if not for copyright and licensing, then for the musicians involved. These are often used for commercial arrangements written for anything from piano/vocal/guitar to marching bands to choruses. Hundreds of recording artists can't read or notate music. But only really stupid recording artists never have it documented.

---

Yeah, I guessed there was probably sheet music - but when you said it wan't subjective, that the sheet music was definitive, I was just wondering aloud if, in the case of them not transcribing it themselves, it could become a bone of contention.

I guess I have enough problems of my own without worrying about these millionaires, though.

---

The songs have some similarities, but are different enough. Different vocal melodies and lyrics, different chord patterns, and the recordings are in different keys. I honestly don't believe that Pharrell or Robin intentionally plagiarized Gaye. To me, the whole thing smells like a big money grab by Gaye's family.

And if the songs are so much alike, how come I like the one, and not the other?

---

Updated On: 3/11/15 at 07:36 PM

The legal standard in the fourth prong is if there is "substantial similarity between your work and the defendant's work." Substantial similarity isn't the same as being exactly the same or "sampling" the actual piece as that's a totally different type of plagiarism. I guess it turned out that the differences in "lyrics, vocal melodies, keys, and chord patterns" didn't seem different enough to outweigh the "substantial" similarities between the two as I'm sure what you're saying about the differences were factual claims that were in dispute by the parties.

I don't know enough to say whether in this case I'd agree with the jury, but I'm sure both sides produced expert testimony.

As to why you like one and not the other...well, I can come up with a few reasons, but there's tons of examples of songs sampling major parts of older songs (with permission) and people saying they like one recording but not the other.

Except didn't Robin Thicke say it right out loud that they directly ripped it off?

---

I find that NYTimes article intriguing because although it makes pretty good arguments as to why copyright law needs to be updated, it doesn't argue against the fact that the compositions on paper really are similar. Yes, pop music (and modern music in general) is much more than that, but it's hard to argue that there was no plagiarism involved if the skeleton of both songs is significantly similar.

Even if the copyright laws need updating, I doubt it will completely invalidate the compositions completely as Mr. Caramancia is suggesting. I also think Mr. Caramancia emphasizes certain things and deemphasizes others that are probably similarly important to try to make his point. That's fine, of course, but that's far from being conclusive without valid counter-arguments. I'm sure the Gaye Estate provided their own music experts that would argue with what he thinks is important and not important in music writing.

I also think his dig against the Marvin Gaye Estate is a bit mean-spirited because he, like another poster here who suggested that they wanted to money grab, ignores the fact that Pharrell and Robin Thicke started this whole mess by preemptively suing Marvin Gaye's Estate and the Estate in turn counter-sued. So I don't think they are the type who will just go after people (like he suggested they are with his Prince line).

Off-topic a bit, but I've read elsewhere from other writers, who don't like this decision, that this will set a bad precedent and will have a chilling effect on music. Yeah right. People are sued all the time to mixed results. The really frivolous lawsuits tend to lose. Plus, jury verdicts don't set precedents. They don't interpret the law nor do they change legal standards. What they do is entirely factual and is wholly dependent on lay and expert testimony, admitted evidence, and the attorneys' arguments. So maybe this decision might make a plaintiff rethink their legal strategy and turn down a settlement and instead go to trial. However, this verdict won't determine how a jury in that hypothetical future case will decide since they are presented with a totally different set of facts to weigh.

Updated On: 3/12/15 at 02:31 AM