Jump to content

Recommended Posts

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Most other songs don't make $15m though.

>

> Were it not for this, no-one would give a tinker's

> cuss, not even the Gaye estate.


I believe Thick, never has a man been more appropriately named, brought the law suit against the Gaye estate for having the bare faced cheek to accuse him of plagiarism.

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We seem to be more outraged by cultures that deny women education and the freedom to drive

> for example than we do by a culture that makes mobile phone porn accessible to children.


Am I missing your drift here or are you saying that's a bad thing?


I'm always bewildered that films are forced to remove a scene with nudity, but are allowed to keep the dozen or so violent murders.

Parkdrive Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I believe Thick, never has a man been more

> appropriately named, brought the law suit against

> the Gaye estate for having the bare faced cheek to

> accuse him of plagiarism.


Ah yeah - you're probably right. I never did know grasp how the weird US litigative process works. I expect not doing so would have been seen as an admission of guilt of something.


Anyway, the antidote to 'Blurred Lines' is 'Sexual Healing'. It should be played repeatedly on every radio station until the horror of Thicke and 'Hatstand' Pharrell's effort fades into nothing.

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Blah Blah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > We seem to be more outraged by cultures that

> deny women education and the freedom to drive

> > for example than we do by a culture that makes

> mobile phone porn accessible to children.

>

> Am I missing your drift here or are you saying

> that's a bad thing?

>

> I'm always bewildered that films are forced to

> remove a scene with nudity, but are allowed to

> keep the dozen or so violent murders.



No not saying it's a bad thing at all. Just wish we could be equally outraged.


Agree on the nudity versus violence thing.

Parkdrive Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> *Bob* Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Most other songs don't make $15m though.

> >

> > Were it not for this, no-one would give a tinker's

> > cuss, not even the Gaye estate.

>

> I believe Thick, never has a man been more appropriately named, brought the law suit against

> the Gaye estate for having the bare faced cheek to accuse him of plagiarism.


Apparently that is due to some weirdness in the US legal system to do with burden of proof. It's not uncommon.


It's interesting that you blame Thicke. The Guardian did this as well - reams of articles about how Thicke was responsible for this 'sexist' song, whilst (often simultaneously) producing articles praising Pharrell. Had the Daily Mail done it the other way around...

Still lost his share of the dosh, though.


Anyway, here's a little taster of the court cases to have been and maybe some to come. At least in most of these I can hear the similarities (Air That I Breathe and Creep was pushing it though).


http://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/quiz/2015/mar/11/blurred-lines-marvin-gaye-copyright-plagiarism-sounds-like-quiz

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I've just watched it on YouTube, and personally I

> don't find the lyrics offensive. What I do find

> offensive, is Robin Thicke's dancing.


Which version of the video did you watch, Louisa? There are two...

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Parkdrive Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I believe Thick, never has a man been more

> > appropriately named, brought the law suit

> against

> > the Gaye estate for having the bare faced cheek

> to

> > accuse him of plagiarism.

>

> Ah yeah - you're probably right. I never did know

> grasp how the weird US litigative process works. I

> expect not doing so would have been seen as an

> admission of guilt of something.

>


"Anyway, the antidote to 'Blurred Lines' is 'Sexual Healing'. It should be played repeatedly on every radio station until the horror of Thicke and 'Hatstand' Pharrell's effort fades into nothing."



Now that's a petition i'd sign. I fact I may start one right now.

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Still lost his share of the dosh, though.


Ultimately whilst the elements of a song are split 50/50 between lyrical and musical content - you can't separate one from the other when it comes to copyright.


Its Pharrell's fault. He produced it - and it's the production elements (and the song's slightly unexpected massive success) that did for them. Everyone still ends-up with a stack of cash though (Universal incurred nearly 6m in what they describe as 'overhead' - genuis), so not too many tears to be shed.

My feeling right from the off was that - regardless of the notes, chords etc; the core of it - the spirit or whatever you want to call it - just feels like too much of a lift.


With that sort of cash floating around, it was kind of inevitable. It's the sort of thing you'd usually expect to see settled out of court, had Team Thicke not to chance their arm.

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's called the "unrated version" Loz and he seems

> to be wearing a suite with sunglasses.


Ahhh. Try the 'unrated version'. I'll PM you a link. Clue: it's not what he's wearing.


Basically, they purposely set out to make the video as sexist as possible. They kind of succeeded.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Why on earth is there so much interest, and negativity, after a 100 days of a Labour government when we had 1000s of days of dreadful government before this with hardly a chat on this Website?  What is it that is suddenly so much greater interest? Here's part of a list of what they have done in a 100 days - it's from a Labour MP so obviously there is some bias, and mainly new Bills so yet to deliver/put into law.  This reminds me of the US election where the popular view was that Biden had achieved nothing, rather than leading the recovery after Covid, a fairer tax system, housing, supporting workers, dealing with community unrest following high profile racist incidents,  So if we think Starmer is ineffective and Labour incompetent then we are all going to believe it? I do feel sick after seeing Clarkson on Newsnight, playing to the gallery.  Surely Trump must have a high profile role for him on the environment and climate change  
    • Hi looking for a shed for my allotment. Can pick up
    • But do you not understand how tough farming is, especially post-Brexit when some of the subsidies were lost and costs have increased massively yet the prices farmers can charge has not? On the BBC News tonight they said pig farming costs had gone up 54% since 2019, cow farming costs up 44% and cereal costs up 43%. The NFU said that the margins are on average 0.5% return on capital. Land and buildings are assets that don't make money until you sell them...it's what you do with them that makes money and farms are struggling to make money and so many farms are generational family businesses so never realise the assets (one farmers on the news said his farm had been in the family since 1822) but will have to to pay tax for continuing the family business. On another news item tonight there was a short piece saying the government has said that 50,000 more pensioners will be forced into relative poverty (60% of the average income) due to the Winter Fuel Allowance removal which will rise to 100,000 more by 2027. James Murray from the Treasury was rolled out on Newsnight to try and defend that and couldn't. You can't give doctors 20%+ and push more pensioners into poverty as a result.  The problem for Labour is the court of public opinion will judge them and right now the jury is out after a series of own-goals, really poor communication and ill-thought-out idealogical policies. And don't ever annoy the farmers.....;-)  
    • That % of “affected” doesn’t mean they are all in deep trouble.  It means this will touch on them in some small way mostly - apart from the biggest farms  it’s like high rate tax earners taking to the street when Osborne dragged child/benefit claimants into self assessment.  A mild pain  the more I read, the more obviously confected it is. Still - just as with farage and his banking “woes”, a social media campaign is no barrier to the gullible  what percentage of farms affected by Brexit and to what degree compared go IHT?  Or does that not matter? Thats different money is it? 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...