Of course, I wanna talk about the case. The Blurred Lines case.
I have been keeping my mouth shut and reading the press for the past few days, just hoping to make sense of all things associate with the case. Especially when it’s a contemporary hit with an all time legend, who wouldn’t wanna know what’s going on?
Ironically, like the song title, there are surely lots of blurred lines in this case. First, I have always been a little puzzled about how the current copyright law works when the last author die. The current copyright law says that the copyright of the song last until the death of last surviving writer plus 70 years. I’m all for the life of the last surviving writer part, but I have been curious about how the following 70 years plays out in reality. And honestly, 70 years is a hell of long time. We have seen in history that these copyrights have been handed to people who only use them for exploiting money. Some of them aren’t so creative. Some of them can be a little greedy. This is not what copyright should be about; however, I’ve seen it happen again and again in contemporary music history. Once I was upset that the copyright of Amy Winehouse’s music was partly handed to her father. And now, it appears that the Gaye family rely on Marvin’s music for livelihood, which I have always been wondering if it’s really fair.
Money is not even the worst part. The thing that really wowed me was that, put aside the $7.3m, the Gaye family “seek an injunction prohibiting the further sale and distribution of the track.” WOAH, wait a minute. That crossed the line a little, didn’t it? I mean, the Gaye family is in it for the money, obviously. Ok, you got your $7.3m. That’s a lot, even for a hit song. Songwriters these days aren’t making zillions of dollars, not anymore, especially with the whole digital business we have now, which is still in heated debates. And again, it’s one damn song. What is that all about?
Another interesting thing I read in Bob Lefsetz’s journal about this case was that, the verdict was granted by a Californian jury. The key word is “jury.” The juries are different from a judge. As Lefsetz rightly points out, “… juries are notorious for going for feelings / running on emotions.” It reminds me how much a stir Blurred Lines made on social media couple of years back when it first came out. The song has a terrible message. It’s sexist as hell. It’s about seducing and sweet-talking women into sex in a really demeaning way. If the lyrics of this song translate into in real life conversation, it’s called sexual harassment. I didn’t even know that I can love and hate a song so much at the same time. As much as I enjoy the rhythm and the throwback vibe of the song, the lyrics throw me off so much that I sometime hate myself listening to it. I would be so ashamed, as a young woman, to say that I like the song.
And when I think about it, if I were one of the juries, I would’ve made the same decision based on my emotion, even just to make people stop making these songs. But I know it’s not gonna happen. They are gonna do it again, and again. We’re up for a long battle.
My conclusion is also much align with Bob Lefsetz’s. Everyone is in it for their own interest. There’s really no clear line of which way is really just or fair. The two songs sound incredibly similar in terms of rhythm, vibe, singing style, maybe even the bass line a little bit, but are they really the same song? I personally don’t find much similarities between the two songs in terms of lyrics and melody, which are the two main things the copyright law protects. Oh well, but because it’s a jury, and if the lawyers of Thicke and Williams knew any better, they really should’ve settled.
Music Week’s press release about the Blurred Lines case http://www.musicweek.com/news/read/marvin-gaye-s-family-awarded-7-3m-in-blurred-lines-trial/061118
Bob Lefsetz’s journal about the Blurred Lines case http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2015/03/10/the-blurred-lines-decision/