Do you agree with the “Blurred Lines” verdict?

The jury has spoken! If you haven’t heard, a lawsuit recently found Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams guilty of copyright infringement, as their hit song “Blurred Lines” has proven to be too similar in composition to Marvin Gaye’s classic 1977 song “Got To Give It Up”.

The results of this lawsuit sparked interest in the music world, of course because of the popularity of each song, but also because there are believers that Thicke and Williams aren’t guilty of any wrongdoing. They’ve argued that the similarities between the songs are on a R&B genre and style level, not on a composition level—but the jury thinks otherwise.

Thicke and Williams have to pay $7.4M to the Gaye family as a result of the lawsuit. But now, the Gayes also want a federal judge to prohibit all future sales, distribution and performances of “Blurred Lines”.

Marvin Gaye’s children, Nona, Frankie, and Marvin III, published an open letter explaining their reasoning. It’s a very interesting read in terms of understanding what happened with the lawsuit, since Thicke and Williams were actually the ones who brought the Gaye family to court.

The open letter has heavy meaning in terms of creating music in the future. If the results of this lawsuit will be applied to all future music creation, then musicians who try to emulate a style connected to a certain genre or time period will be in trouble. Take reggae for example—almost all reggae songs use similar stylistic elements and lyrics that fit them into the reggae genre. The Sleng Teng Riddim, for example, has been used at least 380 times in different songs.

Do you agree with the “Blurred Lines” verdict, which found Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams guilty of copyright infringement? Vote below! Add your comments too!

Ownership Matters: Buyer Beware!

Did you read the Terms and Conditions?

It’s no secret that Terms and Conditions are subject to change. When you buy licensed content online—whether it’s music, movies, or some other media—your access to that content is always at risk.

Take this for example: Online gamers were able to buy full songs within a virtual social networking game created by IMVU, Inc. Later on, all the songs were truncated to 20-second clips, resulting in a lawsuit filed by Peter MacKinnon, Jr., a gamer who was upset that all the songs he paid money for were shortened. This instance shows how the uncertain future of licensed content can make your initial investment wasted if the terms change, or don’t protect you.

IMVU argued that since MacKinnon accepted the terms, he has no property rights to claim.

And that’s just it—MacKinnon accepted the terms, so it’s perfectly legal for the gaming company to do whatever they want with the songs he bought if that’s what the terms say. That doesn’t change the fact that, well… he got screwed, and everyone can see that!

We all read and understand the fine print all the time, right?

As a music fan, it’s a problem when your rights are dictated by often complex and flexible terms and not good old-fashioned property rights. The terms of buying licensed content are making this a “buyer beware” world—which seems worse than a world where what you buy is legally yours in a way you understand, forever and unchanged, across vendors and services.

If you want to buy music and have it always be yours, it’s great to go with ownable formats like CDs and vinyl. A lot of people dig digital music, and so do we—which is we built our service to provide you digital download and streaming access to a physical collection you own. The CDs you buy on Murfie and send to Murfie will always remain yours—so no fear here if our terms change. Ownership has got you covered.