I almost always side on the 'aping' artists in these situations...and I'm on Pharrell's side in this case. I'm just interested in exploring it a bit more.


>I understand that you are uneasy with the two songs sharing
>similar instrumentation and tonal imagery. However, Robin
>Thicke is legally permitted to use the same drum set, the same
>bass guitar, the same piano keyboard, the same cowbell, the
>same mixing board, the same effects, the same singers and any
>other tools that Marvin Gaye used in his song just as long as
>he (Thicke) is able to produce a song or composition with it's
>own unique lyric, melody and musical arrangement. In this
>case, different lyrics + different melodies + different
>musical arrangements = different songs.

Yah...from what I can tell...you're describing what the paradigm IS. But it's interesting to question whether the paradigm SHOULD be that way. In another post above...I asked whether the law emphasizes melody and composition because those elements have been deemed more valuable than other considerations...or if it's simply a matter of melody/composition being easier to objectively define. I think it's an interesting question. Why is okay to copy the 'sonics' of a pre-existing song but not the melody?


>Who can patent pitch, rhythm, harmony, timbre and tone? These
>elements were in existence and in use before any of us or our
>musical idols were born.

But it could easily be a matter of accumulation. If the pitch is the same AND the rhythm AND the timbre AND the tone...than couldn't the law draw a line that accumulates these things together to make an infringement case? This might be a crappy analogy....but I can't copywrite the following individual words....'It', 'was', 'the, 'best', 'of', 'times' 'worst'....But I can patent the sentence 'It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.' So I don't see why the law can't accumulate similarities in those various elements you listed and make a case of infringement.

>Allow me to use a non-musical example. Two separate cooks are
>allowed to bake from scratch, yellow cakes with chocolate
>icing that look and taste similar. They are also allowed to
>package them and sell them to the public as long as they do
>not share exact ingredients and identical packaging or
>anything that might blur the lines of difference between each
>cake. Where the two cakes will differ is in the balance of
>ingredients used in their creation. Both cakes will probably
>contain sugar, flour, butter, chocolate and eggs but the
>quantities of each ingredient will vary between the two. This
>means that the two cakes will wind up sharing the same taste
>and appearance while not being "exactly" the same.
>
>So it is with the two songs in question. Like the cakes
>mentioned above, they both contain the same ingredients in
>their mixes so they both have the same "flavor". This still
>doesn't mean that they are the same song because the balance
>of ingredients between the two is noticeably different.

Nah....I don't think that's a good analogy. That's a much more generalized circumstance than the one we're considering. Your example would address the a much more basic argument that 'Pharrell can't use a guitar and keyboards and drums because there's another song that exists that also uses those instruments'. A proper analogy would have a cake with VERY specific ingredients and baking instructions to account for the VERY specific elements that make these songs similar. If that makes any sense. Hahaha