>he is saying that the western standard for copyright
>infringement is wromg.

This.

I think it's pretty obvious that this BL/GTGIU case doesn't satisfy the standard. So the jury's decision is wrong.

But at the same time....I'm wondering if artists like Robin Thicke have basically found a technical loophole that has been enabling them to act in a way that is counter to the 'spirit' of copywrite infringement laws.

The fact is.....the Marvin song isn't 'defined' by it's chords and melodies. It's defined by it's groove and sonic texture. Or more specifically, the arrangement and the engineering. That's what makes it what it is. Not it's compositional component. And that's the very part that they stole. Arguably, the 'heart' of the song.

Another angle of this debate....perhaps someone does the inverse of what Pharrel did and DOES steal the actual notes/melody and chords of GTGIU. But they completely change the engineering and arrangement. A completely different rhythm....different instruments (a cello instead of a electric piano bassline, an orchestra drum kit....a string section etc)....turn it into a sad song. Strangely, that song would be LESS recognizable as being derivitive of GTGIU than BL is. Noone would probably even notice.

I think what the problem here....and we've had this discussion in various manifestations here....is that the 'standard' for satisfying copywrite infringement is not conduscive to all genres of music. It doesn't address the 'spirit' of intention that the law is supposed to serve.

Any musician knows.....it is alot easier to use all the production techniques (arrangement and engineering) of GTGIU and simply change the chords and melodies than to do the inverse. I contend that the inverse is actually more creative and less recognizable as 'theft'....yet THAT'S the scenario that infringes the law. And artists are hip to their ability to do that....essentially ducking the intention of the law because it's not designed to address music that emphasizes production over composition.