Let's step back a little. The story is clearly written to trigger outrage -- really, meant to trigger your precise response. So, let's spend a google seeing if there are elements of this story that were left out due to not fitting the narrative (note: this isn't to say the decision wasn't stupid, or that you are wrong in any factual sense).
Okay, so first that that pops up is that the children of Marvin Gaye were the ones being sued. It's also revealed that Williams describes the issue in such a way that makes it sound like he wrote Blurred Lines in an hour while this Marvin Gaye song was playing in the room (just to be clear, for a typical length pop song, writing it in an hour is _remarkably, exceptionally fast_).
Now, surely this is enough to have us step back and be slightly more circumspect about this -- whatever the facts are, they are neither simple nor provided in the article. Honestly, I'd wait for a legal analysis. Lawyers are not so exceedingly stupid as to think feelings are copyrightable, and neither is the judge who issued the fines.
> (just to be clear, for a typical length pop song, writing it in an hour is _remarkably, exceptionally fast_).
I think you'd find that the vast majority of pop hits are written fairly quickly. Yes producing, recording, finishing a pop song, adding everything that makes a pop song.. pop... can take a long time. But the actual writing is literally just
1. Get an idea
2. put it into the standard pop song structure
Especially for someone like Pharrell who has probably written a hundred songs or so.
It's by no means _remarkably, exceptionally fast_.
Edit:
Look at the way Notch writes code. Yes okay, we could call it remarkably fast. But he does it consistently. It's not a surprise when he finishes a game during a game jam.
Just as I do not find it surprising that one of the most accomplished songwriters of his generation writes a song in an hour
Okay, at some point this counts as improvised. We're talking about lyrics, percussion, bass guitar and other instruments (at least in the case of Blurred Lines, where the writing of the lyrics and instrumental tracks were what was in question). Assuming you have only two hands/ears with which to write/play with the sound of, that's writing at nearly 1/2 the speed it is performed (and could be considered near-live writing if you aren't da Vinci'ing it).
Yeah, I'm a lawyer and the law is clear when it says what are the copyrightable things. A song that "reminds" of another isn't enough to be considered as a copy. If that were true, than we wouldn't have western movies or movies where a hero kills the villain to rescue an innocent girl. So, yeah, this is stupid.
You seem to be leaving out the original lawsuit was filed for a declaration of non-infringement since there were inquiries as to why they didn't pay up to license the previous song. If they felt they didn't infringe then I see nothing wrong with such a preemptive lawsuit to avoid lots of legal paperwork arguing back-and-forth, which only helps the lawyers involved. Such an inquiry would most likely lead to a lawsuit anyway. Might as well roll the dice and go straight to court to get it settled. They simply lost. There's no reason to think nefarious reasons for the first lawsuit not being filed by the children.
Plus, unless you've worked with the person, I'm not sure you have a place in suggesting how long it takes them to accomplish a task.
Finally, there are stupid outcomes to legal cases all the time. Logic and justice do not always prevail in a court of law.
Thank you! Oh if you could only package that in an app. For every article I see, I get a notation "Story elements left out that didn't fit the narrative".
The #LeftShark would be classified as a useful article if it was a costume. I dont think it was the case. I mean, the designer made it to be printed as a toy or a costume?
I knit! Learning great new things and getting handknits out of it is pretty interesting. Once you get decent skills, you can knit without thinking too much about it but it keeps your hands busy.
Something that bothers me is the fact that even though they have cried on the show and said that they were going to do something to help, if you search for them on the internet, its clear that they aren't doing anything about it! Even the girl who has a fashion blog, she is still writing about the trademarks that use this kind of abusive job to make their clothes...
Honestly, I don't think we should leave it to the occasional individual to do something about it. If we want to stop this, we should ban the import of products that do not meet our own labour standards.
We have reasonable work weeks and healthy working conditions because we fought against that exploitation. But instead of stopping it, we ended up merely exporting it; we don't make our stuff here anymore, but it's made in other countries where the conditions we had in the 19th century are still legal.
If we demand the same humane conditions from imported products as we do for locally manufactured goods, then either they get better working conditions, or we get some of those lost jobs back. Probably a bit of both. Either way, everybody wins. (Except that stuff gets a bit more expensive, but that's unavoidable when you start paying a fair price.)
Welcome to the far-left comrade! Seriously, as soon as you start looking for parties that promote this kind of social protectionism, you only see far-left group or alter-globalization groups like ATTAC.
I agree that this is the obvious thing to do, but the "Serious People" still believe that once you lower trade barriers, human rights and democracy flow as soon as funds arrive in Chinese banks.
well it is not either way everybody wins. if people in these countries don't get better working conditions and end up losing their job because of the protectionism then they are clearly worse off. workers might be better off in developed countries but if you worry about inequality then this has made inequality worse.
The EU and the US are currently working on one such "free-trade" agreement. It will make importing goods from the US easier, but it will also allow American companies to circumvent the stricter consumer protection laws in Europe (e.g. privacy laws and food regulations).
Free-trade agreements are a double-edged sword. Pretending they're universally and unambiguously beneficial by default is absurd. Especially with the amount of lobbying (including domestic companies lobbying abroad via their local subsidiaries) that influences their terms.
BTW, many Europeans don't think of these regulations (privacy laws, etc) in the EU as regulations, they think of them as rights. Facebook & co have to jump to ridiculous hoops[0] to use their business model in Europe -- for the users, that's a feature, not a bug.
I agree that this is an issue. However saying that 'everybody wins' in the scenario you just pointed out, glosses over the fact that many of theses people will lose their jobs. Considering that the vast majority of these workers work voluntarily, you have consider why they do and what they will be returning to when they've lost these jobs. For many people it will be destitution or starvation. There aren't any magic wands to be waved here.
I agree with you. I just think that those guys should take advantage of the voice that was given to them to fight for this cause. I don't see this happening.
This is probably the normal animal/human reaction: to react only when something is hurting you right now. If you take the pain away, the motivation vapors.
This is one of the design flaws of the human mind inherited from animals that causes procrastination and lack of willpower.
> to react only when something is hurting you right now. If you take the pain away, the motivation vapors.
I'm reminded of the Simpsons episode where Homer believes he's going to die after eating the poisonous part of fugu. He changes his habits to embrace the remaining part of his life. After it's miraculously revealed that he'll survive, he professes to continue with the ideal of seizing life. This was an instructional scare to never take your life or those around you for granted. Yet, the final shot of the episode is him sitting on the couch watching TV like a drone.
From a personal perspective, I find being athiest really makes me prioritise things. This is it. Today is today. I washed my hands and murdered lots of little bugs n stuff. That may be me one day. See a near car crash, think about what to do to make today significant.
Not sure what point I was trying to make really. Some days being a TV drone is OK, some days I'm tired. I don't want to spend every day tired, so I chill out today to make tomorow more epic.
It's pretty typical human behavior. We all know multiple people (or are those people) that were horrified to learn about the poisonings, child labor, suicides, 16 hour days, and other conditions involved in the making of iPhones, yet still went out and bought the new one as soon as it came out.
The were active in debates in Norway after the show. They have raised awareness. Also it is very difficult to find ethical producers of clothes. Finding info as a consumer is difficult and anything mass produced share these issues.
It is not uncommon to see this played out over and over again. Far too many feel they have done their civic duty by expressing their "feels"
It is very much the same when people vote for something, say increasing minimum wage, because the direct cost to themselves is nothing whereas the real cost is losing small businesses who cannot bare the cost of some other persons fake generosity; after its only a book store that closes.
I never expected them to do anything either. I started watching this show and didn't make it past the second episode before both me and my spouse had enough of their attitudes.
Why should the people on this show be held to any higher standard than anybody else ? I don't feel any more ill will towards these people than I feel to myself, for the same reason : I wear clothes like these.
They're very spoiled brats imo. There are kids that age who recognize the problems with inequality in the world and have far better attitudes than those kids.
Am I supposed to be surprised that a vapid chick continues being vapid?
Most people, especially in the USA, think that we are all unique people that make the world what we want; but they don't have the capacity to realize (usually for reflexive reasons) that they are far more a product of systemic forces than anything else.
It's kind of like swimming against a stream, sure, you are swimming and we are all very fascinated by your swimming prowess, but, ultimately, you are still going wherever the stream wants to take you, you're just looking the wrong direction and fooling yourself.
