Thursday, March 26, 2015

"Blurred Copyrights" and Plagiarism

In the increasing fractured world of covers, samples and digital remixes and an increasingly fractured music business the idea of paying royalties out has become murky and the recent "Blurred Lines" case brought things to the forefront again.
Pitchfork has an article on the case written by writer/artist Damon Krukowski who agrees with the ruling but not necessarily the financial settlement which is 7.4 million dollars. He makes some interesting points, but I for one do not feel sorry for the Thicke/Williams/TI side of this one. Would it be super hard to have credited Gaye as a writer or given him credit/his family money before this went all the way to court and a settlement? (Quick side-note, we highlighted Gaye in our Full Show Friday's earlier this month).

One of the more surprising things I learned from Krukowski's piece is there is yet ANOTHER Led Zeppelin rip off issue?! The last time copyrights were discussed on the site, Zeppelin were the main focal point. We pointed out 4 songs of theirs, huge hits, where no credit was given and now there is a case for "Dazed and Confused" too?!?!
Unreal. Our dislike for LZ grows by the day. Is it that funking hard to credit someone else regarding songs when you take inspiration, or at times clearly more, from? Oh well. 


  1. Sam Smith just had to give Tom Petty 15% from one of his songs and what was funny was when the first time Jen played the album, I asked her if it was a cover of Petty's. It was that obvious. I thought his whole album was covers when I listened to it. Not hard to give credit when it is due

    1. There are only so many notes to play, but when you are taking a full song, at least give a nod to who it's "inspired" by. I never heard the Smith song, just listened to, he took a killer song and made it boring as hell. Tom had an interesting take on the deal: