I don't know if it will stand, but I think it's a terrible decision as far
as the law is concerned.

The Hollywood Reporter has a very good rundown on the points in dispute in
the copyright of the lead sheets, some of which are absurd:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/how-similar-is-blurred-lines-778635

The LA Weekly summed it up well:

*By all accounts, the attorneys and experts for Gaye’s estate didn’t really
prove, by any previously agreed-upon legal definition, that “Blurred Lines”
infringed upon the copyright of “Got to Give It Up.” All they proved,
according to the Hollywood Reporter
<http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/how-similar-is-blurred-lines-778635>,
were similarities in the two songs’ “signature phrase,” “hook,”
“keyboard-bass interplay,” “lyrics” (though this was thematic, not literal
— in other words, the songs share no verbatim verses) and something called
“Theme X,” which was a counter-melody sung under the main vocal. *

*That might sound like a lot. Apparently the jury thought so. But
basically, it's all just musicologist talk for the obvious fact that,
structurally and rhythmically, the songs are quite similar. However, the
lyrics and top-line melodies — the notes sung in a lead vocal or played on
a lead instrument — are not the same, and those traditionally have been the
two elements of a song protected under copyright law.*


On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150311/us--blurred_
> lines-song_dispute-d6fcfcecbd.html
>
> I predict this verdict will stand, and once and for all so-called "pop
> musicians" will need to stop ripping off and recycling old music and old
> ideas and come up with something new and original. Hey kids, it was done
> once. It's possible to do. Marvin Gaye did it, in fact!
>
> -- Tom Fine