Miami Herald Logo

‘Blurred Lines’ creates bad law for music industry | Miami Herald

×
  • E-edition
  • Home
    • Site Information
    • Contact Us
    • About Us
    • Herald Store
    • RSS Feeds
    • Special Sections
    • Advertise
    • Advertise with Us
    • Media Kit
    • Mobile
    • Mobile Apps & eReaders
    • Newsletters
    • Social
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Google+
    • Instagram
    • YouTube

    • Sections
    • News
    • South Florida
    • Miami-Dade
    • Broward
    • Florida Keys
    • Florida
    • Politics
    • Weird News
    • Weather
    • National & World
    • Colombia
    • National
    • World
    • Americas
    • Cuba
    • Guantánamo
    • Haiti
    • Venezuela
    • Local Issues
    • Crime
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Health Care
    • In Depth
    • Issues & Ideas
    • Traffic
    • Sections
    • Sports
    • Blogs & Columnists
    • Pro & College
    • Miami Dolphins
    • Miami Heat
    • Miami Marlins
    • Florida Panthers
    • College Sports
    • University of Miami
    • Florida International
    • University of Florida
    • Florida State University
    • More Sports
    • High School Sports
    • Auto Racing
    • Fighting
    • Golf
    • Horse Racing
    • Outdoors
    • Soccer
    • Tennis
    • Youth Sports
    • Other Sports
    • Politics
    • Elections
    • The Florida Influencer Series
    • Sections
    • Business
    • Business Monday
    • Banking
    • International Business
    • National Business
    • Personal Finance
    • Real Estate News
    • Small Business
    • Technology
    • Tourism & Cruises
    • Workplace
    • Business Plan Challenge
    • Blogs & Columnists
    • Cindy Krischer Goodman
    • The Starting Gate
    • Work/Life Balancing Act
    • Movers
    • Sections
    • Living
    • Advice
    • Fashion
    • Food & Drink
    • Health & Fitness
    • Home & Garden
    • Pets
    • Recipes
    • Travel
    • Wine
    • Blogs & Columnists
    • Dave Barry
    • Ana Veciana-Suarez
    • Flashback Miami
    • More Living
    • LGBTQ South Florida
    • Palette Magazine
    • Indulge Magazine
    • South Florida Album
    • Broward Album
    • Sections
    • Entertainment
    • Books
    • Comics
    • Games & Puzzles
    • Horoscopes
    • Movies
    • Music & Nightlife
    • People
    • Performing Arts
    • Restaurants
    • TV
    • Visual Arts
    • Blogs & Columnists
    • Jose Lambiet
    • Lesley Abravanel
    • More Entertainment
    • Events Calendar
    • Miami.com
    • Contests & Promotions
    • Sections
    • All Opinion
    • Editorials
    • Op-Ed
    • Editorial Cartoons
    • Jim Morin
    • Letters to the Editor
    • From Our Inbox
    • Speak Up
    • Submit a Letter
    • Meet the Editorial Board
    • Influencers Opinion
    • Blogs & Columnists
    • Blog Directory
    • Columnist Directory
    • Andres Oppenheimer
    • Carl Hiaasen
    • Leonard Pitts Jr.
    • Fabiola Santiago
    • Obituaries
    • Obituaries in the News
    • Place an Obituary

    • Place an ad
    • All Classifieds
    • Announcements
    • Apartments
    • Auctions/Sales
    • Automotive
    • Commercial Real Estate
    • Employment
    • Garage Sales
    • Legals
    • Merchandise
    • Obituaries
    • Pets
    • Public Notices
    • Real Estate
    • Services
  • Public Notices
  • Cars
  • Jobs
  • Moonlighting
  • Real Estate
  • Mobile & Apps

  • el Nuevo Herald
  • Miami.com
  • Indulge

From Our Inbox

‘Blurred Lines’ creates bad law for music industry

By NOAH FELDMAN

Bloomberg News

    ORDER REPRINT →

March 15, 2015 12:02 AM

If the devolution from Marvin Gaye to Robin Thicke doesn’t stand for the decline of Western civilization, nothing does. The Los Angeles jury that found Thicke’s Blurred Lines unintentionally plagiarized Gaye’s Got to Give It Up apparently agreed.

Choosing the dead genius over the living epigone was artistically correct — but it set a terrible legal precedent. The case turned on a deep question about of copyright law: Is the point to protect the moral rights of the original author or to maximize socially valuable artistic production? The jury went with the author. It was wrong to do so. And Pharrell Williams, the true author of Thicke’s song, can help us see why.

Start with the most important part, the question of what copyright law is supposed to do. Historically, copyright began as a government grant of a printing monopoly, encouraged by the stationers guilds that controlled printing. The first important modern copyright law, the Statute of Anne (1710), already justified copyright in terms of growing social value by encouraging more useful work to be published. Its full title was “An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned.” Whatever the real-world political economy of the law’s passage, the formal rationale was aimed at creating a better profit motive for authors and publishers. The law created new legal rights for authors. It didn’t depend on some prior conception of an author’s moral rights.

Over time, however, as authors’ rights came to be normalized, a moral theory developed to justify the existing practice. Instead of focusing on social utility, the moral theory of copyright focuses on the inherent right of a creator to control the thing created. On its own terms, the theory sounds appealing — especially if you’re an author. In most civil law countries, such as France and Germany, the artist’s moral rights enable a creator to protect work from the kinds of distortions and misuses that authors naturally hate.

Sign Up and Save

Get six months of free digital access to the Miami Herald

SUBSCRIBE WITH GOOGLE

#ReadLocal

In the United States, the moral rights theory has never predominated in copyright thinking — but it has nosed its way into both the official discourse and the public’s instinctive reaction to copyright questions. The Los Angeles jury couldn’t have avoided being influenced by it. They were played two songs with very similar bass lines. Although they weren’t supposed to be influenced by the Blurred Lines video, it has more than 370 million views on YouTube, and it’s hard to imagine that they could keep it completely out of their calculations. As you know if you live in the United States — or maybe anywhere on Earth — the video became a cultural phenomenon, and launched the career of Emily Ratajkowski.

Compared to the genuine brilliance, cool and tragedy of Marvin Gaye’s life and death, the Blurred Lines phenomenon seems like a travesty – literally. One can only sympathize with the jury’s instinct to see Thicke as a thief of music, just as he’s undoubtedly trying to steal Gaye’s mantle in the video. Morally and artistically, it makes me wanna holler and throw up both my hands, as Gaye wrote in a very different context.

Yet the jury should’ve overcome its legitimate moral outrage and decided the case against Gaye’s estate. Focusing on the author’s moral rights is the wrong way to think about copyright – and it has perverse effects of artistic creation.

The permanent control over the author’s work sounds appealing — except for the fact that we don’t actually control our children in perpetuity. In fact, nothing we create belongs to us forever, particularly if we choose to sell it.

What’s more, future artists need to make art that refers to the works of their predecessors. If you don’t think Thicke is much of an artist, the same can’t be said of Williams, who according to Thicke’s testimony at the trial, actually wrote the song. I’m not saying Williams is anywhere near the level of Gaye, but he’s certainly a creative artist, with a varied oeuvre of songs written for himself and others. Williams and his songwriter colleagues, like all artists and authors, work by incorporating, commenting on and transforming earlier works.

The copyright goal, then, should be to maximize the creation of valuable works of art — which means asking whether a finding of copyright infringement serves that goal. The Blurred Lines verdict clearly doesn’t. Would Gaye have written Got to Give It Up in 1977 even knowing that its bass line might be ripped off in 2013? Of course he would have. He and his heirs have had 38 years of opportunity to profit from the song’s proceeds.

Indeed, Blurred Lines probably had the effect of increasing sales of Gaye’s work, not functioning as a market substitute for them. Williams and Thicke (and yes, Ratajkowski) were effectively referring knowing listeners back to the Gaye tradition, where they might download songs and even buy albums.

Blurred Lines therefore increased artistic creation. But the finding against the song will inhibit future artists who want to produce work inspired by earlier music. That will be a cost to artistic creation. In the end, whatever we think of Thicke’s musical future, we the public seem to want more Williams songs, not less. We should get the music we want; it’s probably the music we deserve.

Noah Feldman, a Bloomberg View columnist, is a professor of constitutional and international law at Harvard and the author of six books, most recently “Cool War: The Future of Global Competition.”

© 2015, Bloomberg News

  Comments  

Videos

Mesa: “I feel very comfortable”

Michael Hill: “We just want to get him on the field and get him playing”

View More Video

Trending Stories

Haitian police arrest five Americans who claimed they were on a ‘government mission’

February 18, 2019 06:37 PM

Man arrested after climbing crane near FIU to ask Trump for mercy for Cuban exile bomber

February 18, 2019 08:44 AM

A Florida 6th-grader called the Pledge of Allegiance ‘racist.’ Then he got arrested.

February 18, 2019 08:59 AM

Double vision: Miami will host Miami in future football game

February 18, 2019 06:36 PM

Here’s why the Dolphins will avoid dummies more than ever. And coaches weigh in on new QB

February 18, 2019 02:07 PM

Read Next

More women in public office may improve ethics

From Our Inbox

More women in public office may improve ethics

By JOSEPH M. CENTORINO

    ORDER REPRINT →

March 30, 2018 08:55 PM

The problems of sexual harassment or discrimination and government corruption are not unrelated. We know of instances where the demand for sexual favors by persons holding positions of public trust has been used as a form of extortion or even bribery.

KEEP READING

Sign Up and Save

#ReadLocal

Get six months of free digital access to the Miami Herald

SUBSCRIBE WITH GOOGLE

MORE FROM OUR INBOX

From Our Inbox

Trump’s parade

February 08, 2018 01:24 AM

From Our Inbox

Chain migration

December 20, 2017 01:42 AM

From Our Inbox

FPL rates

December 19, 2017 02:15 AM

From Our Inbox

Matt Lauer and...

November 29, 2017 08:13 PM

From Our Inbox

Thank you, Mayor Regalado

November 14, 2017 11:07 PM

From Our Inbox

High-rent rationale

November 14, 2017 01:42 AM
Take Us With You

Real-time updates and all local stories you want right in the palm of your hand.

Icon for mobile apps

Miami Herald App

View Newsletters

Subscriptions
  • Start a Subscription
  • Customer Service
  • eEdition
  • Vacation Hold
  • Pay Your Bill
  • Rewards
Learn More
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Newsletters
  • News in Education
  • Public Insight Network
  • Reader Panel
Advertising
  • Place a Classified
  • Media Kit
  • Commercial Printing
  • Public Notices
Copyright
Commenting Policy
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service


Back to Story