Tracing the roots of music is like to tracing your DNA lineage: there is not one homogenous background, but instead a diverse history of how you are the way you are. Music has this same type of pedigree; in a way it all spawns from the same seeds. A single song doesn’t speak of the present, but rather encapsulates its ancestral heritage.
So, I guess my question is: why do we spend years dealing with copyright litigations if music is cut from the same cloth?
Copyright infringement cases are taking on a scary form, especially with the recent example of Marvin Gaye vs. Robin Thicke. For those unfamiliar with the case, basically its main controversy stems from the fact that the basis for lawsuit was that Marvin Gaye’s family felt Thicke’s “Blurred Lines” was infringing on the ‘vibe’ of Gaye’s song “Got to Give It Up.”
Different music genres only exist because they once drew inspiration from a predecessor’s vibe, if you will, and incorporated new elements and components.
This is called evolution.
Copyrights have already been abused through life extensions and manipulated legalities, but how much more fear can we inflict in artists? The original intent of a copyright was to protect the artist and promote new creations, but it seems that this notion has been lost in the greed.
How can music grow forward if it’s legally disconnected from its roots?