Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams to pay $7.4 million

[Lazie]

a jury comprised of five women and three men heard dueling opinions regarding "Blurred Lines" and decided to order Thicke and Williams to pay $4 million in copyright damages plus profits attributable to infringement, which for Thicke was determined to be $1.8 million and for Williams was determined to be $1.6 million. Both escaped statutory damages as the infringement was found not to be willful.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/entert...uit/index.html

[Jangle]

Straight rip off, but I love both songs.

[Islandman]

Sounds about reasonable.

[Assasin]

This the part I don't understand

"Both escaped statutory damages as the infringement was found not to be willful"

If it is not a willful act, then is really infringement? In the process of they been creative, they infringed upon what was already created?

I know it must have been a tight case normally it either thrown out or they have to pay all damages. This is a little conflicting to me.

[Rudi]

They should have settled long time and sve the lawyer money.

[Islandman]

It sounds to me like the jury is saying that it was not wilful because the Blurred Lines creators honestly thought their song was different enough from the original to fall outside of the legal definition of infringement.

[Rudi]

Yeah right. OJ is still searching for the real killers.

[Jangle]

This the part I don't understand

"Both escaped statutory damages as the infringement was found not to be willful"

If it is not a willful act, then is really infringement? In the process of they been creative, they infringed upon what was already created?

I know it must have been a tight case normally it either thrown out or they have to pay all damages. This is a little conflicting to me.

I guess you can say it's Blurred Line.

[Gamma]

it can be an infringment without being wilful. if it was wilful, then PUNITIVE damages would have been awarded and THAT my friends is where the big money is!

punitive is not intended necessarily to be a deterrent but rather PUNISHMENT for the wilful act.

in this case however I cannot see how it was not wilful, unless their evidence is that they never knew of the existence of this song and had never heard before they did theirs.

[Assasin]

Thank you Gamma.

[Islandman]

LOL. I agree its a stretch but the idea that they were not aware of the similarity to the Marvin Gaye song seems even more unbelieveable.

[myYout]

RIght!!
Infringement not wilful. Dis wouldah mek sense if dem nevah hear di original none at all. Dem all gi evidence dat dem use di song structure. Fumbins wid words di soun to mi.