I believe that the technical term for this is “No [expletive deleted]…”


Sounds pretty danged close to me:

10 thoughts on “I believe that the technical term for this is “No [expletive deleted]…””

  1. I hate to disagree with you, Moe, and I REALLY hate to side with Robin Thicke, but the two aren’t at all similar where it counts, musically, and the case is a travesty.
    Plus, Marvin Gaye didn’t inspire “Word Crimes”.

  2. Seconded zamoose.

    1)Musical copyright law and its practitioners reside in one of the dankest pits of ooze upon the earth.

    2)Correlation is not Causation.

    3)Copyright in general needs to be scaled back to the original and intended limited scope.

  3. Different melody, different beat, different tempo, different instrumentation.
    Zamoose is right, the case is a travesty.
    A party in the background, and the theme of trying to get into a girl’s pants, are not exactly novel, and they certainly aren’t protected by copyright.
    Yes, there is some similarity, but no more than you could readily find between 2 songs you’d hear listening to an hour of top 40 radio.

    1. Two points.
      First, after listening to far less than an hour of top-40, I *will* pierce my own ear drums.
      Second, while most of top-40 is dreadful derivative works, they don’t *admit* to being derivative. (dubstep samples a *lot* .. but isn’t top-40)
      Where Thicke went wrong appears to have been in admitting the song was derivative ..

  4. I’m just happy there was some consequence for writing a song glorifying date rape, even if I disagree with the decision in this case.

    1. Having had the misfortune to listen to the lyrics, neither a date nor a rape were present.

        1. Picking up a stranger in a bar for the purpose of sex is not date rape.
          There is nothing subtle or admirable about it, but it is not rape, date or otherwise.
          Wheedling is not coercion.

          1. Its in the title “blurred lines” which suggests there is a blurry line between consensual and rape, which to be fair there is because the feminists decided to create one.
            Back in the old days the line was distinct and clear and the minute a dude crossed it his butt was shipped off to prison.

          2. Bullshit.
            By that standard every salesman is guilty of robbery.
            There is no coercion whatsoever in the song. There is nothing that even the most rabid SJW can even credibly claim as an implied threat.
            There is flattery, cajoling, and even groveling. But the power imbalance is tilted decidedly towards the woman, and remains so for the entire song. If she sticks with “no” she faces no negative repercussions whatsoever.
            Getting from “no” to “yes” is a basic part of many, if not most, human interactions. The percentage of these that can fairly be considered crimes is vanishingly small.

Comments are closed.