エリック・ベネイのインスタグラム(ericbenet) - 3月14日 03時25分

Hey guys I just wanna say something else about this real quick. I so appreciate everybody's opinion on this verdict. Some don't agree with me and I really do appreciate you commenting. Reading the comments...The argument FOR the verdict being correct usually goes something like, "when I 1st heard 'blurred lines' I could sing Marvin's song on top of it and the vibe was the same so the verdict was correct". My Family...that does not make the verdict correct!! If that's the case , Smokey Robinson could sue Marvin for "Ain't that peculiar" (listen to smokey's 'GOIN to a go-go') and damn near every rock and roll artists in the 50's could sue each other for basically having the same rhythm, tempo and blues riff under each one of their songs. Or take the disco era ...u had basically the same baseline and groove goin under most of the top 40 songs at any given time on the radio in the 70's. The fact that u can sing over a song and it fits or it has a similar vibe does NOT make it copy write infringement. I'll say it again...A SONG IS THE MELODY AND THE LYRICS. I'm a songwriter ...I know this shyt man!! LOL !! I will admit..listening to some of Robin Thickes other songs...it does sound like either melodically or in some musically chord structural way, he did rip Marvin. But in the "blurred lines" case (which the Marvin Gaye family obviously only went after because of its massive commercial success) the melody and lyrics are clearly different. Ok..,I'll shut up now ?

[BIHAKUEN]UVシールド(UVShield)

>> 飲む日焼け止め！「UVシールド」を購入する