Well, sure, I think the song sucks. I think Thicke is a douche, the lyrics are creepy, and the music is derivative... ...but that's fine. I'm sure some music

Well, sure, I think the song sucks. I think Thicke is a douche, the lyrics are creepy, and the music is derivative... ...but that's fine. I'm sure some music expert/snob could point out how many of my favorite songs were great (when so-and-so originally did them) but that shouldn't be the basis for a copyright suit. You can argue over who is talented, who is original, who's a hack, and who's derivative all day but unless you're just jacking an entire song or sampling large portions of it without altering it or licensing the samples, then it's just art as art has always been. There will always be artists who are inspired by previous material and there will always be shameless hacks who just imitate whatever is popular to make a buck but I don't think it's something that fits with the stated purpose of copyright. As you say, musical styles and conventions get picked up and reworked all the time. It's like this case vindicated every dad who ever said your music "all sounds the same".