In March 2015, a jury ruled in favor of the Gaye estate, stating that while Williams and Thicke did not directly copy \"Got to Give It Up,\" there was enough of a similar IIfeel\" to warrant copyright infringement. Gaye's heirs were awarded $14 million in damages, the largest amount ever granted in a music copyright case. Cases like these, cause concern to some about any precedent that this may cause. Robert Fink, for example, stated that this verdict had the potential to set a precedent for "fencing off our shared heritage of sounds, grooves, vibes, tunes, and feels.\" Musicians, artists, and writers often note that previous works inuence them in their creative process, and that there is very little that is completely original. Thicke and Williams did not see the musical inuence of Gaye as copyright infringement, but rather as inspiration that spurred them to create a new, original single. Case Study I"Blurred Lines" of Copyright 1. Do you think the Gaye family should own the rights to the "feel" of "Got to Give It Up\"I in addition to specic lyrics, melodies, harmony, etc.? Why or why not? 2. This court case is one among many over the past decade [like the Led Zeppelin case) that have placed limits on songwriting and musical composition. Do you think it is important to provide these legal protections for artists even if it means hindering artistic creativity and the new works that might come from musical inuence? Explain your reasoning. 3. Should authors, musicians, and other artists acknowledge all of the inuences on their work, regardless of the degree of inuence? Why or why not? 4. If you purchase a song and then recognize that it is appropriating an earlier work, you are not legally obligated to stop listening, but are you obligated ethically? Explain your reasoning