In case you have been paying attention to anything beyond Tom Benson’s psychological profile, or the arrest of creepazoid Robert Durst in New Orleans, another significant thing happened last week.

Popular performers and songwriters Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke were sued over their hit 2013 song “Blurred Lines” that the defendants—the family and estate of Marvin Gaye—say was plagiarized from a Gaye tune, “Got To Give It Up.” The court ruled in favor of the Gaye family.

If this verdict stands (it will be challenged), it could have a huge impact on what songwriters can do when they compose music. In the past, what’s been protected by law by copyright was melody and lyrics, and these elements only. If this verdict stands, copyright law could be changed to include rhythm, instrumentation, bassline, “vibe,” arrangement, chord progressions, etc. could be potentially subject to copyright.

If this lawsuit stands, it could change the music industry forever.

Now, we’ve always taken the side of musicians and songwriters in copyright infringement. But this adds a much, much larger possibility of infringement. I think there’s a big problem with this. There are literally only 12 notes in the Western musical scale. In how many ways can they be rearranged melodically and rhythmically to create a song? Probably an infinite number of ways, but here are surely times when melodies and arrangements sound really similar and come from totally different songwriters’ imaginations and creative abilities.

Obviously the copyright laws need to revamped, but to tell you the truth, I think that suits like this are designed more to make attorneys rich rather than to help musicians.

If nothing else, we should never get to the point where musicians and songwriters are so inhibited by not being able to let their music flow. Let’s face it: a lot of art, including music, is borrowed from—and inspired by—other art.

How can a court determine what’s theft and what isn’t? Is a judge’s opinion of similarity enough to accuse one artist of stealing another’s work?

Being in this business for close to 30 years and living with a composer has brought me a lot closer to this issue. My husband, Joseph, is a talented songwriter. His melodies are hooky, infectious, and they “stick” with you. In fact, some of the songs he’s written over the years sound a lot like other music I’ve heard, but…not exactly. They “remind” me of other songs. Maybe that’s what make them sound so good to me. Obviously, he’s been inspired by a lot of other music makers in his life.

Here’s a story: Joseph wrote a piece of music several years ago that we both loved, that he composed solely on his own (I was witness to the composition process). One day a few years after he’d written the song, he heard Coldplay’s “Viva La Vida”; liked it, and sat down at the piano to try to figure out how to play the song himself. He got as far as the chord changes, and realized that “Viva La Vida” not only had the same chord changes, but virtually the same melody!

Guitarist Joe Satriani apparently had the same experience with a song he had written, but he sued Coldplay for copyright infringement, and won the case. It was settled out of court.

What I’m pointing out is that similar—even the same—melodies are produced by different composers all over the world at different times. Musicians are human beings, and their creativity can run along the same wavelengths, without them having had any interaction whatsoever. There’s even a website I discovered that shows how common similarities crop up in popular music.

Creativity can be limited, I think. And we have to accept that. We can’t stifle songwriting with the idea that our output might be similar to another song. That is just ridiculous.

The biggest problem I have is with the creative process being exploited through the law for money. Blame it on attorneys. They’re getting more money than musicians when this fight goes down. Trust me.