wow... I hadn't followed the blurred lines case at all... that's actually scary.
So copyright is obviously important. You want the creator to be protected and to be properly remunerated for their work and creation... but used like this? That's just stifling creativity. The idea of fair use is there to prevent this of course but that is massively subjective.
Same is true with the way copyright is applied on YouTube... another Adam Neely video on the subject.
I'm hardly a legal expert but the thing that I can't quite get my head around is the idea that these 'infringing' songs are in any way damaging the originals (and here I'm very definitely referring to these cases). In order for that to be the case Got to Give It Up would have had to have lost sales or plays because people chose to listen to Blurred Lines instead... and I really really doubt that. In fact, if anything I'd expect that the similarities might have driven new audiences to listen to Marvin Gay for the first time.