PDA

View Full Version : Music Joe Satriani Sues Coldplay for Plagiarism


Braincase
12-05-2008, 10:38 AM
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1600770/20081205/coldplay.jhtml

Dec 5 2008 9:27 AM EST
Coldplay Sued By Joe Satriani For Allegedly Plagiarizing 'Viva La Vida' Melody

Guitarist claims the Grammy-nominated song is a rip-off of his track 'If I Could Fly.'

By Gil Kaufman




Not long after Coldplay (http://www.mtv.com/music/artist/coldplay/artist.jhtml)'s Viva la Vida album hit shelves this summer, the blogosphere exploded with suggestions that the title track bore a striking resemblance to a 2004 instrumental track by rock guitarist Joe Satriani (http://www.mtv.com/music/artist/satriani_joe/artist.jhtml) titled "If I Could Fly." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ofFw9DKu_I)
Now, Satriani has accused the band of copyright infringement in a lawsuit filed on Thursday in Los Angeles federal court, according to a Reuters report (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081205/en_nm/us_coldplay).
A day after the Coldplay album was nominated for seven Grammys (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1600678/20081204/coldplay.jhtml), including Record and Song of the Year for "Viva la Vida," Satriani's suit claims that "Viva" incorporates "substantial original portions" of his track "If I Could Fly," from the Is There Love in Space? album.
<embed src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:uma:video:mtv.com:264962" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" flashvars="configParams=instance%3Dnews%26vid%3D264962" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" base="." width="256" height="223">

Satriani, 52, is seeking a jury trial in the dispute, as well as damages and "any and all profits" attributable to the alleged copyright infringement. The songwriting credit on the Coldplay song is attributed to the band's four members: singer Chris Martin, bass player Guy Berryman, guitarist Jonny Buckland and drummer Will Champion. A spokesperson for Coldplay could not be reached for comment at press time.
Satriani isn't the only artist who has claimed the Coldplay song was eerily familiar. Around the time of the album's release, a lesser-known New York band named Creaky Boards claimed (http://newsroom.mtv.com/2008/06/16/for-the-record-kanye-west-coldplay-kid-rock-more/) that Martin had attended one of their gigs and would have heard the tune "The Songs I Didn't Write," which also bears a similar melody. At the time, Coldplay's spokespeople denied that Martin was at the gig and said the band had written "Viva" several months before that show.


Here's a nice link to a youtube comparison of the two songs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ofFw9DKu_I).


Based on my observation, Coldplay better get their checkbook out.

DaneMcCloud
12-05-2008, 10:39 AM
That's very difficult to prove in a court of law but I wish Joe all the best.

I HATE Can't Play.

OnTheWarpath58
12-05-2008, 10:42 AM
Jesus.

That's about as blatant as it gets.

Braincase
12-05-2008, 10:42 AM
That's very difficult to prove in a court of law but I wish Joe all the best.

I HATE Can't Play.

Apparently Gwyneth isn't that hip to them these days either.

Mark M
12-05-2008, 11:35 AM
I knew I had heard that song somewhere before -- so once I saw this earlier today, it was nice to learn I wasn't nuts.

Well, at least not when it comes to this issue.

MM
~~:)

PunkinDrublic
12-05-2008, 11:43 AM
That's very difficult to prove in a court of law but I wish Joe all the best.

I HATE Can't Play.

:clap: No shit. Chicks love that band for some reason. Why do so many chicks have such aweful taste in music?

Sure-Oz
12-05-2008, 12:10 PM
I saw coldplay live at the sprint center, they were amazing, but i like the previous albums

Demonpenz
12-05-2008, 12:20 PM
I've never heard of the first guy, but coldplay is pretty sweet. they rocked sprint center

Taco John
12-05-2008, 12:24 PM
What kind of guitarist doesn't know who Satch is?

Demonpenz
12-05-2008, 12:25 PM
I've never heard of the first guy, but coldplay is pretty sweet. they rocked sprint center

gah my avy spoiled my fishing attempt

Mr. Laz
12-05-2008, 12:25 PM
song sounds great on the youtube link where they actually play the 2 songs at the same time.

the guitar fills out the song nicely

Reaper16
12-05-2008, 01:22 PM
I can totally believe that this wasn't intentional. I don't think for a second that anyone in Coldplay has listened to a Satriani record before.

So it probably isn't plagarism without any intent behind it. Who knows.

Satch > Coldplay, btw.

Reaper16
12-05-2008, 01:23 PM
song sounds great on the youtube link where they actually play the 2 songs at the same time.

the guitar fills out the song nicely
Yeah, it really did. There needs to me a full-on remix; I'd listen to it a lot.

mcan
12-05-2008, 01:35 PM
This is totally accidental and there are probably at least 100 songs out there that are exactly the same as these two.

Here are the chords.
C - D - G - emin


The melody is only the same for three notes over the first two chords. After that, they are actually pretty different melodies, but of course the two harmonize together since they're played out of the same scale and over the same chords. Satch knows this wasn't done on purpose. He's well aware of how generic the two songs are and how common that melody is over these chords.

Braincase
12-05-2008, 01:43 PM
He's well aware of how generic the two songs are and how common that melody is over these chords.

Name four other songs with that riff and that tempo and I'll side with your argument. If you check out the youtube link in the original post, you'll understand why Joe has a good case. You could have them both perform at the same time on the same stage... and you'd go away believing that at least one person on the stage knew what he was doing.

Pestilence
12-05-2008, 01:43 PM
This is totally accidental and there are probably at least 100 songs out there that are exactly the same as these two.

Here are the chords.
C - D - G - emin


The melody is only the same for three notes over the first two chords. After that, they are actually pretty different melodies, but of course the two harmonize together since they're played out of the same scale and over the same chords. Satch knows this wasn't done on purpose. He's well aware of how generic the two songs are and how common that melody is over these chords.

Then why is he suing?

Reaper16
12-05-2008, 01:46 PM
song sounds great on the youtube link where they actually play the 2 songs at the same time.

the guitar fills out the song nicely
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3kytzHrKpo&NR=1

His full-version mash-up.

Demonpenz
12-05-2008, 01:48 PM
Why don't they just tour together. make a zillion dollars and call it a day. Hell might even make coldplay bareable for those of us who like a silky smooth vagina over a brazen hard asshole

DaneMcCloud
12-05-2008, 01:53 PM
This is totally accidental and there are probably at least 100 songs out there that are exactly the same as these two.

Here are the chords.
C - D - G - emin


The melody is only the same for three notes over the first two chords. After that, they are actually pretty different melodies, but of course the two harmonize together since they're played out of the same scale and over the same chords. Satch knows this wasn't done on purpose. He's well aware of how generic the two songs are and how common that melody is over these chords.

After actually hearing the comparison, there is no doubt in my mind that Satriani will receive a share of the royalties for this song.

The letter of the law states "Lyrics and Melody". The melodies are nearly identical throughout, as is the tempo and arrangement. That is NOT accidental.

Furthermore, while don't think this is "intentional", it did happen. Chris Martin probably heard the Satriani song in passing years ago, only to write his version years later. A lot of times, composers don't understand where the "music comes". I'm sure he wrote it not realizing that he'd heard that melody and song at some point in years past.

Regardless, I'd be shocked if the judge didn't award 50% of the royalties and copyright credit to Joe Satch.

Reaper16
12-05-2008, 01:59 PM
Regardless, I'd be shocked if the judge didn't award 50% of the royalties and copyright credit to Joe Satch.
Yeah, its hard for me to see how Satch wouldn't receive some percentage of the royalties. And you would know more than I would.

Silock
12-05-2008, 02:03 PM
I just let my wife listen to this (she's a huge Coldplay fan) and she goes "They don't sound anything alike."

I called her retarded, kicked her out of the room and now she's pissed at me. Oh well. It was worth it.

Mr. Flopnuts
12-05-2008, 02:05 PM
After actually hearing the comparison, there is no doubt in my mind that Satriani will receive a share of the royalties for this song.

The letter of the law states "Lyrics and Melody". The melodies are nearly identical throughout, as is the tempo and arrangement. That is NOT accidental.

Furthermore, while don't think this is "intentional", it did happen. Chris Martin probably heard the Satriani song in passing years ago, only to write his version years later. A lot of times, composers don't understand where the "music comes". I'm sure he wrote it not realizing that he'd heard that melody and song at some point in years past.

Regardless, I'd be shocked if the judge didn't award 50% of the royalties and copyright credit to Joe Satch.

I hope you're right.

mcan
12-05-2008, 02:08 PM
Name four other songs with that riff and that tempo and I'll side with your argument. If you check out the youtube link in the original post, you'll understand why Joe has a good case. You could have them both perform at the same time on the same stage... and you'd go away believing that at least one person on the stage knew what he was doing.



Here's one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G57CgtX-BsI

Once it gets to the verses. The guitar melody is the same for the first two chords. The rest is different enough that the casual listener won't compare the two, but the parts that are similar are the exact same parts. The same three notes being played over the same two chords for the same duration. It happens a lot.

DaneMcCloud
12-05-2008, 02:13 PM
Here's one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G57CgtX-BsI

Once it gets to the verses. The guitar melody is the same for the first two chords. The rest is different enough that the casual listener won't compare the two, but the parts that are similar are the exact same parts. The same three notes being played over the same two chords for the same duration. It happens a lot.

While the initial guitar line may be similar, 80% of the song is different. That's very unlike the Coldplay/Satriani comparison.

VERY different.

Again, letter of the law states "Lyric and Melody".

Joe most certainly has a case.

mcan
12-05-2008, 02:13 PM
Name four other songs with that riff and that tempo and I'll side with your argument.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQCymJjKLsM

Here's number two.

The exact same chord progression. The vocal melody isn't the same, but the same three notes are the top line on the piano throughout. Same shit.

mcan
12-05-2008, 02:15 PM
While the initial guitar line may be similar, 80% of the song is different. That's very unlike the Coldplay/Satriani comparison.

VERY different.

Again, letter of the law states "Lyric and Melody".

Joe most certainly has a case.

The only thing that is similar about the Coldplay/Satriani case is those three notes over the first two chords. I just pointed out another case where a song has those exact same three notes over the exact same first two chords. It doesn't matter how similar or how different the rest of the song is.

mcan
12-05-2008, 02:34 PM
While the initial guitar line may be similar, 80% of the song is different. That's very unlike the Coldplay/Satriani comparison.

VERY different.

Again, letter of the law states "Lyric and Melody".

Joe most certainly has a case.

I think Joe's a much better musician, and I really could care less about Coldplay. I don't listen to much modern stuff. But you're not really making an argument here man. Lyric and melody... Joe's stuff doesn't have any lyrics. Coldplay's melody is only the same for three notes. Of course, they're the hook notes and they're repeated over and over again, so you're going to latch onto those. But, I've just given two other examples where those same three notes are used in a similar fashion. As I was instructed to do.

Admittedly, I'm having trouble finding a 3rd or 4th. I've found plenty of songs that have the same progression, but none that use those exact three notes in the same spot. But I think the point is pretty clear that it's common enough that Joe shouldn't think he's got a patent on it.

DaneMcCloud
12-05-2008, 02:43 PM
I think Joe's a much better musician, and I really could care less about Coldplay. I don't listen to much modern stuff. But you're not really making an argument here man. Lyric and melody... Joe's stuff doesn't have any lyrics. Coldplay's melody is only the same for three notes. Of course, they're the hook notes and they're repeated over and over again, so you're going to latch onto those. But, I've just given two other examples where those same three notes are used in a similar fashion. As I was instructed to do.


Dude, look: I worked in a executive position for two of the biggest music publishing companies in the world for more than a decade. I know and understand copyright law as well or better than maybe all but a handful of people on the planet. Not Chiefsplanet, planet Earth.

Given Braincase's example, Joe Satriani ABSOLUTELY has a case. Not only can you lie the songs over each other to hear the similarities, they're the same exact tempo and same exact structure. Chris Martin's melody is a near perfect match for Satriani's guitar line.

Huey Lewis won a similar case in the 1980's. The "Ghostbuster's Theme" was deemed a copy of "I Want a New Drug" and Lewis was awarded royalties and copyrights and IMO, Satriani has a stronger case.

Again, I'd be absolutely SHOCKED if Satriani weren't granted 50% of the copyrights to the Coldplay song.

DaneMcCloud
12-05-2008, 02:45 PM
But I think the point is pretty clear that it's common enough that Joe shouldn't think he's got a patent on it.

It's not a patent: It's a copyright.

And yes, Satriani DOES own the copyright to his song.

RaiderH8r
12-05-2008, 02:53 PM
Dude, look: I worked in a executive position for two of the biggest music publishing companies in the world for more than a decade. I know and understand copyright law as well or better than maybe all but a handful of people on the planet. Not Chiefsplanet, planet Earth.

Given Braincase's example, Joe Satriani ABSOLUTELY has a case. Not only can you lie the songs over each other to hear the similarities, they're the same exact tempo and same exact structure. Chris Martin's melody is a near perfect match for Satriani's guitar line.
Huey Lewis won a similar case in the 1980's. The "Ghostbuster's Theme" was deemed a copy of "I Want a New Drug" and Lewis was awarded royalties and copyrights and IMO, Satriani has a stronger case.

Again, I'd be absolutely SHOCKED if Satriani weren't granted 50% of the copyrights to the Coldplay song.

That part...right there is exactly why Coldplay will be cutting checks to Satriani.

Yeah, the cord progression is pretty basic and if they were the same and that was all it was then that would be it. But because of the structure, tempo, melody being the f'ing same it's a rip job and Coldplay's sucktitude continues to be confirmed.

I'm pretty sure Vanilla Ice ended up cutting a check to Queen for about 7 notes in Ice Ice Baby as well.

DaneMcCloud
12-05-2008, 02:58 PM
That part...right there is exactly why Coldplay will be cutting checks to Satriani.

Yeah, the cord progression is pretty basic and if they were the same then that would be it. But because of the structure, tempo, melody being the f'ing same it's a rip job and Coldplay's sucktitude continues to be confirmed.

I'm pretty sure Vanilla Ice ended up cutting a check to Queen for about 7 notes in Ice Ice Baby as well.

Well in reality, it's the copyright assignment and back royalties. Any further royalties due after the settlement would defer to the new copyright splits (50/50, 40/60 or whatever).

No money will come out of Coldplay's pocket. The music publisher will owe Satriani his back royalties if the judgment is made in his favor. The music publisher at that point would make a financial adjustment to Coldplay's co-publishing account in the amount of back royalties due to Satriani.

Regarding Vanilla Ice, he "sampled" the David Bowie/Freddie Mercury song. Before ANY royalties can be paid (mechanical, performance or sync), the song splits must be agreed upon by all interested parties (in this case, Bowie, Mercury and "Ice").

mcan
12-05-2008, 05:37 PM
Huey Lewis won a similar case in the 1980's. The "Ghostbuster's Theme" was deemed a copy of "I Want a New Drug" and Lewis was awarded royalties and copyrights and IMO, Satriani has a stronger case.

Again, I'd be absolutely SHOCKED if Satriani weren't granted 50% of the copyrights to the Coldplay song.



I think Satriani's case is considerably less valid than Huey Lewis,' but I should say that my opinion is that neither case should (should have) been held up. There are only 12 notes in all of western music. There are only 6 practical and common chords to use in any given key. Of all the millions of songs written every year, you just can't make any completely original pop song anymore. That's not to say that if it's obvious that somebody is just re-writing somebody else's songs that they shouldn't have to split royalties. But I don't think this is a Dane Cook situation here. This is coincidental, and all you do is lower the bar for music everywhere when you make musicians comb the entire history of music to see if they're allowed to publish a song they wrote in good faith. Lets not forget that George Harrison was also sued for the same thing. You'd have to be smoking crack to think that George Harrison is ripping people off.

DaneMcCloud
12-05-2008, 07:18 PM
I think Satriani's case is considerably less valid than Huey Lewis,' but I should say that my opinion is that neither case should (should have) been held up. There are only 12 notes in all of western music. There are only 6 practical and common chords to use in any given key. Of all the millions of songs written every year, you just can't make any completely original pop song anymore. That's not to say that if it's obvious that somebody is just re-writing somebody else's songs that they shouldn't have to split royalties. But I don't think this is a Dane Cook situation here. This is coincidental, and all you do is lower the bar for music everywhere when you make musicians comb the entire history of music to see if they're allowed to publish a song they wrote in good faith. Lets not forget that George Harrison was also sued for the same thing. You'd have to be smoking crack to think that George Harrison is ripping people off.

If you can't hear or understand these facts, then your opinion is absolutely invalid:

1. Joe Satriani is known worldwide and has sold ten of millions of records.
2. Satriani's song was released four years prior to Coldplay's.
3. The main melody is identical.
4. The key of the song is identical
5. The arrangement is nearly identical
6. The tempo is exactly the same.
7. The simple fact that you can lay one song over the other and they're in perfect time and pitch is an excellent indicator of plagiarism.

Again, the Letter of the Law states "Lyric and Melody". Lyric being 50% and Melody being 50%. There is no statute for chord progressions or percussion or production or anything else. Lyric & Melody.

In my professional opinion (backed up by nearly 40 years in the music business, more than a decade spent in music publishing including copyrights, royalties, business affairs and creative), Joe Satriani deserves his day in court.

PERIOD.

And as far as originality is concerned, if you don't think that original and creative music is being recorded everyday across the globe, you're either not exposed or you just have absolutely no clue as to what you're talking about.

Bowser
12-05-2008, 07:43 PM
I interrupt this debate with Satriani news....

http://www.thequake1021.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1221

BCD
12-05-2008, 08:04 PM
I'd say Joe's gonna get paid. Way too similar to be an accident...

Agent V
12-05-2008, 08:13 PM
While we're on this subject, what the hell is up with Kid Rock using "Werewolves of London" to sing about "Sweet Home Alabama"? I'm a bit confused:

Kid Rock
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwIGZLjugKA

Warren Zevon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhSc8qVMjKM

Skynrd's Sweet Home Alabama (which actually sounds like "Werewolves" if you remove parts of the guitar)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huLklsj_5HI

aturnis
12-05-2008, 08:20 PM
so once I saw this earlier today, it was nice to learn I wasn't nuts.


Aside from the fact that apparently you listen to this guy....

http://www.concertshots.com/August%20Images/cs-JoeSatriani1-Atlanta82402.JPG

Notice the sparkly shirt... AWESOME!

Ebolapox
12-06-2008, 12:46 AM
I interrupt this debate with Satriani news....

http://www.thequake1021.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1221

that may be intriguing.

mcan
12-06-2008, 01:55 AM
If you can't hear or understand these facts, then your opinion is absolutely invalid:

1. Joe Satriani is known worldwide and has sold ten of millions of records.
2. Satriani's song was released four years prior to Coldplay's.
3. The main melody is identical.
4. The key of the song is identical
5. The arrangement is nearly identical
6. The tempo is exactly the same.
7. The simple fact that you can lay one song over the other and they're in perfect time and pitch is an excellent indicator of plagiarism.

Again, the Letter of the Law states "Lyric and Melody". Lyric being 50% and Melody being 50%. There is no statute for chord progressions or percussion or production or anything else. Lyric & Melody.

In my professional opinion (backed up by nearly 40 years in the music business, more than a decade spent in music publishing including copyrights, royalties, business affairs and creative), Joe Satriani deserves his day in court.

PERIOD.

And as far as originality is concerned, if you don't think that original and creative music is being recorded everyday across the globe, you're either not exposed or you just have absolutely no clue as to what you're talking about.

Man. You really like to win, don't you? If Joe thinks that Alvin and the Chipmunks stole something from him, then he deserves his day in court. I'm offering my opinion here. Now, of course, my opinion DOES have merit, despite what you say. Yours does too. If you think the songs are too close then Satriani might want you to be the judge in this case. But I'm not backtracking on my opinion just because you disagree man. So, lets take your argument. Line by line.

1. I know who the guy is. I know he's popular. But that's not exactly relevant.
2. Obviously his song came out first. If it hadn't then this would all be a really dumb argument.
3. The main melody is NOT identical. It contains the same first three notes, and then it is completely different. Further, each song doesn't even have consistent "endings" to the phrase. Each time through the changes, both songs vary what they do over the G and Emin chords. But since the first three notes are the hook for both songs, that's what the listener's ear latches onto.
4. The key of the song IS identical. That's true. But, news flash. There are only 12 keys. Of those keys only 8 of them get used on a regular basis. That includes EVERY song that has been written in the western hemisphere that any human has ever heard. The key of G (these songs) is probably the tied for the most popular key with the key of C.
5. The arrangement isn't just "nearly" identical. It's exactly identical. It's a four chord progression that's been used since the invention of the piano on zillions of songs. (IV-V-I-vi) in the key of G. But if we outlawed anybody else to play any progressions that have been played before... We need to stop making music right now.
6. The tempo is most certainly not the same. The "Meshup" was doctored so that you could hear the two songs together. Satriani's tune is about 15 BPM slower at 128 BMP on average. Coldplays is significantly faster at 142. Both would be considered pretty up-tempo tunes, even for rock. But if you played the two cds together you're not going to get anything like that youtube vid.
7. Your last point only proves that when you take two songs of the same key and slow one down to make it the same tempo as the other, that they will sound good together. Well, that's the whole point of a key! It's so that I can play in the same key as somebody else and always harmonize with them. These are two songs that have the same chord progression and the same first three notes in the melody. That happens a lot, as I tried to show below. But you just don't want to hear my opinion, and for some reason want to bash my reasons and appeal to your authority on the subject. I'm just talking about the songs.

DaneMcCloud
12-06-2008, 02:12 AM
Man. You really like to win, don't you?

Win?

Please list your music publishing and copyright credentials.

Then, we'll have a proper discussion.

Otherwise, you're just spewing a bunch of worthless nonsense.

BCD
12-06-2008, 08:20 AM
While we're on this subject, what the hell is up with Kid Rock using "Werewolves of London" to sing about "Sweet Home Alabama"? I'm a bit confused:
He's not singing 'about' Sweet home Alabama. The song refers to a time of his youth in northern Michigan.

Agent V
12-06-2008, 08:41 AM
He's not singing 'about' Sweet home Alabama. The song refers to a time of his youth in northern Michigan.
Yes, I got that. Godawful song. I was talking about the line "singing Sweet Home Alabama all summer long". I thought it was a tribute song or something.

Mr. Kotter
12-06-2008, 09:26 AM
Coldplay will be cutting some checks to Satriani over this.

Taco John
12-06-2008, 11:12 AM
I think Joe's a much better musician, and I really could care less about Coldplay. I don't listen to much modern stuff. But you're not really making an argument here man. Lyric and melody... Joe's stuff doesn't have any lyrics. Coldplay's melody is only the same for three notes. Of course, they're the hook notes and they're repeated over and over again, so you're going to latch onto those. But, I've just given two other examples where those same three notes are used in a similar fashion. As I was instructed to do.

Admittedly, I'm having trouble finding a 3rd or 4th. I've found plenty of songs that have the same progression, but none that use those exact three notes in the same spot. But I think the point is pretty clear that it's common enough that Joe shouldn't think he's got a patent on it.



You can't make it any more clear than you did. Coldplay should hire you. If I was on the jury, I'd vote in favor of Coldplay after what you just posted.

Taco John
12-06-2008, 11:14 AM
Given Braincase's example, Joe Satriani ABSOLUTELY has a case. Not only can you lie the songs over each other to hear the similarities, they're the same exact tempo and same exact structure. Chris Martin's melody is a near perfect match for Satriani's guitar line.


There's nothing original about a 4/4 tempo... And, for that matter, apparently that melody.

Reaper16
12-06-2008, 11:20 AM
Coldplay is guilty. Nothing more. Nothing less.

DaneMcCloud
12-06-2008, 11:27 AM
You can't make it any more clear than you did. Coldplay should hire you. If I was on the jury, I'd vote in favor of Coldplay after what you just posted.

Are you joking?

Seriously?

DaneMcCloud
12-06-2008, 11:28 AM
There's nothing original about a 4/4 tempo... And, for that matter, apparently that melody.

Um, apparently, you know absolutely nothing about music.

Brock
12-06-2008, 11:28 AM
I wonder who Joe stole it from?

Taco John
12-06-2008, 03:30 PM
Are you joking?

Seriously?



Not at all. I thought mcan presented a pretty sound defense for Cold Play. If I was on the jury, I'd rule in their favor.

And for what it's worth, I'm a fan of Satch, and don't really listen to Coldplay.

Taco John
12-06-2008, 03:32 PM
Um, apparently, you know absolutely nothing about music.


I know enough to know that a 4/4 tempo isn't patented.

chagrin
12-06-2008, 03:33 PM
Um, apparently, you know absolutely nothing about music.

Ding

DaneMcCloud
12-06-2008, 03:35 PM
I know enough to know that a 4/4 tempo isn't patented.

Patented?

ROFL

DaneMcCloud
12-06-2008, 03:35 PM
Not at all. I thought mcan presented a pretty sound defense for Cold Play. If I was on the jury, I'd rule in their favor.



Then you're fucking stupid.

Silock
12-06-2008, 05:37 PM
For once, I totally agree with everything Dane has said about something.

As a musician, I cannot fathom how anyone can NOT hear the obvious similarities.

Taco John
12-06-2008, 07:33 PM
For once, I totally agree with everything Dane has said about something.

As a musician, I cannot fathom how anyone can NOT hear the obvious similarities.

I hear the obvious similarities of four songs. Dane is right, they sound familiar. Mcan is right, that's because the chord arrangement is pretty generic.

As a musician, I know that C-D-G is pretty damn common too. No ballad could have been written in the last 30 years without it.

Silock
12-06-2008, 07:40 PM
I hear the obvious similarities of four songs. Dane is right, they sound familiar. Mcan is right, that's because the chord arrangement is pretty generic.

As a musician, I know that C-D-G is pretty damn common too. No ballad could have been written in the last 30 years without it.

So, if they're similar enough that you can lay one on top of the other, hear the melody of Coldplay's song follow JS' solo nearly perfectly . . . how is that not some kind of actionable legal issue?

DaneMcCloud
12-06-2008, 09:04 PM
As a musician, I know that C-D-G is pretty damn common too. No ballad could have been written in the last 30 years without it.

As a musician, you're certainly no prodigy.

First off, 4/4 does NOT refer to Tempo, as I stated earlier. It refers to Time Signature. Both songs are at the same exact TEMPO, meaning the same exact beats per minute. That is exclusive from time signature. That is no coincidence.

Secondly, the case at hand has absolutely NOTHING to do with the commonality of the chord progression and EVERYTHING to do with melody and plagiarism.

Again, copyright law states "Lyrics and Melody". If the melody is identical, regardless of the underlying "chords", that's plagiarism by the book.

Comprende?

Intellectual property is a very difficult concept for most people to understand. And YES, Satriani copyrighted the melody heard in both songs four years before Coldplay. The similarities are such that Satriani most certainly has evidence of plagiarism.

Buehler445
12-06-2008, 09:43 PM
As a musician, you're certainly no prodigy.

First off, 4/4 does NOT refer to Tempo, as I stated earlier. It refers to Time Signature. Both songs are at the same exact TEMPO, meaning the same exact beats per minute. That is exclusive from time signature. That is no coincidence.

Secondly, the case at hand has absolutely NOTHING to do with the commonality of the chord progression and EVERYTHING to do with melody and plagiarism.

Again, copyright law states "Lyrics and Melody". If the melody is identical, regardless of the underlying "chords", that's plagiarism by the book.

Comprende?

Intellectual property is a very difficult concept for most people to understand. And YES, Satriani copyrighted the melody heard in both songs four years before Coldplay. The similarities are such that Satriani most certainly has evidence of plagiarism.

Copywrite is established at publication, correct?

HMc
12-06-2008, 09:48 PM
Can we get a link to this piece of Legislation?

Buck
12-06-2008, 09:53 PM
Dane, what does Case Law say in this matter?

I don't care about the rest of the stuff in this thread, I'd agree w/ whatever Case Law says about intentional or unintentional plagiarism.

DaneMcCloud
12-06-2008, 10:14 PM
Copywrite is established at publication, correct?

Not necessarily.

You could write a song, record it and apply for US copyrights. No one but your friends and family may ever hear the song, but you own the copyright to that song.

Before a song is released to the general public, a lawyer will recommend that you copyright your material, regardless of whether or not you have a publisher. If you material is released through a record label it's very likely that you will or would have signed a publishing deal with a music publishing company and at that time (for as long as the contract states), the music publishing company owns the copyright and can exploit the song as they see fit.

Once that deal is signedm the music publisher will take (in this instance) 25% of the song earnings (royalties) for administering (i.e., collecting) royalties. Advances on future earnings are very common as well (sometimes into the millions).

As I stated earlier, if a judgment is made in Satriani's favor, Coldplay will NOT be "cutting checks" to him. The music publisher will re-assign the rights to the song so that future earning reflect his share. Any royalties due would be paid to Satch by the publishing company but that amount will be recoupable by Coldplay.

So for example, if that song has generated $4 million in revenues, Coldplay's account would be given a negative balance (unrecouped). Coldplay would then need to earn $4 million and one dollar before receiving any further royalties from publishing.

jjjayb
12-06-2008, 10:16 PM
Here's one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G57CgtX-BsI



The guitar in that song sounds like Satriani's too. Should Joe be suing them too or should they be suing Joe?

DaneMcCloud
12-06-2008, 10:17 PM
Dane, what does Case Law say in this matter?

I don't care about the rest of the stuff in this thread, I'd agree w/ whatever Case Law says about intentional or unintentional plagiarism.

Huey Lewis won.

Jagger/Richards own ALL of the Verve's song "Bittersweet Symphony",

There are too many cases of plagiarism to cite.

The bottom line IMEO is that Satriani definitely has a case and as stated earlier, I'd be shocked if he wasn't awarded a share of the song.

Buck
12-06-2008, 10:18 PM
Huey Lewis won.

Jagger/Richards own ALL of the Verve's song "Bittersweet Symphony",

There are too many cases of plagiarism to cite.

The bottom line IMEO is that Satriani definitely has a case and as stated earlier, I'd be shocked if he wasn't awarded a share of the song.

I never realized that about Bittersweet Symphony...Sort of Ironic, considering the title of the song.

Looks like I've got some reading to do.

HMc
12-06-2008, 10:27 PM
Huey Lewis won.

Jagger/Richards own ALL of the Verve's song "Bittersweet Symphony",


That matter was settled - I imagine the Verve didnt have (at that stage) the $$$ to fight it.

Coldplay would have deep pockets.

Additionally, bittersweet symphony was a sampling case.

DaneMcCloud
12-06-2008, 11:24 PM
That matter was settled - I imagine the Verve didnt have (at that stage) the $$$ to fight it.

Coldplay would have deep pockets.

Additionally, bittersweet symphony was a sampling case.

Clearly, you have no understanding of copyright law or intellectual property.

It isn't about "pocketbooks".

JFC.

It's PROTECTION.

Thig Lyfe
12-06-2008, 11:35 PM
The Verve case isn't exactly parallel, since the issue was an actual sample of a Rolling Stones song, not a ripped-off chord progression.

HMc
12-06-2008, 11:35 PM
Clearly, you have no understanding of copyright law or intellectual property.

It isn't about "pocketbooks".

JFC.

It's PROTECTION.

I just wasn't sure why you would raise a case that was settled out of court over a different issue (sampling), when you were asked to provide case law for the purposes of establishing a precedent?

But you're right, my grasp of American copyright and IP law is probably fairly weak, why the hell would I know anything about it?

I'd still like to see the relevant legislation, if that's where your "Lyrics an Melody" test is from. If it's a test from a case - I'd like to see that aswell.

DaneMcCloud
12-06-2008, 11:47 PM
The Verve case isn't exactly parallel, since the issue was an actual sample of a Rolling Stones song, not a ripped-off chord progression.

The point being that the courts side with the copyright owners.

I was surprised at that ruling, honestly. But it just goes to show that the courts don't mess around.

DaneMcCloud
12-06-2008, 11:49 PM
I just wasn't sure why you would raise a case that was settled out of court over a different issue (sampling), when you were asked to provide case law for the purposes of establishing a precedent?

Case law? Go fuck yourself. Huey Lewis vs. Ray Johnson wasn't enough? There are hundreds of cases. Go research them yourself, Dickbag.

And while you're at it, go fuck yourself.

Cunt.

DaneMcCloud
12-06-2008, 11:53 PM
I'd still like to see the relevant legislation, if that's where your "Lyrics an Melody" test is from. If it's a test from a case - I'd like to see that aswell.

Why?

Do you represent songwriters in which you're currently "bleeding"?

That wouldn't surprise me.

DaneMcCloud
12-06-2008, 11:55 PM
Can we get a link to this piece of Legislation?

Google is probably difficult for a dumbfuck like yourself.

Roy Junior's brighter than you.

HMc
12-07-2008, 12:01 AM
The point being that the courts side with the copyright owners.

I was surprised at that ruling, honestly. But it just goes to show that the courts don't mess around.

Holy crap dane, there was no ruling, the case was settled.

And, according to http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=60402 , my guess about the band lacking the finances to fight the legal battle was spot on.

I doubt you know half as much as you claim to do, regardless of your supposed career.

DaneMcCloud
12-07-2008, 12:03 AM
Holy crap dane, there was no ruling, the case was settled.

And, according to http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=60402 , my guess about the band lacking the finances to fight the legal battle was spot on.

I doubt you know half as much as you claim to do, regardless of your supposed career.

Yeah for Wikipedia and websites. ROFL

Go fuck yourself.


I doubt you know half as much as you claim to do, regardless of your supposed career.

Well as usual, you are completely fucking wrong.

Now, go fuck yourself.

HMc
12-07-2008, 12:07 AM
I'm surprised that such a hotshot hollywood executive who knows more about IP than but a mere few on the planet (earth) would use a case to make a point when he wasn't aware that the case didn't actually make it to judgement.

DaneMcCloud
12-07-2008, 12:10 AM
I'm surprised that such a hotshot hollywood executive who knows more about IP than but a mere few on the planet (earth) would use a case to make a point when he wasn't aware that the case didn't actually make it to judgement.



So, given your one person post from 2004, we're supposed to assume exactly what?

The bottom line is that copyright law is copyright law. If Coldplay and Satriani agree to terms outside of a jury ruling, are we to assume that the law didn't apply? The same laws apply to Jagger/Richards and The Verve.

Give me a fucking break.

HMc
12-07-2008, 12:14 AM
Yeah for Wikipedia and websites. ROFL

Go **** yourself.



Your retort to being called out on seemingly knowing sweet-f*ck-all about the Bittersweet Symphony case is that I've used the internet to collect some basic facts about it?

I'd rather use the simple resources in the time available to learn what basically occurred than spew complete excrement and hope people will blindly eat it up because I've talked up how important I used to be in the entertainment industry.

DaneMcCloud
12-07-2008, 12:16 AM
Furthermore, it appears that you can't even use Google effectively, Cunt:

Originally, The Verve had negotiated a license to use a sample (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_%28music%29) from the Oldham recording, but it was successfully argued that the Verve had used 'too much' of the sample.<sup id="cite_ref-3" class="reference">[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitter_Sweet_Symphony#cite_note-3)</sup> Despite having original lyrics, the music of "Bitter Sweet Symphony" is largely based on the Oldham track (the song uses the sample as its foundation and then builds upon, though the continuous riff is Ashcroft's creation), which led to a lawsuit with ABKCO Records (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABKCO_Records), Allen Klein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Klein)'s company that owns the rights to the Rolling Stones material of the 1960s. The matter was eventually settled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_%28law%29), with copyright of the song reverting to ABKCO and songwriting credits to Jagger and Richards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagger/Richards).

In a Cash For Questions interview with Q magazine in 1998, Keith Richards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Richards) was asked if he thought it was harsh taking all The Verve's royalties from Bitter Sweet Symphony to which he replied, "I'm out of wack here, this is serious lawyer shit. If The Verve can write a better song, they can keep the money."

DaneMcCloud
12-07-2008, 12:18 AM
YI'd rather use the simple resources in the time available to learn what basically occurred than spew complete excrement and hope people will blindly eat it up because I've talked up how important I used to be in the entertainment industry.


ROFLROFLROFL

I'll tell you what you little piece of crocodile, criminal shit: I'll put my assets, bank account and life up against your pitiful existence any day of the week.

Again, go fuck yourself.

It's all you've got.

HMc
12-07-2008, 12:21 AM
The bottom line is that copyright law is copyright law.



How incredibly insightful. Contentious copyright matters are still contested in court, and the fact that some may settle with the outcome becoming public does not give the court a ruling to use as persuasive or binding precedent in later cases.

Parties to Litigation settle out of court for all sorts of reasons - one of those reasons is sometimes that they would not have the money to see the matter through trial. It's quite possible that Ashcroft et al found themselves in this position.



If Coldplay and Satriani agree to terms outside of a jury ruling, are we to assume that the law didn't apply? The same laws apply to Jagger/Richards and The Verve.



Certainly - but using the latter as an example of "case law" is flat out wrong, because, yknow, it isnt.

HMc
12-07-2008, 12:24 AM
ROFLROFLROFL

I'll tell you what you little piece of crocodile, criminal shit: I'll put my assets, bank account and life up against your pitiful existence any day of the week.

Again, go **** yourself.

It's all you've got.

Wow, you really are a pathetic big-noting wanker, aren't you?

DaneMcCloud
12-07-2008, 12:24 AM
It's quite possible that Ashcroft et al found themselves in this position.


Conjecture, again.

DaneMcCloud
12-07-2008, 12:24 AM
Wow, you really are a pathetic big-noting wanker, aren't you?

If you say so.


Apparently, you've seen yourself as my personal judge and jury since you joined the 'Planet.

HMc
12-07-2008, 12:28 AM
If you say so.


Apparently, you've seen yourself as my personal judge and jury since you joined the 'Planet.

Is this why you're so angry, Dane, because I've called you out for being a tosser previously?

Having lots (or not lots, who would know)of money and living on the pacific ocean doesn't really mean shit around these parts, especially if you constantly go around telling people about it.

Pitt Gorilla
12-07-2008, 12:28 AM
In related news, Saliva is suing itself for plagiarism as all of their new songs sound exactly like their old ones.

DaneMcCloud
12-07-2008, 12:30 AM
Is this why you're so angry, Dane, because I've called you out for being a tosser previously?

Having lots (or not lots, who would know)of money and living on the pacific ocean doesn't really mean shit around these parts, especially if you constantly go around telling people about it.

Being a complete and utter dumbfuck doesn't really go to far around here, either.

Anyone can spot a phony, such as yourself.

DaneMcCloud
12-07-2008, 12:31 AM
In related news, Saliva is suing itself for plagiarism as all of their new songs sound exactly like their old ones.

ROFL

Copying someone else: Plagiarism.

Copying yourself: Style.

HMc
12-07-2008, 12:33 AM
Anyone can spot a phony, such as yourself.

Phony, as in, holding yourself out to be something that you aren't? That kind of phony?

You've made a fairly good fist of that in this thread, actually.

DaneMcCloud
12-07-2008, 12:40 AM
Phony, as in, holding yourself out to be something that you aren't? That kind of phony?

You've made a fairly good fist of that in this thread, actually.

Yeah, because I haven't stated copyright law in US in this thread or for the past 8 years. :huh:

JFC, I used to argue with all of the old timers about illegal downloading while working Uni and Paramount and the old KC Star board and early on in this forum.

You need a new schtick. It's getting old.

DaneMcCloud
12-07-2008, 12:42 AM
Phony, as in, holding yourself out to be something that you aren't? That kind of phony?

You've made a fairly good fist of that in this thread, actually.

And considering that Planet members have been to my home and actually KNOW me, your "argument" holds absolutely no weight.

As usual.

HMc
12-07-2008, 12:45 AM
Oh, I never suggested your shit-talking was a recent phenomenon.

DaneMcCloud
12-07-2008, 12:47 AM
Oh, I never suggested your shit-talking was a recent phenomenon.

I know.

And you're in the minority, shark-boy.

It must suck to be in Australia because apparently, you have nothing better to do.

HMc
12-07-2008, 12:51 AM
Says the guy posting along with me (sort of destroys that nothing better to do sledge) at what, 11:50 on a saturday night? You really are a superstar, aren't you?

DaneMcCloud
12-07-2008, 12:52 AM
Says the guy posting along with me (sort of destroys that nothing better to do sledge) at what, 11:50 on a saturday night? You really are a superstar, aren't you?

Considering I'm 43 and have an infant daughter, I'd say yes.

Darth CarlSatan
12-07-2008, 04:38 AM
Question of the Day:

James and Lars; can the suckage grow to even greater heights? Is there truly no bottom to the levels of suckage and uselessness that these two turd-whackers can continue to peddle as "music"?

Will Metallica one day be the best-selling elevator music ever pumped in to the Assisted Living Center?

Discuss.

mcan
12-07-2008, 05:05 AM
First off, 4/4 does NOT refer to Tempo, as I stated earlier. It refers to Time Signature. Both songs are at the same exact TEMPO, meaning the same exact beats per minute. That is exclusive from time signature. That is no coincidence.



It's pretty clear that you and I aren't even having the same discussion, if you're merely trying to venture a guess as to who will win in court, then you're probably right. You seem to know more about the law. I've never even read the law, and I'm not trying to guess as to what will happen.

What I'm trying to do is go back and look at exactly WHAT is similar between the two songs.

1. They have the same chord progression.
2. Both songs use the same 3 note melody as a hook.

---------------------------------
Edit: I feel bad for going on the attack
---------------------------------

I'd still like to point out that the tempo of the two songs as they were recorded are NOT the same. The "mashup" that has been posted on youtube used programs to speed up Satriani's song and slow down Coldplay's song so that they would match.

BCD
12-07-2008, 05:24 AM
For once, I totally agree with everything Dane has said about something.

As a musician, I cannot fathom how anyone can NOT hear the obvious similarities.I am NOT a musician and I cannot fathom how anyone can NOT hear the obvious similarities...:)

Silock
12-07-2008, 12:51 PM
I'm surprised that such a hotshot hollywood executive who knows more about IP than but a mere few on the planet (earth) would use a case to make a point when he wasn't aware that the case didn't actually make it to judgement.



If they didn't have a case, why would they have settled? That doesn't make any sense. If they could have won, they would have.

DaneMcCloud
12-07-2008, 03:09 PM
Okay. If that's against the law, then whatever... You would know better than I would. What I'm saying is that it SHOULDN'T be against the law. That's an opinion.

If the law didn't state "Lyric and Melody", then it would be legal to steal the melody of any song and use it in another. The overwhelming majority of music listeners (non-musicians) identify a song by its melody, not the underlying chord protection.

So essentially in your world, the person who created the unique melody wouldn't be protected by law. And intellectual property would have no value.

No thanks.

Taco John
12-07-2008, 05:36 PM
Why is it that every thread Dane gets involved in, there's a 50% chance that it's going to devolve into a pissing match about just how cool he thinks he is?

DaneMcCloud
12-07-2008, 05:38 PM
Why is it that every thread Dane gets involved in, there's a 50% chance that it's going to devolve into a pissing match about just how cool he thinks he is?

Every thread?

This from Taco John?

ROFL

mcan
12-07-2008, 06:25 PM
If the law didn't state "Lyric and Melody", then it would be legal to steal the melody of any song and use it in another. The overwhelming majority of music listeners (non-musicians) identify a song by its melody, not the underlying chord protection.

So essentially in your world, the person who created the unique melody wouldn't be protected by law. And intellectual property would have no value.

No thanks.

See, this is more the discussion I was hoping for. I went a little overboard on the attack last night. Deleting soon.

I don't think that the melody has been "stolen" enough to prove that there was any intent to steal. Those first three notes are blatantly and obviously the same. That's what Joe's suing for. I just think that's a bit too stringent of a law, and it does all songwriters everywhere a disservice. How many notes in a row are too many. Two notes in a row can't be the line, or else every single interval would already be copywritten. I think the standard for accusing somebody of stealing should be set way higher. Maybe 5 or 7 identical notes in a row. And probably a lot higher than that if the song is in a straight and common key or if the melody consists entirely of rest tones of the chord. There's just no way that a musician can still be a decent artist and bear the burden of knowing every single possibly combination of 3 notes that's been used by every previous musician that's come before him.

Darth CarlSatan
12-07-2008, 06:37 PM
I call Artist Importance Priority:

Satriani is a virtuoso and composer.

Coldplay is a quirky, snooze-fest band that for some reason have garnered a rep as something akin to Pink Floyd.

Judgement: PLAINTIFF.

TinyEvel
12-07-2008, 07:50 PM
Has anyone posted the "getcha popcorn" smiley yet?

Because if not...



:popcorn:

Ebolapox
12-07-2008, 07:55 PM
Has anyone posted the "getcha popcorn" smiley yet?

Because if not...



:popcorn:

feh. the popcorn has gone stale. the thread lost its burst fifteen posts ago.

TinyEvel
12-07-2008, 08:01 PM
Wait, who the hell is Joe satriani?

I bet he's not as dreamy as Chris Martin.

DaneMcCloud
12-07-2008, 08:25 PM
See, this is more the discussion I was hoping for. I went a little overboard on the attack last night. Deleting soon.



No worries, Dude.

As I stated in my first response, proving plagiarism is extremely difficult. Extremely. Joe Satriani's people will have to somehow prove that Chris Martin and/or anyone in Coldplay actually heard Joe's song.

And as I stated earlier, Chris Martin may have heard this song in passing years ago, only to unintentionally use the same melody for their song.

It's a difficult case for sure.

Mr. Kotter
12-07-2008, 10:19 PM
Why is it that every thread Dane gets involved in, there's a 50% chance that it's going to devolve into a pissing match about just how cool he thinks he is?

Talk about the skillet callin' the kettle black..... ROFL

TinyEvel
12-07-2008, 10:36 PM
I sat on one of my balls today. I wanted to sue that ball for obstruction of sitting. But I won't. It still is a part of me.

Silock
12-07-2008, 10:55 PM
Every thread?

This from Taco John?

ROFL

I'm not going to say EVERY thread, but come on, man. You're 43 years old. Isn't it time to mellow out a bit? I think you let other people get to you too much. Just let it go, safe and secure in the knowledge that you're right on this issue :)

TinyEvel
12-08-2008, 11:47 AM
In my opinion, Satriani should also be suing THE HOME DEPPOT for ripping off the same song.

Listen at :06.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9jhLyKWkUAY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9jhLyKWkUAY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

patteeu
12-08-2008, 11:55 AM
If they didn't have a case, why would they have settled? That doesn't make any sense. If they could have won, they would have.

There's risk involved in going to a judgment because you can never be sure that you'll win even if you think you've got a strong case. Settlements are a way of paying to eliminate that risk. Kind of like the "buy now" option on ebay.

OnTheWarpath58
12-08-2008, 01:31 PM
In my opinion, Satriani should also be suing THE HOME DEPPOT for ripping off the same song.

Listen at :06.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9jhLyKWkUAY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9jhLyKWkUAY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

ROFL

Braincase
12-08-2008, 02:01 PM
Wait, who the hell is Joe satriani?

I bet he's not as dreamy as Chris Martin.

Based on avatar, I believe TinyEvel has become DOMO-KUN!

TinyEvel
12-08-2008, 03:06 PM
Based on avatar, I believe TinyEvel has become DOMO-KUN!

Hmmm....

tk13
12-09-2008, 12:46 AM
I've always wondered if you tried hard enough, how many cases like this you could probably find. It's hard to reinvent the wheel. That's how you get two people claiming the same band stole the same song.

That chorus bit definitely sounds similar. I personally enjoyed the new album though, I don't know if it was working with Brian Eno or what, I liked it way better than X&Y. But I like all kinds of music, I really could give a rip about what the rest of you idiots think. :)

Braincase
12-09-2008, 05:29 AM
I've always wondered if you tried hard enough, how many cases like this you could probably find. It's hard to reinvent the wheel. That's how you get two people claiming the same band stole the same song.

That chorus bit definitely sounds similar. I personally enjoyed the new album though, I don't know if it was working with Brian Eno or what, I liked it way better than X&Y. But I like all kinds of music, I really could give a rip about what the rest of you idiots think. :)

I think you might be onto something here. Rumor has it that Eno and satch are from the same star cluster in the Gamma Quadrant.

DJ's left nut
12-10-2008, 10:56 PM
No worries, Dude.

As I stated in my first response, proving plagiarism is extremely difficult. Extremely. Joe Satriani's people will have to somehow prove that Chris Martin and/or anyone in Coldplay actually heard Joe's song.

And as I stated earlier, Chris Martin may have heard this song in passing years ago, only to unintentionally use the same melody for their song.

It's a difficult case for sure.

Knowledge can be inferred from facts/circumstances.

They don't technically have to prove he heard it. They can present the music to the jury and allow the jury to make the inference that the songs could never have been so similar but/for Martin having heard the song.

DaneMcCloud
12-10-2008, 11:31 PM
Knowledge can be inferred from facts/circumstances.

They don't technically have to prove he heard it. They can present the music to the jury and allow the jury to make the inference that the songs could never have been so similar but/for Martin having heard the song.

This is completely false.

Certain guidelines have been established to prevent the shutdown of the entire music business. Case law now exists to prevent this from happening.

The main element the plaintiff has to "prove" is Coldplay had access to and had heard Satriani's riff. If they can't prove that, the case is over.

Period.

Baby Lee
12-11-2008, 07:54 AM
The standards at play are "reasonable possibility of access" and "striking similarity." And the less the evidence of access, the more striking the similarity must be. But, as has been hashed previously in this thread, the courts are mindful of the finite number of notes and chords, so the striking similarity must "extend beyond themes that could have been derived from a common source or themes that are so trite as to be likely to reappear in many compositions."

RaiderH8r
12-11-2008, 10:43 AM
This is completely false.

Certain guidelines have been established to prevent the shutdown of the entire music business. Case law now exists to prevent this from happening.

The main element the plaintiff has to "prove" is Coldplay had access to and had heard Satriani's riff. If they can't prove that, the case is over.

Period.

Does Chris Martin have access to the internets? Case closed.

DaneMcCloud
12-11-2008, 10:48 AM
Does Chris Martin have access to the internets? Case closed.

ROFL

It's not that simple.

RaiderH8r
12-11-2008, 10:57 AM
ROFL

It's not that simple.

Are you sure? I read somewhere that downloading music on the internets is the debil and that the FBI has a list of everyone who has ever downloaded anything anywhere at any time. All Satriani needs is that list and Chris' laptop and BAM. Coldplay busted for copyright infringement, illegal music downloads, and man-goat-man devil porn.

Braincase
12-11-2008, 11:28 AM
I would like to state now and for the record that I never intended for this thread to reach 100 posts.

patteeu
12-11-2008, 12:01 PM
I would like to state now and for the record that I never intended for this thread to reach 100 posts.

Stop being modest. You knew that Dane was going to go wild on this topic and anytime Dane speaks up there are half a dozen people to disagree with him no matter what he's saying. Tell the truth, you expect 200 don't you? ;)

DJ's left nut
12-11-2008, 09:11 PM
This is completely false.

Certain guidelines have been established to prevent the shutdown of the entire music business. Case law now exists to prevent this from happening.

The main element the plaintiff has to "prove" is Coldplay had access to and had heard Satriani's riff. If they can't prove that, the case is over.

Period.

I know you like to whip your dick out and what not, but you're wrong here.

Your statement is technically correct, but it doesn't address my statement, it speaks past it. Yes, the Plaintiff would have to prove knowledge, but this can be done without any testimony from Martin, confessions or recorded conversations from Martin and/or pictures of Martin sitting next to a coldplay CD with his headphones on giving a thumbs up.

There are any number of methods that can be used to prove 'knowledge'. They could put the guy on the stand and have him admit it, that's obviously one method. Another way to prove up knowledge is via inference. This is applicable to nearly any case requiring that one side prove actual knowledge by the other party. Remember, a jury can make credibility assessments based on any number of things. Martin can go on the stand, say "nope, never heard it, not once", the plaintiff's attorney could then present the mashup and say "just listen to the music folks. He said he never heard it, but you can tell here that he's lying, there's simply no other way for it to be this close..." The plaintiff's attorney can immediately call Martin's credibility into question and allow the jury to make the inference that he has heard it, despite all assertions to the contrary.

The song alone is enough for the plaintiff to meet his burden of production, the question is whether it meets the burden of persuasion. If the Plaintiff produced only the song to the jury and a more elequent version of the above argument, it would survive any motion for summary judgment and any motion for a JNOV. Simply put, it's absolutely legally sufficient to support a judgment and it's likely to carry a TON of weight with the jury.

I don't care that you worked in the record industry, this isn't a music issue or an IP issue. This is a law issue, which would be my purview. I'm an attorney with an IP certificate (though I will admit I don't practice in the area, didn't want to take the PATBAR which is damn near required for any firm that does it), but my current practice is almost purely plaintiffs litigation.

You're wrong, or at the very least so damn sure of yourself that you didn't bother to actually think before beating your chest.

Now please put your dick away.

DaneMcCloud
12-11-2008, 11:17 PM
I know you like to whip your dick out and what not, but you're wrong here.

Your statement is technically correct, but it doesn't address my statement, it speaks past it. Yes, the Plaintiff would have to prove knowledge, but this can be done without any testimony from Martin, confessions or recorded conversations from Martin and/or pictures of Martin sitting next to a coldplay CD with his headphones on giving a thumbs up.

There are any number of methods that can be used to prove 'knowledge'. They could put the guy on the stand and have him admit it, that's obviously one method. Another way to prove up knowledge is via inference. This is applicable to nearly any case requiring that one side prove actual knowledge by the other party. Remember, a jury can make credibility assessments based on any number of things. Martin can go on the stand, say "nope, never heard it, not once", the plaintiff's attorney could then present the mashup and say "just listen to the music folks. He said he never heard it, but you can tell here that he's lying, there's simply no other way for it to be this close..." The plaintiff's attorney can immediately call Martin's credibility into question and allow the jury to make the inference that he has heard it, despite all assertions to the contrary.

The song alone is enough for the plaintiff to meet his burden of production, the question is whether it meets the burden of persuasion. If the Plaintiff produced only the song to the jury and a more elequent version of the above argument, it would survive any motion for summary judgment and any motion for a JNOV. Simply put, it's absolutely legally sufficient to support a judgment and it's likely to carry a TON of weight with the jury.

I don't care that you worked in the record industry, this isn't a music issue or an IP issue. This is a law issue, which would be my purview. I'm an attorney with an IP certificate (though I will admit I don't practice in the area, didn't want to take the PATBAR which is damn near required for any firm that does it), but my current practice is almost purely plaintiffs litigation.

You're wrong, or at the very least so damn sure of yourself that you didn't bother to actually think before beating your chest.

Now please put your dick away.

So, how many copyright infringement cases have you been involved in?

How long have you worked in the music industry?

Do you have any concept of intellectual rights and their protection?

If you seriously think that you're correct, I can tell you that without a doubt, you're flat out WRONG in this case.

If the law did not protect composers and copyrights as it does (and should), there would be no music industry.

Copyright infringement is EXTREMELY difficult to prove and furthermore, Joe Satriani's lawyers will have to prove that Coldplay actually heard the song beforehand, regardless of your worthless post.

DJ's left nut
12-12-2008, 08:06 AM
Whatever you say. You're speaking past the point, but I don't care to attempt to educate you. This is not a standard of proof matter (as you keep attempting to make it), it's a methods of proof matter (with some sufficiency of evidence stuff thrown in).

Methods of proof do not change based on the subject matter. Standards do, methods don't.

Do you have to clinch your ass harder to piss that far?

DJ's left nut
12-12-2008, 08:24 AM
As for that caselaw that you continually allude to but can't produce:

Cavalier v. Random House -- 297 F.3d 815 (C.A.9)

To establish a successful copyright infringement claim, a plaintiff must show that he or she owns the copyright and that defendant copied protected elements of the work. Shaw, 919 F.2d at 1356. Copying may be established by showing that the infringer had access to plaintiff's copyrighted work and that the works at issue are substantially similar in their protected elements. Id. For purposes of their summary judgment motion, Random House and CTW did not contest ownership or access. The sole issue before us is whether any of Random House's or CTW's works were substantially similar to the Cavaliers' submissions.

That took about 5 minutes. The case has recieved a positive citation roughly 300 times since 2002 (about 200 of them on that particular point of law), most recently by the S.D. Cal in 2008. That general statement of law has been made in some capacity roughly 1200 times since about the mid 60's. I'd say it's accepted law. With any appreciable amount of time I could also produce the methods of proof, but that'd be a little more difficult as it's rarely going to be the grounds for appeal. If it's not appealed, it's not published and thus not precedent, but I'm sure you already knew that, seeing as how you think a settled case at the trial level somehow constitutes precedent.

But hey, you worked in music so you know all there is to know about how the F'ing law works.


EDIT:

Ah hell, let's get the methods of proof stuff in there as well.

King Records, Inc. v. Bennett -- 438 F.Supp.2d 812 (Tenn 2006)

When there is no direct evidence of copying in a copyright infringement case, courts must rely on inferences drawn from (1) a defendant's access to the allegedly infringed work; and (2) the substantial similarity between defendant's work and the allegedly infringed work.


Holy balls! You mean direct evidence isn't required on a copyright case and that a factfinder is allowed to draw inferences to reach a factual conclusion?!?!?!? (be it jury trial or bench trial, though a plaintiff has the right to demand a jury trial under s. 504)

If you saw a trial go awry while in the music industry, you simply didn't understand what you saw. What almost assuredly happened was a judgment as a matter of law (Art Attacks LLC v. MGA Entertainment would be a good source for a breakdown on that. It's a slip opinion thus not actual precedent, but it lays out the events/standards extremely well). You can't ever be positive of what a judge will do on one of those motions, but they clearly aren't granted often and the caselaw itself lays out exactly what must be proven and how it can be done.

You're wrong. Put your dick away.

DaneMcCloud
12-12-2008, 10:31 AM
Print is different than music.

I've talked to attorney friends at both Warners and Uni (Uni is the music publisher in question) and both told me that Satriani will have to prove that Coldplay not only heard the song but had intent to steal it.

Here's the deal: IF judges in past cases hadn't rules as they had, the music business go away. No one wants that. There are only 12 notes. 90% of all blues songs use the same I-IV-V progression over a shuffle. Are you telling me that the first person you used that progression should have sued everyone that followed?

How about three chord rock songs? Punk music? I could go on and on and on.

If you were correct (and your not, sorry), there wouldn't be a music business and copyright protection because everyone would sue everyone for plagiarism.

Thankfully, it's not that way.

The burden of proof is on Joe Satriani and his lawyers. It's going to be extremely difficult for them to win.

Baby Lee
12-12-2008, 10:41 AM
Print is different than music.

I've talked to attorney friends at both Warners and Uni (Uni is the music publisher in question) and both told me that Satriani will have to prove that Coldplay not only heard the song but had intent to steal it.

Here's the deal: IF judges in past cases hadn't rules as they had, the music business go away. No one wants that. There are only 12 notes. 90% of all blues songs use the same I-IV-V progression over a shuffle. Are you telling me that the first person you used that progression should have sued everyone that followed?

How about three chord rock songs? Punk music? I could go on and on and on.

If you were correct (and your not, sorry), there wouldn't be a music business and copyright protection because everyone would sue everyone for plagiarism.

Thankfully, it's not that way.

The burden of proof is on Joe Satriani and his lawyers. It's going to be extremely difficult for them to win.

Copyright is copyright, it's still an interplay between POSSIBILITY of access and DEGREE of similarity.

DaneMcCloud
12-12-2008, 10:41 AM
Oh, there is the "prior use" factor as well.

If Coldplay's lawyers can prove that the melody in question existed before Satriani's song, then it's case closed.

There was an example of a Spanish band that used a very similiar melody to Satriani's in 2002. That may be enough for the judge to dismiss.

The bottom line is that while you may be a lawyer, you've already stated that you don't practice intellectual property law and you don't work in the entertainment business. This is a highly specialized section of our laws and one in which you're unfamiliar at this time.

DaneMcCloud
12-12-2008, 10:44 AM
Copyright is copyright, it's still an interplay between POSSIBILITY of access and DEGREE of similarity.

If you were to ask me, I'd say they're very similar. But it's not an "original" work. That melody has been used in the past on the Spanish song that I cited. Satriani wasn't sued for using the similar melody, was he?

The most disappointing aspect about this case (and being a huge fan of Joe's) is that most view this as some sort of publicity stunt. Which is sad.

DaneMcCloud
12-12-2008, 10:46 AM
Someone else posted this earlier in the thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G57CgtX-BsI

DaneMcCloud
12-12-2008, 10:47 AM
Copyright is copyright, it's still an interplay between POSSIBILITY of access and DEGREE of similarity.

Additionally, if the copyright laws were so incredibly strict, there'd be a million cases out there due to the similarity in all blues songs, where the lyric is the main identifier.

Baby Lee
12-12-2008, 10:48 AM
Oh, there is the "prior use" factor as well.

If Coldplay's lawyers can prove that the melody in question existed before Satriani's song, then it's case closed.

There was an example of a Spanish band that used a very similiar melody to Satriani's in 2002. That may be enough for the judge to dismiss.

The bottom line is that while you may be a lawyer, you've already stated that you don't practice intellectual property law and you don't work in the entertainment business. This is a highly specialized section of our laws and one in which you're unfamiliar at this time.

He did say he has an IP cert.

And the existence of a proir iteration is not 'case closed' either.

You're not going to get these solid cases where the misappropriator leaves around a tape of themselves saying 'I heard this great riff I think we should copy and publish as our own' that establishes intent. Misappropriation is a question of fact based on reasonable inferences about availability and similarity.

DaneMcCloud
12-12-2008, 10:52 AM
He did say he has an IP cert.

And the existence of a proir iteration is not 'case closed' either.

You're not going to get these solid cases where the misappropriator leaves around a tape of themselves saying 'I heard this great riff I think we should copy and publish as our own' that establishes intent. Misappropriation is a question of fact based on reasonable inferences about availability and similarity.

Look, I'm going to stop debating with lawyers that don't work in the music business.

Do I personally think that the songs are very similar? Yes. As I stated early in the thread, I think that Joe deserves a writer portion of the song but I also stated that it's very, very difficult to prove due to existing case law in such matters.

As I said earlier, I spoke to two lawyers just this week that DO work in the entertainment business that told me that he can't win. He has to prove intent and prior knowledge of the song.

Do I write the laws? No. I'm just passing on information based on 11 years in Music Publishing (copyrights, royalties and business affairs) and from attorney friends that work in the business.

Draw your own conclusions if you must.

Baby Lee
12-12-2008, 11:00 AM
Look, I'm going to stop debating with lawyers that don't work in the music business.

Do I personally think that the songs are very similar? Yes. As I stated early in the thread, I think that Joe deserves a writer portion of the song but I also stated that it's very, very difficult to prove due to existing case law in such matters.

As I said earlier, I spoke to two lawyers just this week that DO work in the entertainment business that told me that he can't win. He has to prove intent and prior knowledge of the song.

Do I write the laws? No. I'm just passing on information based on 11 years in Music Publishing (copyrights, royalties and business affairs) and from attorney friends that work in the business.

Draw your own conclusions if you must.

Maybe we should stop arguing with people who are in entertainment but have no legal training. ;)

Yes, they have to prove 'intent' and 'prior knowledge,' but they're still working in the world of civil litigation where the propenderance of the evidence and reasonable inferences are well developed concepts.
In other words, Intent and prior knowledge can be 'proven' by reasonable inferences from analysis of strikingly similar, widely distributed, content.

Your take is similar to someone saying 'I can't be convicted of murder, because I haven't confessed.'

Brock
12-12-2008, 11:35 AM
Shut up, you aren't in the music business, you don't even live in southern California.

DaneMcCloud
12-12-2008, 02:57 PM
Your take is similar to someone saying 'I can't be convicted of murder, because I haven't confessed.'

Let me put it this way: Everyone steals from everyone. If the courts did not realize this, there would be no copyright protection.

I'm not implying that you and DJ are wrong in the strictest sense of the law but this is a highly specialized area that's practiced by very few.

And with all due respect to you and DJ, I'll take the word of my lawyer friends that deal with these issues over than those that are less familiar with them.

DJ's left nut
12-12-2008, 08:25 PM
I just think you're going to far with your analysis. You're assigning an inaccurate cause to what is likely an accurate conclusion.

A) The first case I cited was a music case, chosen specifically for that reason. That law is absolutley applicable to music. It is extremely instructive in that it exactly breaks down the general doctrine I stated in my first post, as applied to a music case. It's common knowledge that in a civil matter facts can be established via inference; that case states exactly how this is done in a music copyright case. (EDIT: Actually, after looking at it again, I found a song case as a demonstrative, and then backed up to the seminal case in the field as it's usually a stronger citation, a root source thing. Additionally, the first music case I found was a slip opinion and without legal software, you can't find it online. Lemme admit that, while I think that case I cited was a song case, if it wasn't there were at least a dozen song cases that adopted that exact language and cited that case as precedent. Trust me, it's applicable to music cases as well; try King's Records v. Bennett if you're able to get access, but as a slip opinion I can make no promises.)

B) The second case is a TN case and the bolded portion is dicta anyway. However, the fact remains that it is applicable in that is very clearly lays out how the previously cited law is broken down. I used it because it's demonstrative. You don't need that case to get that result, it just provides a succinct statement of it.

Satriani's lawyers may very well have a hard time, but it's not because the laws are stacked against them. It's because Coldplay will have their own army of extremely well-paid lawyers as well who's job will be to plant that doubt in the minds of the jury. The law itself actually stacks up okay for Satriani, but Coldplay will have some damn good lawyers on the other side trying to do the same things that were done earlier in this thread (i.e. present songs with similar progressions, chords, tempos, etc...).

I don't doubt you know the music industry, but this isn't a music thing. This is a civil jurisprudence thing, and most honestly don't have any idea about the interplay of fact v. law questions in trial. Notice how many of the cases you yourself have referenced in this thread have gone to the jury. If direct evidence was the only way to prove knowledge, nothing would ever go to the jury. Either there is direct evidence establishing it, in which case there are no disputed issues of material fact and the case is handled via summary judgment, or there is no direct evidence, in which case there is no way to survive a motion for judgment on the pleadings. It is the existence of indirect evidence that allows for jury trials (or at least in these kinds of cases).

The law itself is clear cut and was cited above. The only requirement of the law is that actual knowledge be proven, in that you are correct. The law then goes on to say that this can be done via direct evidence or via inference. Again, that's straight out of a California court on a song copyright case. The courts rarely (and to my knowledge never in a civil setting) dictate how facts can be establishd to a jury, outside of perjury.

The fact question is where this will get murkey and where I think you're making a leap that isn't there. Your assertion is that the only way to prove actual knowledge is through direct evidence (be that witness or party opponent testimony, etc...). However, that's never, and I mean absolutely NEVER the only way to establish a question of fact to a jury. Could it be tough to establish that fact? Certainly, with Coldplay's lawyers on the other side, they'll likely beat the inference argument to death. They'll also misdirect and obfuscate to the point that the jury likely gets confused and forgets the point altogether. But again, that's a fact insufficiency, not a law one.

I really think this is similar to explaining rocket propulsion to someone with no grasp of physics or chemistry but knows about aerodynamics. You see flame come out the back and assume the flame is the propellant and consider yourself qualified in this because you know why the rocket is stable.

You're doing the same. In not having the requisite training in basic civil jurisprudence you continue to look past a pretty simple legal doctrine (which you still haven't spoken directly to, further indicating that you don't really understand it) in favor of assigning a cause to something that isn't there. You think this causal relationship is accurate because you know music, but ou don't know the fundamental underpinnings of how this will tie together.

Your lawyer friends could well be right, it may be a hard case to win. In that vein they have an edge on me in that I admittedly don't know the practical machinations behind an actual IP or Copyright trial. These guys may have some tricks that I don't know of that cast considerable doubt on the veracity of plaintiff's argument. However, the law is clear on exactly what the Plaintiff needs to prove and how he can go about doing it.

Satriani can attempt to prove knowledge via inference (thus meeting his burden of production and allowing the case to get to a jury). The stumbling point is can he meet his burden of pursuasion? Will mere inference be enough to convince a jury? With some awfully good lawyers on Coldplay's side, it might not be.

DaneMcCloud
12-12-2008, 09:01 PM
Your lawyer friends could well be right, it may be a hard case to win. In that vein they have an edge on me in that I admittedly don't know the practical machinations behind an actual IP or Copyright trial. These guys may have some tricks that I don't know of that cast considerable doubt on the veracity of plaintiff's argument. However, the law is clear on exactly what the Plaintiff needs to prove and how he can go about doing it.

Satriani can attempt to prove knowledge via inference (thus meeting his burden of production and allowing the case to get to a jury). The stumbling point is can he meet his burden of pursuasion? Will mere inference be enough to convince a jury? With some awfully good lawyers on Coldplay's side, it might not be.

Again, I've cited my experience in music publishing administration and entertainment attorneys well-versed in music publishing and copyright law opinions of this specific case. I make no claim to be a lawyer, though I have read and correctly interpreted many music publishing contracts and have administered them faithfully and properly.

I'm absolutely certain that you and Baby Lee understand case law far more than I do. I've just been providing my analysis as well that of a few entertainment lawyers who I trust to provide me the proper information (I use these guys for my personal business as well, which of course includes copyrighting music).

I guess we'll see how this plays out. As I stated in my very first post, winning a plagiarism case is extremely difficult for numerous reasons. And personally, I'd love to see Joe win, if not for anything other than I've been a fan since 1987.

Thanks for your input and civil replies.

unlurking
12-13-2008, 06:09 AM
Wow. With god-complex attitudes like this dominating the music industry[1] I can totally see why the RIAA and MPAA actually believe they have the right legally control how citizens use electronic components in their everyday lives, just to "try" and control IP. Not to mention their control over what electronic devices are legally blocked from even making it to market.



[1] By "music industry", please infer "middle-man", "used car salesman", "toothless crack dealer", or any other bloated section of an industry that overvalues itself. DO NOT infer any actual artist who actually has talent and creates IP, though I'm sure many of them have a god-complex as well, they don't have distribution and "fair use" lobbyists to minimize what society can do with a product it has purchased and has the right to utilize.

DaneMcCloud
12-13-2008, 11:42 AM
[1] By "music industry", please infer "middle-man", "used car salesman", "toothless crack dealer", or any other bloated section of an industry that overvalues itself. DO NOT infer any actual artist who actually has talent and creates IP, though I'm sure many of them have a god-complex as well, they don't have distribution and "fair use" lobbyists to minimize what society can do with a product it has purchased and has the right to utilize.

When you purchase a CD, vinyl or cassette, you are not purchasing the recording masters that are owned by a record company, nor are you purchasing the copyrights. You are purchasing a copy with the stipulation that you do not illegally distribute said music.

And you're absolutely correct: Music has been devalued over the course of the last decade due to illegal distribution.

RaiderH8r
12-16-2008, 09:01 AM
Forget the legal arguments, Coldplay should be punished for their crimes against music and humanity.

Baby Lee
12-18-2008, 06:28 AM
Non Sequitur Theatre: Guess who agreed to pay these guys royalties.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KMSAnZR2Q8Q&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KMSAnZR2Q8Q&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

DaneMcCloud
12-18-2008, 11:00 AM
Non Sequitur Theatre: Guess who agreed to pay these guys royalties.

<object width="425" height="344">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KMSAnZR2Q8Q&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>

That's an easy one: Radiohead.

It sounds just like "Creep".

DJ's left nut
12-19-2008, 08:44 PM
When reached for comment, Chris Martin vehemently denied any allegations of wrongdoing.

"The accusations that I have stolen any protected material are patently absurd, I write the songs that make the whole world sing."

patteeu
12-20-2008, 07:52 AM
When reached for comment, Chris Martin vehemently denied any allegations of wrongdoing.

"The accusations that I have stolen any protected material are patently absurd, I write the songs that make the whole world sing."

:LOL:

Braincase
12-22-2008, 06:49 AM
When reached for comment, Chris Martin vehemently denied any allegations of wrongdoing.

"The accusations that I have stolen any protected material are patently absurd, I write the songs that make the whole world sing."

I write the songs of love and special things...
I write the songs that make the young girls cry... (except for Gwynneth)
I write the songs, I write the songs...

I wonder if he's been alive forever? Does he put the words and the melodies together?

patteeu
01-30-2009, 08:36 AM
Speaking of "influences" does anyone recognize a Suicidal Tendencies influence in Puddle of Mudd's "She Hates Me"? I'm not saying it's legally prohibited plagarism, but a good part of the two songs sound like the same tune to me for practical purposes.

"I Saw Your Mommy" from Suicidal Tendencies' "Still Cyco After All These Years" (1993):

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wmPPjzr7TBU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wmPPjzr7TBU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

"She Hates Me" from Puddle of Mudd's "Come Clean" (2001)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/i0i91UaSXl8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/i0i91UaSXl8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Baby Lee
05-03-2009, 04:53 PM
Quick question, anyone else picturing Bubb Rubb and Li'l Sis filing suit against The Blackeyed Peas for Boom Boom Pow?


I got that boom-boom boom . . .

It's like woot-woooohhhh, woot-wooooh!!

htismaqe
05-04-2009, 08:13 AM
Non Sequitur Theatre: Guess who agreed to pay these guys royalties.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KMSAnZR2Q8Q&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KMSAnZR2Q8Q&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

To be fair, I'm pretty sure the guy from the Hollies that wrote that song got songwriting credit in the liner notes.

In other words, there was not any legal action - Thom Yorke openly admitted to borrowing from the song and gave credit when the album was released.

Nightwish
05-04-2009, 10:21 AM
Regarding Vanilla Ice, he "sampled" the David Bowie/Freddie Mercury song. Before ANY royalties can be paid (mechanical, performance or sync), the song splits must be agreed upon by all interested parties (in this case, Bowie, Mercury and "Ice").
What ended up actually happening with that case? I seem to remember that when the controversy first arose, Vanilla Ice was publically proclaiming that it wasn't the same line, that each second repeat has a whole extra note in it (which it does), and that it wasn't borrowed or sampled from Queen (though one would have to be an idiot to believe that it wasn't, especially since each couplet also included the two piano notes at the end). Did that get settled in court or out?

Baby Lee
05-04-2009, 12:41 PM
To be fair, I'm pretty sure the guy from the Hollies that wrote that song got songwriting credit in the liner notes.

In other words, there was not any legal action - Thom Yorke openly admitted to borrowing from the song and gave credit when the album was released.

Grab that ol' dictionary and set your peepers on non sequitur, agreed, and royalties. ;)

htismaqe
05-04-2009, 04:52 PM
Grab that ol' dictionary and set your peepers on non sequitur, agreed, and royalties. ;)

You're too smart for me.

kc rush
05-04-2009, 05:29 PM
LINK (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090504/en_nm/us_catstevens_2)

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Singer-songwriter Cat Stevens agreed on Monday that the Coldplay song, "Viva La Vida," sounds like one of his 1973 songs, but he stopped short of saying he would sue for plagiarism.

"My son brought it to my attention and said: 'Doesn't that sound like 'Foreigner Suite?'" the musician, now known as Yusuf Islam, told Reuters.

"The song definitely sounds like it," he said of his song. "It has such logical chords and the melody has to be what it is..."

Asked during a telephone interview from London whether he would pursue the issue legally, Islam, 60, said "it depends on how well Satriani does."

U.S. guitarist Joe Satriani has sued Coldplay, accusing the British band of copyright infringement. He claims substantial original portions of his song "If I Could Fly" are recycled in "Viva La Vida" and is seeking damages.

Islam, whose new album "Roadsinger," comes out on Tuesday (May 5), was unable to perform at a New York concert on Sunday because of "work permit" issues. The singer, a Muslim convert, said the problem was unrelated to his being denied entry into the United States five years ago because his name was on a government no-fly list.

"It's just been delayed by a week," he said of his trip to the United States to promote the album. "The day I was scheduled to go to the (U.S.) embassy they had implemented a new system. There were gremlins in the works, but they (U.S. officials) were all so nice."

Islam is scheduled to play one show in Los Angeles next week and appear on "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno" on May 13.

DaneMcCloud
09-15-2009, 11:51 AM
The Case has been dismissed from the California court. There's some suggestion that a settlement occurred but this cannot be confirmed.

http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/california/cacdce/2:2008cv07987/432491/

DaneMcCloud
09-16-2009, 01:09 AM
Not at all. I thought mcan presented a pretty sound defense for Cold Play. If I was on the jury, I'd rule in their favor.

And for what it's worth, I'm a fan of Satch, and don't really listen to Coldplay.

You lose, Taco.

But what else is new?

LMAO

DaneMcCloud
09-16-2009, 01:15 AM
Maybe we should stop arguing with people who are in entertainment but have no legal training. ;)

Yes, they have to prove 'intent' and 'prior knowledge,' but they're still working in the world of civil litigation where the propenderance of the evidence and reasonable inferences are well developed concepts.
In other words, Intent and prior knowledge can be 'proven' by reasonable inferences from analysis of strikingly similar, widely distributed, content.

Your take is similar to someone saying 'I can't be convicted of murder, because I haven't confessed.'

Joe couldn't win but the case was settled out of court.

Good enough for you, Barrister?

patteeu
09-16-2009, 05:47 AM
Joe couldn't win but the case was settled out of court.

Good enough for you, Barrister?

If he couldn't win, there probably wouldn't have been a settlement (assuming there was one).

Baby Lee
09-16-2009, 06:21 AM
Joe couldn't win but the case was settled out of court.

Good enough for you, Barrister?

WTF are you even arguing here? IIRC, I was just pointing out your 'slam dunks' weren't slam dunks in actual civil litigation, and here you're triumphally announcing how a potential compromise outside a court of law proves . . . what?

DaneMcCloud
09-16-2009, 10:50 AM
WTF are you even arguing here? IIRC, I was just pointing out your 'slam dunks' weren't slam dunks in actual civil litigation, and here you're triumphally announcing how a potential compromise outside a court of law proves . . . what?

What I said early on in this thread holds true: It's very difficult to prove copyright infringement in a court of law but it's likely that a settlement would be made and Satriani would receive a portion of their royalties.

The reason the courts were avoided is because it would have been costly for all parties involved and most likely, the only result would have been an outpouring of money into the court system.

With a settlement, it's a win for Satriani and it's not a public loss for Coldplay.

Neither would have been likely if this had actually gone to court.

Taco John
09-16-2009, 12:43 PM
You lose, Taco.

But what else is new?

LMAO

I didn't lose anything. I just told you how I would vote based on the evidence that mcan presented.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-16-2009, 12:51 PM
"Coldplay is the absolutely shittiest fucking band I've heard in my entire fucking life. They are a mediocre imitation of Travis, who themselves were a mediocre imitation of Radiohead."

Chuck Klosterman.

munkey
09-16-2009, 06:47 PM
I HATE COLEPAY

DJ's left nut
09-16-2009, 06:59 PM
A settlement was always by far and away the most likely result.

You still didn't analyze the law worth shit.

Satriani carried the burden of proof and has far fewer resources at his disposal than Coldplay. Had your analysis of the law been correct (i.e. only direct proof can support a verdict), this would've never settled. A motion for judgment on the pleadings would've disposed of it immediately after the discovery period passed and Coldplay would have walked.

A settlement by Coldplay lends even more creedence to Satriani's position. Coldplay knew there was enough evidence to take it to a jury (i.e. indirect evidence and inference), so they settled.

You're doing a very good job of assigning inaccurate conclusions to relatively benign facts throughout this thread.

DaneMcCloud
09-16-2009, 08:33 PM
A settlement was always by far and away the most likely result.

You still didn't analyze the law worth shit.

Satriani carried the burden of proof and has far fewer resources at his disposal than Coldplay. Had your analysis of the law been correct (i.e. only direct proof can support a verdict), this would've never settled. A motion for judgment on the pleadings would've disposed of it immediately after the discovery period passed and Coldplay would have walked.

A settlement by Coldplay lends even more creedence to Satriani's position. Coldplay knew there was enough evidence to take it to a jury (i.e. indirect evidence and inference), so they settled.

You're doing a very good job of assigning inaccurate conclusions to relatively benign facts throughout this thread.

Wait a second. You just contradicted yourself.

Why would it be in Coldplay's favor to settle, even though Joe Satriani (according to you) doesn't have a enough money to fight in court?

Huh?

And furthermore, if there was enough evidence, as you state, to prove Satriani's claim, why would Joe even bother settling?

DJ's left nut
09-16-2009, 08:50 PM
Wait a second. You just contradicted yourself.

Why would it be in Coldplay's favor to settle, even though Joe Satriani (according to you) doesn't have a enough money to fight in court?

Huh?

And furthermore, if there was enough evidence, as you state, to prove Satriani's claim, why would Joe even bother settling?

You really did just answer your own question.

A) I never said he didn't have enough money for a fight of any sort. I said only that Coldplay has far more resources. That means more experts, more eyes, more times to simply write motions requiring responses and delays. Satriani wouldn't be able to be nearly as aggressive nor would he likely be able to produce the # of paid experts. That doesn't mean he can't fight it, it simply means he couldn't do it as well.

B) Joe settled because he recognizes A. I never said he had enough evidence to win, I simply said he had enough to submit it to a jury, otherwise Coldplay wouldn't have offered to settle post-discovery. At that point, he doesn't know if the jury will accept his argument or not, but he knows that Coldplay has a hell of a lot more money to make their case with than he does. If he didn't have a strong enough evidentiary foundation to put a spook into Coldplay, they'd lean heavily on the realities of A and tell him to piss up a rope. He has that foundation, so Coldplay offered to settle. He recognizes A and the uncertainty of any jury verdict, so he accepted.

A settlement whereby money is given to a Plaintiff with far fewer resources than the defendant is virtually always a concession by the defendant that there's a damn good chance that they lose this one. This is simply a reality of civil jurisprudence.

htismaqe
09-16-2009, 08:53 PM
"Coldplay is the absolutely shittiest ****ing band I've heard in my entire ****ing life. They are a mediocre imitation of Travis, who themselves were a mediocre imitation of Radiohead."

Chuck Klosterman.

That's rep.

phillip
09-16-2009, 09:03 PM
Funny, we just studied this in my Entertainment Law course at my law school. The general consensus was that ColdPlay likely would have lost. The standard for the jury is whether the songs sound substantially similar to an ordinary listener.

If George Harrison lost in court b/c "My Sweet Lord" was too close to "He's so Fine" by the Chiffons, I think you've gotta say Satriani had a good case here.

DJ's left nut
09-16-2009, 09:15 PM
Funny, we just studied this in my Entertainment Law course at my law school. The general consensus was that ColdPlay likely would have lost. The standard for the jury is whether the songs sound substantially similar to an ordinary listener.

If George Harrison lost in court b/c "My Sweet Lord" was too close to "He's so Fine" by the Chiffons, I think you've gotta say Satriani had a good case here.

Read this thread alone and you'll get a hell of a lot better breakdown of it than that. It's significantly more complicated than the songs sounding substantially similar. Further, I can't for the life of me figure out how an "ordinary listener" standard would be applicable here. "Ordinary person" standards generally only apply in cases of alleged unintentional malfeasance.

It's a matter of the jury believing that the songs are so similar sounding that Coldplay must have lifted it from Satriani. It's not an 'ordinary person' standard - each juror substitutes their own respective judgment. This case requires a finding of intentional wrongdoing, so the judgments/actions of an ordinary person here are immaterial.

I'm...uh...unimpressed by your entertainment law class.

DaneMcCloud
09-16-2009, 09:28 PM
Funny, we just studied this in my Entertainment Law course at my law school. The general consensus was that ColdPlay likely would have lost. The standard for the jury is whether the songs sound substantially similar to an ordinary listener.

If George Harrison lost in court b/c "My Sweet Lord" was too close to "He's so Fine" by the Chiffons, I think you've gotta say Satriani had a good case here.

Case Law in regards to copyright infringement has come a long, long way since the late 60's and early 70's. With all of the music that's been recorded over the past 40 years worldwide, it's extremely difficult to prove infringement.

There's only 12 notes and millions of songs since then.

phillip
09-16-2009, 09:28 PM
Read this thread alone and you'll get a hell of a lot better breakdown of it than that. It's significantly more complicated than the songs sounding substantially similar. Further, I can't for the life of me figure out how an "ordinary listener" standard would be applicable here. "Ordinary person" standards generally only apply in cases of alleged unintentional malfeasance.

It's a matter of the jury believing that the songs are so similar sounding that Coldplay must have lifted it from Satriani. It's not an 'ordinary person' standard - each juror substitutes their own respective judgment. This case requires a finding of intentional wrongdoing, so the judgments/actions of an ordinary person here are immaterial.

I'm...uh...unimpressed by your entertainment law class.

Copyright violation doesn't have to be intentional wrongdoing. It can be subconscious. Look up Bright Tunes v. Harrisongs.

I wasn't trying to be comprehensive, just trying to make a quick point.

I don't think my class is a problem. I have a very experienced professor at a top 25 law school.

Edit - From that case:
"What happened? I conclude that the composer,12 in
seeking musical materials to clothe his thoughts, was
working with various possibilities. As he tried this
possibility and that, there came to the surface of his
mind a particular combination that pleased him as
being one he felt would be appealing to a prospective
listener; in other words, that this combination of
sounds would work. Why? Because his subconscious
knew it already had worked in a song his conscious
mind did not remember. Having arrived at this
pleasing combination of sounds, the recording was
made, the lead sheet prepared for copyright and the
song became an enormous success. Did Harrison
deliberately use the music of He’s So Fine? I do not
believe he did so deliberately. Nevertheless, it is clear
that My Sweet Lord is the very same song as He’s So
Fine with different words,13 and Harrison had access
to He’s So Fine. This is, under the law, infringement
of copyright, and is no less so even though
subconsciously accomplished."

DaneMcCloud
09-16-2009, 09:32 PM
A settlement whereby money is given to a Plaintiff with far fewer resources than the defendant is virtually always a concession by the defendant that there's a damn good chance that they lose this one. This is simply a reality of civil jurisprudence.

In this case, I think there's far more involved, especially given Coldplay's stature as a "Megaband". If they had lost in court (which I still say was less than a 10% chance), they go down in the court of public opinion as copycats. It definitely would hurt their standing.

By settling, they avoid any embarrassing blurbs or an extremely embarrassing outcome. With a settlement, it just goes away...

Seriously, have you seen anything on 'net or the news other than the link I provided?

phillip
09-16-2009, 09:33 PM
"Substantial similarity exists when the relevant aspects of the accused work are so similar to the relevant aspects of the copyrighted work that an ordinary, reasonable person would conclude that the defendant took material of substance and value from the copyrighted work and unlawfully appropriated it."

http://www.scottandscottllp.com/main/blogentry.aspx?id=1632

Like I said, ordinary person...

DaneMcCloud
09-16-2009, 09:34 PM
Copyright violation doesn't have to be intentional wrongdoing. It can be subconscious. Look up Bright Tunes v. Harrisongs.

I wasn't trying to be comprehensive, just trying to make a quick point.

I don't think my class is a problem. I have a very experienced professor at a top 25 law school.


The burden of proof is so high now that you virtually have to prove that the infringer actually heard the song that they infringed upon.

As I said earlier, this isn't 1970.

phillip
09-16-2009, 09:35 PM
The burden of proof is so high now that you virtually have to prove that the infringer actually heard the song that they infringed upon.

As I said earlier, this isn't 1970.

I know you have to prove they heard it. Access has always been an element AFAIK. I read somewhere that Satriani could prove access. Maybe I misremembered?

DaneMcCloud
09-16-2009, 09:37 PM
"Substantial similarity exists when the relevant aspects of the accused work are so similar to the relevant aspects of the copyrighted work that an ordinary, reasonable person would conclude that the defendant took material of substance and value from the copyrighted work and unlawfully appropriated it."

http://www.scottandscottllp.com/main/blogentry.aspx?id=1632

Like I said, ordinary person...

You missed the most important part:

The plaintiffs alleged they submitted their song for recording by Vassar and that Vassar rejected the song. Plaintiffs later recorded, copyrighted, and released the song on their own. Vassar also later recorded a song that plaintiffs alleged infringed on their copyright in the song they recorded.

So in this case, there is definite proof that Vassar heard the song, firsthand.

In the Satriani case, that would have to be established otherwise, Satriani would lose.

Proving that would have been extremely difficult.

DJ's left nut
09-16-2009, 09:38 PM
Copyright violation doesn't have to be intentional wrongdoing. It can be subconscious. Look up Bright Tunes v. Harrisongs.

I wasn't trying to be comprehensive, just trying to make a quick point.

I don't think my class is a problem. I have a very experienced professor at a top 25 law school.

Edit - From that case:
"What happened? I conclude that the composer,12 in
seeking musical materials to clothe his thoughts, was
working with various possibilities. As he tried this
possibility and that, there came to the surface of his
mind a particular combination that pleased him as
being one he felt would be appealing to a prospective
listener; in other words, that this combination of
sounds would work. Why? Because his subconscious
knew it already had worked in a song his conscious
mind did not remember. Having arrived at this
pleasing combination of sounds, the recording was
made, the lead sheet prepared for copyright and the
song became an enormous success. Did Harrison
deliberately use the music of He’s So Fine? I do not
believe he did so deliberately. Nevertheless, it is clear
that My Sweet Lord is the very same song as He’s So
Fine with different words,13 and Harrison had access
to He’s So Fine. This is, under the law, infringement
of copyright, and is no less so even though
subconsciously accomplished."

Do you have a citation for it? I'll take a look at it over the next few days. It seems to me that this interpretation has been disfavored if not outright overturned.

I believe the CA courts have adopted the far more strict definition provided earlier, though I'll need to see the citation first.

phillip
09-16-2009, 09:40 PM
You missed the most important part:

The plaintiffs alleged they submitted their song for recording by Vassar and that Vassar rejected the song. Plaintiffs later recorded, copyrighted, and released the song on their own. Vassar also later recorded a song that plaintiffs alleged infringed on their copyright in the song they recorded.

So in this case, there is definite proof that Vassar heard the song, firsthand.

In the Satriani case, that would have to be established otherwise, Satriani would lose.

Proving that would have been extremely difficult.

My quote that you quoted was in response to DJ's Left Nut saying there was no possible "ordinary listener" test. That's why I pulled that part out. Like I said, I was pretty sure I had read Satriani could prove access--because ColdPlay was at one of his shows or something--but its been a while

DaneMcCloud
09-16-2009, 09:40 PM
Do you have a citation for it? I'll take a look at it over the next few days. It seems to me that this interpretation has been disfavored if not outright overturned.

I believe the CA courts have adopted the far more strict definition provided earlier, though I'll need to see the citation first.

That's from like 1971. Case law has moved far beyond that.

DJ's left nut
09-16-2009, 09:44 PM
You missed the most important part:

The plaintiffs alleged they submitted their song for recording by Vassar and that Vassar rejected the song. Plaintiffs later recorded, copyrighted, and released the song on their own. Vassar also later recorded a song that plaintiffs alleged infringed on their copyright in the song they recorded.

So in this case, there is definite proof that Vassar heard the song, firsthand.

In the Satriani case, that would have to be established otherwise, Satriani would lose.

Proving that would have been extremely difficult.

Alternate, inconsistent pleadings are allowed in every state in the union.

There's no way in hell they'd have staked their entire case on that one particular theory of recovery. They'd have also provided the standard inference arguments as alternate theories which they could fall back on.

As for your other post - it cuts both ways. If you were certain you didn't plagerize and you were a 'megaband' wouldn't you be eager to prove it in court?

Like I said, if the evidence involved didn't at least put a scare into Coldplay's counsel, there's no way they'd have settled it. Would it have been enough to support a verdict? Obviously we'll never know, but there had to be something substantial there in order to survive pre-trial dispositive motions and draw a settlement offer that appears to be significantly more than a mere nuisance settlement.

Mile High Mania
09-16-2009, 09:45 PM
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8Z2x8q5wMfk&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8Z2x8q5wMfk&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

DJ's left nut
09-16-2009, 09:46 PM
That's from like 1971. Case law has moved far beyond that.

I think you're correct here, but a quick keycite would confirm it.

DaneMcCloud
09-16-2009, 09:48 PM
Alternate, inconsistent pleadings are allowed in every state in the union.

There's no way in hell they'd have staked their entire case on that one particular theory of recovery. They'd have also provided the standard inference arguments as alternate theories which they could fall back on.

Dude, they gave the guy the song! That's the reason why record companies and music publishers do not allow unsolicited material: They're terrified of copyright lawsuits exactly like this.

As for your other post - it cuts both ways. If you were certain you didn't plagerize and you were a 'megaband' wouldn't you be eager to prove it in court?

Not in this case.

Like I said, if the evidence involved didn't at least put a scare into Coldplay's counsel, there's no way they'd have settled it. Would it have been enough to support a verdict? Obviously we'll never know, but there had to be something substantial there in order to survive pre-trial dispositive motions and draw a settlement offer that appears to be significantly more than a mere nuisance settlement.

With fans worldwide already extremely fickle, with the fact that Coldplay's own fans believe all their music sounds the same, with declining record sales and with the /Twitter/TMZ age in full-effect, Coldplay (IMO) was smart just to let Capitol Records handle it and move on.

phillip
09-16-2009, 09:49 PM
That's from like 1971. Case law has moved far beyond that.

Its from 76. But the "ordinary person" test that Left Nut WRONGLY called my law class out on still exists according to the link I posted (from a quick google search)

Though the case is old, I believe the basic elements are still alive today, being:
(1) Access (i.e. ColdPlay has heard the song) and
(2) substantial similarity to an ordinary listener

Experts are heavily used to determine which parts may have been infringed and how close they are, etc. But the test the jury is to use is whether to an ordinary person they sound substantially similar.

Dane, I never disputed that access was a requirement.

citation is: 420 F.Supp. 177

DaneMcCloud
09-16-2009, 09:50 PM
Its from 76. But the "ordinary person" test that Left Nut WRONGLY called my law class out on still exists according to the link I posted (from a quick google search)

Though the case is old, I belive the basic elements are still alive today, being:
(1) Access (i.e. ColdPlay has heard the song) and
(2) substantial similarity to an ordinary listener

Experts are heavily used to determine which parts may have been infringed and how close they are, etc. But the test the jury is to use is whether to an ordinary person they sound substantially similar.

Dane, I never disputed that access was a requirement.

citation is: 420 F.Supp. 177

1 is far more important today than 2.

I mentioned this very early in this thread. Case law has now evolved to the point that Joe Satriani would have to prove that Coldplay heard his song before releasing their song.

Otherwise, it's case dismissed.

phillip
09-16-2009, 09:55 PM
1 is far more important today than 2.

I mentioned this very early in this thread. Case law has now evolved to the point that Joe Satriani would have to prove that Coldplay heard his song before releasing their song.

Otherwise, it's case dismissed.

1 was important at that time too. The "He's so Fine" song was so popular the court took for granted that Harrison had heard it. But wasn't Coldplay at one of Satriani's shows or something???

DJ's left nut
09-16-2009, 09:56 PM
You missed the most important part:

The plaintiffs alleged they submitted their song for recording by Vassar and that Vassar rejected the song. Plaintiffs later recorded, copyrighted, and released the song on their own. Vassar also later recorded a song that plaintiffs alleged infringed on their copyright in the song they recorded.

So in this case, there is definite proof that Vassar heard the song, firsthand.

In the Satriani case, that would have to be established otherwise, Satriani would lose.

Proving that would have been extremely difficult.

Ah, let me re-address as I didn't read this post correctly the first time. The critical component is the bolded part.

Are you still attempting to assert that this can only be provenvia direct evidence? Because that's absolutely not true. In Vassar's case, that's what they attempted to do, but it's certainly not the only way to go about it. As I spent several posts trying to show you the first time around, this can be 'proven' via inference.

I think it's far FAR more than 10% likely that a jury would hear these two songs played together and infer that Coldplay ripped the song from Satriani.

phillip
09-16-2009, 09:58 PM
I think you're correct here, but a quick keycite would confirm it.

KeyCite only has one case distinguishing it, and that case is from S.D.N.Y.

phillip
09-16-2009, 10:03 PM
Here's more from that Scott and Scott website:

"Courts use the substantial similarity test to determine the net impression of the ordinary observer and to decide whether a reasonable, ordinary juror could find, based on the “overall look and feel” of the relevant expressive elements, that the two works are substantially similar."

Dane, you might be right about Satriani being unable to prove access, but if Satriani could show that Coldplay heard the song, these two are definitely similar enough to cause a problem legally, IMO.

DJ's left nut
09-16-2009, 10:04 PM
KeyCite only has one case distinguishing it, and that case is from S.D.N.Y.

But so is Brighttunes, which would be why the case distinguishing it is from the same district. The rest of the legal world doesn't give a rip.

Has this standard been adopted by the California courts? I don't believe it has been.

The Southern District of NY has absolutely no say in what standard to apply here. My recollection is that the standard in California is an intentional misappropriation standard.

In which case, the ordinary person standard is inapplicable.

phillip
09-16-2009, 10:08 PM
But so is Brighttunes, which would be why the case distinguishing it is from the same district. The rest of the legal world doesn't give a rip.

Has this standard been adopted by the California courts? I don't believe it has been.

The Southern District of NY has absolutely no say in what standard to apply here. My recollection is that the standard in California is an intentional misappropriation standard.

In which case, the ordinary person standard is inapplicable.

Could be different in CA...but honestly, I don't care enough to research CA copyright law, so I'll leave that to you guys if you want to hash it out.

I was just making a quick point since I thought it was funny we had just studied this briefly. You called out my class saying there couldn't possibly be an ordinary person standard. Obviously, that standard exists in an least some jurisdictions.

I'm going to bed, lol.

DJ's left nut
09-16-2009, 10:11 PM
Could be different in CA...but honestly, I don't care enough to research CA copyright law, so I'll leave that to you guys if you want to hash it out.

I was just making a quick point since I thought it was funny we had just studied this briefly. You called out my class saying there couldn't possibly be an ordinary person standard. Obviously, that standard exists in an least some jurisdictions.

I'm going to bed, lol.

In fairness, I said it couldn't apply if the jurisdiction adopted an intentional malfeasance standard, which is the assumption we were operating under.

Have a good night.

phillip
09-16-2009, 10:40 PM
Actually, I decided to find some CA law real quickly, lol.

You still don't have to prove intent:
"Absent direct evidence of copying, proof of infringement involves fact-based showings that the defendant had “access” to the plaintiff's work and that the two works are “substantially similar.”


"Proof of the substantial similarity is satisfied by a two-part test of extrinsic similarity and intrinsic similarity. See Krofft, 562 F.2d at 1164. Initially, the extrinsic test requires that the plaintiff identify concrete elements based on objective criteria. See Smith, 84 F.3d at 1218; Shaw, 919 F.2d at 1356. The extrinsic test often requires analytical dissection of a work and expert testimony. See Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435, 1442 (9th Cir.1994). Once the extrinsic test is satisfied, the factfinder applies the intrinsic test. The intrinsic test is subjective and asks “whether the ordinary, reasonable person would find the total concept and feel of the works to be substantially similar.”


Even though you were just operating under an [invalid] assumption, I still think it was rude to say you were "unimpressed" with my class like that.

Anyway, no harm, no foul. I just skimmed the above case quickly, but here's the cite:
212 F.3d 477

You have a good night too.

Baby Lee
10-02-2009, 05:20 PM
Non Sequitur Theatre: Guess who agreed to pay these guys royalties.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KMSAnZR2Q8Q&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KMSAnZR2Q8Q&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Closed out the last episode of Fringe.

Baby Lee
12-06-2013, 07:31 PM
Is it just me, of does the instrumental/backing of this song sound A LOT like another pre-existing song? At the very least the chord progression.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/_FO1LufnbOc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

For those who can't place what I'm talking about.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/RCD14IrOcIs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

DaveNull
12-07-2013, 09:21 AM
I'd agree. It came to mind before I clicked the spoiler link to see what you were thinking.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-08-2013, 10:44 PM
Is it just me, of does the instrumental/backing of this song sound A LOT like another pre-existing song? At the very least the chord progression.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/_FO1LufnbOc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

For those who can't place what I'm talking about.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/RCD14IrOcIs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This Monkeys gone to heaven.

Baby Lee
12-08-2013, 10:52 PM
This Monkeys gone to heaven.

Right band and album, wrong song.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-08-2013, 11:03 PM
Right band and album, wrong song.

Yes I know, the only song I can remember currently from them though. :D

Valiant
12-08-2013, 11:20 PM
Umm

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/oOlDewpCfZQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Happens all the time..

Someone did a study breaking down all the big hit songs, Like seven formulas, follow this and you get people loving them from what I remember reading..