If he's really a troll, then don't feed him. Getting upset is just giving trolls what they want so that they can grow.

 

That is true, but I don't think he is a troll.

 

1. The user name and the image, in a Coldplay message board, are not funny. I don't know how you could think it would be.

 

2. You are much more musically inclined than me. I appreciate your thoughts. Coldplay fans should understand what the other side is going to argue, and I appreciate the moderator leaving this up. I learned a lot.

 

3. Excuse my musical ignorance, but I still don't understand how you can determine what is going on in Chris Martin's head.

2. You are much more musically inclined than me. I appreciate your thoughts. Coldplay fans should understand what the other side is going to argue, and I appreciate the moderator leaving this up. I learned a lot.

 

I do think Coldplay fans understand that the other side is going to argue their case. I think the problem is that Coldplay fans are being attacked, though not here, and the fact that this guy's fans always want to insert that "I'm a musician, I have a music degree, I play a guitar," and so forth therefore they knew what they are talking about.

 

No offense but your comment seems to hint that Coldplay fans are almost irrational or hardheaded because they are not understanding that the other side is going to argue, and I do not believe that is true.

No offense but your comment seems to hint that Coldplay fans are almost irrational or hardheaded because they are not understanding that the other side is going to argue, and I do not believe that is true.

 

I think a lot of Coldplay fans are irrational and hardheaded when it comes to this issue. I am a Coldplay fan too, and I don't understand all of the details. This guy knows more about music than me. I admit it.

So maybe I should qualify that...as a Coldplay fan, I don't understand all of the details.

WOW!

 

I have never seen this. Every related video that I could find was removed by EMI.

 

Like 20 videos, and then I stopped checking.

 

Never seen that. I know Satriani played in youtube live, so there has to be a relationship there. I think both camps are trying to minimize the dialogue on this issue. "can't talk about the details of the case, bla bla bla."

 

Oh well, I still think Satriani is the one who raised the flag. An uprising had started.:P

 

He's going to lose his case.

 

I will head up the North American Satriani loss party.

:stunned: Every video?

 

the plot thickens... :P

 

if I were them would be just release a statement saying that this was an accident, but considering the almost identical use of music, Satriani will be added as a co-writer and thus share in the royalties. Everyone would come out of this fine and Coldplay would not look like arrogant pop stars.

 

 

Coldplaygiarism - I don't think you're a troll and I appreciate your thoughts, however coming here with that name and artwork was a bit much.

 

You bring up an interesting issue; Coldplay may be liable even if they came up with the melody completely on their own, which however unbelievable that may be given the similarities, is a possibility. You can't blame Coldplay for reacting the way they have if this is the case. Imagine being accused of a crime you didn't commit. I don't think it would be correct to add someone as a co-writer and share royalties if they didn't in fact help write the song, even if this would be the easier route to take. If this were to happen, they would basically be admitting they were at fault and took from the song without permission, forever damaging their image and being labled as thieves by the general public.

 

As some have said earlier, it will be interesting to see what happens, especially with the potential ramifications this case may have on copyright laws.

Coldplaygiarism - I don't think you're a troll and I appreciate your thoughts, however coming here with that name and artwork was a bit much.

 

You bring up an interesting issue; Coldplay may be liable even if they came up with the melody completely on their own, which however unbelievable that may be given the similarities, is a possibility. You can't blame Coldplay for reacting the way they have if this is the case. Imagine being accused of a crime you didn't commit. I don't think it would be correct to add someone as a co-writer and share royalties if they didn't in fact help write the song, even if this would be the easier route to take. If this were to happen, they would basically be admitting they were at fault and took from the song without permission, forever damaging their image and being labled as thieves by the general public.

 

As some have said earlier, it will be interesting to see what happens, especially with the potential ramifications this case may have on copyright laws.

 

THANK YOU! That is what I think he is trying to argue. And I want to know if there is any merit to it. He raises valid points.

As a die hard Coldplay, i'm sick and tired of being attacked by not only people off the net whole call it "fags" music and say they make the worst crap ever. They seem to be the most hated band ever, FOR NO GOOD REASON!!! I will love and listen to Coldplay until the day I die, no matter who says what about them. People hating them only makes me love them more. They're who I like to listen to no matter what all these "experts" say.

I listened to both songs over and over and I still don't hear it! you think if it was a complete rip-off, it would be more apparent.

And yes "Coldplaygarism" (or whatever your stupid name is), you're smart! Thank you for explaining music to us idiots. I just plumb don't know how those noises come out of my headphones. is it magic?

"I like Coldplay" so I'm gonna rip on them and "sell" stupid crap making fun of them. If you're the same level fan of Satriani as you are Coldplay then where's your stuff making fun of him too? Sorry, but you seem pretty biased to me.

I like and respect Satriani, my brother-in-law loves him and saw him in Chicago a few months back and he got me into some of his stuff. But the way some of their fans come onto our message boards and just say they casually like Coldplay then crap on them really sucks! I'm not going onto Satriani's fans' sites and starting trouble over there!

And where are you getting all of this "behind the scenes" information about exactly what Satriani did and what Coldplay did? Were you in the room and on the phone during each conversation?

 

KEEP HATING THEM, I'LL KEEP LOVING THEM!

 

Joe Satriani's suing of Coldplay has become one of the hot topics of late 2008. And it doesn't look like it's going away soon.

 

The latest addition to the online debate is a fine article on the Idolator website where their 'Idolawyer' (clever, yes?) muses on how the case might pan out in court.

 

You'll have to put aside any prejudice of whose music is 'better' to appreciate this case, but the potential scenarios are interesting.

 

Idolator's lawyer writes:

 

"Assuming that Joe and his publisher legitimately own the copyright to If I Could Fly, assuming the song meets the minimal criteria for originality (a given), and further assuming that he has no direct evidence of infringement, the court will apply the following two-step inquiry:

 

1. Whether the defendant had access to the plaintiff's song prior to creation of Viva La Vida.

 

2. Whether the work of the alleged infringer is substantially similar to If I Could Fly."

 

Given that Satriani's Is There Love In Space? album was released worldwide by Sony Music, Satriani's team should have no problem on point 1. As for point 2, a court case could result in an audience test, where a jury will decide if the songs are "substantially similar".

 

Idolator's lawyer continues:

 

"The audience test is comparable to the "reasonable person" test in tort law - it relies on the spontaneous and visceral reaction of the typical audience for the works at issue. If the audience detects similarity without suggestion, then the works are likely substantially similar.

 

"The audience test has been criticized, and the various circuits have unique formulations of the test. Courts also often allow consideration of expert testimony such as analysis by musical experts. The substantial similarity analysis often includes a value judgment, which is a determination of whether the value of the original work is harmed or the labors of the original author are appropriate by the infringer."

 

And then, the court will have to identify an "intended audience".

 

Now, will those be people who know something about music theory? Or people who, in fact, know nothing about theory or even Joe Satriani or Coldplay? (Which could be hard, given the latter's fame.)

 

"This is really about publishers"

 

MusicRadar spoke with renowned business attorney Ronald S Bienstock, who has represented Joe Satriani in the past on other matters.

 

Bienstock says, "Americans are absolutely fascinated on the concept of copyright infringement. I take calls every day from people claiming that major stars have stolen their songs.

 

"This is really about publishers, not so much about Joe Satriani and Chris Martin having a day in court where they can wag their fingers at each other. It doesn't work that way.

 

"In Federal Court, only three percent of cases go to trial. After you have filed your complaint, filed your answer, filed your various motions, conducted discovery, two to three years have gone by. At which point, lawyers begin to talk to each other about how to settle the case.

 

"Were this to go to trial, it would be a very expensive and time-consuming process. Experts, such as musicologists, would have to be brought in to compare the two pieces of music. That part alone could drag on for weeks."

 

Overlap between audiences

 

"As far as intended audience, both acts are in the pop music field, and they could very well have the same fans and get played on the same radio stations. I'm not saying they are exactly the same, but we're not talking about a metal band vs a polka group. There is some overlap. It might be small, but it's there.

 

"I would say it's unlikely this will go to trial. I believe Coldplay will settle. Joe's attorney for the publisher will say we want to have a percentage of the song going forward and the back royalties, and Coldplay's attorney will negotiate a figure.

 

"Unless, of course, everybody digs their heels in, and then it could drag on. I don't see that happening, however. This might take one or two years, but it'll get resolved."

 

Two years?! And you thought it was getting complicated already...

 

 

http://www.musicradar.com

 

It appears that Coldplay doesn’t plan to make nice with Joe Satriani by settling his infringement claim quietly; therefore, the matter will likely be decided in court. I’ve noted some armchair analysis of this matter has already occurred in the comments on this site, so I thought I’d provide a very brief legal framework for infringement suits regarding the copying of songs.

 

As a preliminary matter, keep in mind that songs and recordings have separate copyrights; Joe is alleging that Coldplay infringed his song, not his recording (as would be the case had Coldplay included an uncleared sample of Satriani's recording in its recording, which would also infringe the copyright to the underlying song). Infringement of a recording may require a different analysis, including the fair use analysis discussed on my earlier post.

 

The infringement analysis applied by courts is, of course, unpredictable and rather cloudy; accordingly, potential litigants are leery of putting the decision in the hands of a fact finder. Assuming that Joe and his publisher legitimately own the copyright to "If I Could Fly," assuming the song meets the minimal criteria for originality (a given), and further assuming that he has no direct evidence of infringement, the court will apply the following two-step inquiry: (1) whether the defendant had access to the plaintiff’s song prior to creation of "Viva la Vida"; and (2) whether the work of the alleged infringer is substantially similar to "If I Could Fly."

 

The plaintiff is not required to show direct evidence of access; however, the plaintiff must establish substantially more than the bare possibility of access. If the work is widely disseminated to the public, then access may be presumed. If the plaintiff can establish a particular chain of events by which the alleged infringer may have gained access, then access may be imputed. If the works are strikingly similar, then the plaintiff will have a lower threshold to establish access; conversely, if access is clearly established, there is a lower threshold for similarity. The passage of time between the time the defendant likely had access and the time of creation is generally not a mitigating factor.

 

Mr. Satriani will likely make the argument that access is presumed because his song was widely disseminated, which requires a quantitative analysis. If Coldplay were the plaintiff, access would likely be imputed on the basis of millions of albums sold. Mr. Satriani has had a lesser degree of commercial success, therefore it’s difficult to predict the outcome of this inquiry. For example, in Rice v. Fox Broadcasting Co. (Ninth Circuit, 2003), a videotape that sold 17,000 copies was not widely disseminated, though the weight of evidence, including the sales figures and certain plausible events suggesting access, satisfied the court.

 

Once the plaintiff has established access, he is not required to prove that the works are identical. “Substantial similarity” exists between no similarity and literal similarity. With respect to a musical composition, similarities must at minimum be more than a brief or commonplace musical reference or motif. For example, a typical 12-bar blues chord progression would not be protectable in and of itself because such a progression provides the basis for so many existing compositions. Courts often apply the so-called “audience” test to determine substantial similarity with regard to musical compositions.

 

The audience test is comparable to the “reasonable person” test in tort law—it relies on the spontaneous and visceral reaction of the typical audience for the works at issue. If the audience detects similarity without suggestion, then the works are likely substantially similar. The audience test has been criticized, and the various circuits have unique formulations of the test. Courts also often allow consideration of expert testimony such as analysis by musical experts. The substantial similarity analysis often includes a value judgment, which is a determination of whether the value of the original work is harmed or the labors of the original author are appropriate by the infringer.

 

This article barely scratches the surface of this complicated and sometimes unpredictable legal doctrine. I’m personally amazed that unintentional infringement doesn’t occur more often among pop songwriters. It seems that the number of potential combinations of chords and melodies within pop music is finite; within such a limited format it seems inevitable that writers would arrive at the same combinations independently. It’s surprising that all possible ear-pleasing combinations of notes and chords have not been exhausted in the 50+ years of the rock era. By the same token, many aspects of pop songwriting are so commonplace that they could not reasonably be considered proprietary; the inspiration that is protectable under copyright is a relatively small portion of the overall composition. Nevertheless, under the existing methodology and with the assumption of access, the gut reaction of the likely audience is largely determinative in these matters.

 

http://idolator.com

^ Interesting article. I was waiting for some opinions by lawyers. Now I have them.

The recent commotion over whether or not Coldplay ripped off guitar whiz Joe Satriani is nothing less than surprising and mystifying. My bewilderment has nothing to do with Coldplay however, but with Satriani, the guitar teacher-turned instrumental rock god......

 

 

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/12/12/072725.php

:cry:

 

EMI HAS PULLED THE VIDEO FROM YOUTUBE.

 

sorry, all...

 

The only question is, did -

 

1. emi's minions ask for it to be pulled.

2. coldplay's minions ask for it to be pulled.(emi)

3. satriani's minions ask for it to be pulled.(yes, emi as well)

 

prob satriani's...haha o well they prob had 2 cuz its actually going to court

To the original poster, upload your video to either, then update your original post:

 

 

http://www.putfile.com/

 

http://www.dailymotion.com/en

Was it something like the following?

 

[ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=KLt_Hu8bHFc]YouTube - Did Colplay copy Satriani? Did Joe Satriani copy Enanitos Verdes?[/ame]

Are EMI Censoring the Coldplay vs Joe Satriani Debate on YouTube?

 

You’ll almost certainly know by now that US ‘axe-hero’ Joe Satriani is suing Coldplay for plagiarism. He claims that Coldplay’s ‘Viva La Vida’ (an EMI recording) stole from his 2004 track ‘If I Could Fly’ (a Sony recording). This was becoming a PR disaster for Coldplay and a couple of videos on YouTube comparing the two songs were each getting a couple of million views. In short the controversy was generating a lot of online buzz. Some commentators were advising that Coldplay should kick their PR machinery into action.

 

Well it looks like that advice has been heeded. As of today those videos on YouTube comparing the two songs (and other similar ones) have been removed, in their place is the following message

This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by EMI Music

 

http://musicindustryblog.wordpress.com/2008/12/12/emi-censoring-the-coldplay-vs-joe-satriani-debate-on-youtube/

 

Because YouTube has licensing relationships with the labels it has to be sensitive and responsive to their requests. It looks like copyright infringement has been used here as a pretext for removing an awkward embarrassment. Indeed a quick search finds other non-official copies of ‘Viva La Vida’ available for viewing, some ([ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bJMxhvVf0o]such as this one[/ame]) with nearly 1 million views i.e. videos that are infringing copyright on the same song but not including reference to the Satriani controversy. It’s somewhat ironic that copyright infringement has been used as the reason for pulling a video that discusses a copyright infringement controversy.

It’s somewhat ironic that copyright infringement has been used as the reason for pulling a video that discusses a copyright infringement controversy.

 

I was thinking the same thing. This stuff fascinates me.

 

It appears that Coldplay doesn’t plan to make nice with Joe Satriani by settling his infringement claim quietly; therefore, the matter will likely be decided in court. I’ve noted some armchair analysis of this matter has already occurred in the comments on this site, so I thought I’d provide a very brief legal framework for infringement suits regarding the copying of songs.

 

As a preliminary matter, keep in mind that songs and recordings have separate copyrights; Joe is alleging that Coldplay infringed his song, not his recording (as would be the case had Coldplay included an uncleared sample of Satriani's recording in its recording, which would also infringe the copyright to the underlying song). Infringement of a recording may require a different analysis, including the fair use analysis discussed on my earlier post.

 

The infringement analysis applied by courts is, of course, unpredictable and rather cloudy; accordingly, potential litigants are leery of putting the decision in the hands of a fact finder. Assuming that Joe and his publisher legitimately own the copyright to "If I Could Fly," assuming the song meets the minimal criteria for originality (a given), and further assuming that he has no direct evidence of infringement, the court will apply the following two-step inquiry: (1) whether the defendant had access to the plaintiff’s song prior to creation of "Viva la Vida"; and (2) whether the work of the alleged infringer is substantially similar to "If I Could Fly."

 

The plaintiff is not required to show direct evidence of access; however, the plaintiff must establish substantially more than the bare possibility of access. If the work is widely disseminated to the public, then access may be presumed. If the plaintiff can establish a particular chain of events by which the alleged infringer may have gained access, then access may be imputed. If the works are strikingly similar, then the plaintiff will have a lower threshold to establish access; conversely, if access is clearly established, there is a lower threshold for similarity. The passage of time between the time the defendant likely had access and the time of creation is generally not a mitigating factor.

 

Mr. Satriani will likely make the argument that access is presumed because his song was widely disseminated, which requires a quantitative analysis. If Coldplay were the plaintiff, access would likely be imputed on the basis of millions of albums sold. Mr. Satriani has had a lesser degree of commercial success, therefore it’s difficult to predict the outcome of this inquiry. For example, in Rice v. Fox Broadcasting Co. (Ninth Circuit, 2003), a videotape that sold 17,000 copies was not widely disseminated, though the weight of evidence, including the sales figures and certain plausible events suggesting access, satisfied the court.

 

Once the plaintiff has established access, he is not required to prove that the works are identical. “Substantial similarity” exists between no similarity and literal similarity. With respect to a musical composition, similarities must at minimum be more than a brief or commonplace musical reference or motif. For example, a typical 12-bar blues chord progression would not be protectable in and of itself because such a progression provides the basis for so many existing compositions. Courts often apply the so-called “audience” test to determine substantial similarity with regard to musical compositions.

 

The audience test is comparable to the “reasonable person” test in tort law—it relies on the spontaneous and visceral reaction of the typical audience for the works at issue. If the audience detects similarity without suggestion, then the works are likely substantially similar. The audience test has been criticized, and the various circuits have unique formulations of the test. Courts also often allow consideration of expert testimony such as analysis by musical experts. The substantial similarity analysis often includes a value judgment, which is a determination of whether the value of the original work is harmed or the labors of the original author are appropriate by the infringer.

 

This article barely scratches the surface of this complicated and sometimes unpredictable legal doctrine. I’m personally amazed that unintentional infringement doesn’t occur more often among pop songwriters. It seems that the number of potential combinations of chords and melodies within pop music is finite; within such a limited format it seems inevitable that writers would arrive at the same combinations independently. It’s surprising that all possible ear-pleasing combinations of notes and chords have not been exhausted in the 50+ years of the rock era. By the same token, many aspects of pop songwriting are so commonplace that they could not reasonably be considered proprietary; the inspiration that is protectable under copyright is a relatively small portion of the overall composition. Nevertheless, under the existing methodology and with the assumption of access, the gut reaction of the likely audience is largely determinative in these matters.

 

http://idolator.com

 

PLEASE READ THIS. Also, please read Coldplagiarim's post. They are both making strong arguments, however, examining the case from a different angle.

 

1. Coldplagiarism - It does not matter whether Coldplay intended to "bump into" Satriani's song or not. The fact that there are a) too many similarities on b) too many levels is enough to warrant compensation. In other words, intent does not matter because Satriani can claim that he already owns, via copyright laws, the intellectual property rights to that section of music.

 

2. busybeeburns - Once you get past the issue of "access" to the song (which I think will be no problem b/c Satriani has been distributed enough), you need to apply a "Rational Person's Test." Who is the "Rational Person" - a jury of 12. In other words, if they believe the Coldplay song is "substantially similar" to the Coldplay song, than it is (they get to decide).

 

That is why I have suggested that it will be a jury of 12 that will be more clearly defining the ambiguous line between influence and plagiarism. It doesn't matter what Satriani thinks, it doesn't matter what Coldplay thinks, it doesn't matter what I think, it doesn't matter what you think...ALL that matters is what 12 jurors think...And hold on to your pants if that is the case (god knows what they will decide).

 

That is my analysis. Please correct me where I am wrong.

UPDATED

The fact that it doesn't mattter whether Coldplay intended to bump into that melody is slightly worrying. It may not be taken into consideration in a court of law, but I think that the fact that the two songs ( excluding the melody) are completely different is very important.

 

This is probably not a very good analogy but this is the way I think about it.

 

Imagine this: you're a company that has come up with a design for a machine A and you patent it. Some time passes and a different company comes up with another design for a machine B which happens to have a component that is also unique to machine A. Appart from this component the two machines are completely different. In my opinion the company that came up with machine B should be able to call it their own if they came up with the component through their own means.

 

Should the fact that this case is not common affect the outcome?

That's true for machines, but here we're looking at something that has a limited number of possible patterns, and is in mind mind at least, part of the commons. Wasn't it E.B. Dubois who had already listed most of the possible riffs and chord arrangements a long, long time ago?? - so here we have something that has a limited range of possibilities, and that to me should not be permitted to be held as someone's unique creation.

Suppose that the machines serve the same purpose, then there is a limited number of possible components and combinations. Would that change the case?

I just came back but I had heard about this. It's ridiculous. There's at least 5 other songs that have been found that sound just as similar. Satch has no case.\

 

That being said, how's my siggy?

I just came back but I had heard about this. It's ridiculous. There's at least 5 other songs that have been found that sound just as similar. Satch has no case.\

 

That being said, how's my siggy?

I already thought those glasses reminded me of something :lol: