And why do you care if i made a tiny mistake?

And yes, i read everything.

But it's just stupid to waste your time doing everything you've done so far to "convince" coldplay fans that coldplay did copy the song.

I'm gonna sue you! :evil:

 

Excuse me, Cobalt, but I have a degree in tongue-in-cheek caption pictures, and I can say definitively that you are a PLAGIARIST. Believe me. I use photoshop.

 

Viva la FRAUDE!

 

:laugh3:

 

:bigcry::bigcry::bigcry:

 

Oh yeah? Well I have a degree in TROUBLE-MAKING.

 

*douses thread with water*

I'm going to once again say that many people on this forum are musicians as well (including me).

OK, the grammar thing was kind of a dick move. Sorry. See I can be emotional and have irrational reactions too.

A lawyer is not suited to make such a determination unless they are conversant in the musical language.

 

Look, I totally get it. Coldplay is your band and it means a lot to you. That's really cool. That's what music is supposed to do, no matter what your level of sophistication, understanding or interest in music. The issue I raise here is that there is no dispute with regards to the similarity from a strict unemotional musical analysis perspective, but I never suggested how that happened or that Coldplay were intentionally dishonest. The only problem I have with Coldplay at this point is how they've handled the situation that they find themselves in.

 

1) Lawyers can't work on a case unless they're experts in the issue at hand? :stunned:

 

2) Don't belittle us and be condescending. It's rude.

 

3) You have an issue with them releasing a polite statement, being professional, and defending themselves? You have no idea if they actually stole the song, so you can't say any sort of denial of plagiarism on their part is mishandling the situation.

 

 

:bigcry::bigcry::bigcry:

 

Oh yeah? Well I have a degree in TROUBLE-MAKING.

 

*douses thread with water*

 

Psh, you're still going DOWN. Many Youtube users back me up on this one, and we all know that they're always right... So is Wikipedia. :blank:

I'm going to once again say that many people on this forum are musicians as well (including me).

 

Are you really a musician who has studied theory and harmony or do you take guitar lessons where your teacher shows you how to play the latest pop song every time you see him? Lot's of people learn how to play some chords and crank out their favorite music and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

If you are a well-versed musician, I would love for you to explain to me what makes the two sections of music different, because there isn't much. I'm a bit skeptical because there isn't a musician out there who understands the language that does not see this as clear cut. There just isn't. Such a person is either lying or they have no grasp of the language of music.

Forget who know music and who doesn't. How do YOU know what is in Chris Martin's head...I mean that sincerely.

:bigcry::bigcry::bigcry:

 

Oh yeah? Well I have a degree in TROUBLE-MAKING.

 

 

lmao :laugh3:

The only issue with having an "exchange of ideas" is that it doesn't really work when one side is being extremely condescending. :dozey:

If you submitted a research paper to your college class and it contained whole sections that were 99% similar to another written work, it would be obvious, because you speak English and can read.

.

 

First of all....VLV is not 99% similar to the other dude' song....Its one little part (What is it like 10 seconds?) that SIMILAR.

 

2nd.....Thats why i dont like that fact that hes asking for all profits cause its not like that part is what makes the song what it is...I mean i would understand if the whole song sounded similar but it doesnt so hes does NOT deserve all profits....

1) Lawyers can't work on a case unless they're experts in the issue at hand? :stunned:

 

That's not really what I said. I'm saying that being a lawyer does not qualify one to understand the music theory here. Obviously they play a role in the procedure.

 

3) You have an issue with them releasing a polite statement, being professional, and defending themselves? You have no idea if they actually stole the song, so you can't say any sort of denial of plagiarism on their part is mishandling the situation.

 

They released a polite statement once they got sued. They had plenty of time to accept the reality of the situation and deal with it. They chose not to and are now forced to make a statement. Again, it's not about whether they intentionally "stole" anything. The fact is that Satriani's intellectual property is contained in their song so Satriani must be compensated for it. It's really that simple. That's all I'm trying to get people to understand. I am perfectly willing to accept Coldplay at their word that it's some bizarre coincidence, even though chance would dictate that that is less likely. None of us knows the truth but them. It doesn't matter though. It still doesn't change the end result.

The only issue with having an "exchange of ideas" is that it doesn't really work when one side is being extremely condescending.

 

Exactly. Do the right thing and go change your screen name. Then come back in and talk. Not that you have to, it's just in such poor taste when you are on a Coldplay board. Don't you get it?

Are you really a musician who has studied theory and harmony or do you take guitar lessons where your teacher shows you how to play the latest pop song every time you see him? Lot's of people learn how to play some chords and crank out their favorite music and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

If you are a well-versed musician, I would love for you to explain to me what makes the two sections of music different, because there isn't much. I'm a bit skeptical because there isn't a musician out there who understands the language that does not see this as clear cut. There just isn't. Such a person is either lying or they have no grasp of the language of music.

 

I actually don't play guitar, and I don't learn how to play "the latest pop songs" during music lessons. At this point, no, I am not an expert with degrees and all that, but I HAVE studied music theory. I figured I might as well mention that.

 

I am not saying that the two sections aren't similar, because anyone can see that there are. I do believe, however, that those sections are not very long and that in the world we live in today, the chances of creating something that has been done before is very possible.

The fact is that Satriani's intellectual property is contained in their song so Satriani must be compensated for it. It's really that simple. That's all I'm trying to get people to understand. I am perfectly willing to accept Coldplay at their word that it's some bizarre coincidence, even though chance would dictate that that is less likely. None of us knows the truth but them. It doesn't matter though. It still doesn't change the end result.

 

That's completely ridiculous, you can't sue someone over a complete coincidence. What if you happen to write a paper that accidentally has the same sentence as another paper written years earlier, that you'd never looked at as a source? Should I sue you? Should you have to pay because bad luck?

 

And stop being so damn condescending, it doesn't help your point, it just makes you look obnoxious.

The fact is that Satriani's intellectual property is contained in their song so Satriani must be compensated for it.

 

How do you KNOW that it is not a PERFECT coincidence? I mean, Chris Martin said he wrote it himself. Are you claiming he is a liar?

 

 

They released a polite statement once they got sued. They had plenty of time to accept the reality of the situation and deal with it. They chose not to and are now forced to make a statement. Again, it's not about whether they intentionally "stole" anything. The fact is that Satriani's intellectual property is contained in their song so Satriani must be compensated for it. It's really that simple. That's all I'm trying to get people to understand. I am perfectly willing to accept Coldplay at their word that it's some bizarre coincidence, even though chance would dictate that that is less likely. None of us knows the truth but them. It doesn't matter though. It still doesn't change the end result.

 

 

Lets say u had a song and u worked really hard on it and all of a sudden someone comes and says "u stole my song i want all the money it made"...And u know for a fact that u didnt steal it would u just be like ''ok here it is'' No right?.....Thats one of many reasons i believe Coldplay didnt steal it cause ya they probably did have the chance to just give him money and make sure no one ever found out about it but they didnt......WHY?......Caue they perfer fighting against something that they know its BS even tho there gonna get alot of shit for it.

First of all....VLV is not 99% similar to the other dude' song....Its one little part (What is it like 10 seconds?) that SIMILAR.

 

No, you misunderstand me. I'm only talking about the part in question. That four chord progression and the melody on top is 99% similar to the like section in Satriani's music. The rest of both songs are completely different.

 

2nd.....Thats why i dont like that fact that hes asking for all profits cause its not like that part is what makes the song what it is...I mean i would understand if the whole song sounded similar but it doesnt so hes does NOT deserve all profits....

 

I can't speak to the legal matter directly as I don't have the fact here and I'm not sure any of us do. On a fundamental level, Satriani should not get a 100% royalty on the song. Clearly, there is more to the song than the Satriani section. I would be very surprised if Satriani really wants that. That's a major dick move. If that is what he is seeking, it's probably like any lawsuit. You sue for absurd damages and then you end up getting something less and more reasonable. The only way I can see Satriani getting everything, would be if the judge was sentencing Coldplay with punitive damages because of their behavior or failure to cooperate. Something like that.

 

If you boil down what I am saying. I'm just trying to get people to understand that the one section is almost the exact same thing for whatever reason. Some people just don't even want to accept that. If I can get people to realize that, that really all I'm after.

That's completely ridiculous, you can't sue someone over a complete coincidence. What if you happen to write a paper that accidentally has the same sentence as another paper written years earlier, that you'd never looked at as a source? Should I sue you? Should you have to pay because bad luck?

 

And stop being so damn condescending, it doesn't help your point, it just makes you look obnoxious.

 

You're just wrong. If you made money off something that already exists and someone owns the copyright, whether you intended it or not, you are liable. Intent may sway how significant the damages are so it can come into play, but that's not the main issue.

Come on Coldplay-----Coldplagiarism. It just fits. "Cold-sounds-similar-but-who-knows" just isn't funny. It's a play on words. Don't get so upset. It's just funny considering the situation they are in.

 

No, it don't fit and it's not funny. I would not say anything about Joe or any other person/group whether I liked them or not, but I guess that's because I have a little bit more class.

 

 

Well the reason why you see it that way is because Satriani's fan base is made up almost exclusively of musicians and quite frankly, musicians understand music.

 

Yeah, he has a fan base of musicians who can't make it.

 

BTW...How do you know Coldplay does not have a large fan based of musicians? Is it because they don't go around acting like a f**king expert like a lot of fans of Joe Satriani?

why has this thread not been locked. isn';t here atnother like this?

 

I don't think there needs to be ANY threads like this. The debate could go on forever. It's completely pointless. We should probably just let Coldplay and Joe settle this themselves.

If you boil down what I am saying. I'm just trying to get people to understand that the one section is almost the exact same thing for whatever reason. Some people just don't even want to accept that. If I can get people to realize that, that really all I'm after.

 

OK, you've convinced me. There are a lot of similarities. I had already come to that conclusion before you came here. But if those similarities are a pure coincidence, and Coldplay came up with it completely on their own (w/o ever listening to Satriani), why should they compensate him? Are you saying he OWNS and a particular section of music.

How do you KNOW that it is not a PERFECT coincidence? I mean, Chris Martin said he wrote it himself. Are you claiming he is a liar?

 

It would be really nice if you actually read. I said, that even though it is less likely, I am willing to accept the assertion that there was no intent to copy here and that it's not provable either way. That's completely irrelevant to the main issue. I never called him a liar. That's not what I'm interested in and I don't presume to know.

Looks like you are outta place seriously... get something else to do, this is not a place for CP haters and if you're so much into that Joe Satriani go join his forum... if he has one that is.

 

I really don't undestand what you're doing here.

Looks like you are outta place seriously... get something else to do, this is not a place for CP haters and if you're so much into that Joe Satriani go join his forum... if he has one that is.

 

I really don't undestand what you're doing here.

 

This makes me wonder... If he's only "a casual Joe Satriani fan," why did he take the time to find and join this forum, write that large post on the matter, and start an endless debate? And then there's the t-shirts and sigs..

I posted this on the other thread but I say it here again since it doesn't seem like you are keeping track of the other one.

 

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by coldplagiarism;2682007

 

 

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.