So to summarise: Satriani goes public with the whole lawsuit shebang after the song becomes an international hit and right after Coldplay receive a Grammy nod. However, he's surely not doing it for substantial profit. It's purely a matter of integrity and ensuring one's intellectual property is recognised, right?

 

PS. Here's some merchandise I've set up so I can join the hypocrite wagon and make a dime out of this whole ordeal.

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.

 

It would be nice if YOU did not right 2000 words, of which, most is a foreign language to me. I read your entire post, punk (probably the only one). No one is taking you more serious than me. I just can't remember everything you said.

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.

 

OK. Fair enough. Sorry about the "not reading thing." The short answer is yes. When you register a piece of music with ASCAP or BMI (in the US) or other agencies around the world you indicate who the authors of the music are. The royalties from the use of that music get divided between the authors. Satriani already had his work registered and then parts of it appeared in what could be considered a derivative work in the Coldplay song. Therefore, Satriani's name should be included among the authors of the song. I would think that's all Satriani tried to negotiate before he filed his suit. That would be the appropriate thing for all parties. I don't know that for sure, but that is reasonable. I supposed it is possible that Satriani over-stepped and wanted more and Coldplay decided to fight it in the courts. I kind of doubt it, but I don't know for sure. If Satriani did that, I would be disappointed with him.

It would be nice if YOU did not right 2000 words, of which, most is a foreign language to me. I read your entire post, punk (probably the only one). No one is taking you more serious than me. I just can't remember everything you said.

 

You're right. I wrote an apology in my previous post.

So to summarise: Satriani goes public with the whole lawsuit shebang after the song becomes an international hit and right after Coldplay receive a Grammy nod. However, he's surely not doing it for substantial profit. It's purely a matter of integrity and ensuring one's intellectual property is recognised, right?

 

PS. Here's some merchandise I've set up so I can join the hyopcrite wagon and make a dime out of this whole ordeal.

 

:laugh3:

someone should be knocked off of this thread or this forum.

hahahaha :sneaky:

So to summarise: Satriani goes public with the whole lawsuit shebang after the song becomes an international hit and right after Coldplay receive a Grammy nod. However, he's surely not doing it for substantial profit. It's purely a matter of integrity and ensuring one's intellectual property is recognised, right?

You cynicism is justified and probably correct. It still doesn't change a damn thing. If you owned the copyright to something that was being used, you would probably want to use it to it's maximum benefit. I'm just saying.

someone should be knocked off of this thread or this forum.

hahahaha :sneaky:

 

Or both thread and forum :sneaky:

When you register a piece of music with ASCAP or BMI (in the US) or other agencies around the world you indicate who the authors of the music are. The royalties from the use of that music get divided between the authors. Satriani already had his work registered and then parts of it appeared in what could be considered a derivative work in the Coldplay song. Therefore, Satriani's name should be included among the authors of the song.

 

Should it be considered a derivative though, if they arrived at the same melody through their own means?

You're right. I wrote an apology in my previous post.

 

I accept your apology (by the way, I wrote "right" instead of "write"). That was just "angry typing". Anyhow, so your point is that Coldplay could bump into the same section of music, simply by coincidence, and still be sued for it? If so, I think I understand your point.

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.

 

 

 

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.

Of the countless millions or so songs written the world, two bands can't have three similar (and popular) chord changes? Should Green day pay Oasis for 'boulevard of broken dreams'? and in turn, Johann Pachelbel sue Oasis for 'don't look back in anger'? melody, is one thing, but if people were so strict as to 'patent' simple chord sequences, there'd be no more songs to write. Surely,these aren't the only two songs with that sequence, and we've proven that Satriani's short guitar melody wasn't original either, so Im still trying to understand why he deserves compensation.

So Coldplay, Tappin Gofton (design and art direction), Eugene Delacroix and Dan Green (photography) can sue you for obviously copying their work without their permission? I think they can because that is registered to them and that is their work.

 

Anyway, I think folks need to remember that they are hearing songs that have been edited and mixed so you're not really hearing the true version. When, and if, they go to court, the jurors will have access to technology that will break the songs down better than one's own freaking ear. They will be able to determine if there's any plagiarism and, if so, whether it's by coincidence or by accident. Remember, you can hear and see things that are not totally accurate even if you are an "expert."

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.

 

Yeah, sorry about that. I'm still not sure what happened here.

 

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.

 

Thank you. I agree. It's a bit provocative. But just look at how much fun we had. The imagery is a much more divisive than what I am actually saying.

 

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.

 

I can completely understand their initial reaction if this was just chance. However, I would think that they'd be able to realize that someone else owns the copyright to that musical fragment and just deal with it. Personally, I think Coldplay would have much more credibility if they just said this was a fluke thing and make it legally right. Other musicians would respect that I think. I know I would. Right now they appear like it's no big deal and it's really not that similar and musicians are looking at them saying, what? It makes them look like they have something to hide and they are just hoping it goes away. It would be a crappy position to be in if it was accidental and that would totally suck, but sometimes you just have to deal with unfortunate things in life.

 

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.

 

Very true. I'll be watching this carefully.

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.

Cool.

 

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.

That's all fine and good, but it does not change the fact that Satriani owns the intellectual property. That's really all this comes down to.

With all do respect, how can you come on this forum, sign up with a name and imagry like that and NOT expect to get bashed.

 

Some people look at music too critically (i.e. potentially Gradaute music students who put their whole lives in to a career that will make nothing).

 

I play in a band. Lets say that I innocently create song A that sounds like song B. You throw all your theory at me. (Now I do know a fair amount of theory, I play multiple instruments and I do get to a point what you say)...however all I am going to do is go ...huh? Dude...I wrote that myself go to hell.

 

Its people who over-analyze everything that is going to make any artist hold back due to fear if they ever make it somewhere ...god forbid it will get accused of sounding like something I have NEVER heard before.

 

If you think anything I have said is a low blow, well sir you are the king of low blows on this site.

LALALA :)

IlovecoldplayIlovecoldplayIlovecoldplayIlovecoldplay

IlovecoldplayIlovecoldplayIlovecoldplayIlovecoldplay

IlovecoldplayIlovecoldplayIlovecoldplayIlovecoldplay

Who is this guy? Do we need him?

He's bored :'O

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

 

This case interested me when it came up because I have never seen anything quite like it. So I've been following it for a bit and was surprised by some of the reactions I witnessed on blogs, etc, while getting more information about it.

 

It seemed to me that a lot of the Coldplay fans were making irrelevant arguments and defending their guys at all costs. It was clear to me that there was a lot of misinformation out there and people were coming to bizarre conclusions. I initially designed the graphic for fun and sent it around to friends as a joke. I didn't make it just to join this forum.

 

Anyway, I kind of came here on a whim to see what kind of discussions might take place if people took the time to listen to the facts. I was just surprised by the way Coldplay fans brushed certain things aside as not mattering. I was hoping to change some minds in a way made people realize that they can still love Coldplay while accepting the facts. It doesn't necessarily change what they love about the band, nor diminish their accomplishments.

It seemed to me that a lot of the Coldplay fans were making irrelevant arguments and defending their guys at all costs.

 

Well then the Joe Satriani fans are doing this as well.

This case interested me when it came up because I have never seen anything quite like it. So I've been following it for a bit and was surprised by some of the reactions I witnessed on blogs, etc, while getting more information about it.

 

It seemed to me that a lot of the Coldplay fans were making irrelevant arguments and defending their guys at all costs. It was clear to me that there was a lot of misinformation out there and people were coming to bizarre conclusions. I initially designed the graphic for fun and sent it around to friends as a joke. I didn't make it just to join this forum.

 

Anyway, I kind of came here on a whim to see what kind of discussions might take place if people took the time to listen to the facts. I was just surprised by the way Coldplay fans brushed certain things aside as not mattering. I was hoping to change some minds in a way made people realize that they can still love Coldplay while accepting the facts. It doesn't necessarily change what they love about the band, nor diminish their accomplishments.

 

No, I appreciate it. I am trying to understand. You didn't answer my last question. This is just to make sure I have your point: Coldplay can be legally sued for simply bumping into a similar section of music that is owned by another artist, right?

How lovely of your part, but really, come to reality. You won't change anything dear :]

someone should be knocked off of this thread or this forum.

hahahaha :sneaky:

That's really up to you guys. I completely understand that I am a guest here and you have the right to ban me. That would not be my choice, but I will respect it if that is the wish of the community.

I accept your apology (by the way, I wrote "right" instead of "write"). That was just "angry typing". Anyhow, so your point is that Coldplay could bump into the same section of music, simply by coincidence, and still be sued for it? If so, I think I understand your point.

Yes. Thank you bjaiken. If all I did was make a meaningful point with you, I am glad I took the time to do it.

Hey look the thread's been recreated...

 

Be nice eh? It's been a bad week around here.

 

I know you'd like a nice big slugfest over the real issues in this case, and it looks like you're getting it to a certain extent. But being a Coldplay fan means getting hit by the haters of the world repeatedly right where it hurts, and a lot of the younger or newer ones especially aren't going to have developed as thick a skin as some of us who've lived through a few atease trolling sessions. They're kids on a messageboard- it's supposed to be something fun devoted to something they love, and instead we're all pretty bruised right now. You're not going to get top notch rationality right now. If you'd been here a couple of days ago I might have argued, (and yes I have studied music structure in college and write a bit myself) but now I'm just tired.

 

The imagery is a much more divisive than what I am actually saying.

I'm saying this as an artist. Images speak louder than words. Human nature, dude. What do you expect. Every glimpse of you screams "rude". You don't seem to be from atease (pity, really), so I'm not going to toy with you; I'm just saying this plainly. But people are going to be upset.

 

 

And since my first post is lost in the proper thread for all this I ask again: What's up with the 7 page essay? The papers I wrote for university weren't that long! :stunned: