Princess of China and the similarity between a song of Vietnam !?

[coldplay_is_louve.]

PoC can't possibly be stolen from the Vietnamese song due to the fact that the Vietnamese song sucks so much less.

 

:lol: It's sad, but this is so true.

[lotrobsessed101]

It makes me sick that this is happening again. :( I can't deny that the Vietmanese song's hook sounds the same as Princess of China. I don't think it was an intentional thing, though. They are giving credit where it's due right and left and right for this album. I don't think this would have been an exception if they had actually sampled this lady's song. I feel really bad for the band. They are trying so hard not to have a repeat of the Satriani bullshit that went down over "Viva" and then this comes along.

[Kiame]

If I get pulled over by the police in that State and they want to give me a traffic violation ticket, if I say "oh sorry I didn't realize that law existed here", he's not going to let me off simply because I said that I didn't know about it; not knowing about it doesn't make it okay. If Coldplay say, "we didn't realize that lady's song existed", this lady's lawyer isn't going to ignore it because they say they didn't know about it. To me this is much more obvious than the Satriani situation.

 

This is the worst analogy I have ever read on these forums. Quite easily. :laugh3:

 

You've confused ignorance of the law with an ignorance of obscure Vietnamese music. Analogies have to be able to draw parallels - you have to cite the equivalent.

 

So the music industry equivalent to ignorance of the law would be.... ignorance of the law. If Coldplay said "Yes, we plagiarised the song but we didn't know that was illegal" then this analogy would work.

 

You seem to be implying that Coldplay have no defense because they have never heard the song before. That is untrue. Having not heard this song before is quite a strong defense actually - and is considered by a civil law court. It's very relevant.

 

Otherwise the court would be implying that musicians must be well versed and familiar with the chord progressions of every officially released song on the planet. Which is a precedent they would never set.

[DriftedFar^]

Blame Rihanna :-)

[Corkus]

Blame Rihanna :-)

For what? Coldplay still wrote the song.

 

...actually no, some Vietnamese lady did. :p

[Maneki]

I love how everyone's discussing about something that's likely to happen, and hasn't even happened yet.

It's also pretty pointless to discuss about a lawsuit. The album isn't even released in the States yet, neither is the single.

[para-para-parrotdies]

This will end with a settlement outside of court.

[ksg_tarheelfan]

during the intro and like parts during the song, I found myself humming/singing verses of Violet Hill...it fits kinda

[Megalomania]

Lol another law suit? Too funny :lol:

[Coldplay770]

It's definitely possible, and I wouldn't rule it out, although I don't think it's that big a deal. Only one part sounds the same.... I will however point out that the guitar riff Johnny plays in between verses (live version) in Major Minus seems to be taken from the song "Beautiful" by Snoop Dogg Ft. Pharrel, although in the said song, the melody is sang and not played by an instrument. Even then it sounds pretty much identical. For proof, listen to the following, and forward it to 3:53 to hear it. Notice the melody in question, "Oh I, oh I, oh I, oh I" is sang 4 times in Snoop's song, and in Major Minus it is played 4 times on Johnny's guitar, and then played another 4 times right before Johnny's big, awesome solo.

 

[ame=

]

[/ame]

[rafaelchampion]

^This song is ugly.

Major Minus is a masterpiece

[Corkus]

^This song is ugly.

Yes.

Major Minus is a masterpiece

No.

[Coldplay770]

Lol. Major Minus is indeed great, but whether not the song is ugly was not the point. That guitar riff sounds exactly like the melody sang in the said song, except it being played on guitar in major minus, and played slower.

[NumbersGirl]

Having not heard this song before is quite a strong defense actually - and is considered by a civil law court. It's very relevant.[/color]

 

Otherwise the court would be implying that musicians must be well versed and familiar with the chord progressions of every officially released song on the planet. Which is a precedent they would never set.

 

Maybe, but at some point a line is crossed. If having never heard the song is such a strong defense as you say, that defense would be easily exploited. At some point, "but we haven't heard that song before" just doesn't cut it, whether it was intentional or not.

 

And if this does happen to turn into a lawsuit issue, where would this occur? In Vietnam? In the UK? In the country of origin of the lady's record label (if not already Vietnam)? Or is there some sort of international standard copyright etc. court for things like this?

[para-para-parrotdies]

Maybe, but at some point a line is crossed. If having never heard the song is such a strong defense as you say, that defense would be easily exploited. At some point, "but we haven't heard that song before" just doesn't cut it, whether it was intentional or not.

 

Kiame is partially right - she refers to something called "independent creation," which is recognized as one of the many affirmative defenses to copyright infringement.

 

Now the difficulty arises in that the plaintiff now must prove the defendant (in this case, Coldplay) had access to the plaintiff's work. This works against Coldplay's favor considering that the song in question was released in 2008, 3 years prior to the release of Princess of China.

 

Moreover, precedent has already been set in Bright Tunes Music Corp. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd., 420 F.Supp. 177 (1976). This is the case where the courts decided George Harrison had indeed infringed upon the copyright of He's So Fine, even though Harrison raised the "independent creation" defense.

 

Like I said earlier, Coldplay will probably look to settle for two reasons: 1) The longer this case is discussed in the media, the worse it looks for Coldplay, especially considering they were already sued for plagiarism in the past; and 2) If this case does go to court and musicologists are brought in to testify, then the similarities between the two songs will ultimately work against Coldplay's favor.

[DriftedFar^]

All the best artists get sued.

 

It's a COMPLIMENT! :-) :-)

[NumbersGirl]

Kiame is partially right - she refers to something called "independent creation," which is recognized as one of the many affirmative defenses to copyright infringement.

 

Now the difficulty arises in that the plaintiff now must prove the defendant (in this case, Coldplay) had access to the plaintiff's work. This works against Coldplay's favor considering that the song in question was released in 2008, 3 years prior to the release of Princess of China.

Moreover, precedent has already been set in Bright Tunes Music Corp. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd., 420 F.Supp. 177 (1976). This is the case where the courts decided George Harrison had indeed infringed upon the copyright of He's So Fine, even though Harrison raised the "independent creation" defense.

What I find interesting, as I mentioned earlier, is what Will said in an interview with Digital Spy I think just a few days before this came about:

"Music is so available today and it's hard to be original, but bands like us and other great bands survive because of our chemistry. Every chord progression has already been written before, so the only unique thing you can have is who is involved."

a) It's almost as if they're taking preemptive action of all further potential claims by stating their defense, and b) simultaneously shooting themselves in the foot by saying "music is so available today", i.e., having 'access' to the plaintiff's work. I'm assuming if you play this lady's song for the Shazam app (or other similar program), the song will come up. If the band had simply done that in the studio long before releasing the song, they could have either changed it in some way or at least considered giving credit.

 

To go off on a tangent, frankly the existence now of programs such as Shazam makes me wonder if such copyright/plagiarism laws/precedent might change soon. Call it the "Shazam it" point: did the defendant "Shazam" their new song before releasing it?

 

 

Like I said earlier, Coldplay will probably look to settle for two reasons: 1) The longer this case is discussed in the media, the worse it looks for Coldplay, especially considering they were already sued for plagiarism in the past; and 2) If this case does go to court and musicologists are brought in to testify, then the similarities between the two songs will ultimately work against Coldplay's favor.

I agree with you; if this lady goes through with it, that will likely be the outcome.

[Stuckey]

I've spent my life studying music, and have been involved in several music plagiarism cases. After looking at several different aspects of Ra Ngo Tung Kinh and Princess of China. Ha Tran has very little evidence that will hold up in court. The similarity of the opening verse is nothing near close enough to be considered a theft in intellectual property.

 

Hopefully this time, Coldplay won't come to an "agreement" with Ha Tran, like with Joe Satriani, don't settle! If you created those pieces, you need to take a stand!

 

 

Whatever the case, this plagiarism case with Ha Tran isn't going anywhere.

[neonhorn22]

You guys have to be kidding me. For all we know he could have stolen that melody from this.

 

 

or he could just not have stolen it at all. :rolleyes:

 

This Nelly/P. Diddy/Murphy Lee song is what I was thinking of when I first heard Princess of China! I thought...."ewww...they sampled THAT atrocity?!"

 

ETA: Just checked, "Shake Ya Tailfeather" came in 2006......that's 2 years before the Vietnamese song. So...I don't think she's going to have a strong case. That hook was around before she made her song.

[Coldplay770]

Princess of China includes notes not found in the Nelly song, meanwhile, it more closely resembles the notes found in the Vietnamese song. However, the guitar riff from Major Minus is a lot more blatant. The only difference is that it's played slower on the guitar, but the melody remains the same despite some added notes in between the main notes.

[Dan 6N]

I'm getting fed up of these lawsuits!

[Teco]

Id like to understand WHY DO PEOPLE STRIVES TO DENY IT, come on, dont be so alienated, skip this blind (deaf in this case) attitude. I cant believe there is ppl saying "not even close to a match", COME ON! The songs are almost EQUAL. We are not supposed to act like puppets just because we're on a coldplay forum. open your damn eyes and HAVE YOUR OWN opinion. lets act like grown up people and be coherent here. it is another plagiarism, and that is not my irrelevant opinion, its an EVIDENCE.

[gus]

All the best artists get sued.

 

It's a COMPLIMENT! :-) :-)

 

yep second that

[Coldplay770]

The only part identical or nearly identical is the "oooooooooooo" part of the song. The songs are not identical. I hope that's what you actually meant.

[gus]

This Nelly/P. Diddy/Murphy Lee song is what I was thinking of when I first heard Princess of China! I thought...."ewww...they sampled THAT atrocity?!"

 

ETA: Just checked, "Shake Ya Tailfeather" came in 2006......that's 2 years before the Vietnamese song. So...I don't think she's going to have a strong case. That hook was around before she made her song.

yep