bjaiken

No problem, that was a FAIR question.

or actually, to be more fair, kept up with trends as they changed.

Simple. Made the sound more accessible and mainstream like they did in their early albums. It was a choice to move away from that.

1. You're splitting hairs. Coldplay falls under the general category POP/ROCK. 2. Not everyone cares about outselling other artists. If that is your argument, the Backstreet Boys are a better band than Coldplay. To further illustrate, look at bands like Pearl Jam and Radiohead. They could have easily sold more albums if they wanted. It is not a primary, motivating factor for every artist.

that was pretty funny.

Come on. I don't mind you having an argument, but just be fair. 1. Can you really read Coldplagiarism's posts and think he does not know what he is talking about MUSICALLY? Whether you agree with him or not, this guy is not an amatuer musician. 2. Is pop not a fair category for Coldplay? No, they are not Miley Cyrus or the Jonas Brothers...but they are a pop act. Not that there is anything wrong with that. 3. You don't know enough about Joe Satriani if you think he is in this for name recogniation or because he is too lazy to promote his own songs. Get in the game. 4. This case is complex. There is no way, based on what you have suggested here, that you have any clue whether it is legal or not. I am not suggesting that I know, but I could blow your argument out of the water in 2 seconds. Just have an open mind.

This is a brilliant post. Where does music fall? That is what this case will be all about.

Well, if you want to be literal, that's not a problem for Coldplay. They already own the rights to both songs.

Not if someone already owns the copyright to it. That person is claiming that I have created this "component" (as part of my machine) and I own the "rights" to it. I don't care how another person came to produce the same "component" as me, but I already own the copyright to it. Therefore, that person needs to compensate me. Now I don't pretend to know all the copyright laws, but I think this was Coldplagiarism's argument...and I get it. The validity of it is still in question (to me at least).

I agree. But following your analogy (which I think is a good one), shouldn't the maker of Machine B at least have to partially compensate the maker of Machine A for using that part? If you are going to stay with this analogy, I think the music industry is screwed. Because it appears that there are only so many "components" (i.e. different musical arrangements) to go around in a pop song. If we start suing everybody for using "components", whether it is intentional or not, we will have a whole lot of lawsuits going on.

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.

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

I appreciate you leaving this open. I learned a lot from this thread. Not saying that he has all the legal aspects down (maybe he does, maybe he doesn't), but it made me look at this case differently.

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

Coldplagiarism, I went to dinner, had three glasses of wine, a fine conversation with some from friends, and come back to see you still at the top of the boards. I thought I had persistence and passion about this issue, but now I consider myself an amateur. Anyhow, I am very glad you came to this message board. I wish some things in your approach were different (i.e. user name, pictures), but I respect your opinion. In fact, I look at this issue completely different after your contributions. Thank you. That is not to say that I don't feel horrible for Coldplay. In fact, if it were most other bands, I probably would not care. I like their music a lot, and I think they are going to be hurt by this case whether they win or not in court. I just pray that they have a legal team that will show them good guidance. The good things is that, regardless of what happens, I will still buy their records and support them. Their music makes me happy.

That's what worries me. Unintended Consequences...

But I think there are positives to being a singles band. For one, you would be getting a new song from Coldplay all of the time. I just prefer it in one, singular body of work. And I don't think it is crazy to think that we may start seeing some artists moving this way (well, we at least know it is the intent of Smashing Pumpkins and A Perfect Circle). Doesn't Nine Inch Nails shoot out singles-only every now and again (I am only a casual fan).

We'll if it's not going to happen often, let's just get it squared away and move on.

Oh, I admit...I don't know a lot about music theory. I just simply follow the bands that I like. But, as Mick Jagger once said, "I know it's only Rock N' Roll, but I like it". And I don't want any court case, or guitar virtuoso, messing with that. If he is legally due money, pay the man. Let's just move forward. It is the consequences of this case that scare me.

Perhaps we will start seeing more EPs. Like Prospekt's March.

I think this is a super, super strong argument. I just don't know how the courts will come down on this.

I agree with that. If there were two musicians who would be frustrated that all of their work spent on making a complete album (including artwork) was a waste, it would be these two. It could have been out of complete frustration.

I do feel bad about that. I have intense interest in the legality and theory behind this and it isn't exactly FUN. And a lot of people are going to be upset simply because their favorite band, a band they have invested a lot of time and energy in, is getting dumped on. I get that.

I think (I shouldn't speak for him, but I will) he is saying that it doesn't matter whether it is a coincidence or not. Joe Satriani owns THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF MUSIC. Maybe it is a coincidence that Coldplay bumped into it (which is what I like to believe), but it just doesn't matter. It is too similar on too many levels Therefore, Satriani should be compensated. I think it is bad for music, too. But I understand this person's argument.

You just went about it all wrong. Most people did not listen to your arguments because of your screen name and imagery. I don't know anything about formal music theory, but I understand plenty about politics. And you need to understand that you are talking to "The Base". You lost most of these people right away. It's a shame. You made some good points tonight, and there are a lot of people who missed out on that.