coldplagiarism

:laugh3::laugh3::laugh3::laugh3::laugh3::laugh3: Classic. That would be funny. Sorry to disappoint you.

Fair enough. Good points. I have no emotional investment in the band and I find the graphic hilarious considering the circumstances. That's all.

Well, I've seen some bonehead Satch fan comments too like those who definitively say it was copied intentionally. They have no way of knowing that. However, my main issue is the lack of musical understanding and the Satriani fan base is almost exclusively musicians so they tend to already understand the musical points better. I'm sure some people will take offense to that and I'm sorry about that, but it's just a simple fact. I tried to say it as non-dick-like as possible. Satriani has just always been a niche artist that musicians follow. There was a brief period where he had mainstream popularity, but it was a fluke and I'm sure it surprised him as much as it did the rest of us. He just doesn't appeal to the mass public, only nerdy musicians.

Actually you are very wrong here. What I've done is a parody which is protected under copyright law. If Coldplay had not used the Delacroix which is in the public domain, I could not have used that image. Everything else is just fonts and a suggestion of the original hand lettering. No one would confuse my image with an actual legit Coldplay one. I've done this kind of thing before. Actually, I mostly made my conclusion based on working it out on paper if you will (well actually on the computer). I wrote down the chord progressions in each song, transposed them into the same key and compared the harmonic content. The melody is what it is. I didn't need to write that down to analyze it. Again the coincidence factor is irrelevant. Satch's music appears in the Coldplay. Case closed.

What makes this situation unique is the simultaneous combination of both melodic and harmonic content. I'm sorry, I don't listed to that much pop music so I don't know all your references specifically. However, Pachelbel has been dead for over 300 years and his Canon (the only piece anyone cares about) is in the public domain. No one could sue over use of it in a song.

"Derivative" in this case is just a technical term that they often use with regards to copyright. Usually, the derivative work is consciously taken from an existing piece. This is an unusual circumstance so perhaps there isn't a completely appropriate term for it. Derivative is just the one that makes the most sense and is an educated guess of what would likely be used in a "legal" sense, though I am not a lawyer.

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.

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.

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.

Cool. 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.

Yeah, sorry about that. I'm still not sure what happened here. 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. 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. Very true. I'll be watching this carefully.

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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. 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 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.

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.

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

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. 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. 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. The average person is not conversant in the language of music so they can't easily make those definitive judgments. If the similarities in question were some other pop act that did not have a large fan base of musicians, then we are dealing with equal opinions of the layperson. 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.

What's a people's going. Do people own going. Why the apostrophe? If you actually read my post, you would realize that I never definitively claimed that Coldplay copied the Satriani tune, not did I suggest that their song wasn't good.

Fair enough.

Thank you for your help. If you read my post, I fully acknowledged that the graphic was kind of a cheap shot. It's just funny. I'd like to think that I can laugh at myself when it's a good joke. Hopefully others can too, even if it's directed at your favorite band.

What do you think is rude?