Coldplay's Alleged Plagiarism Was A 'Dagger Through My Heart,' Joe Satriani Says; Chris Martin Denies Wrongdoing

[dakels]

I'm on Satriani's side but... this is the music industry. Originality is a rare beast.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM

 

[Mardeth]

Timbaland is worse?

I like Coldplay btw

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven
How could anyone hate Coldplay? They're yawntastic!

I have something far worse for Coldplay than mere "hate". For them I have indifference.

 

[Adam8281]

Originally posted by: acheron

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: acheron
You can't win a plagiarism suit unless you have conclusive evidence that they really did steal from you. Just sounding alike is not enough -- it could be a coincidence, both parties could have been inspired by a third source, etc. It would be really tough for Satriani to win.

Is that a fact?

http://volokh.com/posts/1228596396.shtml is where I read about it originally. One of the commenters there says:

The My Sweet Lord / He's So Fine case seemed to really hinge on the presence of idiosyncratic similarities--the Court characterized them as being akin to "copying a mistake," namely, the bridge to the next octave in both songs. And so the Court concluded that Harrison must have subconsciously copied. I see the similarities in the Satriani and Coldplay songs as being more broad than idiosyncratic--it's basically two lines. While it seems likely that Coldplay copied, I don't know whether it forces the same conclusion as in Bright Songs v. Harrison, and thus Satriani would need to rely on some sort of evidence that Coldplay copied.

IANALBMWI. (I am not a lawyer, but my wife is. )

IANALBIAALSAMWIALATSIATIP (I am not a lawyer but I am a law student and my wife is a lawyer and this semester I am taking Intellectual Property)

In 8 days I'm going to be taking an exam on this sort of thing, so I figured toss in $.02 here. To win in a copyright infringement suit like this, Satriani would need to show two things: 1) That Coldplay in fact copied; 2) That the copying was "substantial" enough for liability (There are a series of tests for determining "substantiality" that I won't talk about here).

On issue 1), you are right that there must be ACTUAL copying for Coldplay to be liable. For example, if you sat down tonight and wrote a song that was identical to "Yesterday" by the Beatles, you would NOT be infringing their copyright if it was just by a miraculous stroke of luck that you happened to produce the same song as Lennon - if you had never even heard "Yesterday" by the Beatles, and it was just a 1 in a billion freak occurrence that you happened to come up with the same song. You could play your song "Yesterday," record it, sell it, etc., all without being liable for any copyright infringement.

However, in the real world of actual legal practice, the way that you prove that somebody ACTUALLY copied is to show that he PROBABLY copied. Funny, I know. But the fact of Coldplay's copying would be an inference that the jury would be allowed to draw from evidence such as: Coldplay's owning Satriani's CD, Coldplay having attended a concert of Satriani, or even Coldplay living in an area with a radio station that has played Satriani's song. In other words, although the hypothetical standard is VERY high (ACTUAL copying) - this standard can be met by showing that it is PROBABLE that Coldplay ACTUALLY copied.

So in reality, the theoretical standard of ACTUAL copying turns out to not be that difficult to show in practice. A jury would almost CERTAINLY conclude that Coldplay had sufficient access to Satriani's song that ACTUAL copying can be inferred. The real question would come down to the "substantiality" of the appropriation, and that's where I'm going to stop this post, because it's making me dread my IP final

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: PottedMeat

Youtube: Did Coldplay copy Joe Satriani?

that's pretty damning

that mashup also made viva la vida 100x better

Certainly makes the case of them being the same. Courts will have to determine the "Plagarism" aspect. I don't know if it matters, but I could see them(Cold Play) coming up with the tune without Intentionally copying, but doing so from memory of some(Satriani's) tune heard way back when(subconsciously, aka from Memory, but unaware it was from Memory). Either way, Great tune, I suspect Cold Play will have to pay some kind of Fee over it in the longrun.

I like Cold Play!

 

[darkxshade]

Originally posted by: Adam8281

Originally posted by: acheron

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: acheron
You can't win a plagiarism suit unless you have conclusive evidence that they really did steal from you. Just sounding alike is not enough -- it could be a coincidence, both parties could have been inspired by a third source, etc. It would be really tough for Satriani to win.

Is that a fact?

http://volokh.com/posts/1228596396.shtml is where I read about it originally. One of the commenters there says:

The My Sweet Lord / He's So Fine case seemed to really hinge on the presence of idiosyncratic similarities--the Court characterized them as being akin to "copying a mistake," namely, the bridge to the next octave in both songs. And so the Court concluded that Harrison must have subconsciously copied. I see the similarities in the Satriani and Coldplay songs as being more broad than idiosyncratic--it's basically two lines. While it seems likely that Coldplay copied, I don't know whether it forces the same conclusion as in Bright Songs v. Harrison, and thus Satriani would need to rely on some sort of evidence that Coldplay copied.

IANALBMWI. (I am not a lawyer, but my wife is. )

IANALBIAALSAMWIALATSIATIP (I am not a lawyer but I am a law student and my wife is a lawyer and this semester I am taking Intellectual Property)

In 8 days I'm going to be taking an exam on this sort of thing, so I figured toss in $.02 here. To win in a copyright infringement suit like this, Satriani would need to show two things: 1) That Coldplay in fact copied; 2) That the copying was "substantial" enough for liability (There are a series of tests for determining "substantiality" that I won't talk about here).

On issue 1), you are right that there must be ACTUAL copying for Coldplay to be liable. For example, if you sat down tonight and wrote a song that was identical to "Yesterday" by the Beatles, you would NOT be infringing their copyright if it was just by a miraculous stroke of luck that you happened to produce the same song as Lennon - if you had never even heard "Yesterday" by the Beatles, and it was just a 1 in a billion freak occurrence that you happened to come up with the same song. You could play your song "Yesterday," record it, sell it, etc., all without being liable for any copyright infringement.

However, in the real world of actual legal practice, the way that you prove that somebody ACTUALLY copied is to show that he PROBABLY copied. Funny, I know. But the fact of Coldplay's copying would be an inference that the jury would be allowed to draw from evidence such as: Coldplay's owning Satriani's CD, Coldplay having attended a concert of Satriani, or even Coldplay living in an area with a radio station that has played Satriani's song. In other words, although the hypothetical standard is VERY high (ACTUAL copying) - this standard can be met by showing that it is PROBABLE that Coldplay ACTUALLY copied.

So in reality, the theoretical standard of ACTUAL copying turns out to not be that difficult to show in practice. A jury would almost CERTAINLY conclude that Coldplay had sufficient access to Satriani's song that ACTUAL copying can be inferred. The real question would come down to the "substantiality" of the appropriation, and that's where I'm going to stop this post, because it's making me dread my IP final

IANALBIASWLLAJFTHOPINTTABDTESJTHMLTY(I am not a lawyer but I am someone who likes long acroynyms just for the hell of posting in this thread and breaking down this entire sentence just to have mine longer than yours.)

 

[MBony]

Not the first time they have plagiarized either.

Link

or how about this time?

Link

and here they admit it along with taking another band's sound.

Link

 

[Ns1]

IANALBIASWLLAJFTHOPINTTABDTESJTHMLTY(I am not a lawyer but I am someone who likes long acroynyms just for the hell of posting in this thread and breaking down this entire sentence just to have mine longer than yours.)

IANALBISAAHILNAISATOMBSTG (I am not a lawyer but I stayed at a holiday inn last night and i saved a ton of money by switching to geico)

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: dakels
I'm on Satriani's side but... this is the music industry. Originality is a rare beast.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM

hehe, hilarious

 

[jagec]

In high school a friend of mine went to the trouble of tracking down a bunch of songs from back in the day that Will Smith basically ripped off completely.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: jagec
In high school a friend of mine went to the trouble of tracking down a bunch of songs from back in the day that Will Smith basically ripped off completely.

you mean uh "sampling"?

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: Gibson486

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven
How could anyone hate Coldplay? They're yawntastic!

You know how I can tell you're gay?

Must be all of the hot women that are always hanging out with me for my skills. Nunchuk skills, bow hunting skills, fashion design and coordination skills. Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills. Forget flower bouquets and work on developing some captivating skills.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

the only reason i think it would be possible coldplay is telling the truth is that i dont believe they could be so stupid to think they could get away with it

 

[dennilfloss]

Would Nickelback sue themselves?

 

[MrPickins]

Originally posted by: Vegitto
As a guitarist, I think Satriani is right. It's god-near impossible for two people to come up with the exact same thing (because if you look at it musically, it is) at such a suspicious time.

Not really, there are many examples of the same chord progression in different songs.

That said, I do believe that Coldplay plagiarized the riff even if it was subconsciously.

 

[schizoid77]

It was not conscious. I'm pretty sure Coldplay doesn't listen to Satriani, ever, hell, almost nobody does anymore, unless you're an outdated guitar nerd or something...

Anyways, what it all comes down to is nothing is original anymore, remember the news stories about Tom Petty suing RHCP over the main riff line of Mary Jane's Last Dance vs. Dani California?

This is really silly, and I guess Joe isn't making enough money off his own shit, so now he's gotta make money by other means.

There's only so many melodies in the world, is an artist supposed to have an endless knowledge of everything that has ever been written, ever, before they call a song their own?

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: jagec
In high school a friend of mine went to the trouble of tracking down a bunch of songs from back in the day that Will Smith basically ripped off completely.

you mean uh "sampling"?

While I think that "sampling" is stupid and only used by talentless hacks, in this case it's pretty much the whole song except for the lyrics.

 

[Oil]

Here is a full version of Satriani's song

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
Would Nickelback sue themselves?

hehe

 

[schizoid77]

I just listened to the entire Joe version - there's no basis for a lawsuit, there's maybe 20 seconds that sound similar, but they didn't rip off his stupid guitar solo song.

 

[BlackTigers]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ9NL-2GoeE

that's so much worse. lol

 

[theeedude]

I think the simplest solution is for Coldplay to colloborate with Satriani to re-release this song, because I think it sounds great with him in background.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ofFw9DKu_I

 

[OCGuy]

What about when 50 cent rips off his own chorus in the same year?

:music: Ill take you to the can-dy shop :music:

=


:music: I've got the ma-gic stick :music:

 

[Eli]

It's pretty obvious, IMO. They're identical...

 

[schizoid77]

20 or so seconds are 'similar', they are far from "identical".