Did Coldplay rip off Satriani?

[scotch]

The parts in bold are incorrect, although I do agree with much of the rest of your post. Satriani's music is distributed widely enough that there's no way for the Coldplay guys to prove that they never heard "If I Could Fly", so the only point that's left for debate is whether there is a "striking similarity" between the songs.

-Just going by what the attorney said...

But, if the attorney was correct, then Coldplay doesn't have to prove anything - Satriani does. That's pretty fundamental in our legal system.

 

[hover]

Wait...Coldplay said that someone else's music "lacks originality?"

But even better still is what that implies of what they think of their own works....haha. They practically come out and say their biggest hit is not a terribly original work. Even Eno couldn't polish that turd enuff for me to dig it.

 

[line6man]

FWIW, I am a huge Satriani fan (Actually, i prefer Vai to Satch, but that's unrelated) so i guess i carry a certain bias towards him, but i saw a youtube video where both songs were played simultaneously, and they matched up perfectly.

I am tempted to say that it's just coincidence, because deep down, i don't think Coldplay did copy Satch, but the songs are just too similar.

Coldplay copied Satch.

 

[Eublet]

I'm not a fan of Coldplay, so it's hard for me to take their side in this. But if they are really innocent, I'd hate to see any group get slammed for something like this. If they're really guilty, then I hope it comes out fully, and they pay a huge price for it.

Also, didn't someone else accuse them of something similar when the album first came out? A lyrical infringment I think? What ever happened to that?

 

[PinkFloydDan]

WHat you just said is such bull **** it would never stand in the court of law. He'd have to prove Coldplay heard the song. I never heard the song by that speed metal idiot. His song never made it anywhere. There's one damn melody that has some similarities, but by no means does it alert me to theft.

His music is widely distributed? Just for the heck of it, I read this earlier and went to Best Buy. Not one Satriani CD in there. Next door at Borders, there was one Satriani CD and this song was not on there. A bunch of other garbage was.

However, most COldplay albums were there. GO figure.

It's not a matter of ripping anybody off, it's just whether the songs are sufficiently similar to constitute copyright infringement. Satriani's music is is widely distributed enough that it is impossible for the Coldplay guys to prove that they never heard it, so the only thing that would keep Satch from winning is if a music theorist says that the melodies aren't sufficiently similar. IMO, they're very similar.

 

[GianGian]

I think Coldplay are really cheap. I am not sure that they did, but they deserve to be punished anyway.

 

[Eublet]

WHat you just said is such bull **** it would never stand in the court of law. He'd have to prove Coldplay heard the song. I never heard the song by that speed metal idiot. His song never made it anywhere. There's one damn melody that has some similarities, but by no means does it alert me to theft.

His music is widely distributed? Just for the heck of it, I read this earlier and went to Best Buy. Not one Satriani CD in there. Next door at Borders, there was one Satriani CD and this song was not on there. A bunch of other garbage was.

However, most COldplay albums were there. GO figure.

I'll disagree for the sake of disagreement. While Satch might not be something sitting at every music store that the masses listen to, it is much more common place among many musicians, particularly guitarists. Distribution doesn't matter at all in this case. What matters is whether or not anyone in COLDPLAY had access to this and used it as their own. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to prove that at all.

I just hope the truth comes out, whatever it is, and that the supporting evidence is such that it would be hard to dispute it. I'm personally hoping Coldplay is guilty, just because I don't like them for a lot of reasons, musical and otherwise. But if they are truly innocent, I hope they are fully vindicated.

 

[cmewhinney]

WHat you just said is such bull **** it would never stand in the court of law. He'd have to prove Coldplay heard the song. I never heard the song by that speed metal idiot. His song never made it anywhere. There's one damn melody that has some similarities, but by no means does it alert me to theft.

His music is widely distributed? Just for the heck of it, I read this earlier and went to Best Buy. Not one Satriani CD in there. Next door at Borders, there was one Satriani CD and this song was not on there. A bunch of other garbage was.

However, most COldplay albums were there. GO figure.

Wow Pink Floyd Dan, you're being kind of a jerk, huh? I never said Coldplay were thieves, or anything similar. They came up with a melody that I feel is very similar to Satriani's. Does that make them bad people or con artists? Of course not.

The legal point that you are trying to make is simply untrue- you could ask my Legal Aspects of the Music Industry teacher here at Berklee, or you could read what Wikipedia has to say about it:


Actual copying

A plaintiff establishes actual copying with direct or indirect evidence. Direct evidence is satisfied either by a defendant's admission to copying or the testimony of witnesses who observed the defendant in the act. More commonly, a plaintiff relies on circumstantial or indirect evidence. A court will infer copying by a showing of a "striking similarity" between the copyrighted work and the alleged copy, along with a showing of both access and use of that access. A plaintiff may establish access by proof of distribution over a large geographical area, or by eyewitness testimony that the defendant owned a copy of the protected work. Access alone is not sufficient to establish infringement. The plaintiff must show a similarity between the two works, and the degree of similarity will affect the probability that illicit copying in fact occurred in the court's eyes. Even then, the plaintiff must show that the copying amounted to improper appropriation. Indeed, the US Supreme Court has held that not all copying constitutes infringement and a showing of misappropriation is necessary.


Long story short, if Coldplay had access to Satriani's music which they probably did since he was on a major label (Epic), that establishes access. ( A plaintiff may establish access by proof of distribution over a large geographical area/B].)

The other part necessary to prove copyright infringement is the similarity. That is the part that is open to interpretation in this case. You obviously think it's not similar enough, others do. That's just how things go.

Oh yeah- if you think Satriani is a speed metal idiot, you'd love Vinnie Moore. Lighten up, dude.

 

[FSSmikey]

both songs have a similar chord progression. in satriani's song, its in the chorus, in the cold play song, its the whole song.



can copyright laws protect chord progression?


by the way, listen to cat stevens - heaven. we could say that satch ripped off cat stevens.

 

[cmewhinney]

Chord progressions can't be copyrighted, no. Think about how many I-IV-V tunes there are.

 

[musicelectronix]

WHat you just said is such bull **** it would never stand in the court of law. He'd have to prove Coldplay heard the song. I never heard the song by that speed metal idiot. His song never made it anywhere. There's one damn melody that has some similarities, but by no means does it alert me to theft.

His music is widely distributed? Just for the heck of it, I read this earlier and went to Best Buy. Not one Satriani CD in there. Next door at Borders, there was one Satriani CD and this song was not on there. A bunch of other garbage was.

However, most COldplay albums were there. GO figure.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... oh wait! AHAHAHAHAHAHA

Satriani and speed metal idiot.. in the same text.. I question your sense of music sir... I also question your sense of "popularity" sir.. I felt really sorry for the Pink Floyd, the band. Do you regularly comment on Youtube?

Disclaimer: I am a huge fan of Coldplay AND Satch. I don't think Coldplay copied and stole anything, but chances are they are going to loose anyway. There is a difference between similar and almost identical.

 

[mikeswals]

can copyright laws protect chord progression?

That exactly happened to George Harrison with 'My Sweet Lord'. Same melody progression as 'He's So Fine' by the Chiffons. Big lawsuit happened over that one.

 

[vin*tone]

Wait...Coldplay said that someone else's music "lacks originality?"



Oh, man.

Then by definition they're saying their OWN melody "lacks originality".

 

[CaracasBass]

I don´t consider myself a Satch fan, but I really like many of his CDs and have seen all the G3 dvds. On the other hand, I don´t like coldplay, I don´t like their music at all, but I respect them and the people who listen to them because they are living things and they deserve to be respected.

I first read about this case like 2 months ago, and the first thing that came to my mind was: "I always knew that band was so mediocre that they need to copy from other artits to make a single hit".

But, just a few seconds after that I came to the conclusion that had to be some kind of coincidence, because, I bet my left hand on this, the guys in coldplay had NEVER listen to Satch´s music, I mean, they are into that "I-am-a-pop-star-and-have-to-be-rich-and-famous" thing that I´m sure they didn´t know satriani until the day they heard from his lawyer.

Also, I don´t think Satriani is just looking for money or "fame" out of this. He is one of the few real guitar legends out there, he is a great musician and maybe he´s not making cash like coldplay do, but he has carreer and a real fan base all around the world that many artits would kill to have.

I know I´m biassed on this, but as a music fan I want to see how this will end, and hope that justice will serve the truth, or at least that Satch wins his "speed metal idiot" crusade against pop

 

[PhatBasstard]

Well, if it was only one of these things, maybe. But....

1. Same (non-generic) chord progression? Plus...
2. Same (non-generic) melody? Plus...
3. Same key?!? Plus...
4. Roughly the same tempo/feel?

All at the same time?!?

If I were the Judge, Coldplay loses.

It may have not even been intentional. He could have heard the Satriani track in the background somewhere without even conciously processing it and then spat it out later thinking it was his.

 

[f'nar f'nar]

Although Coldplay's music has never really appealed to me I have a great respect for them to make it as far as they have. But this song is simply too similar to the Satch song, it has the same melodic contour and at times the melody is simply reversed.

A lot of people have been saying they are in the same key but I don't think they are, to the best of my knowledge Satch is in Bm whereas coldplay is in Fm. Both minor keys but not the same key.

 

[scotch]

The legal point that you are trying to make is simply untrue- you could ask my Legal Aspects of the Music Industry teacher here at Berklee, or you could read what Wikipedia has to say about it:


Actual copying

A plaintiff establishes actual copying with direct or indirect evidence. Direct evidence is satisfied either by a defendant's admission to copying or the testimony of witnesses who observed the defendant in the act. More commonly, a plaintiff relies on circumstantial or indirect evidence. A court will infer copying by a showing of a "striking similarity" between the copyrighted work and the alleged copy, along with a showing of both access and use of that access. A plaintiff may establish access by proof of distribution over a large geographical area, or by eyewitness testimony that the defendant owned a copy of the protected work. Access alone is not sufficient to establish infringement. The plaintiff must show a similarity between the two works, and the degree of similarity will affect the probability that illicit copying in fact occurred in the court's eyes. Even then, the plaintiff must show that the copying amounted to improper appropriation. Indeed, the US Supreme Court has held that not all copying constitutes infringement and a showing of misappropriation is necessary.

Allright, that confirms what I was saying that proof of access is also necessary. Not only that access is possible, but that it was "used" (or happened). How do you prove that Coldplay listened to Satriani's song? Unless there is a concert ticket or audio product receipt - how do you do it? It's not like Joe's music is being played on hit radio...

I'm not trying to take a side on this, honestly. I own the exact # of Coldplay records as I do Satriani records. There is an obvious bias towards Satch here in this TB thread, which shouldn't come as a surprise! That's fine & good, but that bias shouldn't negate the fact that the burden proof is on Satch to prove his case- which isn't a foregone conclusion. Rest assured, the financial resources of Coldplay are sufficient to hire some passable representation.

As popular as instrumental guitar music is on a bass-guitar enthusiast's web site, don't forget that the world at large isn't necessarily on the same page, folks. You can't get through a grocery store, mall or gas station without hearing Coldplay at least once a week. The same is not true for Joe Satriani. There in may lie the crux of the argument, did Coldplay access the song & can Satriani prove it? It's not my opinion. It's the legal standard.

... there's no way for the Coldplay guys to prove that they never heard "If I Could Fly", ...

In the US, defendants don't have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff.



For the record, my personal feeling is that the primary melodic theme is, for all intents & purposes, identical. (only the guitar 'flourish' at the end of the 8 bar, or so, phrase is different) I also doubt that the members of Coldplay ever listened to Satch a day in their life! Thankfully, our legal system doesn't work off my opinion, I can't really come to a decision!

 

[PinkFloydDan]

We will agree to disagree I guess. What you quoted even says just access to the CD is not enough. His stuff is not widely distributed and that song is pretty rare. I tried to find it and could not.

I just have a hard time thinking Coldplay listened to Joe freaking Satriani, but I guess it's possible. Circumstantial evidence would have to still be pretty convincing.

Ask your Berk. professor if a lawyer went up to a jury and judge and said "This is similar and Satriani is widely distributed" there for COldplay is guilty of infringing, and I would be SHOCKED if he said that would be enough to appease a judge or jury. Seriously. I've been a courts journalist for 10 years, and I apologize for being rude, but this entire Coldplay-Satriani stuff really irritates me. Satriani is ridiculous for suing.

Wow Pink Floyd Dan, you're being kind of a jerk, huh? I never said Coldplay were thieves, or anything similar. They came up with a melody that I feel is very similar to Satriani's. Does that make them bad people or con artists? Of course not.

The legal point that you are trying to make is simply untrue- you could ask my Legal Aspects of the Music Industry teacher here at Berklee, or you could read what Wikipedia has to say about it:


Actual copying

A plaintiff establishes actual copying with direct or indirect evidence. Direct evidence is satisfied either by a defendant's admission to copying or the testimony of witnesses who observed the defendant in the act. More commonly, a plaintiff relies on circumstantial or indirect evidence. A court will infer copying by a showing of a "striking similarity" between the copyrighted work and the alleged copy, along with a showing of both access and use of that access. A plaintiff may establish access by proof of distribution over a large geographical area, or by eyewitness testimony that the defendant owned a copy of the protected work. Access alone is not sufficient to establish infringement. The plaintiff must show a similarity between the two works, and the degree of similarity will affect the probability that illicit copying in fact occurred in the court's eyes. Even then, the plaintiff must show that the copying amounted to improper appropriation. Indeed, the US Supreme Court has held that not all copying constitutes infringement and a showing of misappropriation is necessary.


Long story short, if Coldplay had access to Satriani's music which they probably did since he was on a major label (Epic), that establishes access. ( A plaintiff may establish access by proof of distribution over a large geographical area/B].)

The other part necessary to prove copyright infringement is the similarity. That is the part that is open to interpretation in this case. You obviously think it's not similar enough, others do. That's just how things go.

Oh yeah- if you think Satriani is a speed metal idiot, you'd love Vinnie Moore. Lighten up, dude.

 

[DanFold]

Coldplay are shocking anyway! who cares ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Not like this is the first time this has happend...

I got brought up with Oasis, i love em.
(if you don't like em, up to you, don't need to go bad mouthin them...)
Anyway, They copied things, and don't say the beatles!!!!! they never ripped off a beatles tune. They are just really influenced.

If a huge band copied or was influenced by my songs, i'd be over the moon!

Too many people are all money... it's sad.

 

[f'nar f'nar]

To say you have been a court reporter for 10 years you seem to be showing an astounding ignorance for how the law actually works. No offense intended but you just seem to be failing to grasp what is happening here and what the law is:

1. The [Satch] CD was distributed over a large geographical area, so that is enough to prove that it is PROBABLE that Coldplay have heard it, bearing in mind that this is a CIVIL CASE between Satch and Coldplay meaning that Coldplay do not need to be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, but thier guilt is determined on the balance or probabilities. Big Difference.

2. In regards to:

"The plaintiff must show a similarity between the two works, and the degree of similarity will affect the probability that illicit copying in fact occurred in the court's eyes."

This point is very easily arguable given that, as I mentioned earlier, the tempo and melodic contours are almost inseparably similar.



The main point I will reiterate here is the fact that Satch is TAKING COLDPLAY TO COURT meaning that this case is one of CIVIL LITIGATION which is based one th BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES (51% v. 49% ratio) and not BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT (99%) which would be the situation if the case were CRIMINAL.

ps. the CAPS aren't meant to offend or sound aggressive, they are merely to aid in getting my point across.