• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Did Coldplay rip off Satriani?

Status
Not open for further replies.
#42
I am really really leaning towards Satriani's side. The melody of the chorus is the same...tempo is the same...phrasing the same. I would tend to believe Coldplay a little more if they hadn't already completely ripped off Kraftwerk's "Computer Love" and called it "Talk". We'll see how this plays out.
 
#44
DanFold said:
Normally, you have to have at least 5 significant differences in your product compared to the one you "copied".

I know this applies in a solid product... but not too sure about music...
Click to expand...

I hear what you are saying...in music...and in my opinion...if you copy/rip a melody from someone's/band's song and use it as the core structure and melody line of your song then you've stolen from them. Now if they gave you permission of course that is another thing.
 
#48
I think the statement "lacks originality" is simply saying that it is not unique enough on its own to be eligible for copyright. That can easily be taken as a diss but I think it's just standard legal defense for these type of cases.

Whatever the outcome, I think (as a songwriter) it's completely deflating to find out someone else wrote something similar previous to you.... Whether you've heard it or not.

Someone else said this in the original thread on the topic but I think they should've teamed up and played a new version of the song to be released as a single.
 
#50
scotch said:
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.



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!
Click to expand...

Hey Scotch,
Although that sentence seems to prove your argument to be true, if you look at the next sentence, if says that "A plaintiff may establish access by proof of distribution over a large geographical area". That is sufficient to prove that maybe they heard part of it once somewhere. It's not like Satriani played the tune once in a bar- it's on a record which, when it was released, was probably in many stores that carry music.
 
#51
f'nar f'nar said:
...

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,...
...
Click to expand...

In your opinion that is enough proof. The fact that it is available is only half of the equation (the other being proof that it was accessed). I used to be a Satriani "fan" of sorts & I never heard the song 'If I Could Fly' until searching for it in relation to this lawsuit!

I expect this will likely be the most noteworthy argument of the case. In today's congested and convoluted music distribution environment, what is the likelihood of hearing one song among, literally, millions of others? The Satriani song in question isn't even a "hit" with elevated market placement, which would have increased it's likelihood of being heard.
 
#52
cmewhinney said:
Hey Scotch,
Although that sentence seems to prove your argument to be true, if you look at the next sentence, if says that "A plaintiff may establish access by proof of distribution over a large geographical area". That is sufficient to prove that maybe they heard part of it once somewhere. It's not like Satriani played the tune once in a bar- it's on a record which, when it was released, was probably in many stores that carry music.
Click to expand...

see above post^
 
#56
scotch said:
In your opinion that is enough proof.
Click to expand...

No, according to the law- "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." (The first part concerns us- if you have that, then the second part isn't necessary.)

It then goes on to say that access isn't enough, which is presumably why you say this "(the other being proof that it was accessed)". And in a way that's correct, but it can be established by the similarities in the work: "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."

So what it boils down to is that the plaintiff (Satriani) needs to demonstrate that his album was widely released (it might not be now, but 5 or 6 years ago when it was released (before the CD stores started tanking) I'm sure at least one copy was in a lot of stores) and that it is sufficiently similar. I promise.
 
#57
The song wasn't widely distributed. Neither was the album. I cannot find it anywhere. And it is god awful.

No attorney is going to win this case. None.

f'nar f'nar said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
#58
Sreiously guys. I don't pledge allegiance to either artist. Just listen to the recordings stacked. We're not talking about a similarity between the chord structure of two four-chord songs here. Do you realize how much of an AMAZING coincidence it would have to be for all of those notes to match up like that? Are you KIDDING me? Sorry Coldplay fans. I don't buy it. Whether or not Satch's music is widely distributed is absolutely irrelavent. If ANYBODY near that band ever heard that song, I would maintain that along the line SOMEBODY had to have known that the melody lines follow each other EXACTLY! When I heard this story, I looked up the recordings. I had heard both songs, but it's lot like I could have hummed the melody of either. Just hearing the recording made it clear though. Cheers.

And now it's time for the math on the subject.
 
#59
I do agree with that theory breakdown. ^^

Chord structure.

Satch: IV > VII > III > I

Cold play: VI > VII > III > I

A IV and VI are close enough to the same emotion (or feel), and if you look at the rest, they're identical.

They also share Some harmony.

Although the melody may be different (ie, guitar solos vs vocal)
There are 3 elements (which 2 are eerily too close) that bring these 2 songs together. IMO of course.

In music theory, there is indeed a case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back