scotch
It's not rocket science!
- Nov 12, 2006
- 6,944
- 2,081
- 51
- Disclosures
- Please see Profile for Endorsement disclosures
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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?
- Thread starter RexNFX79
- Start date
- Status
I agree. The songs are not complex enough and similar enough to sue based on that alone. The Coldplay song has some different "movements" in a sense, and the melodies also have some differences. So unless it can be proved pretty well that this song was definitely lifted directly from Satch's work, I think it should be thrown out.
That is irrelevant as to whether it's copyright violation. A violation need not be intentional.
yeah, I have some thoughts... if your music sounds like something Coldplay might do, you have bigger problems than just being bald
It's got to the point now that the argument isn't "Does Satch have a case?" (yes, "everybody steals from everybody") anymore.
It's become "Has Chris Martin ever heard any Satriani music?". Not has he (or anybody else) ever heard of Joe Satriani. Whether you have heard of Joe Satriani is irrelavent.
The argument of "I'm sure Chris Martin has never heard any Satriani music", considering he's in the business and probably hears a lot more music in his day to day existance than most people, is just purely idiotic.
It's become "Has Chris Martin ever heard any Satriani music?". Not has he (or anybody else) ever heard of Joe Satriani. Whether you have heard of Joe Satriani is irrelavent.
The argument of "I'm sure Chris Martin has never heard any Satriani music", considering he's in the business and probably hears a lot more music in his day to day existance than most people, is just purely idiotic.
- Jul 8, 2007
- 1,272
- 9
- Disclosures
- Lead Designer, Zeibek Boutique Pedals
Probably the last one. However, I have never met a "musician" who didn't know who Satriani is. This doesn't mean he is only known among musicians though. On the other hand, I am sure WJGreer's wife is not a musician, let's debate Chris Martin
. Now that I think about, it is possible he also might have never heard of the guy.Ps. Your street cred is doing just fine (a response to another post of Jimmy about amps and emulators).
some people asked tom petty if he was going to sue the red hot chilli peppers for copying his song mary jane's last dance with dani california (same chords and groove, it really does sound similar) and he said no, there are already enough of those idiotic lawsuits going on. if satch only had the wisdom of tom petty.
Look, Satriani is not going to win this suit. Even allowing that your assertion is true, it would be one of many tests in a legal decision. Another one would be proof of damages, meaning that even if Satriani could establish that Chris Martin ruthlessly stole his melody (I don't think he can), he would have to establish that he had been damaged. And I don't think he would simply be able to point at the revenue from the sale of Viva La Vida (the single; almost certainly not the album) as damages to him.
Can't disagree more. A lot of musicians are completely and willfully ignorant of other music out there. Don't know if Chris Martin is (he's obviously heard U2, that's for sure), but it's certainly not unheard of. And people who are in the business don't necessarily listen to more music than others who aren't. Thinking he does with no basis in fact is as idiotic as thinking that he's never heard Satch with no basis in fact.
Did anyone catch Chris Martin's quote from the June 16th, 2005 article in Rolling Stone?
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/7381688/qa_chris_martin
Hmmmm....
Chris Martin said:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/7381688/qa_chris_martin
Hmmmm....
Forget about Joe.....they have been ripping off U2 since note #1. Listen to their so-called Grammy album and then take your copy of The Joshua Tree out dust it off and see what a ridiculous group of poser theives these guys really are.....................................whew, all in one breath. I feel better!
Actually, it wouldn't be necessary to initially resolve the issue of damages. It is very commen to try issues of liability first and then have an evidentiary hearing on the issue of damages afterward. Presuming liabilty has been established, proving damages really isn't that difficult. It typically amounts to two expert witnesses advancing competing theories of a rubric for calculation that bears a rational relationship to the harm claimed. For example, I could see Satriani arguing album sales and mp3 downloads as individual instances of harm, where Coldplay might argue singles sales as instances of harm.
Incidentally, I tend to believe that Satriani has a relatively good case. Again, the two elements of the claim are (1) access; and, (2) substantial similarity such that the "heart of the work"" may be said to have been reproduced. With regard to commercial music, element 1 is generally assumed, meaning all the arguments about whether Chris Martin likes Satriani's music or would have actually sought it out are irrelevant. The fact is, the work was accessible. Also, I believe you'd be hard pressed to allege that the "heart" of the work in the instance hasn't been reproduced. The elements of the claim are therefore easily satisfied by Satriani.
The meat of the discussion is the issue of whether the offending parts of the song "lack originality" such that they are either pervasive in the musical community, or are obvious. I don't think the melody is pervasive in the music community, but a professional musicologist may disagree with me. Similiarly, a musicologist may argue that the riff is so obvious that it doesn't warrant protection. Ultimately, these are factual questiosn that will be resolved by a jury or a judge, presuming there's a bench trial. More likely, however, is that the parties will settle out of court under a licensing agreeemnt whereby Coldplay agrees to license the song from Satriani.
Whether or not you like either artist or song it seems to me it all boils down to the same old thing, money. If you think this is about artistic integrity ask yourself this, if the song hadn't been a big hit do you think Satriani would still sue? What a waste of our court system.
I'd like to see Cat Stevens sue both of them and give the money to charity.
I'd like to see Cat Stevens sue both of them and give the money to charity.
That was a really good post, but I do disagree with this point. All the above posts (mine and others') concerning whether similar melodies and chord structures constitute similar music contain the logic. I just don't think that a similar melody on top of a similar chord structure establishes a copy, particularly when the melody is as simple as this one.
In principle, it absolutely can. The George Harrison suit involving "My Sweet Lord" and "He's So Fine" involved similar melodies over similar chord progressions, which both sides admitted contained some arrangement differences and completely different lyrical content. (They also have alot of different instrumentation). Even though the judge acknowledged there were differences, and that any similarity lacked intent on the part of Harrison, the judge found Harrison liable for infringement. Interestingly, not only did the Court rule against Harrison, but it did so even after testimony that the melodies in question were in the public domain -
Link Removed
In any event, the opinion of the similarity of the tunes by the members of the forum is irrelevant. It would ultimately be a question of fact for the judge or jury, based upon their individual interpretations after hearing expert testimony; and, I can assure you there will be no shortage of musicologists willing to testify for both parties.
(On a side note, I didn't realize until reading this particular article that the bulk of the Harrison case centered around a second phase damages portion.)
Link Removed
In any event, the opinion of the similarity of the tunes by the members of the forum is irrelevant. It would ultimately be a question of fact for the judge or jury, based upon their individual interpretations after hearing expert testimony; and, I can assure you there will be no shortage of musicologists willing to testify for both parties.
(On a side note, I didn't realize until reading this particular article that the bulk of the Harrison case centered around a second phase damages portion.)
I think the George Harrison case would be a good precedent. He did not "intentionally" lift the song but the similarities were too close. Likewise the Coldplay song is too close to Satriani's as well. Intentional or not. So, I think it would stand to reason that Satriani would have a good case.
Right, the case is "Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs" (420 F. Supp. 177 (S.D.N.Y. 1976)) -- you can guarantee it will show it up in any written decision here.
- Status
