Did Coldplay rip off Satriani?

[sleepy_monkey]

Nice one Satch!

Haha...I was picturing a blend of the Cat Stevens song with piano, rhythm and cheesy soloing in the background....

 

[Altitude]

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.

A very relevant precedent and I agree it will be used here. I might point out, though, that it actually highlights the issue I have been centering upon in my arguments:

"The experts for each party agreed that this [melody] was a highly unusual pattern.

Harrison's own expert testified that although the individual motifs were common enough to be in the public domain, the combination here was so unique that he had never come across another piece of music that used this particular sequence."

This may be a key difference between this case and Bright v. Harrison. I don't think that can be said about the Coldplay/Satriani comparison; the melody here is very simple and, I think we will find, not at all unique. The Cat Stevens example establishes this, at least in part.

 

[JimmyM]

A very relevant precedent and I agree it will be used here. I might point out, though, that it actually highlights the issue I have been centering upon in my arguments:

"The experts for each party agreed that this [melody] was a highly unusual pattern.

Harrison's own expert testified that although the individual motifs were common enough to be in the public domain, the combination here was so unique that he had never come across another piece of music that used this particular sequence."

This may be a key difference between this case and Bright v. Harrison. I don't think that can be said about the Coldplay/Satriani comparison; the melody here is very simple and, I think we will find, not at all unique. The Cat Stevens example establishes this, at least in part.

I agree. Not only that, but it's a lot harder to prove that Coldplay knew the Satriani song than it is that Harrison heard "He's So Fine," which is a giant hit that has been played and used in movies regularly since it came out. Satriani once had a couple hit records, but now he's pretty obscure, and that particular song is extremely obscure. The only reason anyone at all knows that song is because of this lawsuit.

 

[Thankful birds]

A very relevant precedent and I agree it will be used here. I might point out, though, that it actually highlights the issue I have been centering upon in my arguments:

"The experts for each party agreed that this [melody] was a highly unusual pattern.

Harrison's own expert testified that although the individual motifs were common enough to be in the public domain, the combination here was so unique that he had never come across another piece of music that used this particular sequence."

This may be a key difference between this case and Bright v. Harrison. I don't think that can be said about the Coldplay/Satriani comparison; the melody here is very simple and, I think we will find, not at all unique. The Cat Stevens example establishes this, at least in part.

Yet, in any legal dispute there are two types of questions- questions of law and questions of fact. Questions of law are tried to a judge, while questions of fact will be tried to a trier of fact, which may be either a jury or a judge if the parties chose to forgo a jury. Legal precedent has already established that the issues of "substantial similarity" and "uniqueness" are questions of fact.

As the issue you have raised, "uniqueness," isn't a question of law it will be left to the subjective interpretation of the trier of fact. What that trier of fact will do with this case is anybody's guess; and, as demonstrated by the decision rendered by the trial court judge in the George Harrison matter, that decision could be literally anything, even where the songs lack several seemingly fundamental similarities. As a result, Satriani has a case that is trial-worthy and easily capable of being won. (It may also be easily capable of being lost depending on the luck of the draw with the judge and jury).

 

[PhatBasstard]

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.

You completely missed the point. You should really know what you're dissagreeing with.
It's not about "willfully" listening or not. It's about not being able to avoid the music that is ambiently playing everywhere in our day to day lives.

BTW, FYI, although semi-retired, I am in the biz, have been on tours (small and national) with bands that even had a #1 hit. I do see the big picture and know of what I speak.

 

[JimmyM]

You completely missed the point. You should really know what you're dissagreeing with.
It's not about "willfully" listening or not. It's about not being able to avoid the music that is ambiently playing everywhere in our day to day lives.

BTW, FYI, although semi-retired, I am in the biz, have been on tours (small and national) with bands that even had a #1 hit. I do see the big picture and know of what I speak.

That may be, but the Satch song is not playing everywhere in our day to day lives, ambiently or otherwise.

 

[aborgman]

I agree. Not only that, but it's a lot harder to prove that Coldplay knew the Satriani song than it is that Harrison heard "He's So Fine," which is a giant hit that has been played and used in movies regularly since it came out. Satriani once had a couple hit records, but now he's pretty obscure, and that particular song is extremely obscure. The only reason anyone at all knows that song is because of this lawsuit.

They don't have to prove that he knew the song. Only that it is likely he would have heard it. In copyright cases this is generally assumed to be true for any major label release.

They also don't have to prove the copying was intentional - intent is irrelevant.

...and they don't have to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt, just a preponderance of evidence - as this is a civil case.

 

[JimmyM]

They don't have to prove that he knew the song. Only that it is likely he would have heard it. In copyright cases this is generally assumed to be true for any major label release.

They also don't have to prove the copying was intentional - intent is irrelevant.

...and they don't have to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt, just a preponderance of evidence - as this is a civil case.

Since when is it assumed to be true that someone would have heard any major label release? There's probably 1000 major label releases from the last couple years that nobody has ever heard of. Being on a major means nothing as to whether people have heard it or not.

 

[Altitude]

As a result, Satriani has a case that is trial-worthy and easily capable of being won. (It may also be easily capable of being lost depending on the luck of the draw with the judge and jury).

Having reviewed Bright v Harrison (thanks), I agree. It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall in the courtroom if the case goes to trial. My sense is that it will be won or lost based on the defense's ability to convey the musicological concepts behind melody and harmony in a way that a jury can understand. Otherwise it's just two songs that sound the same.

I am no attorney, but I was once a defendant in a litigation not unlike this one in that there was a precedent case that appeared to be exactly the same as mine - until one peeled away the layers and found some key operative differences. We settled 26 hours before trial was set to begin, so the world will never know the extent to which I and my legal team would have been able to clearly describe those differences. In any case, I am happy to have that chapter of my life behind me!

 

[Thankful birds]

It would definitely be interesting to hear what a jury thinks. I once took a continuing education class where we were allowed to watch a closed circuit feed of a mock jury's deliberations. Scary stuff.

Since when is it assumed to be true that someone would have heard any major label release? There's probably 1000 major label releases from the last couple years that nobody has ever heard of. Being on a major means nothing as to whether people have heard it or not.

Jimmy- the standard isn't whether the song was heard, it's whether the defendant would have had access to the copyrighted material. The actual copyright attaches once the material has been placed in a fixed medium, for example put into music notation or recorded. If that material was publicly disseminated, such as a commercial recording that is widely available, the standard is met. The only issue arises when the work is not publicly disseminated, such as a recording that stays on someone's home computer, etc.

 

[JimmyM]

Well, while I agree that it's possible Coldplay heard it, I still think it's more of a case of "lousy minds think alike" than ripping Satch off. It's a lame old I-VI-II-V chord progression with the II as the starting point, so strike one against Satch. The melodies are similar, so strike one against Coldplay. But they're not identical, just close, so I still think there's no case. However, a jury with no musical background could probably be convinced either way.

Either way, one thing is for sure...both songs suck

 

[arbitrary]

Well, while I agree that it's possible Coldplay heard it, I still think it's more of a case of "lousy minds think alike" than ripping Satch off. It's a lame old I-VI-II-V chord progression with the II as the starting point, so strike one against Satch. The melodies are similar, so strike one against Coldplay. But they're not identical, just close, so I still think there's no case. However, a jury with no musical background could probably be convinced either way.

Either way, one thing is for sure...both songs suck

+1. That was my first thought as well...I think I came up w/a similar song many years ago.

 

[PhatBasstard]

That may be, but the Satch song is not playing everywhere in our day to day lives, ambiently or otherwise.

Really?!? Are you all places (or at least where all members of Coldplay are) at all times? Are you Omnipresent? You're grasping at straws to uphold a ridiculous, totally generalized, unprovable point.

I'll bet even you have heard Satriani music in various locals at various times, but are so numb to the everpresent bombardment (of music in general) that you either didn't notice or just didn't know who it was.

 

[PhatBasstard]

Either way, one thing is for sure...both songs suck

And this is why you are off the case.

 

[PhatBasstard]

Since when is it assumed to be true that someone would have heard any major label release? There's probably 1000 major label releases from the last couple years that nobody has ever heard of. Being on a major means nothing as to whether people have heard it or not.

This does not apply to Satriani at all!
Sure, there are thousands upon thousands of "one album wonders" on major labels that we never hear from (again). But Satriani has a long, proven track record of successful recordings. Not just for radio play but, because it's instumental, often gets used as bumber music for sports programming (TV and Radio), commercials and the like.

You're living under a rock. Come out into the big world and see how stuff works.

 

[D Rokk]

Really?!? Are you all places (or at least where all members of Coldplay are) at all times? Are you Omnipresent? You're grasping at straws to uphold a ridiculous, totally generalized, unprovable point.

I'll bet even you have heard Satriani music in various locals at various times, but are so numb to the everpresent bombardment (of music in general) that you either didn't notice or just didn't know who it was.

and you're grasping at straws to hold up ur end of the argument.. what you need to remember is that what should be remembered is that an implied "in my opinion" goes with every post made on this forum..

 

[JimmyM]

I should have known you were a big Satch fan. Only a big fan of his would think his music is all over the place. You're off the case, too.

 

[Atomik Rooster]

NPR did a short piece on this when it first made news. The journalist who did the homework traced the melody/riff to a band in South America, their name escapes me at the moment, who published their song before Satriani wrote his. If Satriani pursues this, he may find himself back in court defending himself in a most ironic fashion. Best to leave it alone IMO, but money does funny things to people...

 

[aborgman]

Since when is it assumed to be true that someone would have heard any major label release?

Since that is how the law, and legal precedent, in the US court system says it will be.

"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."

There's probably 1000 major label releases from the last couple years that nobody has ever heard of. Being on a major means nothing as to whether people have heard it or not.

Irrelevant.

 

[JimmyM]

Since that is how the law, and legal precedent, in the US court system says it will be.

"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."

That's the stupidest thing I ever heard. By that definition, a person can say "my stuff's on iTunes," and constitute distribution over a large geographical area. And what about sales figures? Wouldn't it count for something to find out that the song in question sold such a small amount and was never played on the radio?

The law has made big dumb mistakes in the past, and this is no exception if it's interpreted as you say.