The verse from Viva la Vivda is completely stolen from If I Could Fly. Sure, the similarities may be minimal, but it contained almost the exact same chord change, same key, and same notes.
For it to by copyright infringement, "the same" isn't really good enough. You need to prove it was copied. People can come up with the same thing indpendently, especially if the "similarities are minimal."
To me, if an average listener can tell if the two sound the same, then it is plagirism.
So, I guess that Satriani clearly plagiarised Cat Stevens and Billy Joel, since their songs came first and people here have been able to notice the similarities.
But the point is that Joe Satriani was hurt by this blatant copy from his song, which was written for his wife and took over a decade to compose.
How was he hurt? Did people buy Coldplay's song instead of If I Could Fly? Did people buy tickets to a Coldplay concert instead of Satriani's?
Forgive me for falling back on the old car analogy, but if you drink and drive, then they take away your license to drive. A car is a very useful tool, but it is not a necessity of life. I apply that same logic in this situation.
But there's a relation there. If you drink and drive, you're demonstrating that you are a danger to other human beings when you get behind the wheel. If you infringe copyright on the web, whose life are you endangering? More importantly, what does that have to do with all the other things you do online?
Coming up with counter examples is so trivial. If you infringe someone's intellectual property rights with a camera, should you lose your "right" to take photographs? C'mon, you don't really believe what you're saying, do you?
This seems like a fitting parallel. If you break the law via the internet, you lose your right to use that technology. You have shown yourself unfit to judge how to use it properly and legally.
Really? What happens if you break the law via telephone? Or, if something illegal is sent through the mail, should one be forbidden from using the post office? I mean, if you break the law by writing someone should your right to use a pen be taken away?
It's not necessarily a good fit because it ignores all the other completely unrelated uses. How is using the Internet to email your boss or your co-workers the sort of thing you should be forbidden from doing because you downloaded some Metallica songs illegally?
Basically, section 80 tells you want you can copy, whereas sections 81-86 contain the details on the right of remuneration through the levy. I don't remember the specifics, but yes, does have some really silly implications regarding whether you copy a CD for yourself or copy it for a friend (I guess concerning what makes something "private" or what constitutes "distribution").
Given that they are Conservatives, i.e. right-wing or Republican-lite if you will, I doubt it very much. They're not about to stop throwing our tax money at corporations.
I believe they'd want to cancel it. The Conservatives are much more likely to give money to corporations through tax cuts, not some kind of welfare-ish levy.
I think the real question is whether or not this will be a priority at all, given the economic and political crises they're facing.
Pay tribute, give credit. It would have been totally cool had there been any mention of the original composer of that particular arrangement, even without monetary consideration involved. To deny it, and try to spin it off as harmless coincidence is to be expected from the guilty party, but not from a fair person.
Hi Halcyon.
I think you may misunderstand my point. I asked some "what if" questions about the extent of the damage, were the Coldplay tune inspired by Satriani's, but I really don't believe that it was. Just in the comments here alone, there are 4 or 5 other songs with a similar melody over similar chords. I think it's much more likely that it's just a natural melody to sing over those chords, and that it wasn't taken directly from Satriani (or Cat Stevens... or the Doves... or Creaky Boards... or Billy Joel) at all.
My brother (15) and his friends come over ever Friday night to our place to play Xbox. Sometimes Gears or Call of Duty, but almost always Rock Band or Guitar Hero.
I have an old Fender Squire Strat that I don't use anymore, but I decided a few years back to leave in in the living room where all the family instruments are in case anyone else wanted to play it.
Now, routinely on Friday nights, they'll set up Rock Band, and one or two of the guys who can play a bit will bring the squire strat in and play along with the tunes.
Then, more and more, my brother (who's got great musical talent, but usually just gets bored) sits down on the piano or with a guitar during the week and starts to work out parts of the songs he's been playing on Rock Band.
Even living an hour and a half drive from Buffalo, I can't listen to Pandora.com, can't watch videos of Hulu and whenever an American site links to Colbert or the Daily Show, rather than watching the embedded video clip from Comedy Central, I have to go to the Comedy Network and search for the clip.
What do you think this tax should apply to? You mentioned music/movies/books... what about other people who feel their copyright claims on violated on the Internet?
What about newspapers? Poets? What about bloggers who assert their copyright, but have their material shared anyways? What about TV shows?
Doesn't the list seem kind of long? How expensive of a tax are you thinking?
Re: Re: A flat fee is already in use... they're called taxes.
As for the freetards do they pay for their internet connection and if so why, surely that is a tax, as any payment seems to be a tax.
People call payment a tax when it isn't voluntary. Paying an ISP for an internet conncetion isn't tax-like because you can choose to not use the internet and not pay for an internet connection.
The proposed idea is like a tax because everyone would have to pay for it whether or not they download music.
... when you take the most notable portions of the songs, they are overwhelmingly similar. You're avoiding the principle of the matter.
Mike mentioned "everything that's been pointed out here" -- have you listened to any of the other songs people have mentioned? The Pounding by Doves, Honesty by Billy Joel, Love / Heaven by Cat Stevens? If the "principle of the matter" is that the two melodies are "overwhelmingly similar," what about all these other similar melodies?
You sign over the right to your intellectual property when you sign your employment contract.
I think ScoLgo was referring to non-IP work. If you're work isn't IP (e.g. pushing paper, answering phones, running meetings, managing employees, etc...), then you don't keep getting paid for work you've done in the past. You get paid for doing work.
You don't keep getting paid but your employer keeps earning income so someone does keep profiting. Same as a patent.
And copyrights and patents are supposed to be about protecting artists and inventors... *sigh*
Coincidences aren't copyright infringement. Copyright infringement, legally, requires proof of copying. If two people come up with the example same thing independently, there is no copyright infringement.
(With patents, on the other hand, there is no independent creation defense. If someone comes up with the same patented thing independently, they are still guilty of patent infringement. Luckily, no one has been crazy enough to apply patents to melodies.)
On the post: Joe Satriani Sues Coldplay For Copyright Infringement
Re: This is bullshit.
For it to by copyright infringement, "the same" isn't really good enough. You need to prove it was copied. People can come up with the same thing indpendently, especially if the "similarities are minimal."
So, I guess that Satriani clearly plagiarised Cat Stevens and Billy Joel, since their songs came first and people here have been able to notice the similarities.
How was he hurt? Did people buy Coldplay's song instead of If I Could Fly? Did people buy tickets to a Coldplay concert instead of Satriani's?
On the post: RIAA Abandoning Mass Lawsuits In Favor Of Backroom 3 Strikes Policy
Re: Re: Re: Unfitting Punishment?
But there's a relation there. If you drink and drive, you're demonstrating that you are a danger to other human beings when you get behind the wheel. If you infringe copyright on the web, whose life are you endangering? More importantly, what does that have to do with all the other things you do online?
Coming up with counter examples is so trivial. If you infringe someone's intellectual property rights with a camera, should you lose your "right" to take photographs? C'mon, you don't really believe what you're saying, do you?
On the post: RIAA Abandoning Mass Lawsuits In Favor Of Backroom 3 Strikes Policy
Re: Unfitting Punishment?
Really? What happens if you break the law via telephone? Or, if something illegal is sent through the mail, should one be forbidden from using the post office? I mean, if you break the law by writing someone should your right to use a pen be taken away?
It's not necessarily a good fit because it ignores all the other completely unrelated uses. How is using the Internet to email your boss or your co-workers the sort of thing you should be forbidden from doing because you downloaded some Metallica songs illegally?
This reminds me of Cory Doctorow's piece... it's not as if internet access is something important, right?
On the post: Are Facebook Groups the New (and Improved) Online Petitions?
Re: RE: Facebook "Petitions"
Very true. I've often done the join,comment,leave,read,join,comment,leave thing and it's a real pain.
On the post: Canadian Blank CD Levy To Increase By Another 38%
Re: What do you get for the tax?
On the post: Canadian Blank CD Levy To Increase By Another 38%
Re:
I believe they'd want to cancel it. The Conservatives are much more likely to give money to corporations through tax cuts, not some kind of welfare-ish levy.
I think the real question is whether or not this will be a priority at all, given the economic and political crises they're facing.
On the post: Joe Satriani Sues Coldplay For Copyright Infringement
Re: Accountability
Hi Halcyon.
I think you may misunderstand my point. I asked some "what if" questions about the extent of the damage, were the Coldplay tune inspired by Satriani's, but I really don't believe that it was. Just in the comments here alone, there are 4 or 5 other songs with a similar melody over similar chords. I think it's much more likely that it's just a natural melody to sing over those chords, and that it wasn't taken directly from Satriani (or Cat Stevens... or the Doves... or Creaky Boards... or Billy Joel) at all.
On the post: Music Games Drive Kids' Interest In Real Instruments
Re:
oh snap!
On the post: Music Games Drive Kids' Interest In Real Instruments
It's true at my house
I have an old Fender Squire Strat that I don't use anymore, but I decided a few years back to leave in in the living room where all the family instruments are in case anyone else wanted to play it.
Now, routinely on Friday nights, they'll set up Rock Band, and one or two of the guys who can play a bit will bring the squire strat in and play along with the tunes.
Then, more and more, my brother (who's got great musical talent, but usually just gets bored) sits down on the piano or with a guitar during the week and starts to work out parts of the songs he's been playing on Rock Band.
On the post: Online Video Sites Harming Themselves With Geographic Restrictions
Even nextdoor neighbours...
On the post: Joe Satriani Sues Coldplay For Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is why copyright laws are lame
On the post: Joe Satriani Sues Coldplay For Copyright Infringement
Re: Joe Satriani + Cat Stevens...
On the post: Warner Music Pitches Music Tax To Universities: You Pay, We Stop Suing
Re: I agree
What about newspapers? Poets? What about bloggers who assert their copyright, but have their material shared anyways? What about TV shows?
Doesn't the list seem kind of long? How expensive of a tax are you thinking?
On the post: Joe Satriani Sues Coldplay For Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: This is why copyright laws are lame
I doubt that. Did everything sound the same before copyright laws?
On the post: Warner Music Pitches Music Tax To Universities: You Pay, We Stop Suing
Re: Re: A flat fee is already in use... they're called taxes.
People call payment a tax when it isn't voluntary. Paying an ISP for an internet conncetion isn't tax-like because you can choose to not use the internet and not pay for an internet connection.
The proposed idea is like a tax because everyone would have to pay for it whether or not they download music.
On the post: Joe Satriani Sues Coldplay For Copyright Infringement
Re:
Mike mentioned "everything that's been pointed out here" -- have you listened to any of the other songs people have mentioned? The Pounding by Doves, Honesty by Billy Joel, Love / Heaven by Cat Stevens? If the "principle of the matter" is that the two melodies are "overwhelmingly similar," what about all these other similar melodies?
On the post: Joe Satriani Sues Coldplay For Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: This is why copyright laws are lame
I think ScoLgo was referring to non-IP work. If you're work isn't IP (e.g. pushing paper, answering phones, running meetings, managing employees, etc...), then you don't keep getting paid for work you've done in the past. You get paid for doing work.
You don't keep getting paid but your employer keeps earning income so someone does keep profiting. Same as a patent.
And copyrights and patents are supposed to be about protecting artists and inventors... *sigh*
On the post: Joe Satriani Sues Coldplay For Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Coldplay Satriani Controversy
On the post: Joe Satriani Sues Coldplay For Copyright Infringement
Re:
(With patents, on the other hand, there is no independent creation defense. If someone comes up with the same patented thing independently, they are still guilty of patent infringement. Luckily, no one has been crazy enough to apply patents to melodies.)
On the post: Joe Satriani Sues Coldplay For Copyright Infringement
Re:
Next >>