Additionally, if the copyright laws were so incredibly strict, there'd be a million cases out there due to the similarity in all blues songs, where the lyric is the main identifier.

He did say he has an IP cert.

And the existence of a proir iteration is not 'case closed' either.

You're not going to get these solid cases where the misappropriator leaves around a tape of themselves saying 'I heard this great riff I think we should copy and publish as our own' that establishes intent. Misappropriation is a question of fact based on reasonable inferences about availability and similarity.

Look, I'm going to stop debating with lawyers that don't work in the music business.

Do I personally think that the songs are very similar? Yes. As I stated early in the thread, I think that Joe deserves a writer portion of the song but I also stated that it's very, very difficult to prove due to existing case law in such matters.

As I said earlier, I spoke to two lawyers just this week that DO work in the entertainment business that told me that he can't win. He has to prove intent and prior knowledge of the song.

Do I write the laws? No. I'm just passing on information based on 11 years in Music Publishing (copyrights, royalties and business affairs) and from attorney friends that work in the business.

Draw your own conclusions if you must.

Maybe we should stop arguing with people who are in entertainment but have no legal training. ;)

Yes, they have to prove 'intent' and 'prior knowledge,' but they're still working in the world of civil litigation where the propenderance of the evidence and reasonable inferences are well developed concepts.
In other words, Intent and prior knowledge can be 'proven' by reasonable inferences from analysis of strikingly similar, widely distributed, content.

Your take is similar to someone saying 'I can't be convicted of murder, because I haven't confessed.'

Shut up, you aren't in the music business, you don't even live in southern California.

Let me put it this way: Everyone steals from everyone. If the courts did not realize this, there would be no copyright protection.

I'm not implying that you and DJ are wrong in the strictest sense of the law but this is a highly specialized area that's practiced by very few.

And with all due respect to you and DJ, I'll take the word of my lawyer friends that deal with these issues over than those that are less familiar with them.

I just think you're going to far with your analysis. You're assigning an inaccurate cause to what is likely an accurate conclusion.

A) The first case I cited was a music case, chosen specifically for that reason. That law is absolutley applicable to music. It is extremely instructive in that it exactly breaks down the general doctrine I stated in my first post, as applied to a music case. It's common knowledge that in a civil matter facts can be established via inference; that case states exactly how this is done in a music copyright case. (EDIT: Actually, after looking at it again, I found a song case as a demonstrative, and then backed up to the seminal case in the field as it's usually a stronger citation, a root source thing. Additionally, the first music case I found was a slip opinion and without legal software, you can't find it online. Lemme admit that, while I think that case I cited was a song case, if it wasn't there were at least a dozen song cases that adopted that exact language and cited that case as precedent. Trust me, it's applicable to music cases as well; try King's Records v. Bennett if you're able to get access, but as a slip opinion I can make no promises.)

B) The second case is a TN case and the bolded portion is dicta anyway. However, the fact remains that it is applicable in that is very clearly lays out how the previously cited law is broken down. I used it because it's demonstrative. You don't need that case to get that result, it just provides a succinct statement of it.

Satriani's lawyers may very well have a hard time, but it's not because the laws are stacked against them. It's because Coldplay will have their own army of extremely well-paid lawyers as well who's job will be to plant that doubt in the minds of the jury. The law itself actually stacks up okay for Satriani, but Coldplay will have some damn good lawyers on the other side trying to do the same things that were done earlier in this thread (i.e. present songs with similar progressions, chords, tempos, etc...).

I don't doubt you know the music industry, but this isn't a music thing. This is a civil jurisprudence thing, and most honestly don't have any idea about the interplay of fact v. law questions in trial. Notice how many of the cases you yourself have referenced in this thread have gone to the jury. If direct evidence was the only way to prove knowledge, nothing would ever go to the jury. Either there is direct evidence establishing it, in which case there are no disputed issues of material fact and the case is handled via summary judgment, or there is no direct evidence, in which case there is no way to survive a motion for judgment on the pleadings. It is the existence of indirect evidence that allows for jury trials (or at least in these kinds of cases).

The law itself is clear cut and was cited above. The only requirement of the law is that actual knowledge be proven, in that you are correct. The law then goes on to say that this can be done via direct evidence or via inference. Again, that's straight out of a California court on a song copyright case. The courts rarely (and to my knowledge never in a civil setting) dictate how facts can be establishd to a jury, outside of perjury.

The fact question is where this will get murkey and where I think you're making a leap that isn't there. Your assertion is that the only way to prove actual knowledge is through direct evidence (be that witness or party opponent testimony, etc...). However, that's never, and I mean absolutely NEVER the only way to establish a question of fact to a jury. Could it be tough to establish that fact? Certainly, with Coldplay's lawyers on the other side, they'll likely beat the inference argument to death. They'll also misdirect and obfuscate to the point that the jury likely gets confused and forgets the point altogether. But again, that's a fact insufficiency, not a law one.

I really think this is similar to explaining rocket propulsion to someone with no grasp of physics or chemistry but knows about aerodynamics. You see flame come out the back and assume the flame is the propellant and consider yourself qualified in this because you know why the rocket is stable.

You're doing the same. In not having the requisite training in basic civil jurisprudence you continue to look past a pretty simple legal doctrine (which you still haven't spoken directly to, further indicating that you don't really understand it) in favor of assigning a cause to something that isn't there. You think this causal relationship is accurate because you know music, but ou don't know the fundamental underpinnings of how this will tie together.

Your lawyer friends could well be right, it may be a hard case to win. In that vein they have an edge on me in that I admittedly don't know the practical machinations behind an actual IP or Copyright trial. These guys may have some tricks that I don't know of that cast considerable doubt on the veracity of plaintiff's argument. However, the law is clear on exactly what the Plaintiff needs to prove and how he can go about doing it.

Satriani can attempt to prove knowledge via inference (thus meeting his burden of production and allowing the case to get to a jury). The stumbling point is can he meet his burden of pursuasion? Will mere inference be enough to convince a jury? With some awfully good lawyers on Coldplay's side, it might not be.

Again, I've cited my experience in music publishing administration and entertainment attorneys well-versed in music publishing and copyright law opinions of this specific case. I make no claim to be a lawyer, though I have read and correctly interpreted many music publishing contracts and have administered them faithfully and properly.

I'm absolutely certain that you and Baby Lee understand case law far more than I do. I've just been providing my analysis as well that of a few entertainment lawyers who I trust to provide me the proper information (I use these guys for my personal business as well, which of course includes copyrighting music).

I guess we'll see how this plays out. As I stated in my very first post, winning a plagiarism case is extremely difficult for numerous reasons. And personally, I'd love to see Joe win, if not for anything other than I've been a fan since 1987.

Thanks for your input and civil replies.

Wow. With god-complex attitudes like this dominating the music industry[1] I can totally see why the RIAA and MPAA actually believe they have the right legally control how citizens use electronic components in their everyday lives, just to "try" and control IP. Not to mention their control over what electronic devices are legally blocked from even making it to market.



[1] By "music industry", please infer "middle-man", "used car salesman", "toothless crack dealer", or any other bloated section of an industry that overvalues itself. DO NOT infer any actual artist who actually has talent and creates IP, though I'm sure many of them have a god-complex as well, they don't have distribution and "fair use" lobbyists to minimize what society can do with a product it has purchased and has the right to utilize.

When you purchase a CD, vinyl or cassette, you are not purchasing the recording masters that are owned by a record company, nor are you purchasing the copyrights. You are purchasing a copy with the stipulation that you do not illegally distribute said music.

And you're absolutely correct: Music has been devalued over the course of the last decade due to illegal distribution.

Forget the legal arguments, Coldplay should be punished for their crimes against music and humanity.

Non Sequitur Theatre: Guess who agreed to pay these guys royalties.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KMSAnZR2Q8Q&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KMSAnZR2Q8Q&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

That's an easy one: Radiohead.

It sounds just like "Creep".

When reached for comment, Chris Martin vehemently denied any allegations of wrongdoing.

"The accusations that I have stolen any protected material are patently absurd, I write the songs that make the whole world sing."

:LOL: