How incredibly insightful. Contentious copyright matters are still contested in court, and the fact that some may settle with the outcome becoming public does not give the court a ruling to use as persuasive or binding precedent in later cases.

Parties to Litigation settle out of court for all sorts of reasons - one of those reasons is sometimes that they would not have the money to see the matter through trial. It's quite possible that Ashcroft et al found themselves in this position.

Certainly - but using the latter as an example of "case law" is flat out wrong, because, yknow, it isnt.

Wow, you really are a pathetic big-noting wanker, aren't you?

Conjecture, again.

If you say so.


Apparently, you've seen yourself as my personal judge and jury since you joined the 'Planet.

Is this why you're so angry, Dane, because I've called you out for being a tosser previously?

Having lots (or not lots, who would know)of money and living on the pacific ocean doesn't really mean shit around these parts, especially if you constantly go around telling people about it.

In related news, Saliva is suing itself for plagiarism as all of their new songs sound exactly like their old ones.

Being a complete and utter dumb**** doesn't really go to far around here, either.

Anyone can spot a phony, such as yourself.

ROFL

Copying someone else: Plagiarism.

Copying yourself: Style.

Phony, as in, holding yourself out to be something that you aren't? That kind of phony?

You've made a fairly good fist of that in this thread, actually.

Yeah, because I haven't stated copyright law in US in this thread or for the past 8 years. :huh:

JFC, I used to argue with all of the old timers about illegal downloading while working Uni and Paramount and the old KC Star board and early on in this forum.

You need a new schtick. It's getting old.

And considering that Planet members have been to my home and actually KNOW me, your "argument" holds absolutely no weight.

As usual.

Oh, I never suggested your shit-talking was a recent phenomenon.

I know.

And you're in the minority, shark-boy.

It must suck to be in Australia because apparently, you have nothing better to do.

Says the guy posting along with me (sort of destroys that nothing better to do sledge) at what, 11:50 on a saturday night? You really are a superstar, aren't you?

Considering I'm 43 and have an infant daughter, I'd say yes.

Question of the Day:

James and Lars; can the suckage grow to even greater heights? Is there truly no bottom to the levels of suckage and uselessness that these two turd-whackers can continue to peddle as "music"?

Will Metallica one day be the best-selling elevator music ever pumped in to the Assisted Living Center?

Discuss.

It's pretty clear that you and I aren't even having the same discussion, if you're merely trying to venture a guess as to who will win in court, then you're probably right. You seem to know more about the law. I've never even read the law, and I'm not trying to guess as to what will happen.

What I'm trying to do is go back and look at exactly WHAT is similar between the two songs.

1. They have the same chord progression.
2. Both songs use the same 3 note melody as a hook.

---------------------------------
Edit: I feel bad for going on the attack
---------------------------------

I'd still like to point out that the tempo of the two songs as they were recorded are NOT the same. The "mashup" that has been posted on youtube used programs to speed up Satriani's song and slow down Coldplay's song so that they would match.

I am NOT a musician and I cannot fathom how anyone can NOT hear the obvious similarities...:)

If they didn't have a case, why would they have settled? That doesn't make any sense. If they could have won, they would have.

If the law didn't state "Lyric and Melody", then it would be legal to steal the melody of any song and use it in another. The overwhelming majority of music listeners (non-musicians) identify a song by its melody, not the underlying chord protection.

So essentially in your world, the person who created the unique melody wouldn't be protected by law. And intellectual property would have no value.

No thanks.

Why is it that every thread Dane gets involved in, there's a 50% chance that it's going to devolve into a pissing match about just how cool he thinks he is?

Every thread?

This from Taco John?

ROFL

See, this is more the discussion I was hoping for. I went a little overboard on the attack last night. Deleting soon.

I don't think that the melody has been "stolen" enough to prove that there was any intent to steal. Those first three notes are blatantly and obviously the same. That's what Joe's suing for. I just think that's a bit too stringent of a law, and it does all songwriters everywhere a disservice. How many notes in a row are too many. Two notes in a row can't be the line, or else every single interval would already be copywritten. I think the standard for accusing somebody of stealing should be set way higher. Maybe 5 or 7 identical notes in a row. And probably a lot higher than that if the song is in a straight and common key or if the melody consists entirely of rest tones of the chord. There's just no way that a musician can still be a decent artist and bear the burden of knowing every single possibly combination of 3 notes that's been used by every previous musician that's come before him.

I call Artist Importance Priority:

Satriani is a virtuoso and composer.

Coldplay is a quirky, snooze-fest band that for some reason have garnered a rep as something akin to Pink Floyd.

Judgement: PLAINTIFF.

Has anyone posted the "getcha popcorn" smiley yet?

Because if not...



:popcorn:

feh. the popcorn has gone stale. the thread lost its burst fifteen posts ago.

Wait, who the hell is Joe satriani?

I bet he's not as dreamy as Chris Martin.

No worries, Dude.

As I stated in my first response, proving plagiarism is extremely difficult. Extremely. Joe Satriani's people will have to somehow prove that Chris Martin and/or anyone in Coldplay actually heard Joe's song.

And as I stated earlier, Chris Martin may have heard this song in passing years ago, only to unintentionally use the same melody for their song.

It's a difficult case for sure.

Talk about the skillet callin' the kettle black..... ROFL

I sat on one of my balls today. I wanted to sue that ball for obstruction of sitting. But I won't. It still is a part of me.

I'm not going to say EVERY thread, but come on, man. You're 43 years old. Isn't it time to mellow out a bit? I think you let other people get to you too much. Just let it go, safe and secure in the knowledge that you're right on this issue :)

In my opinion, Satriani should also be suing THE HOME DEPPOT for ripping off the same song.

Listen at :06.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9jhLyKWkUAY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9jhLyKWkUAY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

There's risk involved in going to a judgment because you can never be sure that you'll win even if you think you've got a strong case. Settlements are a way of paying to eliminate that risk. Kind of like the "buy now" option on ebay.

ROFL

Based on avatar, I believe TinyEvel has become DOMO-KUN!

Hmmm....

I've always wondered if you tried hard enough, how many cases like this you could probably find. It's hard to reinvent the wheel. That's how you get two people claiming the same band stole the same song.

That chorus bit definitely sounds similar. I personally enjoyed the new album though, I don't know if it was working with Brian Eno or what, I liked it way better than X&Y. But I like all kinds of music, I really could give a rip about what the rest of you idiots think. :)

I think you might be onto something here. Rumor has it that Eno and satch are from the same star cluster in the Gamma Quadrant.

Knowledge can be inferred from facts/circumstances.

They don't technically have to prove he heard it. They can present the music to the jury and allow the jury to make the inference that the songs could never have been so similar but/for Martin having heard the song.

This is completely false.

Certain guidelines have been established to prevent the shutdown of the entire music business. Case law now exists to prevent this from happening.

The main element the plaintiff has to "prove" is Coldplay had access to and had heard Satriani's riff. If they can't prove that, the case is over.

Period.

The standards at play are "reasonable possibility of access" and "striking similarity." And the less the evidence of access, the more striking the similarity must be. But, as has been hashed previously in this thread, the courts are mindful of the finite number of notes and chords, so the striking similarity must "extend beyond themes that could have been derived from a common source or themes that are so trite as to be likely to reappear in many compositions."

Does Chris Martin have access to the internets? Case closed.

ROFL

It's not that simple.

Are you sure? I read somewhere that downloading music on the internets is the debil and that the FBI has a list of everyone who has ever downloaded anything anywhere at any time. All Satriani needs is that list and Chris' laptop and BAM. Coldplay busted for copyright infringement, illegal music downloads, and man-goat-man devil porn.

I would like to state now and for the record that I never intended for this thread to reach 100 posts.

Stop being modest. You knew that Dane was going to go wild on this topic and anytime Dane speaks up there are half a dozen people to disagree with him no matter what he's saying. Tell the truth, you expect 200 don't you? ;)

I know you like to whip your dick out and what not, but you're wrong here.

Your statement is technically correct, but it doesn't address my statement, it speaks past it. Yes, the Plaintiff would have to prove knowledge, but this can be done without any testimony from Martin, confessions or recorded conversations from Martin and/or pictures of Martin sitting next to a coldplay CD with his headphones on giving a thumbs up.

There are any number of methods that can be used to prove 'knowledge'. They could put the guy on the stand and have him admit it, that's obviously one method. Another way to prove up knowledge is via inference. This is applicable to nearly any case requiring that one side prove actual knowledge by the other party. Remember, a jury can make credibility assessments based on any number of things. Martin can go on the stand, say "nope, never heard it, not once", the plaintiff's attorney could then present the mashup and say "just listen to the music folks. He said he never heard it, but you can tell here that he's lying, there's simply no other way for it to be this close..." The plaintiff's attorney can immediately call Martin's credibility into question and allow the jury to make the inference that he has heard it, despite all assertions to the contrary.

The song alone is enough for the plaintiff to meet his burden of production, the question is whether it meets the burden of persuasion. If the Plaintiff produced only the song to the jury and a more elequent version of the above argument, it would survive any motion for summary judgment and any motion for a JNOV. Simply put, it's absolutely legally sufficient to support a judgment and it's likely to carry a TON of weight with the jury.

I don't care that you worked in the record industry, this isn't a music issue or an IP issue. This is a law issue, which would be my purview. I'm an attorney with an IP certificate (though I will admit I don't practice in the area, didn't want to take the PATBAR which is damn near required for any firm that does it), but my current practice is almost purely plaintiffs litigation.

You're wrong, or at the very least so damn sure of yourself that you didn't bother to actually think before beating your chest.

Now please put your dick away.

So, how many copyright infringement cases have you been involved in?

How long have you worked in the music industry?

Do you have any concept of intellectual rights and their protection?

If you seriously think that you're correct, I can tell you that without a doubt, you're flat out WRONG in this case.

If the law did not protect composers and copyrights as it does (and should), there would be no music industry.

Copyright infringement is EXTREMELY difficult to prove and furthermore, Joe Satriani's lawyers will have to prove that Coldplay actually heard the song beforehand, regardless of your worthless post.

Whatever you say. You're speaking past the point, but I don't care to attempt to educate you. This is not a standard of proof matter (as you keep attempting to make it), it's a methods of proof matter (with some sufficiency of evidence stuff thrown in).

Methods of proof do not change based on the subject matter. Standards do, methods don't.

Do you have to clinch your ass harder to piss that far?

As for that caselaw that you continually allude to but can't produce:

Cavalier v. Random House -- 297 F.3d 815 (C.A.9)

That took about 5 minutes. The case has recieved a positive citation roughly 300 times since 2002 (about 200 of them on that particular point of law), most recently by the S.D. Cal in 2008. That general statement of law has been made in some capacity roughly 1200 times since about the mid 60's. I'd say it's accepted law. With any appreciable amount of time I could also produce the methods of proof, but that'd be a little more difficult as it's rarely going to be the grounds for appeal. If it's not appealed, it's not published and thus not precedent, but I'm sure you already knew that, seeing as how you think a settled case at the trial level somehow constitutes precedent.

But hey, you worked in music so you know all there is to know about how the F'ing law works.


EDIT:

Ah hell, let's get the methods of proof stuff in there as well.

King Records, Inc. v. Bennett -- 438 F.Supp.2d 812 (Tenn 2006)

Holy balls! You mean direct evidence isn't required on a copyright case and that a factfinder is allowed to draw inferences to reach a factual conclusion?!?!?!? (be it jury trial or bench trial, though a plaintiff has the right to demand a jury trial under s. 504)

If you saw a trial go awry while in the music industry, you simply didn't understand what you saw. What almost assuredly happened was a judgment as a matter of law (Art Attacks LLC v. MGA Entertainment would be a good source for a breakdown on that. It's a slip opinion thus not actual precedent, but it lays out the events/standards extremely well). You can't ever be positive of what a judge will do on one of those motions, but they clearly aren't granted often and the caselaw itself lays out exactly what must be proven and how it can be done.

You're wrong. Put your dick away.

Print is different than music.

I've talked to attorney friends at both Warners and Uni (Uni is the music publisher in question) and both told me that Satriani will have to prove that Coldplay not only heard the song but had intent to steal it.

Here's the deal: IF judges in past cases hadn't rules as they had, the music business go away. No one wants that. There are only 12 notes. 90% of all blues songs use the same I-IV-V progression over a shuffle. Are you telling me that the first person you used that progression should have sued everyone that followed?

How about three chord rock songs? Punk music? I could go on and on and on.

If you were correct (and your not, sorry), there wouldn't be a music business and copyright protection because everyone would sue everyone for plagiarism.

Thankfully, it's not that way.

The burden of proof is on Joe Satriani and his lawyers. It's going to be extremely difficult for them to win.

Copyright is copyright, it's still an interplay between POSSIBILITY of access and DEGREE of similarity.

Oh, there is the "prior use" factor as well.

If Coldplay's lawyers can prove that the melody in question existed before Satriani's song, then it's case closed.

There was an example of a Spanish band that used a very similiar melody to Satriani's in 2002. That may be enough for the judge to dismiss.

The bottom line is that while you may be a lawyer, you've already stated that you don't practice intellectual property law and you don't work in the entertainment business. This is a highly specialized section of our laws and one in which you're unfamiliar at this time.

If you were to ask me, I'd say they're very similar. But it's not an "original" work. That melody has been used in the past on the Spanish song that I cited. Satriani wasn't sued for using the similar melody, was he?

The most disappointing aspect about this case (and being a huge fan of Joe's) is that most view this as some sort of publicity stunt. Which is sad.

Someone else posted this earlier in the thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G57CgtX-BsI

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:

I write the songs of love and special things...
I write the songs that make the young girls cry... (except for Gwynneth)
I write the songs, I write the songs...

I wonder if he's been alive forever? Does he put the words and the melodies together?

Speaking of "influences" does anyone recognize a Suicidal Tendencies influence in Puddle of Mudd's "She Hates Me"? I'm not saying it's legally prohibited plagarism, but a good part of the two songs sound like the same tune to me for practical purposes.

"I Saw Your Mommy" from Suicidal Tendencies' "Still Cyco After All These Years" (1993):

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wmPPjzr7TBU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wmPPjzr7TBU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

"She Hates Me" from Puddle of Mudd's "Come Clean" (2001)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/i0i91UaSXl8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/i0i91UaSXl8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Quick question, anyone else picturing Bubb Rubb and Li'l Sis filing suit against The Blackeyed Peas for Boom Boom Pow?


I got that boom-boom boom . . .

It's like woot-woooohhhh, woot-wooooh!!

To be fair, I'm pretty sure the guy from the Hollies that wrote that song got songwriting credit in the liner notes.

In other words, there was not any legal action - Thom Yorke openly admitted to borrowing from the song and gave credit when the album was released.

What ended up actually happening with that case? I seem to remember that when the controversy first arose, Vanilla Ice was publically proclaiming that it wasn't the same line, that each second repeat has a whole extra note in it (which it does), and that it wasn't borrowed or sampled from Queen (though one would have to be an idiot to believe that it wasn't, especially since each couplet also included the two piano notes at the end). Did that get settled in court or out?

Grab that ol' dictionary and set your peepers on non sequitur, agreed, and royalties. ;)

You're too smart for me.

LINK

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Singer-songwriter Cat Stevens agreed on Monday that the Coldplay song, "Viva La Vida," sounds like one of his 1973 songs, but he stopped short of saying he would sue for plagiarism.

"My son brought it to my attention and said: 'Doesn't that sound like 'Foreigner Suite?'" the musician, now known as Yusuf Islam, told Reuters.

"The song definitely sounds like it," he said of his song. "It has such logical chords and the melody has to be what it is..."

Asked during a telephone interview from London whether he would pursue the issue legally, Islam, 60, said "it depends on how well Satriani does."

U.S. guitarist Joe Satriani has sued Coldplay, accusing the British band of copyright infringement. He claims substantial original portions of his song "If I Could Fly" are recycled in "Viva La Vida" and is seeking damages.

Islam, whose new album "Roadsinger," comes out on Tuesday (May 5), was unable to perform at a New York concert on Sunday because of "work permit" issues. The singer, a Muslim convert, said the problem was unrelated to his being denied entry into the United States five years ago because his name was on a government no-fly list.

"It's just been delayed by a week," he said of his trip to the United States to promote the album. "The day I was scheduled to go to the (U.S.) embassy they had implemented a new system. There were gremlins in the works, but they (U.S. officials) were all so nice."

Islam is scheduled to play one show in Los Angeles next week and appear on "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno" on May 13.

The Case has been dismissed from the California court. There's some suggestion that a settlement occurred but this cannot be confirmed.

http://news.justia.com/cases/feature...v07987/432491/

You lose, Taco.

But what else is new?

LMAO