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