Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
Alternate, inconsistent pleadings are allowed in every state in the union.
There's no way in hell they'd have staked their entire case on that one particular theory of recovery. They'd have also provided the standard inference arguments as alternate theories which they could fall back on.
|
Dude, they gave the guy the song! That's the reason why record companies and music publishers do not allow unsolicited material: They're terrified of copyright lawsuits exactly like this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
As for your other post - it cuts both ways. If you were certain you didn't plagerize and you were a 'megaband' wouldn't you be eager to prove it in court?
|
Not in this case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
Like I said, if the evidence involved didn't at least put a scare into Coldplay's counsel, there's no way they'd have settled it. Would it have been enough to support a verdict? Obviously we'll never know, but there had to be something substantial there in order to survive pre-trial dispositive motions and draw a settlement offer that appears to be significantly more than a mere nuisance settlement.
|
With fans worldwide already extremely fickle, with the fact that Coldplay's
own fans believe all their music sounds the same, with declining record sales and with the /Twitter/TMZ age in full-effect, Coldplay (IMO) was smart just to let Capitol Records handle it and move on.