Music Joe Satriani Sues Coldplay for Plagiarism - Page 4

**DaneMcCloud** · 12-06-2008, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BuckinKaeding

Dane, what does Case Law say in this matter?

I don't care about the rest of the stuff in this thread, I'd agree w/ whatever Case Law says about intentional or unintentional plagiarism.

Huey Lewis won.

Jagger/Richards own ALL of the Verve's song "Bittersweet Symphony",

There are too many cases of plagiarism to cite.

The bottom line IMEO is that Satriani definitely has a case and as stated earlier, I'd be shocked if he wasn't awarded a share of the song.

**Buck** · 12-06-2008, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Huey Lewis won.

Jagger/Richards own ALL of the Verve's song "Bittersweet Symphony",

There are too many cases of plagiarism to cite.

The bottom line IMEO is that Satriani definitely has a case and as stated earlier, I'd be shocked if he wasn't awarded a share of the song.

I never realized that about Bittersweet Symphony...Sort of Ironic, considering the title of the song.

Looks like I've got some reading to do.

HMc · 12-06-2008, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Huey Lewis won.

Jagger/Richards own ALL of the Verve's song "Bittersweet Symphony",

That matter was settled - I imagine the Verve didnt have (at that stage) the $$$ to fight it.

Coldplay would have deep pockets.

Additionally, bittersweet symphony was a sampling case.

**DaneMcCloud** · 12-07-2008, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HMc

That matter was settled - I imagine the Verve didnt have (at that stage) the $$$ to fight it.

Coldplay would have deep pockets.

Additionally, bittersweet symphony was a sampling case.

Clearly, you have no understanding of copyright law or intellectual property.

It isn't about "pocketbooks".

JFC.

It's PROTECTION.

HMc · 12-07-2008, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Clearly, you have no understanding of copyright law or intellectual property.

It isn't about "pocketbooks".

JFC.

It's PROTECTION.

I just wasn't sure why you would raise a case that was settled out of court over a different issue (sampling), when you were asked to provide case law for the purposes of establishing a precedent?

But you're right, my grasp of American copyright and IP law is probably fairly weak, why the hell would I know anything about it?

I'd still like to see the relevant legislation, if that's where your "Lyrics an Melody" test is from. If it's a test from a case - I'd like to see that aswell.

Thig Lyfe · 12-07-2008, 12:35 AM

The Verve case isn't exactly parallel, since the issue was an actual sample of a Rolling Stones song, not a ripped-off chord progression.

**DaneMcCloud** · 12-07-2008, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SportsRacer

The Verve case isn't exactly parallel, since the issue was an actual sample of a Rolling Stones song, not a ripped-off chord progression.

The point being that the courts side with the copyright owners.

I was surprised at that ruling, honestly. But it just goes to show that the courts don't mess around.

HMc · 12-07-2008, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

The point being that the courts side with the copyright owners.

I was surprised at that ruling, honestly. But it just goes to show that the courts don't mess around.

Holy crap dane, there was no ruling, the case was settled.

And, according to http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=60402 , my guess about the band lacking the finances to fight the legal battle was spot on.

I doubt you know half as much as you claim to do, regardless of your supposed career.

**DaneMcCloud** · 12-07-2008, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HMc

Holy crap dane, there was no ruling, the case was settled.

And, according to http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=60402 , my guess about the band lacking the finances to fight the legal battle was spot on.

I doubt you know half as much as you claim to do, regardless of your supposed career.

Yeah for Wikipedia and websites.

Go **** yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HMc

I doubt you know half as much as you claim to do, regardless of your supposed career.

Well as usual, you are completely ****ing wrong.

Now, go **** yourself.

HMc · 12-07-2008, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Yeah for Wikipedia and websites.

Go **** yourself.

Your retort to being called out on seemingly knowing sweet-fuck-all about the Bittersweet Symphony case is that I've used the internet to collect some basic facts about it?

I'd rather use the simple resources in the time available to learn what basically occurred than spew complete excrement and hope people will blindly eat it up because I've talked up how important I used to be in the entertainment industry.

HMc · 12-07-2008, 01:07 AM

I'm surprised that such a hotshot hollywood executive who knows more about IP than but a mere few on the planet (earth) would use a case to make a point when he wasn't aware that the case didn't actually make it to judgement.

**DaneMcCloud** · 12-07-2008, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HMc

I'm surprised that such a hotshot hollywood executive who knows more about IP than but a mere few on the planet (earth) would use a case to make a point when he wasn't aware that the case didn't actually make it to judgement.

So, given your one person post from 2004, we're supposed to assume exactly what?

The bottom line is that copyright law is copyright law. If Coldplay and Satriani agree to terms outside of a jury ruling, are we to assume that the law didn't apply? The same laws apply to Jagger/Richards and The Verve.

Give me a ****ing break.

HMc · 12-07-2008, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

The bottom line is that copyright law is copyright law.

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.

Quote:

If Coldplay and Satriani agree to terms outside of a jury ruling, are we to assume that the law didn't apply? The same laws apply to Jagger/Richards and The Verve.

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

**DaneMcCloud** · 12-07-2008, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HMc

It's quite possible that Ashcroft et al found themselves in this position.

Conjecture, again.

Silock · 12-07-2008, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HMc

I'm surprised that such a hotshot hollywood executive who knows more about IP than but a mere few on the planet (earth) would use a case to make a point when he wasn't aware that the case didn't actually make it to judgement.

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.

12-07-2008, 12:35 AM	#6
Thig Lyfe Banned Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Thigpen's America Casino cash: $10004900	The Verve case isn't exactly parallel, since the issue was an actual sample of a Rolling Stones song, not a ripped-off chord progression.
Posts: 25,680

12-07-2008, 01:07 AM	#11
HMc from the very deep south. Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Sydney, Australia. Casino cash: $9944900	I'm surprised that such a hotshot hollywood executive who knows more about IP than but a mere few on the planet (earth) would use a case to make a point when he wasn't aware that the case didn't actually make it to judgement.
Posts: 2,792