Aron F. Gibson
Rights Of The Accused: Coldplay's "Viva La Vida"
The Joe Satriani/Coldplay lawsuit is by no means a new story. However, after reading Coldplay’s repsone to Joe Satriani’s copyright claim, that the Brit rockers copied parts of Satriani’s instrumental “If I Could Fly” for their pillowy soft-rock hit “Viva La Vida,” I just had to weigh in.
If you’ve never heard “If I Could Fly” than you’re not alone. I don’t think anyone has. But when I did some research on YouTube to compare them both, I was pretty amazed. The Coldplay vocal melody seems to be a near-exact match to Satriani’s snoozer instrumental “If I Could Fly.”
But what I loved more, other than Coldplay’s alleged pilfering of Satriani, was Coldplay’s response. They simply said that Satriani’s song “lacks originality” and shouldn’t receive copyright protection. In saying that Satriani “lacks originality,” are they admitting that they, too, lack originality?
(Thanks to Fmbloxghost from YouTube)
I love the arrogance of Coldplay’s claim. If you say it “lacks originally” using a British accent, then their counter claim actually sounds believeable. It’s only when I switched back to American English that their response gave me pause. I think I prefer the British response better.
But when I read that Satriani had actually rooted for Coldplay to win at the
Joe Satriani: Laughing all the way to bank?
Grammy’s. I thought, man, Satriani is going to be laughing all the way to the bank from this. It’s the best thing that’s ever happened to him; It was nothing less than a PR coup d’état. Now people other than geeky guitar wonks will know who he is! Brilliant, just brillant!
Truth be told, the publicity has probably helped both bands. The fact that I’ve written about them means I’ve duped myself into helping them as well. Oh, well. Viva La Vida!
Filed under: Music | Tagged: coldplay, copyright claim, if i could fly, joe satriani, lacks originality, viva la vida
You looked it up on Youtube? Really scientific. Coldplay did NOT copy Sadtriani. He filed the lawsuit 6 months after the song had come out. If the song hadn’t been successful, we wouldn’t have heard ANYTHING from him. He’s just doing this to piggyback off of others success, and for money.
Kevin, I never claimed to be a scientist…I’m a musician. But I do have these things sticking off the side of my head called ears. I use these ears so that I can process these cool things called “sound waves.”
Here’s how they work: Sound waves cause the tympanic membrane (eardrum) to vibrate and then pass these vibrations on to the cochlea. The cochlea is a snail-shaped, fluid-filled structure in the inner ear. Inside the cochlea is another structure called the organ of Corti. Hair cells are located on the basilar membrane of the cochlea. The cilia (the hair) of the hair cells make contact with another membrane called the tectorial membrane. When the hair cells are excited by vibration, a nerve impulse is generated in the auditory nerve. These impulses are then sent to the brain! Voila!
The brain then magically allows me to decipher things like the sound of rustling leaves, howling dogs and even music into conscious thought. In fact, I used these same ears to try and tell the difference between the Coldplay and $atriani (not $adtriani) tracks. The results were amazing! I know it’s not very scientific but I’d encourage you to give it a whirl!
~AFG Must Rock!
The thing about the “lacks originality” line is that it was lawyers saying that, not artists. That is, it was a legal comment, not an artistic one. It’s to suggest that the melody is not unique enough to warrant damages or sustain a claim of copyright infringement. Not that “the song sucks” (which is what it sounds like to us musicians), but that it’s de minimis copying, if anything was actually copied. Also, if the melody isn’t very original, they’re making a claim that it’s likely that they both “came up with” it, rather than one copying the other.
At least, that’s how I understand it.
Blaise, thanks for the thoughtful post. I appreciate the link on de minimus copy as well. I still can’t ignore the humour (British spelling) in all of this. Coldplay’s response just sounded bad, you know? At any rate, Coldplay and Satriani are both winners in this. Coldplay made millions and now Joe Satriani will be able to pay his rent, assuming he gets a nice settlement (which I’m sure he will).
SaDtriani will not win this case. And you know why? Because of this thing I use from time to time, it’s called common sense. Common Sense , an adjective, is what people in general would all agree on. According to Mirriam-Webster, Common Sense is “sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts”. Being in this case that Joe SaDtriani claims he came up with the same chord structure that Coldplay used, it is common sense to come to the conclusion, that this is wrong. Using those amazing… ears I think you called them, you hear that Argentine rock group Los Enanitos Verdes, with their song “Frances Limon”, plays a somewhat similar riff. But using eyes, we’ll get into that later, we see that the Frances Limon song came out before SaDtriani’s. He is simply doing all of this for a handout. And I know, using my common sense ; ) , that he will not win this case.
Thanks for your definition by the way! I knew you had some writing ability, I just hadn’t seen it put it to use yet! : )
I got nuttin’ to add on the copyright debate front as I’m blog-reading this site just to see what Aron’s squawking about; however, I CANNOT keep my mouth shut about the fact that “common sense” is not an “adjective.” It’s a noun. Mustah missed that class in school, Kevin, huh? (And missed it when checking the dictionary, too.)
Maybe you’re right, Kevin; you don’t need your ears checked. But better take care of dem eyes. Tiz common sense, y’know.
Coldplay, sigh..
Can’t find something more interesting to write about.
@Aron: Yeah, definitely still hilarious.
@KevIn: While I agree with you in that I don’t think it’s copying, legal matters are (unfortunatel) rarely ever “common sense.” A few decades back, George Harrison lost a copyright infringement suit against him because, the judge ruled that he was guilty of “unconscious copying…” that he’d heard the song at some point, and unintentionally regurgitated the melody when writing his song (see Cryptomnesia).
That’s a pretty anti-common sense ruling if you ask me, but that’s one of the legal precedents Coldplay would have to overturn if it goes to court…
I do remember hearing about that. I’m afraid IF Satriani wins this case fully, we will start to hear of more and more artists coming out of the wood work saying “Yeah! So and so copied me! Maybe not directly, but subconciously.” It’s an unfortunate situation.
What I understand about copyright, from listening to Joe Escalante’s show “Barely Legal” on the now defunct Indie 103.1, is that once a work is recorded and copyrighted, the author has the right to defend their copyright, even if the other party claims they never heard the work. Conscious or unconscious copying, Satriani has the legal right to defend his copyright because his song was recorded and published (he put it on his album and made the work public).
I’m not an attorney so have no idea how this will play out. It should be interesting. I just know that Satriani, or any other artist for that matter, has the legal right to defend their copyright(s).
Kevin: You are absolutely right about one thing, If “Viva La Vida” wasn’t a hit, then $atriani would have never bothered to borrow money from his parents to hire his attorneys!
Lol Ya got me there
Hey Kevin, I’m gald we can agree on that! Tell you what, the only thing more terrible than Satriani’s lawsuit is my band. Check ‘em out and keep rockin’ man. Thanks for your comments!
http://www.myspace.com/theswaggersticks
The “published” thing makes sense, in terms of the law in the past (because it was pretty reasonable to assume that most people would hear music that was published), but it’s pretty funny to consider what that would mean now that anyone with a $1000 computer and a MySpace profile can record and publish their music!
Blaise, yes, anyone can publish music on the Internet which is why it is important that all artists, whether or not they are large or small, are giving the equal right to protection. It is my understanding, from a professor at UCLA, that once you create a physical recording of a work you have established (what I believe) is called a common law copyright. However, before I “publish” my music, to be safe, I register the work with the U.S. copyright office. I think this is important because anyone in the world with an Internet connection can now hear my music. Just because I’m an unsigned artist doesn’t mean my work shouldn’t be protected. There are those on the web who think that music should be free and, when I say free, I mean they want it to be free from copyright claims. It’s scary.
Yeah, copyright is automatic, but registering a work somewhere assists with proving a case in court, should it ever come to that.
The problem with “published” being the criteria for copyright infringement though is that it’s no longer all that relevant to determine whether or not something has been copied. Independent creation is a defence against copyright infringement, but the notion that just because something has been “published” somewhere you have to defend yourself from “unconscious copying” accusations if you create something similar was insane before the web, and now it’s just completely untenable. (It’s a bit more relevant for the Coldplay / Satriani case though, as they both have more than just a myspace profile…)
Just because something sounds similar doesn’t mean it was copied; if it wasn’t copied, it’s not copyright infringement.
There are those on the web who think that music should be free and, when I say free, I mean they want it to be free from copyright claims. It’s scary.
Personally, I don’t see anything scary about it. What do you mean by “protection”? The ability to stop people from creating songs that are based on yours (derivative works) or that sound like yours (similar works), or to stop unauthorized people from distributing your music (e.g. via file sharing networks)? Or something else?
Blaise, to your first point, I think copyright infringements are generally not pursued unless there’s money to be made. So two indie guys on MySpace won’t bother with the legal costs. The only way it becomes tenable is if someone copies your song and it becomes an hit. otherwise you won’t know (or probably care) if someone used a 2-second snipet of your song. Personally, I wouldn’t care…unless the person won a Grammy using a sample or copy of my music.
Regarding free on the web, I am referring to something else…I guess it would fall under the category of licensing fees. free downloading is here to stay and that just means bands need to make cooler t-shirts if they wanna make money!
As an example, YouTube and MySpace generate millions and millions of dollars from advertisers when they generate page views…a fair portion of their revenues is generated on the backs copyrighted material i.e. your music. I just think we should be compensated when appropriate. Now, If I knew “when appropriate” meant, then I could save the record industry. Thanks, but no thanks! For now, I’m just happy I can make my own record without them. And besides, if I wanted to make money, I’d become an accountant or something.
Ah, fair enough.
I don’t get the MySpace argument so much though. Sure, MySpace is making lots of revenue, but the agreement is free hosting, exposure, platform in exchange for not having to pay royalties on the tracks or anything. They’re providing artists with tons of value at no cost already, that’s the trade. If a band got some big record deal or sold a ton of albums through using MySpace as a platform, I don’t think many people would argue that the band owes MySpace any money, so I find it a bit odd when people suggest that MySpace owes artists money for its success. (YouTube is a bit different since it’s usually not the copyright owners uploading content… that’s a slightly different topic.)
I’d probably fall into that camp of people that think that music should be free as in freedom, not just price. I decided to use a Creative Commons BY-SA license (copyleft) for all of my music. It allows people to use my music for pretty much anything without asking permission or paying royalties, so the tricky “when appropriate” question would be irrelevant (if anyone ever uses my music) and same with “protecting” it. The trick, as I see it, is in putting a business model in place that makes it sustainable (which is #2 behind writing and recording good music…), which I think has little to do with copyright nowadays.
Blaise, all great points. Good point on MySpace. I’ll let you have the last word. As musicians, we’re living in a really exciting time and things are evolving very quickly -I see this as an opportunity for indie musicians, which is going to be great for the ones who are creative and entrepreneurial.
[...] actually be suing guitarist Joe Satriani, since Satriani thinks Coldplay stole the song from his “If I Could Fly”—which means Satriani must’ve copied it from Stevens, [...]
i love how you idiots are mocking satriani the jazz legend and the man with the most grammy nominations in music history it is very obvious you know nothing about musical theory satch proved they stole his song thats why they paid him as far as needing the money i read hes a mulimillionaire his guitar g3 shows have been huge hits also idiots hes sold over 10 million cds guess what thats more than cold play has satriai has created the most beautiful music on earth his musics part of our everyday life hes in over 200 commercuals videogames instructional videos everytime you hear a metallica solo u can go listen to joe and hear exactly were it came from tony mcalpine called satriani the greatest musician on earth so please stop the disrespect just because you cant understand musical theory and that they stole the legends song(as they admitted when they paid him)
hendrix211- I don’t understand music theory, you’re right. I’m just some dumb-ass musician who has to rely on his ears. Listening Satriani is like wacking off ten times in a row – it’s pretty pointless and not very satisfying. I’m proud of all the Grammy’s he’s won in categories no one cares about. Good for him. Now please, hand me the lube, I’ve got to get busy over here.
[...] the full article at AGF Must Rock here [...]