Joe Satriani beats Coldplay, Coldplay cries about it

D

Diosoth

CAGiversary!
There was a settlement in te Joe Satrino vs Coldplay lawsuit, which apparently everyone missed and forgot about.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8258217.stm

Basically, there was a settlement. It means Coldplay doesn' thave to admit they ripped off good music for their pop rock shit, but they had to pay Joe a lot of money.

In court papers filed in Los Angeles, Coldplay also claimed Mr Satriani's song "lacks originality" and should not receive copyright protection.
Click to expand...

Lacks originality? Well, I guess Coldplay would know all about lacking originality.

While I generally oppose the idea of copyrights, there's a difference between two people having the same idea, and someone committing intellectual theft. Coldplay has shown themselves to be a talentless MTV friendly joke band and any 2 people who heard both songs could hear Living La Vida La Vida or whatever the fuck it was called was Joe Satriani played on the violin with some words added.

Shame they're too popular to get dragged through court as Vanilla Ice once did. Hey, Vanilla Ice also claimed he didn't rip off Queen. Hack musicians are all alike.
 
That quote is gold; perhaps their own song shouldn't receive copyright protection then?

Perhaps they were inspired by Satriani at some point and wrote a similar song on accident (ex: Reznor and Bowie) but come on.. fess up to it. Anyway, while they don't have to admit to it, the settlement is telling enough: they knew they'd lose.
 
[quote name='Guerrilla']That quote is gold; perhaps their own song shouldn't receive copyright protection then?[/QUOTE]

Why's it funny? That's how it works...
 
[quote name='Diosoth']Lacks originality? Well, I guess Coldplay would know all about lacking originality. [/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure they meant originality in the legal sense. (Owes origin to the author and is minimally creative.)

[quote name='Diosoth']While I generally oppose the idea of copyrights, there's a difference between two people having the same idea, and someone committing intellectual theft.[/QUOTE]

You seem to be contradicting yourself. How can you be both against copyright and against "intellectual theft"? I understand why you might oppose the way copyright law has developed in the US, why are you against the idea of copyright? It's not something record producers thought of in the 70's; it's in the Constitution, after all. If we don't give artists some protection, what's the incentive for them to work? Would you prefer a patronage system?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top