Satriani Sues Coldplay for Copyright Infringement

This isn't the first time Coldplay has been accused of ripping someone off for the melody of their song Viva La Vida. Of course, this time there's a lot more muscle behind the complaint.

Guitar God Joe Satriani (presumably at the urging of his record/publishing company) has sued the members of Coldplay alleging they ripped off his riff from the song If I Could Fly.

In order to prove an allegation of copyright infringement, the plaintiff (Satriani) must show:

1) Ownership of a valid Copyright
2) Unauthorized copying by the defendant(s)

#2 can be shown by "access and substantial similarity." Substantial similarity is a question for the fact finder (judge or jury). Access is pretty much presumed when a work has been published.

In all likelihood, this case will settle. The parties don't want to take this to court when they could otherwise be out on the road playing music and making money. However, in the unlikely event it does go to trial:

The two songs certainly sound substantially similar to me. Take a listen:

YouTube Happy with Veoh's Win, But Not Off the Hook in Viacom Litigation

A recent district court decision in which a San Jose judge ruled that YouTube competitor Veoh was not liable for copyright infringement based on infringing material posted by users is being batted about in the blogosphere and the news media in hopes of gleaning some insight into any affect it may have on the outcome of the pending Viacom v. YouTube litigation.

The ruling is clearly a win for Veoh and a good sign for YouTube, but not dispositive of the YouTube/Viacom litigation in any way. While the San Jose court's decision may be persuasive to the judge in the YouTube case, it is not binding precedent.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) provides a safe harbor for service providers as long as they act as a "conduit," meaning they do not select or modify the content that is transferred. They also have to respond to take-down notices from copyright owners. While the Veoh court has clearly said that Veoh falls within the safe harbor, there are still other cases out there (such as the Aimster case) that say turning a blind eye to wrongdoing does not excuse you from liability. And more importantly, Viacom can still rely on the Supreme Court's holding in Grokster, which hinges on "intentionally inducing or encouraging direct infringement." If Viacom can convince a judge that YouTube's business model is based on encouraging users to upload infringing content in order to attract more users to the site, the fact that YouTube later responds appropriately to take-down notices may not absolve them of liability.

Bottom line, YouTube is very happy with the Veoh decision, but it doesn't necessarily affect the outcome of the Viacom/YouTube suit.

For articles regarding the Veoh decision, see:

• Washington Post
  
• AllHeadlineNews