Coldplay and the Fallacy of Intellectual Property
Poor Andrew Hoepfner (pictured left). According to the Creaky Boards singer, Coldplay's new mega-branded single, the title track from the band's new album, Viva la Vida, is practically his. On a video that's already been viewed more than 350,000 times, Hoepfner claims that last year in New York, Coldplay singer Chris Martin saw Creaky Boards playing their tune, "The Songs I Didn't Write" (how's that for a spit-shine of irony?), and that the now ubiquitous "Viva la Vida" is a subsequent rip-off.
And now poor Chris Martin has to lurch down from his pedestal of pure aloofness to answer the charge that the only listenable song on his new album is a piece of outright plagiarism.
It's not, of course. After all, any song with three or four chords and some lyricist's necessarily limited version of the truth is bound to sound like countless others. Has Hoepfner ever heard sample-based hip-hop, or a jazz standard, or a full third of the Western classical repertoire?
Perhaps this isn't the place for a full-throated critique of the idea of intellectual property rights. Regardless, every day tens of thousands of people across the globe--as part of corporations and governments alike--circle the proverbial wagons to document, label, protect the "ownership" of the intangible, and the business of hoarding ideas has a well-established history already. (No less a thinker than Einstein clocked a few hours a day poring over patent applications while surreptitiously preparing to upend classical physics back in 1905.) But the sooner we can all get past the "idea" that anyone can own the words, the thoughts, the music, the sooner we can survive the possibly ensuing class war and get down to the business of evolving our eventual hive mind.
To his gossamer credit, Hoepfner wishes Coldplay "the best of luck." Not that the band needs it. As soon as Coldplay knocks Lil Wayne out of the top spot on the Billboard charts next week, Chris Martin will be right back where he thinks he should be. And yes, you can quote me on that.
--Jason Kirk
Jason Kirk on December 10, 2008 at 11:43 PM
In case anyone's still lurking around on this thread...
I'm happy to report to those who called me a hypocrite and a hippie that the Coldplay actually grew on me quite a bit, and I humbly take back what I said about the title's songs being the only listenable one. There are quite a few good tracks here.
Robert on June 20, 2008 at 11:50 PM
Hippie: You can't own property, maaaan!
Professor Farnsworth: Oh, I can. That's because I'm not a penniless hippie!
A Bouts on June 20, 2008 at 07:20 PM
Who is Coldplay?
Bryan Frymire on June 20, 2008 at 06:52 PM
Re. "Kent v. Indy" - Not even close.
Hoepfner's claim to copyright infringement is one-hundred percent frivolous and is lacking in merit. That doesn't mean that some music copyright lawyer somewhere won't convince him to file a lawsuit against the Coldplay guys. It's what they do. I'm involved peripherally in the music copyright business and without goofball claims filed by people like Hoepfner a lot of people in my business would make a lot less money.
Jason - you give copyright protection way too little credit, I'd say. If I were to create a song that became popular I'd want to be paid when other people used it. Seems only fair to me.
Bill W. on June 20, 2008 at 06:18 PM
Here's an example of melodies sounding similar. I cannot listen to the Indiana Jones theme music without immediately singing the Kent cigarette jingle from the 60's. The first two measures are identical (at least as I hear it).
Kent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYq9MaPUjQM
Indiana Jones: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1c05_yXmaI
Jason Kirk on June 20, 2008 at 05:34 PM
Thanks, Cedric. I still err (perhaps) on the side of idealism when it comes to the free exchange, collective benefit, and unlimited distribution of ideas (regardless of their economic potential), but reasoned arguments of your kind keep us all more honest. As far as I'm concerned, the necessarily primary goal of any good argument should be better to understand the opposition. Ripostes like yours elevate the conversation.
Cedric on June 20, 2008 at 05:24 PM
There is no fallacy regarding intellectual property.
Two types of Intellectual Property are Copyright and Patents.
Both involve a quid pro quo and an incentive to disclose something.
Copyright provides a cause of action to prevent copying. If two people independently creat the same work, then theoretically both are entitled to copyright in their own creations. While copyright law isn't perfect and Congress prostituted itself by unnecessarily lengthening the term of copyright protection with the Sonny Bono Act, there is justification for an incentive to authors for publishing their works. The current problems often stem from shoehorning software and computer related "works" into copyright protection; something which historically occurred in part because government bureaucrats in the patent office fought against patent protection for such developments. There have also been changes in U.S. law to make our law more like other countries and these changes do not always make sense from a capitalist promotion of progress viewpoint.
Patent law strictly relates to inventions which are new and nonobvious and which are not previously in the public domain. Much argument by people ignorant of intellectual property concepts conflate the critical distinction between the law as it is written and the government's effectiveness at carrying it out. Just like the U.S. Constitution has a perfectly fine prohibition on takings; the weasels on the Supreme Court are perfectly capable of botching it up with their tyrannical impulses to "help" society. So too can patents be improvidently granted by the USPTO, by mistake, by sloth, by ignorance and for a whole host of reasons. Overall, however, historically the United States intellectual property laws and the USPTO have served admirably to promote the progress of science and the useful arts; much more so than, for example, Asian countries where such notions of "intellectual property" have historically been a foreign concept. The United States is today the wealthiest and most powerful and free country on the planet is due in no small measure to the past success of our intellectual property system in promoting progress and securing for a limited period of time the economic benefits to authors and inventors and not to freeloaders and plagiarists. Where copyrighted expression is limited in scope, and a simple variation on other popular expressions, then there are bound to be many who think that they have been ripped off. To focus on these inevitable and fairly uncommon disputes is to ignore the overwhelming economic impact and incentive that such laws provide to the immense benefit of our society.
PurpleSlog on June 20, 2008 at 05:20 PM
The new Coldplay song made me think of an intro rift from New Order.
jblog on June 20, 2008 at 05:15 PM
The sooner we can all get past the "idea" that anyone can own the words, the thoughts, the music, the sooner we can survive the possibly ensuing class war and get down to the business of evolving our eventual hive mind.
I just wrote that. All by myself. Just now. Maybe. Or something.
Anyway, I figure I have as much claim to it as anybody, since nothing belongs to anyone ostensibly.
jblog on June 20, 2008 at 05:14 PM
The sooner we can all get past the "idea" that anyone can own the words, the thoughts, the music, the sooner we can survive the possibly ensuing class war and get down to the business of evolving our eventual hive mind.
I just wrote that. All by myself. Just now. Maybe. Or something.
Anyway, I figure I have as much claim to it as anybody, since nothing belongs to anyone ostensibly.
Liz on June 20, 2008 at 07:49 AM
Coldplay are only the most humble self deprecating pop band ever. There are way bigger assholes in the music world; like Andrew Hoepfner for example.
doug on June 20, 2008 at 05:54 AM
No thanks, I'm not interested in quoting you or your hypocritical little sermon.
And creators are supposed to work for free? on June 19, 2008 at 08:51 PM
Pretty funny coming from the company that owns the 1-Click patent.