Thursday, February 26, 2009

"Hey!, Hey! You! You!" - The Case of Avril Lavigne

We have been discussing the finer points of copyright in class and, as I hope you see, it is very important and a very real concern in today's technological environment of new media. You have heard the two songs in class and now you can watch / listen to this montage that I found on YouTube. Read the articles posted on Homework Hero and duplicated here and come up with your own opinion. As always, refer to the specific aspects of the case in your response and engage with your peers in discussion. Sharing ideas with the class here will add depth to your own reflection and, ultimately, will make you more successful.

Required Readings for the Copyright Case Study
Jamelia Case Study Reading
Avril Lavigne Plagiarism Case
Avril Denies Plagiarism Case
Avril's Case and the Lawyers
Chantal Says She is Sorry
Chantal Retracts Her Criticism

NEW! Settlement reached in Avril Lavigne 'Girlfriend' lawsuit

Another Great Article with Some Interesting Statistics

After you post about the Avril / Rubinoos situation, do some research and find a copyright infringement case that we have not discussed in class. Post it on your blog. It doesn''t have to be music related (but there are a lot of examples here), just something relatively high profile. Be sure to state the facts of the case, provide links (embed YouTube clips for us all to compare), and provide your own opinions based on your specific knowledge of the Copyright Act and the effect that infringement has on both the artist, and on the public as a whole.

How about this case involving Coldplay?

Or this case involving Miley Cyrus


  1. Brief posts will not count or be considered, but well thought-out and supported posts will be evaluated using your Media Discussion Rubric!
  2. You MUST post a comment on Avril's case as discussed in class and in your readings AND on something else of your own research! References in MLA format are required (try the citation engine at the bottom of Homework Hero).


  1. I think that Avril Lavigne did not copy the Rubinoos chorus of "Hey!, Hey! You! You!" in any intentional way. These four specific words have been used in four differant (Rolling Stones, Rubinoos, Lush, and Avril Lavigne) songs and yes this is the first time this situation has come up. I think those specific lyrics are almost ''common knowledge'' and do not need to be cited. If anything it should be the Rolling Stones complaining in the first place and not some one hit wonder band like the ''Rubinoos''. Also, in our ''Fair Use & Fair Dealing" note it said that people can use up to 10% but no more then 30 secs of the music. The Chorus' put together from the Rubinoos song does not equal up to 10% of the song so there is no infringement there. The melody, Rhythm, tempo, and instruments are all very differant and you can tell just by listening with the naked ear. Avril Lavigne did not copy the Rubinoos lyricss in anyway that is in violation of the law.

  2. You don't think so, MinWoo? They do sound awfully alike and Avril did not credit or cite The Rubinoos at all. Can two different people come up with the same sound, beat, and lyrics coincientally? Just saying.....
    Check out the articles I posted and consider all points of view including the outcome.
    Who's next to join our discussion?

  3. Also, be specific as to which portions of the song are similar or different. Do you have a stopwatch? If so, time the elements in question to prove your point. Also consider this....why would the Rubinoos come forward with this claim now (especially since their hit came 30 years ago)?

    Always spellcheck your work!

  4. In my opinion I do not think that Avril Lavigne intended (intended being a key word) to copy the Rubinoos. I think of this case as being similar to the George Harrison/Chiffons case we also looked into. As in the George Harrison case, I believe that Avril had at one point in her life heard the Rubinoos/Lush/Rolling Stones songs that contained the "Hey Hey, You You!" hook. While coming up with ideas for a new album, this hook was discovered by her somewhere in her memory. Since she probably couldn't remember if she had heard this hook before, she took possession of it as her own.

    I can speak from experience that this type of situation is quite common for musicians. Quite often have I been strumming away thinking of some new riffs and chord progressions when I stumble across something that I think is new and original. However, after looking further into what I've "created", I begin to find similar parts in other songs that I have listened to. Sometimes even you find that you've copied something identically, as sad as that can be.

    I believe the reason for this "subconscious" copying can best be cleared up in the George Harrison/Chiffon article found at It is said that the court ruled that "His subconscious knew it already had worked in a song his conscious did not remember... ". This essentially can apply to all musicians that come up with a similar part to an already existing song. They know the melody works in a song because they have already heard it, although they might not remember what the heard it from or maybe not even remember hearing it at all.

    This is why copyright is such a hard thing to deal with. Can Avril really be sued for not remembering that she'd heard the riff before? Can the Rubinoos really file for a copyright infringement case when they do not know for a fact that Avril had or hadn't heard it before? Unless their is a way to prove that Avril intentionally copied the music, I believe she is innocent. Check her iTunes, perhaps she has the Rubinoos on there, and then they can file lawsuits.

  5. This occurrence is the reason why copyright infringement is such a hard thing to deal with* first sentence, last paragraph.

  6. I don't feel there is enough evidence for Avril to be commited of plagerism for that song but looking at Avril's other court case you start to wonder whether or not she has. If she is being sued for one song of plagerism that is understandable because some people do slip up as Dylan said but twice on the same CD is kind of pushing it don't you think? Really now you can't say that it is likely for someone to copy two songs in the same time period accidentally. Plus, for her to deny hearing either of the songs she is accused of plagerising is highly suspicious. I'm not saying she is definetely guilty of plagerism but just it seems likely she did. Someone could argue that " If she says she didn't hear these songs maybe she actually didn't and is telling the truth." I would say yes maybe she didn't but then again couldn't someone guilty of murder deny doing it as well? A lot of time is wasted in courts because the convicted won't admit to the truth. So I'll leave this comment with the question. Is Avril Lavigne a murderer or just a simply unlucky person?

  7. These comments are right on the money. I'm liking the flow of this discussion. Everybody needs to get on board. Also, read the posts that are already here before posting your own. No point in repeating what has already been said. You should, however, build upon the ideas of your peers and comment specifically to them.

    Read the articles I provided links for above to provide depth to your work.

    SPELLCHECK YOUR WORK! IT COUNTS! (That means I mark it!)

    PS. My wife thinks that you guys are brilliant! Her students never participated this much... ever! Keep it up!

  8. Like everyone is saying, I don't think Avril is trying to commit plagiarism on purpose and I don't think it's fair to place all the blame on her. There are I'm sure many people that work behind the scenes, such as producers, directors, songwriters etc... Who's to say it's not one of the producers who is pitching these song lyrics or melodies to Avril? Now let's be fair if Avril wants to be taken seriously as a credible musician she should know all the information and conduct some on her own to keep the speculation to a minimal.
    But there are also many people that have to approve and reapprove the release of an album or song. Shouldn't responsibility and knowledge be a big part of their job description? How can one song go through so many people with no warning signs going off? This is a problem that includes alot of people, and if they indeed did look into it and found no solid similarties then maybe the other bands motivation should be closely analyzed.

  9. In response to this strange Rionok character (we didn't come online at 1:30 might I add) I agree that a lot of time can be wasted during these cases. We'll never be sure if they knew they were copying a song or not, and to them I don't think it really matters. For a celebrity these days, the main reason they become "famous" is because they're talked about. If they release an original hit song they will get attention because they have the new hit song. If they get called out for copyright infringement, people will hear about them in regards to the case. Either way, their name is going to get around and as long as it keeps circulating, the longer they'll make money.

    And to Pari, it is very highly suspicious that the similarities flew over the heads of every person involved in the production of the song. This brings me back to the point that they are hoping to get publicity anyway they can. Release a hit, everyone will know the artists' name. Create controversy, and even more people will know about the artist. It's a big marketing ploy and it's really quite ingenious. However, I wouldn't say that it is commendable.

  10. Looking at the two songs I would yes its possible that she may not of know she was copying either band, and as Dylanthebassist that releasing a song to create controversy will create more name recognition, which they might of wanted to do, but when you listen to Im the Kinda by Peaches it sounds a little to similar to I Don't Have to Try by Avril. They might of tried to create controversy but those to songs should of raised at lest one flag and made someone say "Oh that might get use in trouble for copyright infringement".

  11. ***I have found out that it is more then just four bands that have ''hey hey you you'' in one of their song lyrics. Which include:
    The Rolling Stones- Hey Hey You You Get Off of My Cloud
    Lush-I Wanna be your Girlfriend
    Avril Lavigne- Girlfriend
    The Rubinoos- I Wanna Be your Boyfriend
    Billy Ocean- Get outta my dreams, Get into my car
    FeFe Dobson- Get you off
    Soluna- Hey Hey You You

    So as you can see there are a numerous number of musicians that have used the lyrics "Hey Hey You You" in their music. Avril Lavigne probably heard it from anyone of these musicians and subconciously used it(maybe) but the Rubinoos wanted credit off of the success of Avril Lavigne.
    You can tell from youtube alone that she has found success from this songs music video. The song ''girlfriend'' is the number one most viewed.
    *** The embedment has been disabled but heres the link for you to enjoy.
    Her video has three times Canadas population for views.

  12. I also have a poll of this on my blog, vote if you wish.

  13. I honestly think that Avril subconsciously copied the lyrics. But, it's also hard to say whether or not she is even violating the copyright. Harujuku Boi listed all the other songs that use these lyrics, this made me wonder: Shouldn't she be getting in trouble from ripping off all the other bands? Why is it only this one case? So I looked up all those songs on youtube and listened to them. I found that: yes, they all do use similar lyrics but they each use them in very different ways. I noticed that each of the artists sing those lyrics to a separate rhythm and melody...except for The Rubinoos. Avril used the identical rhythm/ melody as The Rubinoos and the exact same lyrics. This must be the point in which copyright is broken; similar lyrics is excusable, it's not uncommon to accidentally write the same 8 consecutive words, but when those 8 words are used in the same melody/ rhythm, the situation gets a little fishy.

  14. Ya, that video has about 120 million views or something ridiculous like that.

    Today I analyzed the musical aspects of the two songs and found little to no similarities. The first difference I found was the fact that they are in two different keys (ie. essentially they start and end of different notes from each other). In this case the Rubinoos' song is in the key of E and Avril's song is in the key of D. Although it is not a hard thing to modulate a song into a different key, it is still a difference.

    Another difference can be found while analyzing the most controversial part of the song, the part that goes "Hey Hey, You You!". Underneath the Rubinoo's chorus there is a I-IV-V progression under the bulk of the chorus. Under Avril's chorus their is an extremely generic I-V-VI-IV progression, which is probably the most common progression in music history. By having different keys, that eliminates a lot of material the Rubinoos could use against Avril. By having different progressions, a lot of harmonies are not created, thus the Rubinoos cannot claim copyright infringement due to similar harmony.

    If I were the Rubinoos, I would be less concerned about sueing Avril and be more concerned about being sued by The Rolling Stones. The Stones' song "Get off of My Cloud" shares the "Hey Hey, You You" part that the Rubinoos song has. The thing about these two songs, though, is that they are both in the same key and share a near identical chord progression under the "Hey Hey, You You" part. Couldn't it be that the Rubinoos perhaps subconsciously copied the Rolling Stones song, being that they are eerily similar, rather than Avril ripping off the Rubinoos song thats only similarity is the "Hey Hey, You You" which is quite common, as pointed out by Minwoo?

    For the Rubinoos to claim that their song was the original is very ignorant on their part. They grew up in the Stones era and for some reason it flew over their head that their song was very similar to the Stones’ song. In an article above it mentions that Avril acknowledged the "Hey Hey, You You" part as being in a Rolling Stones song. Either Avril is a Rolling Stones fan or the Rubinoos were very oblivious.

    Interesting enough though, "Get Off of My Cloud" has been accused of stealing the "Louie, Louie" riff by the Kingsmen. That shows how hard it can to be an original artist in the music industry!

  15. Dylan raises a good point, Avril uses the I-V-VI-IV progression while The Rubinoos use the I-IV-V progression. When I listened to the songs to verify Dylan's statement I noticed that The Rubinoos also use a I-VII(aug 5th)-VI-V-IV-V progression, along with a VI-IV progression and multiple IV-V progressions. Yet, Avril uses the same chord progression through the whole song. Now, I realize that this is all very confusing to people less educated in music but anyone can see that The Rubinoo's music is much more complex. Also, The Rubinoo's use various beats throughout the song while Avril stick to basically the same beat through the whole song. But, that's how modern music is, it's very simple. I believe that that is the real reason The Rubinoos are pissed off. Because Avril is using their hook in a song that is 10x less complex than theirs, but she is making 10x more money than they did. And I honestly don't blame them, I'd be cheesed too.

  16. That point could be very true DaveyWavey. It's not fair how an artist these days make way more money than old artists when the fact is, the majority of older artists have way more talent than these young musicians! Let's face it, the Jonas Brothers will never be musical masterminds like Led Zeppelin were! That can be proven by seeing that Robert Plant won the most Grammy awards this year, over young artists like the Jonas Brothers.

    Don't forget though David, in the Avril song her progression changes in the pre-chorus. However, for the rest of the song, it is the I-V-VI-IV progression. Basically, the bulk of the song is one continuous progression.

    For people who don't know what the progression sounds like, The Beatles' song "Let it Be" has the progression in the verse, "I'm Yours" by Jason Mraz has that progression pretty much throughout the entire song.

  17. Personally, i don't think Avril meant to copy the "Rubinoos", yeah the chorus is basically the same but the rest of the song is completely different and it also has a different beat too it. You also have to keep in mind, look at how many other artists copy songs and do all of them get sued or anything? Sure, the artist that came up with the original version can try but most artists get away with it. I totally agree with Dylanthebassist when he said, "It's not fair how an artist these days make way more money than old artists." Nowadays artists don't even play with real instruments, and it all sounds the same, has the same beat, and the artists today get paid a lot more money then they did a long time ago.

  18. I'm sorry and please excuse me for my ignorance but Im still not too clear of what you guys mean by ''progression''? Is it the beat? or melody? or what?

  19. hey Minwoo! Sorry! A progression is basically a repeated order of notes or chords that take place throughout the song. For example if you listen under the chorus, you'll hear the same 4 chords repeated about 4 times during the chorus.

    That is basically what a progression is. I should have probably cleared that one up!

    If the term "progression" still isn't clear, or I didn't do a good job describing it, let me know and I will try again!

  20. you'll hear the same 4 chords repeated throughout the chorus.*

  21. This comment has been removed by the author.

  22. In my opinion i belive that aviril levigne is a lying, no good, STANK, ugly, copy cater. Ok you guys say something about subconscious listening to the song, but not actually listening to it??? Um no it doesnt work like that.First of all she is an artist that i guareenty have listened to a whole buch of other crap(song) that resembles her style, and too top it off she was a no good,desprate,STANK,no body.No one knew who she was and to make a name of herself she started taking some lyrics from "back in the day" that can kind of give different audinces like the old people(ages around 25-death) a feeling of "hey that sounds like something i would listen to". then after that she have grannies and middle age people listen to her music, then those people freinds and family will like that song(since mom and da will most likely play the music everyday)and now we have the whole family going to one of her HOT, STANK, STUPID concerts.

    Anyways avril you suck you only have one crappy song that crappy people think it is good.

    top that

  23. Yeah, like dylan said, the chord progression is basically the backing music, so in this case we are referring to what the guitar is playing.

    And Dylan you are correct, Avril alters her progression on the bridge a little bit, but still, that's like 2% of the song. She uses the same progression and beat for the other 98%. So, The Rubinoo's are angry that Avril's making tonnes of money off their song and now they want a piece of that pie.

    Or maybe it's a completely different story. According to an article on The Rubinoo's recently reissued their first 3 records and all of a sudden they are doing reunion shows. Suddenly, they are popular again. In their career only one of their songs ever reached the top 40 charts, while Avril has had 19 songs reach the top 40. So maybe The Rubinoos only brought up this case so that they could get publicity. Before Avril released "girlfriend" no one remembered The Rubinoos but now everyone knows them, their career is back on track. Maybe they didn't even care about Avril stealing their hook, maybe all they wanted was the publicity.

  24. Haha, Dark Chalklate you got some strong opinions there. What exactly does STANK mean anyways??

  25. just because you have a song hit the top 40's for mtv dont mean that you are geting more famous *cough* davey, david or whoever you are buddy, pal and friend. Oh and by the way STANK=STINK,SUCK,GARBAGE=AVRIL

  26. Yes what does stank mean?

    I think the only real damage done to Avril is her reputation. But I'm sure she can dish out a couple of more hits and have her songs blasting regularly again, and she will be redeemed in many people's eyes. Let's face it from the beginning Avril Lavigne has been the queen of catchy songs. Sk8er boi, anyone?

    After reading a article on I am even more convinced that this was not an intentional act of plagiarism. According to the article "Musicologists have been sat down to hear both songs and the experts rules out plagiarism", and the fact that Dylan and DaveyWavey have also mentioned it in this discussion, I think it's fair to assume this was not deliberate act coming from a technical point of view.

    What's more shocking to me was the drama with Chantal and Avril. Chantal Kreviazuk is a very credible songwriter and singer, and for her to jump the gun that fast was very shocking to someone that knows a little bit of her music. It's generally not her style. Her earlier comment I think stirred the pot in the beginning when the album came out. Her comment was "I sent her a song two years ago called 'Contagious,' and I just saw the track listing to (The Best Damn Thing) and there's a song called 'Contagious' on it and my name's not on it. What do you do with that?". She of course did have to apologize and I think this was a unfair comment, because nothing in that statement allows us to believe that she actually listened to the song. There are many songs right now in Itunes alone called "Contagious", and luckily for Avril her album did bounce back and still sold a lot of copies. She hit a bit of a road block, but it still came out in Avril's favour, there's seems to be a trend that should be pointed out.

  27. Pari, i totally agree with what you said about Chantal Kreviazuk & Avril Lavigne. These two Canadian women were once best friends, and even teamed up to record together.

    "Sometimes, she was my muse," says Kreviazuk, 31. "She was a nineteen-year-old, so I'd go into her space and then it would build from there. Sometimes, she would be the mature one and we would flip back and forth and change our roles with each other." [1]

    It's obvious that they had some form of relationship, that revolved around music. Chantal's husband, Raine Maida (Our Lady Peace frontman) even co-wrote and produced 5 of Avril's songs. The canadian couple (Kreviazuk & Maida) even invited Avril to move into their Malibu house to write and record her album, "Under My Skin".

    I beleive Kreviazuk acted way to soon, making herself look like the bad guy. Without doing some reseach, she blaimed her friend, her writing partner, and started a riot that the media was loving. Kreviazuk surely should have done her information before bashing her friend.


  28. Kaitlin and Pari, I strongly agree with you, that Chantal Kreviazuk should have done research before she started complaining about Avril stealing her song.

    [1] Ms. Lavigne — who was also accused last week of stealing someone else's song — says the comments are "damaging to my reputation and a clear defamation of my character."
    "My decision to discontinue working with Chantal after co-writing together on my second record was simply based on the fact that we had no hits together," Ms. Lavigne wrote.
    "That is why her name is not on this record, despite her numerous attempts to be included, which were always denied. From my perspective this is a clear case of bitterness."


  29. Thanks for the clarification about the progression Dylan.

  30. Okay, so I basically agree with everything that everyone previous to me has pointed out...BUT at the same time, I do believe that well it may be possible for avril to have accidentally copied the hook of one song (Hey! Hey! You! You!, lyrics that are so commonly used they are basically common knowledge), it is pushing it too far to say that she has "mistakenly" used other people's songs at least twice on the same album.
    So the Rubinoos, okay sure, but Peaches as well? That's pushing it. She should have been charged and been found guilty in court on at least one of the issues, but I guess the fact that her rep was badly bruised after this incident is punhishment enough. Goodluck to Avril on being able to gain back her title as an amazing artist, and if she can put out another chart-topping single, let's wait and see which artist she rips off of this time. I'm sure we will all be waiting...

  31. oh and the chantal kreviazuk issue is a whole other thing. Pari said it all, but in the end I think Chantal should have given it a chance before jumping to conclusions that everyone was just trying to use her music. Although Chantal is a very credible artist it doesn't mean that Avril is a dumb enough girl to full out steal a whole song from a fellow artist, especially when their music isn't even the same genre. Problem is, Avirl hasn't given herself the best title in the music industry and if someone saw something they believed was theirs, do you really blame them for thinking that she may have stolen in?

    All in all, Chantal was right to apologize to help clear her name, but this whole situation wouldn't even be questioned if Avril was reasonable enough to not commenly steal music

  32. Hayman, I don't think that Avril needs any luck to produce another top-of-the-charts song. I think that as long as she plays ignorant to the fact that she's ripping off other artists, her fans will still support her career. Her stupidity is her safety because as long as she's playing dumb, fans will remain loyal and buy CDs, which means more money for the production companies. If the music industry is all about money and has no moral value, then Avril will prevail.
    Personally, i believe that Avril only has a voice when it's supported by machinery; however, her punk style and middle fingers will probably keep her in the music industry for a few more years regardless of petty accusations over four words used in a song.
    All in all, i think the debate about whether or not she copied the works of another artist is redundant because she'll still be making music. Yes, the media will bring her down and the music artists who she stole from as well as the people who favour those artists (there aren't many) will be a little ticked off, but in the end you'll still see Avril smiling on stage while flipping a Tweety.

  33. This comment has been removed by the author.

  34. Hahaha steve_afro... hit the spot about the music industry. There are many instances where normal things that are frowned upon in society are okay for celebrities to do. For instance, Brittany going out in public without any undies on, or hitting people with umbrellas is alright. What about things like drug abuse that many celebrities go through. Just because they are celebrities does it make it right for them to be above the law? According to the ''rule of law'' which originated from the magna carta is that everyone is equal and no one person is above the law. So why does it seem that celebrities have so much more power and are treated more highly then the average citizen. In the end they are still human...

  35. Steven and Minwoo you guys make great points. On one hand we constantly have to remind ourselves that these people are human and we hear the celebrities say they are normal and want to be treated normal. But on the other hand they go out and do abnormal things. I think it’s a confusing subject and everyone just takes what they want.
    Hayman you make a good point about how it’s odd that she “mistakenly” copied more than one song, and I agree it is strange. I think that Avril has a very limited style and that can easily be seen when listening to her songs. But I don’t think she just sits there and says I like that song and I’m going to change it around and make it my own. But like I said earlier there is someone definitely in the middle of this that has some form of influence.
    As for celebrities’ careers, I think it’s very easy to redeem your self. North Americans in particular like to hold on to something and enjoy seeing someone grow up in front of their eyes. A perfect example is Britney, everyone feels like they have a soft spot for that girl because we have known for so long. We want good things to happen to her because we feel we have lived with her. I think Avril will bounce back and continue to be a controversial artist whether it is based on her image, actions or music.

  36. When a band or artist that I adore, 'accidently' copies a song, it does change my opinion of the artist. When they don't write their own material, and rip of an older band or artist, they still think that their fans wont know. Obviously it’s getting harder and harder to create a nice beat, but to copy someone else’s and not credit them is ridiculous. All bands have some sort of musical influence in their life. But to take the work of your ‘hero’ and not credit them is like a slap in the face. After all, the music from the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s, in my opinion, is way better than music now-a-days, I would still rather hear what that particular newer artist has to say, rather than someone that they thought was a hero. I want to hear what they are thinking, feeling, and doing, instead of their idol. I want to know that I can relate to them in some way. But when they decided to copy music, it feels like they’re cheating, and not being who they actually are.
    I do agree with what Pari stated: “I think that Avril has a very limited style and that can easily be seen when listening to her songs. But I don’t think she just sits there and says I like that song and I’m going to change it around and make it my own.”
    But with ‘Girlfriend’, how did she not know that she copied the Rubinoos? The chorus is almost exactly the same, just with a couple of lyric changes. If not her, don’t you think her husband (Deryk Whibly) or her producers would have realized that they have heard something like this before?

  37. It’s very true Kaitlin that a musician’s creditability diminishes when they copy, but a lot of musicians these days don’t really focus on creditability and ethics. The main drive for most is money. They’re constantly trying to one up the next person, and enjoying there fifteen minutes of fame, because for a lot of them that’s all they get.

  38. Thats true. But if they're just in it for the money, why not have a reality televisions show like Paris Hilton? That way you wouldnt have to worry about copyrighting.
    Oh, and for the Chantel Kreviazuk situation, I think it was pure jealousy. Just because her 'friend' is coming out with a new album, and your not, is no reason to blame her for copying. Avril is known around the world for her 'talent' and her rebellious attitude, but Chantel is just known in Canada.
    She may be talented, but for me, I seriously only know her for have a feud with Avril, and being Raine Maida's wife.

  39. Kaitlin I agree when you said “But with ‘Girlfriend’, how did she not know that she copied the Rubinoos? The chorus is almost exactly the same, just with a couple of lyric changes. If not her, don’t you think her husband (Deryk Whibly) or her producers would have realized that they have heard something like this before?” That there is very true, you would think that they have done this many times, and that they would notice the familiar beat and lyrics. Avril’s music is basically always the same; you can automatically notice an Avril song compared to another artist. So her music beat and lyric choices are limited, so like Pari said “I think that Avril has a very limited style and that can easily be seen when listening to her songs. But I don’t think she just sits there and says I like that song and I’m going to change it around and make it my own.”

  40. No problem Minwoo! Hopefully you now understand what it was I was talking about!!!

  41. Ok SO I haven't posted in a while and digesting all of these comments is kind of insane haha... What I'm noticing is that there seems to be a lot of repition going on... just thought Id put that out there so this discussion gets goign again hah

    Now to what I need to say. Why are we talking about something with her music partner complaining about Avril stealing her song when Avril really didn't and it was proved? I really don't see the relevance, sure she was accused for stealing the song but the song was nothing like what her music partner thought it was.

    Avril's case seems really like she copied it but there is not enough definitive proof to condemn her(as I said before) since it is so simple of a song. While when you look at Coldplay's case of Viva La Vida, a much more complex song(and better I may add), there is a much larger chance that Coldplay copied Joe Satriani because of the almost exact likeness to the songs with so many notes in them. Avril's Girlfriend has a similar tune to the song by the Rubinoos, especially during the chorus, but similarities happen all of the time. I had a tune made before that I thoguht was going to be new and original and a song I NEVER heard before in my life came on a week later just released on the radio recently that sounded like the song I just made. The same could have happened to Avril but in her case the song was already published. So I am not saying hse subconciously copied the song but in reality copied the song without knowing at all.

  42. To my experience comment I wasn't being reptitive to what dylanthebassist said because I was making a point not about a song being heard but also songs that you never even knew existed.Just as a clarification

  43. 'The Rubinoos said, "We are satisfied that any similarities between the two songs resulted from Avril and Luke's use of certain common and widely used lyrics. We therefore completely exonerate Avril and Luke from any wrongdoing of any kind in connection with the claims made by us in our lawsuit."'[1]

    Even the Rubinoos have agreed that their accusation was invalid, as demonstrated from the statement above. I think that it's pretty safe to say that anyone who now thinks that Avril did steal their song would be siding against the ones who originally created the trial.

    [1] "Avril Lavigne Freed From Copyright Blame." AceShowbiz. 2008. March 5. 2009.

  44. I personally believe Avril did not copy the song, as it has been stated many times before hand it isn't the first, nor will it be the last time the Hey Hey You You will be used in a song. I doubt it will be the last time sometime tries to sue for copyright infringement. I totally agree with David and Dylan while talking about the chord progression, the hook may be the same but I think we all have realized how many other songs use that same hook. So going to the core of the music we can see that the chord progression is not the same. This combined with the fact that Lush's song "I Wanna be your Girlfriend" is almost identical and the Rubinoos didn't accuse them leads me to believe that they were just seeking attention and hoping for a "comeback". After all they did release a greatest hits album shortly after.

  45. This comment has been removed by the author.

  46. A good point was made. A lot of people only listen to one genre of music, or whatever is present. Not many people go and search for music before they were born, unless they were hits. So that is another reason why it strenghtened Avril's case.
    That's a great statement Steve, I think if the Rubinoos are over it, then so should everyone else (except for the sake of this blog and unit). But unfortunately, many people are going to forever remember this and it will always overshadow Avril and her career.

  47. After reading this there is not much more I can add to this. I think that most people here agree that Avril's song and the Rubinoos's song does not share many similarities. But One thing not talked about much here is how similar Avril's other song is to the one by Peaches. Those two songs share many similarities between them. Just listening to the songs right away they sound a little to similar.

  48. I agree with 'John'. This conversation is definitely dying.

    I think Avril completely stole from Peaches. They both follow virtually the same beat (I think Avril throws in a random note) and I think they're both trying to make an attempt at a more rap-like song (but failing miserably). Avril simply cannot deny that she had never heard the Peaches song before.
    'In an interview taken months before this current controversy, Avril herself brings up Peaches; talking about how she first heard her on Marilyn Manson’s tour bus and how Peaches is now “one of my favourite female artists”.'[1] For someone to use such a strong word towards music like 'favourite', you would assume that she wouldn't steal from them. She can deny ever hearing the Rubinoos, but now I think it is impossible for her to play ignorant towards Peaches. There is no way anyone would believe her if she says she never heard the Peaches song after saying that Peaches is one of her favourite female artists.
    I think she was inspired to do something like Peaches but maybe followed an example too closely, which resulted in clear plagiarism.

    Before I played the songs to listen to them, I asked my brother if he would mind if I played two songs for homework. After he gave me permission I played the link displayed above. My brother said, "I thought you were going to play two songs."
    I said, "I did."
    He said, "I only heard one."
    The fact that these two songs were played at the same time and the difference was unidentified to unsuspecting ears clearly indicates that the songs sound identical. Since Avril is unable to deny ever hearing the song, I think it is plain to see that Avril has committed an act of plagiarism.

    [1] Dr. J. "Is Avril Lavigne Lesbian for Peaches?". HitChaser. 2007. March 5. 2009.

  49. After he gave me permission, I played the link displayed above.**
    Fourth paragraph. Second sentence.
    I missed the comma.

  50. In my opinion Avril is just a lazy singer that when she hears a song she wants to make her own version of it. Avril did it with Girlfriend
    from the rubinoos and I'm the Kinda from the peaches and called it I don't have to try. Really i think that was a idiotic move of her stealing a song that both groups worked hard on and Avril comes out of nowhere and steals their songs and better yet Avril admitted not hearing the rubinoos' version of Girlfriend and later admitteded it on Televsion of course I bet she was drunk. In the end I agree with Steve_afro no matter what happens as long as she has has fans she will never die down. I probably bet in the mere future Avril will still steal songs for her albums and will still never die down because her fans will support her until the end.

  51. Avril admitted stealing it on television?

  52. At first glance, you would assume that miss Avril Lavigne did take some of the Rubinoo's song intentionally. On listening to what she had to say about this situation, I have come to the conclusion that she may have subconciously taken a part of the Rubinoos hit and not even realized it at all. These four words are very common, and someone could mistakingly use them in their song without the knowledge that someone else used these words before them. Maybe Avril Lavigne had heard this song a while back and then it crept back into her mind while she was writing "Girlfriend." But then again, I contradict myself in saying this because I personally believe that someone working in the studio with her must've caught on. I think that someone should've caught on to the fact that this was very similar to the Rubinoo's song. I'm on the fence on this one, but I think am leaning more to the side of Avril Lavigne being innocent. But all in all, Avril Lavigne will have her fans behind her 100 percent.

  53. To steve_afro, I think Ken meant she admitted to hearing the Rubinoos song on television..but earlier than that she mentioned never hearing the song at all. So she contradicted herself. I think that's what he meant, but I could be wrong.

  54. Well, I just can't really believe that she would confess to such a crime, especially after my research showed that the Rubinoos had already excused her of the crime (one of my previous comments). So basically, they let her off of the hook, but Ken suggests that she ended up confessing after she won her denial. That is completely illogical. She must not be the brightest of musicians.

  55. I agree Luu.who, she could of stole the song not knowing at all.. I think ever since she has become "blonde" andd actually wears pink now she has changed her whole image..And so maybe she felt as though she couldn't come up with anything fresh, and decided to remake a song into her own style. I am still unsure if she knew that song was already out there. Even the rubinoos said they could be wrong.

  56. oooooooooh and im too lazy to see if anyone has said anything about her commercial with the camera lol, The whole advertisement was about her music aswell as the camera.. like " buy this camera and oh ya! listen to my song while you are at it! If her fans knew she blew off a song, would they buy that camera? Ever since i compared the two songs i have the Rubinoos song stuck in my head and not Avrils... Avril is all about the money now, she probably changed because no one thought her skater look was that attractive anymore so therefore didn't listen to her "songs"

  57. Steve_afro you are 100% right on the whole favorite artists of peaches for Avril.. I read that aswell. I think she is a hypocrite that she forgot she had said that, and now playing dumb. She won't confess up to it because she would definately be ruined. And let her fans down.

  58. She is already a nonsuccessful person in life, her vocation(just like lindsey lohan's) is ancient history... yet to me it actually never had a beginning.

  59. As said before, she probably heard it at some point in her life. Even so, if she did admit to it, it definitely wasn’t a very smart move on her part. How many people have you heard of that plagiarized, in school or otherwise, denied ever copying something then later stated “Actually, I may have caught a glimpse of that essay online at some point.” It doesn’t make any sense. But she's off the hook anyway, without even a slap on the wrist. It’s just another example of things that celebrities can get away with. Now after saying that, you have to note the fact that Avril is one of the celebrities who have actually settled down a bit and is now married. Sure she has been charged with plagiarism, but you have never heard of her shaving her hair off or getting in a car crash with cocaine up her nose. You have to give her the benefit of the doubt there.

    On the issue of her plagiarizing Peaches, it’s true that one part is very similar to a part of Avril’s song. However, Peaches’ song has the same beat throughout the entirety of the song except about 20 seconds approximately between 2:15-2:35 and a bit of the end. Whereas Avril’s song only has the beginning of her 3 minute song that is similar. The beats aren’t exactly the same either. Only the voice matches really. Plus, the lyrics are completely different (although the jury is still out on which song has the weirder lyrics in that part). I think Peaches is blowing it way out of proportion. Avril is way more popular, they saw the Rubinoos get more publicity, heard something that sounded similar to their own song and accused Avril. It could be just a way to get more popular. It will probably work too. It’s never about the music anymore, it’s about the money.

  60. I agree with the whole its about the money and not just the music anymore. It just shows how selfish the music industry can get these days. Doesn't anybody care about fans anymore? I certainly know that if i were in a band or if i were a musical "artist" i would care about having fans, because thats where the money comes from.
    i think i just went again my whole starting opinion. But fans should make musicians want to create their own music, in my opinion if my favorite band or artist copyrighted a song i wouldn't be too pleased because it makes me feel that they can't write their own stuff anymore to they have to resort to sampling and copyrighting.

    The whole deal with the Rubinoos and Avril, i personally think that she probably has heard their song and maybe she did get her line, "Hey Hey You You" from them, but maybe she's jsut the really good artist that everyone said she was before all the lawsuits.
    Not Guilty!

  61. and by went again, i meant went against, in my second paragraph.

  62. I think everything to be said about Girlfriend and Peaches has been said and in so this conversation is dead unless we bring in a new topic that concerns plagerizing but is much more recent and controversial such as the case with Coldplay and Joe Satriani. This is still fresh in our minds and still raging on unlike the Girlfirend case which is long gone.

    Coldplay in my opinion has no argument agaisnt Satriani because the songs are( as said before) MUCH more complex than girlfriend and basically everyone I know who has heard of Coldplay has heard of Joe Satriani. There are no lyrics to Satriani's version because Satriani is basically just a guitar player.

    Coldplay's Viva La Vida may be one of the top songs ever but in my opinion with this case they will not be seeing much of the cash flow coming from it.

  63. Mowhawk Media Blog, I think what you said about it no longer being about the celebrities work, but being about the money is COMPLETELY true. Celebrities will now-a-days do anything to get their name heard, which is maybe what Avril was trying to do with copying a late, famous song. This was obviously going to draw in all kinds of money because when word spreads that it sounds like a famous single your parents may have heard, its going to draw everyone in wanting to listen to it at least once, earning the celebrity the big bucks. Doing such a foolsih act will also help get your name back in the media all over the magazine covers.

    The funny thing is that in a magazine article Avril stated that she doesn't like to be the talk of the town, and tries to keep her name out of the papers, because apparently she has better things to do with her life. Unfortunately this was proven a lie, and it is now said that Avril clearly will do anything for the money from posing half nude on the covers of these magazines, to stealing songs. Talk about gaining a bad rep.

    In conclusion, if you don't want to be on the covers, and it isn't all about the money for you, stop posing on the covers of such magazines as Maxim, Lucky and Sugar, and start focusing on creating some more original material.

  64. To be honest, I can't stand Coldplay, so I've never listened to Viva La Vida, and I couldn't care less about Joe Satriani's song. But I have heard alot about the case, and i agree with your opinions on Coldplay not seeing much of the cash comign from the song.

    Another topic I felt was nessesary to discuss was Killswitch Engage doing a "Cover" of Dio's song, Holy Diver. I know when people say a cover is practically paying the origonal artist of the song, or it is said to be "paying" respect to a once great band. I personally love the band Killswitch Engage, but I did some research on the song when they put their sort of, hardcore/metal twist on the song, they didn't get the permission of Dio to use the song as their own, and now they are making all sorts of money off of a song that isn't their. It's kind of bullshit. They are making money, off of Dio's song Holy Diver, Which the origonal was a great song.

  65. On another note, to rionok's comment on the viva la vida case, I strongly believe that that case is a dead one, because not only are people unable to hear the exact thing taht the songs have in common, Coldplay has come out with enough chart topping singles to have one accusation against them break their career. Don't you agree?

  66. **that, so i cannot spell, it's official

  67. i agree, despite my hate for Coldplay, alot of people like them for what they did before that song, and when they make more new stuff, that isn't copied or whatever, their loyal fans will just pretty much forget about the whole lawsuit with Joe Satriani, because Coldplay is the type of band, that can continue to make music that people like, and they will continue to do good in the music business because of it.

  68. The other thing about Coldplay is that I find they typically appeal to an older age frame than us teens. So, the people who have heard their song, have also most likely heard Joe Satriani's as well, and if you haven't seen a drop in Coldplay's sales yet, I doubt we will.

  69. well this is funny when the chat is due everyone is on. to comment for the sake of commenting that copywrighting is wrong period but sampling is ok in my eye so to those people who disagree too bad my opinion and i'm sticking with it. The only reason that some people copywright is that there lazy and can't make up there own songs and so they start stealing and sooner or later get suwed from the original song wrighter or reft that they decided to use for there song.

  70. good point ken, but i didn't quite understand the whole last sentance, about the reft and such, what the hell is a reft? just so I can acknowledge your whole opinion.

  71. In response to Hayman's "people unable to hear the exact thing that the songs have in common" comment regarding the Satriani/Colplay case, I think it's quite obvious what they have in common. The guitar melody in the chorus of Satriani's song is basically identical to the vocals in the verse of "Viva...". Look past the fact that one is played by guitar and the other is sung with words. It was kind of an ignorant thing to say because if "no one" can hear the similarities as you say, he wouldn't have even brought up a lawsuit. If "no one" can hear it, what could he argue? He would have no evidence and no support and it would have been a waste of time to file a lawsuit!

    And Rionok, Satriani is not just a guitar player, he's an amazing guitar player. The way you say he is "basically just a guitar player" is rather smug because he's not "basically a guitar player". He plays at a level that most people can only dream of achieving. He basically sings through his instrument and it takes an amazing amount of talent to play like that. He also sings with his voice too, just watch G3 and you'll see.

    Satriani is a musician's musician and it bugs me when people assume that he isn't as big as Coldplay just because they might not know who he is. Satriani is just as accomplished within his niche as Coldplay is in theirs. Yes, Satriani is not as mainstream because most people can't listen to him, but to totally dismiss him being of any value because he is not mainstream... that isn't fair. Satriani has just as much of a claim to that melody as Coldplay, even if he doesn't have these "top 40" singles that seem to be of the top most importance to some people.

  72. i didn't mean it in an ignorant way at all, I just meant for the musically incapable like myself, its hard to hear these types of things.

  73. I was just listening to the parts for the Coldplay and Joe Satriani case, and I would have to say that yes the guitar of Joe Satriani's song does sound almost the same as the Coldplay song. There may be no lyrics to Satriani's song, but when you listen to the guiatr it follows the same line as in Coldplay's song, the only diffrence is cold play used works and Satriani's dosn't.