Did Led Zeppelin ripoff “Stairway to Heaven?” Ooh, it makes me wonder

Jury trial starts Tuesday. Infringement is in the ear of the beholder.

Read the whole story

 

[Twilight Sparkle]

CQLanik[/url]":19wgqlul]Copyright law, the reason we can't have nice things.

Actually, it's the reason we do have nice things.

If no one got paid for what they created, and had no protections from other people ripping you off, no one would bother creating anything. Unless, of course, you're okay with titles like, "Harry Potter and the Magical Fruit" by J.K. Ripoff, or someone taking YOUR stuff and using it for their benefit without cutting you in on it.

So, with that in mind, please allow me to correct you:

Copyright Law: Required by good people, infringed upon and often abused by assholes.

(See the Ars Trademark story the page over between CitiBank and AT&T. Same shit, different people.)

If you enjoyed this comment, please like, subscribe, and donate to my Patreon!
I'll be here all week.

 

[Peevester]

DrHow[/url]":3eb8hf7n]

TerranIV[/url]":3eb8hf7n]You used the term "begs the question" incorrectly TWICE in one article. You mean "raises" the question.

"Begs the question" means that someone is using circular logic as in: "These two songs don't sound alike because the notes and rhythms in them are different."

I was also wondering about the misuse in a respected publication. Is it possible that the misuse, which has become far more common than the correct use, has become an acceptable use? I used to react negatively to the misuse; but I have come to believe that it might be better to give in and accept the more common current usage as being correct.

It's more than possible, it HAS happened. Grammar pedants can suck an egg, especially in this case, where the historical definition is confusing and useless in general usage.

The phrase "grammar pedants can suck an egg" almost always applies, and especially so on the internet (that goes double for those particular assholes that cut and paste dictionary definitions). Language is usage, DEAL WITH IT.

 

[Kaji01]

If Vanilla Ice could get off by adding a note to the Under Pressure bassline, then this should be an open-and-shut case for Jimmy Page.

 

[benwiggy]

There is a long history of creating taking a tune or an instrumental line and weaving it into something new: from the earliest mediaeval composers who based their polyphony on popular tunes of the day or plainsong melodies. Bach, Handel, Stravinsky and even contemporary composers have all done it.

Clearly, Stairway is not Taurus. It may have based itself around a passage within Taurus, but it is clearly a novel composition. Whether Taurus, as a copyrighted work, is entitled to proceeds from Stairway on that basis, and to what extent, is, as usual, a matter for the courts.

 

[SixDegrees]

Fatesrider[/url]":gnrg21ef]

CQLanik[/url]":gnrg21ef]Copyright law, the reason we can't have nice things.

Actually, it's the reason we do have nice things.

If no one got paid for what they created, and had no protections from other people ripping you off, no one would bother creating anything. Unless, of course, you're okay with titles like, "Harry Potter and the Magical Fruit" by J.K. Ripoff, or someone taking YOUR stuff and using it for their benefit without cutting you in on it.

So, with that in mind, please allow me to correct you:

Copyright Law: Required by good people, infringed upon and often abused by assholes.

(See the Ars Trademark story the page over between CitiBank and AT&T. Same shit, different people.)

Fair enough, mostly.

But we really need to put firm limits on copyright protections. The original system in the US - which varied, but always granted only a short period of protection, on the order of 14 years with a single renewal available to the still-living original author - was far better than the current mess, which is tangled beyond belief but has inevitably moved toward a granting of copyright in perpetuity to essentially immortal corporations.

I'd propose protections that extent from date of filing to the death of the original author, plus 20 years; and in the case where corporations are the "author," 25 years period. But that's just me.

 

[Ben G]

Res Nullum[/url]":v32of96e]

Ben G[/url]":v32of96e]The album title is not "Led Zeppelin IV".

Would you have preferred the author just left an empty space whenever mentioning the title? It’s untitled, but commonly referred to as Led Zeppelin IV.

Led Zeppelin's fourth album or Led Zeppelin's untitled fourth album. I wouldn't have commented if it was just done once but there are several "IV"'s in the article as if that was the actual title.

Besides, I thought the whole reason for Ars' comment section was pendantic corrections...

 

[Dadlyedly]

foxyshadis[/url]":20b8e93h]The patent dystopia has long been that every programmer would have to spend days or weeks searching through patents before writing each line, to ensure that no line could possibly infringe any insane patent. Now the copyright dystopia is that you have to search through all copyrighted material in case you've ever accidentally heard something, had it percolate a while, and somehow emulated it. Oh, and you'd better not get inspired by anything you hear during that review, either.

I doubt anyone ever conceived of copyright being a culture-killing cudgel back in the beginning, whereas inspiration and cross-pollination has been understood for millennia.

If Zeppelin loses this case, then I would assume Joseph Campbell has a case against every author out there for copying the basic themes laid out in his book "The Hero With a Thousand Faces."

 

[llanitedave]

And nobody has mentioned that while we were debating, Led Zeppelin stole the Hindenburg.

 

[Argyris]

So these days even a passing similarity in structure or melody can land a musician in court. Oh my...I wonder if Nickelback then has grounds to sue itself:

https://youtu.be/Qs4tNeGyTyI

 

[appliance]

This is why the Sex Pistols are so important - a pox on both their flute/recorder ridden houses.

 

[gmerrick]

SixDegrees[/url]":3e6qrhwm]

Fatesrider[/url]":3e6qrhwm]

CQLanik[/url]":3e6qrhwm]Copyright law, the reason we can't have nice things.

Actually, it's the reason we do have nice things.

If no one got paid for what they created, and had no protections from other people ripping you off, no one would bother creating anything. Unless, of course, you're okay with titles like, "Harry Potter and the Magical Fruit" by J.K. Ripoff, or someone taking YOUR stuff and using it for their benefit without cutting you in on it.

So, with that in mind, please allow me to correct you:

Copyright Law: Required by good people, infringed upon and often abused by assholes.

(See the Ars Trademark story the page over between CitiBank and AT&T. Same shit, different people.)

Fair enough, mostly.

But we really need to put firm limits on copyright protections. The original system in the US - which varied, but always granted only a short period of protection, on the order of 14 years with a single renewal available to the still-living original author - was far better than the current mess, which is tangled beyond belief but has inevitably moved toward a granting of copyright in perpetuity to essentially immortal corporations.

I'd propose protections that extent from date of filing to the death of the original author, plus 20 years; and in the case where corporations are the "author," 25 years period. But that's just me.

Honestly the best way is to go back to the old 14+14 but make it an automatic 28 years without the need to reapply. This way you do not need to deal with life+ death. If the author dies after publishing his work his heirs still have x amount of time to cash in on the work.

I would also get rid of the corporation as an author bs. Only humans can author original works... perhaps AI's as well from the looks of things. However that copyright could be assigned to the corporation for the duration of the copyright.

 

[FriedDylan]

Sorry but a chord progression or walk down/up doesn't constitute what they are claiming here. Does it sound similar at the beginning? Well isn't the issue that they are the same? You're telling me I can't walk down the frets of my guitar without fear of breaking this copyright law? Then everyone who's recited the ABC's is in trouble too. Although the ABCs are far more specific.

 

[libertatus]

It seems obvious that the inspiration for the music and lyrics to Stairway To Heaven music is far, far beyond what ever influence Taurus alone could possibly have had. The opening arpeggiation played in that distinctive contrary motion heard on both songs is strikingly similar. Each of the first five chords are essentially the same. In the same key and played in the same position. But that is where the similarities end. Is this enough to show copyright infringement? As someone pointed out earlier in this thread: It is interesting that both bands toured together prior to the advent of Stairway. At least now when you're playing what is clearly the opening lines to Stairway in your local music store and someone complains "Hey, hey! No Stairway!" you can educate them. "Umm... No Stairway here!".

 

[PatColeman]

I am a guitarist and songwriter. I first learned how to play 'Stairway to Heaven' 40 years ago. Except for one little difference between verses, the guitar melody (of the main part of the song) and key are EXACTLY the same. Jimmy Page layered a different vocal melody on top of the famous guitar melody.

I heard about this soon after I learned the song (40 years ago). The original composer of the famous guitar part said then, he would never win against the label power behind Led Zeppelin and told friends to forget about it.

For all of Jimmy Page's undisputed talent as a guitarist (and I think he's better as an arranger and producer), he does have a well documented history of blatant plagiarism.

Take care, all

 

[berrardo]

"Ears don't lie." And the slow, mysterious-sounding plucked arpeggiation of that progression is remarkably alike in both works. On the basis of "My Sweet Lord", Zeppelin would be smart to make a deal out of court.

 

[Da Truff]

There is a simple test. Compare the sheet music of the two songs. Are they identical? If yes, infringement. If not, no infringement.

One song sounding like another song does not equate to infringement. If sounding like is infringement, most music would be in the public domain because the artist(s) who first made that sound is long dead.

 

[bongbong]

They do sound alike, whether you are a fan of Led Zepellin or not, shouldnt make you deaf to this.

I made my housemates listen to them without showing which is which, only the music and they confused each one for the other, saying that is the intro to "Stairway to heaven" and then they follow up saying this
" Why are you playing it over and over again?"

 

[SixDegrees]

gmerrick[/url]":3u7qm0wz]

SixDegrees[/url]":3u7qm0wz]

Fatesrider[/url]":3u7qm0wz]

CQLanik[/url]":3u7qm0wz]Copyright law, the reason we can't have nice things.

Actually, it's the reason we do have nice things.

If no one got paid for what they created, and had no protections from other people ripping you off, no one would bother creating anything. Unless, of course, you're okay with titles like, "Harry Potter and the Magical Fruit" by J.K. Ripoff, or someone taking YOUR stuff and using it for their benefit without cutting you in on it.

So, with that in mind, please allow me to correct you:

Copyright Law: Required by good people, infringed upon and often abused by assholes.

(See the Ars Trademark story the page over between CitiBank and AT&T. Same shit, different people.)

Fair enough, mostly.

But we really need to put firm limits on copyright protections. The original system in the US - which varied, but always granted only a short period of protection, on the order of 14 years with a single renewal available to the still-living original author - was far better than the current mess, which is tangled beyond belief but has inevitably moved toward a granting of copyright in perpetuity to essentially immortal corporations.

I'd propose protections that extent from date of filing to the death of the original author, plus 20 years; and in the case where corporations are the "author," 25 years period. But that's just me.

Honestly the best way is to go back to the old 14+14 but make it an automatic 28 years without the need to reapply. This way you do not need to deal with life+ death. If the author dies after publishing his work his heirs still have x amount of time to cash in on the work.

I would also get rid of the corporation as an author bs. Only humans can author original works... perhaps AI's as well from the looks of things. However that copyright could be assigned to the corporation for the duration of the copyright.

I don't have any problems with authors retaining all rights to their work while they're alive, or for their heirs to do so for a limited period of time afterward. And as far as corporations are concerned: there are huge volumes of work performed for hire, and dumping those immediately into the public domain would have a chilling effect on their production. Again, I have no problem with businesses enjoying the profit from their work, but only for a limited time; it's the perpetual renewals that are troubling. 25 years seems like a workable compromise that serves both corporate and public interests.

 

[SixDegrees]

Da Truff[/url]":11pihj5h]There is a simple test. Compare the sheet music of the two songs. Are they identical? If yes, infringement. If not, no infringement.

One song sounding like another song does not equate to infringement. If sounding like is infringement, most music would be in the public domain because the artist(s) who first made that sound is long dead.

Most rock musicians can't read sheet music, let alone write it.

 

[kzin53]

I got a line on you Spirit. Grasping at straws IMO

 

[kzin53]

bongbong[/url]":2zexanor]They do sound alike, whether you are a fan of Led Zepellin or not, shouldnt make you deaf to this.

I made my housemates listen to them without showing which is which, only the music and they confused each one for the other, saying that is the intro to "Stairway to heaven" and then they follow up saying this
" Why are you playing it over and over again?"

I know this may sound like snark so apologies in advance, but to me your housemates' reaction sounds like tin ear syndrome

 

[Icycomet]

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=spirit%20taurus

True motives revealed!

 

[Korios]

"Randy California, who died in 1977, never seemed litigation-happy at the time, but clearly felt exploited."

Randy California actually died in 1997, while (successfully) rescuing his son from drowning.

 

[Headsoup]

To make the analogy to software...

The descending scale is the API and though similar, Stairway to Heaven and Taurus are two different implementations of it. Therefore, copyright denied.

 

[Res Nullum]

If Vanilla Ice could get off by adding a note to the Under Pressure bassline, then this should be an open-and-shut case for Jimmy Page.

Except he didn’t. Vanilla Ice settled out of court with Queen and David Bowie because the plagiarism was so blatant.

 

[madcynic]

adamrussell[/url]":2ijaj0hr]While I agree that the two songs sound very much different, I thought the same thing (and moreso) about Harrison's My Sweet Lord vs the Chiffon's He's So Fine. And in that case Harrison ended up admitting that it was a plagiarism (though not intentional). So I guess you would have to be a music expert to tell for sure.

What exactly is -unintentional- plagiarism?

 

[technofiler]

SixDegrees[/url]":qf6znbh4]

Fatesrider[/url]":qf6znbh4]

CQLanik[/url]":qf6znbh4]Copyright law, the reason we can't have nice things.

Actually, it's the reason we do have nice things.

If no one got paid for what they created, and had no protections from other people ripping you off, no one would bother creating anything. Unless, of course, you're okay with titles like, "Harry Potter and the Magical Fruit" by J.K. Ripoff, or someone taking YOUR stuff and using it for their benefit without cutting you in on it.

So, with that in mind, please allow me to correct you:

Copyright Law: Required by good people, infringed upon and often abused by assholes.

(See the Ars Trademark story the page over between CitiBank and AT&T. Same shit, different people.)

Fair enough, mostly.

But we really need to put firm limits on copyright protections. The original system in the US - which varied, but always granted only a short period of protection, on the order of 14 years with a single renewal available to the still-living original author - was far better than the current mess, which is tangled beyond belief but has inevitably moved toward a granting of copyright in perpetuity to essentially immortal corporations.

I'd propose protections that extent from date of filing to the death of the original author, plus 20 years; and in the case where corporations are the "author," 25 years period. But that's just me.

Which compared to the current mess is relatively reasonable.

If you look at essentially every form of copyrighted works, after 10 years they have made all the money from it they will ever make from the work. even for things that do continue to make money (eg Harry Potter) it's still fairly minor compared to the original cash flow

 

[Bhairitu]

SixDegrees[/url]":1ujsddqr]

Da Truff[/url]":1ujsddqr]There is a simple test. Compare the sheet music of the two songs. Are they identical? If yes, infringement. If not, no infringement.

One song sounding like another song does not equate to infringement. If sounding like is infringement, most music would be in the public domain because the artist(s) who first made that sound is long dead.

Most rock musicians can't read sheet music, let alone write it.

Depends, most record companies don't like the fans to know that some of these musicians have serious music backgrounds. Some of the 60's rock musicians had classical training and some played jazz. Rock was just a way to make big money. Record companies like Horatio Alger stories to attract foolish young musicians to sign their life away.

 

[kgh]

JCarnage[/url]":2yyelmrx]Interestingly enough; how many people knew of Spirit and their song Taurus, before this lawsuit? This might be the case of "there's no such thing as bad publicity"

After listening to Taurus, I was wishing that I hadn't heard about it from a lawsuit, because I like the music, but I decline to buy anything that I hear about from a lawsuit.

 

[Golgo1]

So as I understand it, the reason they can even file now is that the song is being re-released on a new album. OK, fine, I can understand the reasoning behind that.
But if the case relies strictly on the re-release, shouldn't the damages/royalties demanded also be based only on the re-release?
I have to wonder if it would be worth it financially if that was the case.


And secondly, I want to throw out there... what if this has a plot twist;
What if the whole case is not only to raise awareness of the re-release, but more-so to get tons of page views and links directly to the YouTube page, getting sweet sweet payouts for both groups?
Think of how many links/videos are embedded in articles just like this one. [crazy paranoid emoji]

 

[BloodNinja]

Golgo1[/url]":1gut73w6]So as I understand it, the reason they can even file now is that the song is being re-released on a new album. OK, fine, I can understand the reasoning behind that.
But if the case relies strictly on the re-release, shouldn't the damages/royalties demanded also be based only on the re-release?
I have to wonder if it would be worth it financially if that was the case.


And secondly, I want to throw out there... what if this has a plot twist;
What if the whole case is not only to raise awareness of the re-release, but more-so to get tons of page views and links directly to the YouTube page, getting sweet sweet payouts from both groups?
Think of how many links/videos are embedded in articles just like this one. [crazy paranoid emoji]

Page, Plant and Jones are so unimaginably wealthy already I have a hard time believing a few millions of clicks * some fraction of a $ would make a difference to them.

 

[cpod]

"The litigation begs two key questions."
no. it doesn't.

 

[maltron]

samu0034[/url]":b4eupbta]
Which further led me to:
https://youtu.be/zKpbJ5Kjy2I

The last of which is a classical piece by Italian composer Giovanni Battista Granata, which honestly I find to be more similar to Stairway to Heaven than is Taurus. Again, this doesn't mean that Page didn't get the idea for the intro of Stairway from Taurus, simply that as a musical progression it's been around since at least the 17th century.

I'd be careful with that argument without looking at the sheet music first - a lot of 17th century music was improvised and embellished, and a lot of modern recording artists playing that music try to replicate that, so there's every possibility that Steven Stubbs just added that "Stairway" riff himself.

That said, I still think the lawsuit is rubbish.

 

[brian04280]

To answer the question above, unintentional infringement is creating a work that you believe to be original, because you have consciously forgotten reading/seeing/hearing the material you ripped off. Stephen King did it with one of his stories that a movie was made of, and when called out on it, thought about the story he read as a kid for the first time in years.

Harrison basically said he never noticed how the melodies of My Sweet Love and He's So Fine were identical, but didn't deny it when it was pointed out to him.

Also, the biggest crime here is the idea that a remaster is a "new" infringement. It's the same song. It's like saying that a special edition volume of a book is a new story.

 

[foxyshadis]

SixDegrees[/url]":2q7dm3ln]

gmerrick[/url]":2q7dm3ln]

SixDegrees[/url]":2q7dm3ln]

Fatesrider[/url]":2q7dm3ln]

CQLanik[/url]":2q7dm3ln]Copyright law, the reason we can't have nice things.

Actually, it's the reason we do have nice things.

If no one got paid for what they created, and had no protections from other people ripping you off, no one would bother creating anything. Unless, of course, you're okay with titles like, "Harry Potter and the Magical Fruit" by J.K. Ripoff, or someone taking YOUR stuff and using it for their benefit without cutting you in on it.

So, with that in mind, please allow me to correct you:

Copyright Law: Required by good people, infringed upon and often abused by assholes.

(See the Ars Trademark story the page over between CitiBank and AT&T. Same shit, different people.)

Fair enough, mostly.

But we really need to put firm limits on copyright protections. The original system in the US - which varied, but always granted only a short period of protection, on the order of 14 years with a single renewal available to the still-living original author - was far better than the current mess, which is tangled beyond belief but has inevitably moved toward a granting of copyright in perpetuity to essentially immortal corporations.

I'd propose protections that extent from date of filing to the death of the original author, plus 20 years; and in the case where corporations are the "author," 25 years period. But that's just me.

Honestly the best way is to go back to the old 14+14 but make it an automatic 28 years without the need to reapply. This way you do not need to deal with life+ death. If the author dies after publishing his work his heirs still have x amount of time to cash in on the work.

I would also get rid of the corporation as an author bs. Only humans can author original works... perhaps AI's as well from the looks of things. However that copyright could be assigned to the corporation for the duration of the copyright.

I don't have any problems with authors retaining all rights to their work while they're alive, or for their heirs to do so for a limited period of time afterward. And as far as corporations are concerned: there are huge volumes of work performed for hire, and dumping those immediately into the public domain would have a chilling effect on their production. Again, I have no problem with businesses enjoying the profit from their work, but only for a limited time; it's the perpetual renewals that are troubling. 25 years seems like a workable compromise that serves both corporate and public interests.

Tying it to the author's death is a mess. A single concrete time limit, like 25 or 28 years, is reasonable, and a better balance between the public's and the author's rights, as a contract between the public and the artists. The heirs can enjoy the remainder if the author dies, the author can enjoy it otherwise, and everyone has a definite date they can plan around royalties drying up. Instead of a limited period of rights pressuring creators to not create, in reality it would only pressure them to create more to bridge the gaps, if you assume that most creators even can live off of their creations.

Despite being so much less than life+75, it's not like 25 years is nothing; that's a long time to accumulate royalties, both up-front and long-tail.

It's not like the current copyright regime is actually keeping artists rich into retirement anyway. Take, for instance, Rick Astley, who claims he received a whopping $12 after rickrolling led to tens of millions of views of his song. (Presumably only the record companies benefited, despite not spending a dime on it since the 90's.)

 

[jean-claude monet]

First thing immediately came to mind upon hearing the comparison between Taurus and Stairway was Johnny River's "Summer Rain"--came to mind before Stairway did. Just saying....

 

[StefanC]

Now that the verdict is in, it seems the collective judgement of the Ars hive was correct. There was no plagiarism, but what does this mean for future accusations of plagiarism?

Stefan

 

[y*!|$7v0Qn]

StefanC[/url]":2ilnciot]Now that the verdict is in, it seems the collective judgement of the Ars hive was correct. There was no plagiarism, but what does this mean for future accusations of plagiarism?

Stefan

It means very little. Precedent on plagiarism is all over the place, and this turned largely on the basis that a suit should have been filed decades ago.

 

[DexterL84]

Led Zeppelin my favorite rock band. Stairway to Heaven this track has lived in my brain for many years, probably their best song.