Led Zeppelin lose Stairway lawsuit round 1

[Wengr]

Originally Posted by KevWind

The point of the 8 notes and cadence, standard I presume was to establish if a melodic phrase is actually the same for a long enough period of time to be recognizable as "the same", as opposed to merely similar in some aspects. I do not believe it is used to establish opportunity for being aware of someone else's work. I believe that "opportunity to be aware of the copied work " is a second point of law that must also be established .

Consider also that I am not an attorney. I have studied a number of such cases and this is what I understand to be going on.

Also to clarify I am not defending as valid, only stating that is what has been used for legal determination.

Thanks, very helpful. I just listened to it again, and while I have yet to actually put the guitar to it, I don't suspect there are actually 8 successive notes that are exactly the same.

[MikeBmusic]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

Not that Zep didn't add a TON to the arrangement, but the bones are all right there. LZ might be my favorite band of all time, but come on.

It's a minor chord with 5-note descending bass line, not a melody - if anything LZ added the melody with the top stringed part (which the Spirit song does not have). You can find that same minor chord/descending bass pattern in a number of songs including Johnny River's Rhythm of the Rain and Chim-chim-cheree from Mary Poppins!
The end of StH - Am-G-F: might as well say they stole that from Dylan's All Along the Watchtower! Might be a fun mash-up to do live!

This whole law suit is just Randy California's family - and their lawyers - trying to make some money from Led Zep, probably hoping - as usually happens in these big $$ cases - that an out-of-court settlement will happen to save money (for LZ) in the long run.
If Randy California thought he had been ripped off, wouldn't he have started the suit process back when StH first came out? He didn't, and that should be the final argument.

[Wengr]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

Not that Zep didn't add a TON to the arrangement, but the bones are all right there. LZ might be my favorite band of all time, but come on.

I'm surprised to hear someone describe the situation as LZ adding to the Spirit arrangement. The phrase in question is one portion of Taurus, and it's simply one portion of SWTH. What about all the other portions? The progression under the solo, the D to Dsus4 bit, etc? Why assume that the descending phrase in question is somehow more important?
And even if you and/or a majority of people feel that it is the signature phrase of the piece, then that is a matter of public perception, and I don't see how LZ or any defendant should be held liable for a public opinion.

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by Wengr

I'm surprised to hear someone describe the situation as LZ adding to the Spirit arrangement. The phrase in question is one portion of Taurus, and it's simply one portion of SWTH. What about all the other portions? The progression under the solo, the D to Dsus4 bit, etc? Why assume that the descending phrase in question is somehow more important?
And even if you and/or a majority of people feel that it is the signature phrase of the piece, then that is a matter of public perception, and I don't see how LZ or any defendant should be held liable for a public opinion.

I'm struggling to understand who is suggesting that. I think they stole the intro, which is to me the core of the song. Simply an opinion. Disagree? No worries.

I think trying to argue the legal points here is silly.

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by MikeBmusic

This whole law suit is just Randy California's family - and their lawyers - trying to make some money from Led Zep, probably hoping - as usually happens in these big $$ cases - that an out-of-court settlement will happen to save money (for LZ) in the long run.
If Randy California thought he had been ripped off, wouldn't he have started the suit process back when StH first came out? He didn't, and that should be the final argument.

Could be. Sounds like the people who had a chance to examine it with all the facts felt differently. I don't know enough about the case to comment on "Randy California's" (Come on, is that really his name? Hilarious) motives. Nor am I a mind reader. I certainly don't have a dog in this fight.

All I'm saying is that it seems fairly obvious that they plagiarized the intro riff, which is to me the song.

[Wengr]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

I'm struggling to understand who is suggesting that. I think they stole the intro, which is to me the core of the song. Simply an opinion. Disagree? No worries.

I think trying to argue the legal points here is silly.

Well I understood you to say that LZ added a ton to the arrangement, as if the part in question is somehow the arrangement. But it's not the arrangement.
And considering the legal points in a civil court action seems about right to me.

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by Wengr

Well I understood you to say that LZ added a ton to the arrangement, as if the part in question is somehow the arrangement. But it's not the arrangement.
And considering the legal points in a civil court action seems about right to me.

I guess my musical vocabulary isn't what it could be. Arrangement definitely not the right word.

[Wengr]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

I guess my musical vocabulary isn't what it could be. Arrangement definitely not the right word.

Ok gotcha. There is something very odd to me about the concept of trying to craft law in such a way as to be congruent to typical music practices. Seems impossible.

[jmat]

Originally Posted by 815C

Both Spirit and Zeppelin ripped off Chim-Chimminee from Mary Poppins Pretty much the same chord progression.

Funny...I will give that a go tonight. Bouncy little number.

Also 'feelings' ...nothing more than feelings. And someone's funny Valentine. And a few Beatles tunes.

Taurus-es come around and go around. that last bit was funny, to me, in a mathematical sense. It may have been said before, if not, call me for copyright use.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Wengr

Thanks, very helpful. I just listened to it again, and while I have yet to actually put the guitar to it, I don't suspect there are actually 8 successive notes that are exactly the same.

As I stated in a prior post IMO I thought it sounded similar for 5 notes then changed pretty significantly. Now unless the plaintiffs lawyer can somehow pull off that amount of similarity as being enough to be considered as copied ? I think that the case is weak or iffy at best.

[MikeBmusic]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

Could be. Sounds like the people who had a chance to examine it with all the facts felt differently. I don't know enough about the case to comment on "Randy California's" (Come on, is that really his name? Hilarious) motives. Nor am I a mind reader. I certainly don't have a dog in this fight.

All I'm saying is that it seems fairly obvious that they plagiarized the intro riff, which is to me the song.

That was his stage name (check any Spirit album!), from the law suit info, it was Randall Wolfe.

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by MikeBmusic

That was his stage name (check any Spirit album!), from the law suit info, it was Randall Wolfe.

Thanks. It makes me smile. So cheesy.

[Rondoraymundo]

Here is a simple test folks, you do it yourself:

Listen to "He's So Fine" by the Chiffons
And
"My Sweet Lord" by George Harrison

Then listen to the LZ and Spirit songs and decide if they approache the same level of "alike".

To me, it's obvious Page ripped the riff, but it's not obvious if it's infringement....but it's close enough to call in the lawyers.