link
For being a person who does not 'do the internet', he seems to have been coached quite well by internet trolls and YT commenters.
For those who can use a recap: some people 'Stairway to Heaven' clearly rips-off the song 'Taurus' by Spirit. One of those people finally decided to sue, and now they're on trial.
Two days ago, Jimmy took the stand and the process allegedly went something like this:
- Jimmy says he'd never heard the song before a couple of years ago.
- Evidence proves he owned the album the song comes from.
- Jimmy says he owns a gazillion albums and hasn't necessarily listened to every track on all of them.
- The point is made that he admitted being a Spirit fan.
- Jimmy says he could've been misquoted.
- A recorded interview is played where he (or someone who can do his voice and accent) claims to be a fan.
- Part of an old Zep concert is played, where Jimmy covers a riff from a Spirit song from the same album; since the song wasn't released as a single, he had to have heard it on the album, therefore disproving his earlier allegations.
- A point is made that Zeppelin opened Spirit.
- Jimmy says he didn't even know.
All in all, if he and Plant get a free pass this time, they defo have some really clever lawyers.
I sort of get that the disputed part is a common chord progression but the latest plagiarism story involving Ed Sheeran, well that, IS a blatant, shameless copy of the song he is accused of ripping off...
There is a similarity at the start of the song but even that bit isn't exactly the same. Then the songs diverge and are completely different. This is about lawyers' fees and nothing to do with music.
Holly2003 wrote:
There is a similarity at the start of the song but even that bit isn't exactly the same. Then the songs diverge and are completely different. This is about lawyers' fees and nothing to do with music.
Going home on transit from work: hence too tired to research on mobile phone.
BUT!(!)
this is about one of the key band members dying (I think it was the guitarist) and his family having heard his story over and over and him not willing to contest it.
They wanted to honor him posthumously by requesting a songwriting credit on the song (*this is me paraphrasing the story when it hit a few YEARS ago)
Given that it DOES cost an arm and a leg to wage a battle against a hugely POPULAR and successful band, this explanation would seem the only reason. For his honor.
It costs a ton, Much like Willie Dixon getting his credit, Theywant his name to go down in history and to be ACKNOWLEDGED .
Sure, there's money involved. I'm certain they've made bargaining an option and have prefaced their legal argument to try and demand FINANCIAL EARNINGS PAST and PRESENT in order for this to reach mediation instead and result in a compromise.
You sue for 80 million. ... get 400 thousand. That's typically how it works
Holly2003 wrote:
There is a similarity at the start of the song but even that bit isn't exactly the same. Then the songs diverge and are completely different. This is about lawyers' fees and nothing to do with music.
Going home on transit from work: hence too tired to research on mobile phone.
BUT!(!)
this is about one of the key band members dying (I think it was the guitarist) and his family having heard his story over and over and him not willing to contest it.
They wanted to honor him posthumously by requesting a songwriting credit on the song (*this is me paraphrasing the story when it hit a few YEARS ago)
Given that it DOES cost an arm and a leg to wage a battle against a hugely POPULAR and successful band, this explanation would seem the only reason. For his honor.
It costs a ton, Much like Willie Dixon getting his credit, Theywant his name to go down in history and to be ACKNOWLEDGED .
Sure, there's money involved. I'm certain they've made bargaining an option and have prefaced their legal argument to try and demand FINANCIAL EARNINGS PAST and PRESENT in order for this to reach mediation instead and result in a compromise.
You sue for 80 million. ... get 400 thousand. That's typically how it works
Led Zeppelin were very well known plagiarists, basically every good song they did was ehm "inspired" by an older song.
A couple of random examples of other songs they "borrowed" from: link
They turned a lame song into something memorable. When all of the parties concerned are dead and buried, that's what'll be left behind. Anything else is just a waste of a court's time.
Holly2003 wrote:
There is a similarity at the start of the song but even that bit isn't exactly the same. Then the songs diverge and are completely different. This is about lawyers' fees and nothing to do with music.
This is literally everything anyone needs to know about this. All else is noise.
And it'll never be a fair trial for musicians because the judge is never a musician. If they win, it's sheer luck.
bobo the chimp wrote:
They turned a lame song into something memorable. When all of the parties concerned are dead and buried, that's what'll be left behind. Anything else is just a waste of a court's time.
If only corporate greed didn't exist, this would indeed be all that matters.
Lawyers are slowly destroying the music business. Nobody really knows this, but this is why Stevie Wonder doesn't put out new records anymore. He's out there listening to new music constantly and writes new songs every day, but he and his label are terrified of a lawsuit. He even has control of his own publishing, but that's just to protect his old songs. He can't do anything new.