Led Zeppelin to Face Retrial Over ‘Stairway’

Yeah, I don't see how the recordings are in any way relevant to this issue anyway, but so many people seem to think that if the jury just heard the recordings back to back the scales would fall from their eyes and they'd KNOW that Page stole it. It's silly.

 

It was obvious from the first trial that the plaintiffs were attempting to use non-copyrightable similarities (speed, tone, instrument choice, etc.) to prove that Zep copied "Taurus". The judge repeatedly instructed the jury that these aspects could not be used to render a verdict, and he did not allow "Taurus" to be played in court because it contained elements which were not part of the copyright law.

However, the appeals court ruling has changed things slightly. The judge will now be required to tell the jury, "You still CAN'T use speed/tone/instrument choice to determine if the songs are similar, but you CAN use those things to determine if Page or Plant had 'access' to 'Taurus'."

In theory, this ruling doesn't change things too much, because the original jury had already determined that Page/Plant did indeed have access to "Taurus".

In order to win a copyright case, the jury must conclude that you've proven one of two things:

1. the new song is "strikingly similar" to the original. (i.e., the entire song was copied)

2. the new song is "substantially similar" to the original (i.e., substantial portions of the song were copied), AND the defendant had "access" to the original recording.

In the first trial, the jury ruled that Page/Plant DID have access to "Taurus", but that "Stairway" was NOT substantially similar to it.

It seems likely that a new jury would come to the same conclusion.

However, the appeals court ruling opens up the possibility that the jury could be unduly influenced (by things which are not copyrightable) to render a verdict that "Stairway" is substantially similar to "Taurus".

(And if that happens, I suspect that Zep would then file an appeal of their own.)

 

The one good thing that has come out of this trial for me is, I bought the first Spirit album just to hear Taurus. Ended up buying 3 more albums because I liked the band so much, and became a fan. I still think the trial is stupid.

 

its total BS. its anti success.

 

I think I know why Percy hates this song, and dislikes performing it.

 

Cough * Blurred Lines * cough. That ruling opened up the door to the (copyright) troll dungeon.

 

if the Led Zep Stairway to Heaven had bombed-and I wish it had as its the one Led Zep song I dont
like-nobody would have sued, or questioned authorship.

 

Oooooh, it makes me wonder...

 

I spent some time with Randy California circa 1996-97 so I know this thing is bs.

 

Except that Blurred Lines is a straight rip.

 

He's performed it twice in the last thirty years, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. If I was posting this in 1988, you'd have a very good point.

 

I don't know if he hates it, I remember he talked on his recent Dan Rather interview about the song and mentioned how the instrumentals were amazing and classic Zep, just he felt some of the lyrics were "of the time". He mentioned that back during the 2012 press junkets for Celebration Day too, him not digging some of the lyrics young Robert Plant wrote. I would assume that mixed with how overplayed and how media-centered that song is contributes to him picking other material he would rather sing

I don't know if the trial or the "alleged similarities" between these two songs have ever had any relevance to that

 

Nobody ever listened to Led Zep for the lyrics. Maybe that still gets at Robert to some degree. I think the lyrics to Stairway fit the music and melody perfectly.

 

"Blurred Lines" is a ripoff...but not plagiarism.

 

Say what?

 

But... Whatever Plant was singing always fit the essence of the musical content (ie. No Quarter). Even the Living Loving Maid lyrics made some sense... Robert eriting style always left some opened doors for self interptetation.

 

Oh yeah. It's just that Zep wasn't a "lyrics first" band. It was more about the riffs and the sound of Robert's voice, which was always different. He never sounded the same from album to album. He eventually did write lyrics that were intriguing, but it took a while for him to get the hang of it.

 

"Blurred Lines" is a only a rip-off of tempo and woodblock hits. Other than those elements, it has very little in common with "Got To Give It Up".

 

Except that the first time I heard it, I heard Got To Give It Up in my head within five seconds. But yeah, other than that, no similarities at all.

 

Not enough, in my opinion, to meet standards of plagiarism. It was a horrible outcome for that case that it was considered so. The two songs are so substantively different; the latter is not a replica of the former.

 

Imagine the song without the percussion, and see if you can come to the same conclusion.

 

When my daughter first played me Blurred Lines to see what I thought of it, I thought it was a remix of Got To Give It Up.

 

Whenever I hear that "Hey Mickey You're So Fine" song start up on the radio I heard "Cum On Feel The Noize" in my head within 5 seconds, however doesn't mean it is theft because the drum groove and feel is the same

The Blurred Lines case coincided with my last couple semesters of college and I remember my music publishing course Professor as well as my advanced harmonic concepts Professor having major objections to that ruling. Just like a descending A Minor arpeggio played on an acoustic guitar (Stairway), if drum grooves and chord progressions alone can be copyrighted, there would be no room left for anyone to ever write anything without having to pay royalties to someome who came before them

 

I think it fits perfectly too. I just remember Robert sounding almost embarrased in the 2012 press junket about the lyrics he wrote, and the Dan Rather interview made it more clear about him not digging the words 20-something Plant set to that wonderful melody

 

I get the argument, but everybody hears Marvin's tune, then Blurred Lines, and concludes that they sound the same. It's not like they're show tunes, where the lyrics and melody are the central elements. I do understand you can't copyright variations on samba, reggae, or songo rhythms (for instance), or a clave pattern, but I don't see GTGIU/Blurred Lines as being that generic, rhythmically.

And sure, your Professors probably wish they could have made serious money lifting a Marvin Gaye groove, "writing" a "new" song around it, and creating a buzz with a video full of beautiful girls with very little clothing on. Pretty sound business plan, eh?

Back to Stairway...that arpeggio ascends and descends simultaneously, then Stairway goes all kinds of places Taurus doesn't even hint at. But who knows? If it goes to a jury, it just depends on how dumb the jury is.