Lawsuit Accusing Led Zeppelin of "Stairway" Theft, Proceeds.

a reply to: Petros312

bratty comments

rational discourse

I believe my discourse has been rational. I'm not sure I can say the same of my interlocutor.

Look, Petros: apart from identifying correctly a rather common blues-rock chord, not one of your alleged 'statements of fact' has been factual. You embarked on your career of errors with your very first post in the thread, when you stated that

The only case I'm familiar with where someone successfully claimed the song violated copyright because it followed the chord progression of another song is George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord."

In fact, as you would have learnt if you had only bothered to read the accompanying link yourself before you posted it, the judgment was not based on chord progressions, because the chords of He's So Fine and My Sweet Lord are not, in fact, the same. It was based on the fact that the two songs are otherwise the same except for the words, Harrison's guitar lick and a middle eight that He's So Fine has and My Sweet Lord lacks. I could post the relevant paragraphs here, but I hesitate to shame you so publicly; go, read, and blush in private. If, however, you insist that what I have said here is untrue, I will post them, and let all of ATS see how you have pretended to knowledge you do not have.

Of your comments regarding the copyright position anent 'traditional' songs and melodies, I have little to add to what I have already said. Your understanding is completely wrong. No-one can claim a traditional work for their own. They can, as you did say, claim credit for the arrangement and obtain royalties accordingly, but there is a convention that applies to such cases, one that will be familiar to anyone who listens to old music: 'Trad./Arr. [Name of Artist]'. Don't tell me you haven't seen it. If the credit for 'Black Mountain Side' had read 'Trad./Arr. Jimmy Page', the accusation of plagiarism from Jansch might have been avoided, though Graham would still have a case. By the way, your statement that 'definition of plagiarism is violation of copyright' is dead wrong. Plagiarism has always existed; copyright, not so much. In fact, plagiarism is not even a legal term. Again, I could cite the necessary sources to prove this, but I will let you consult your dictionary in private, for mercy's sake.

Then, of course, you compared the wrong part of The Lemon Song with Killing Floor. Have you listened to the first twelve bars of the guitar solo yet?

*

Now >sigh< for your Fourteen Indictments, or whatever you call them. I am happy to plead guilty to most of them. I can (but I will not) provide citations for all of those. There are, however, some exceptions:

5. Black Mountain Side was only partly stolen from Bert Jansch's arrangement of Black Waterside; Jimmy slung in a big chunk of Davey Graham's arrangement of She Moves Through The Fair into it, too.

9. I made this claim only in reference to Killing Floor/The Lemon Song. It is probably true for other songs, but we'd have to take it on a case-by-case basis. I certainly have enough musical training (and enough of an ear) to make the relevant judgments.

10. I never said theme and melody are the same thing. I listen to classical music, so I am unlikely to make such an elementary mistake. Revisit the post in question, and see what I actually did say.

12. I never said this either, or anything like it. What you have posted is what you took me to mean. Again, I refer you to my original words, and invite you to consider other possible interpretations. Light may (we hope) dawn.

14. This is a thing called humour. It's a very sad thing for a human being to lack.

Have a nice day, and do try to calm down a bit, for heaven's sake. Go and practice your guitar. I find that always improves my mood.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Petros312
I believe my discourse has been rational.

You mean like this one:

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Petros312
Cool rant. You should set it to music.

and this one:

originally posted by: Astyanax
For the record, my position is that Led Zeppelin... were frightful thieves...

and this:

originally posted by: Astyanax
... James Patrick Page is a notorious miser.

and this:

originally posted by: Astyanax
But I'm not interested in all that. Me, I trust my ears.

and this:

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Petros312
You're just making a special plea because Led Zeppelin are like gods to you and can do no wrong.

THESE STATEMENTS are your idea of a "rational" argument??? At best, you are engaging in confirmation bias, supporting your personal opinions with only the facts that support your conclusion while ignoring any evidence to the contrary.

I repeat:

You make a valuable argument for a sophist, but waste my time with opinions that have very little to do with a fair analysis.

a reply to: Petros312

THESE STATEMENTS are your idea of a "rational" argument?

Yes, of course they are. What's irrational about them? They are derived by reasoning from available facts. The reasoning is logical and can easily be followed by anyone of normal intelligence.

Refusing to face the facts when they are presented to you clearly and unambiguously — now that's irrational.

I think you've said all you have to say, my friend. Time to admit defeat.

Have a good one.

originally posted by: Astyanax
I think you've said all you have to say, my friend. Time to admit defeat.

Admit defeat of what? It's YOU who refuse to even examine a simple transcription of The Lemon Song! And you feel justified to be condescending?

Plus you are completely contradicting yourself, even about supposedly defeating an argument:

Above, my post, regarding your statements and accusations:

originally posted by: Petros312
12. Because the phrase, "Squeeze my lemon until the juice runs down my leg" appears in a song by Robert Johnson, he invented it, and his relatives have a legitimate law suit against Led Zeppelin for having used this one line in The Lemon Song.

Your reply:

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Petros312
12. I never said this either, or anything like it. What you have posted is what you took me to mean. Again, I refer you to my original words, and invite you to consider other possible interpretations. Light may (we hope) dawn.

Directly contradicts this prior statement you made:

originally posted by: Astyanax
By the way, The Lemon Song also steals a lyric from Robert Johnson's Travelling Riverside Blues. The lyric is 'squeeze my lemon till the juice runs down my leg'. Another direct lift, and rather harder to explain away than 'I should have quit you long time ago', no?

Johnson, perhaps fortunately, has no living relatives left to sue on his behalf.

"Defeat" by lies and general sophism? I think not. Most readers will see it too.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Petros312
Refusing to face the facts when they are presented to you clearly and unambiguously — now that's irrational

--Only when indeed it is a matter of fact, but you confound a fact with what is a perverse opinion, in perfect line with a sophist's form of "reasoning."

Prime example:

originally posted by: Astyanax
You fail to take into account the fact that James Patrick Page is a notorious miser. This is the man who once walked into a music shop on Shaftesbury Avenue and tried to get a discount on half a dozen guitar picks on the grounds that he was a 'student'. Stairway to Heaven was already a hit by this time.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: randyvs
...you may be sure that Jimmy 'Led Wallet' Page, a notorious miser and the controller of Led Zeppelin's business machine, would have refused to part with a penny.

You are not presenting any great "fact" to support your accusation of Jimmy Page being a "notorious miser." It may be the norm to YOU to judge someone so harshly by a single trivial event, but anyone who is genuinely interested in reasoning according to facts does NOT do any of the following:

1. Overgeneralize (i.e., from one event we can now make general assumptions about a person)

2. Confirmation Bias (i.e., as if you know the guy personally, you focus on a trivial event that supposedly "proves" Jimmy Page is a miser with no consideration for anything he did in his entire life that indicated a degree of altruism.)

3. Resort to condescending replies to a person who challenges your opinion.

You try setting up Led Zeppelin as "notorious thieves" right in your first post:

originally posted by: Astyanax
For the record, my position is that Led Zeppelin, one of my favourite bands, were frightful thieves, but what they stole was mostly utter dross, which they transformed into gold.

But you never support with any great fact that Led Zep actually stole a song like The Lemon Song. In fact, you contradict your own accusation by admitting:

originally posted by: Astyanax
Although the back cover of my ancient copy of Led Zeppelin II credits the song to 'Jimmy Page, Robert Plant, John Paul Jones and John Bonham', the label on the record unambiguously credits the song to 'Burnett' — alone. Howlin' Wolf's real name was Chester Burnett.

Clearly, if after all this, you somehow believe that you WIN in some kind of argument based on rational discourse it's only further evidence that you 1) rely on deceit to argue your point, 2) confound being skilled at rhetoric with stating actual facts, and 3) have as your primary goal from the start to win an argument by any means. That's the same general school of thought as a sophist.

a reply to: Petros312

Irrationality. Self-contradiction. Deceit. Sophistry. Lies.

Wow.

All because I happen to disagree with you about the artistic integrity of a multimillionaire whose reputation as a plagiarist is already well established, who has already been obliged by legal pressure to acknowledge his creative debt to others not on just one occasion, but on several, and whose revenue stream will not be impeded in the slightest by this discussion.

Is that what you call rational?

The facts about Jimmy Page's magpie career have already been well established in this thread. As for Page's miserliness, I suggest you read Hammer of the Gods, or google Anton LaVey's remarks about him on the Internet, or trawl through the archives of Q magazine, wherein you will find the story about the guitar picks. Led Wallet, incidentally, was Peter Grant's name for Jimmy.

Not to mention: Google search: "jimmy page"+tightwad

I don't suppose I need to tell you who Peter Grant was?

What happened with the Miles Davis famous Saxophone improvisation that was used in the opening scenes by LISA for the Simpsons TV series? Was that a friendly sharing of intellectual property or did Fox buy Davis book?

Was that right?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Petros312
Irrationality. Self-contradiction. Deceit. Sophistry. Lies.
Wow.
All because I happen to disagree with you about the artistic integrity of a multimillionaire whose reputation as a plagiarist is already well established...

You forgot condescending. But no, It's certainly not because you "happen to disagree" with me, and readers will know the issue is far more involved than this, particularly given you refuse an examination of a song like The Lemon Song beyond those trusty unbiased ears of yours.

originally posted by: Astyanax
The facts about Jimmy Page's magpie career have already been well established in this thread...

It doesn't "well establish" a fact to keep repeating that some fact has been well established. Your concept of "well-established" is to present one trivial event from the guy's whole life that somehow justifies a condemnation of his whole career. It's nothing but a bold opinion. You can't possibly believe that you're privileged to the extent that you can just casually condemn someone you know so little about. Oh but I forgot, the new trend is to trash multimillion dollar musicians who supposedly owe their careers to people who the world would never have heard of if it wasn't for bands like Led Zeppelin.

originally posted by: Astyanax
I don't suppose I need to tell you who Peter Grant was?

I don't suppose I need to tell you that Peter Grant would just tell you to F -off. He had no tolerance for people attempting to exploit Led Zep in one way or another.

I hear a section of the Tauras song has that same repetitive stepping up sequence the same as in the Led zep song. The Led zep song does however have other sequences in it that don't appear in Tauras song. They are different songs but I can see what bugs Taurus is that the most tell tale part of the Led song comes from that short guitar progression, everyone knows it by that signature. I would take a speculative guess Page may of heard the Taurus song and thought see if I can copy that sequence and the Led song simply grew from there and that does make sense. That would mean if true the Led song never would of been made with the Tauras song.

The court case will be interesting to see what finally is decided.

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
I hear a section of the Tauras song has that same repetitive stepping up sequence the same as in the Led zep song. The Led zep song does however have other sequences in it that don't appear in Tauras song. They are different songs but I can see what bugs Taurus is that the most tell tale part of the Led song comes from that short guitar progression, everyone knows it by that signature. I would take a speculative guess Page may of heard the Taurus song and thought see if I can copy that sequence and the Led song simply grew from there and that does make sense. That would mean if true the Led song never would of been made with the Tauras song.

Just about every single popular song has as a "tell tale" signature the first few bars of the song. Every single part of "Stairway to Heaven," including the melody sung by Robert Plant, is completely absent from the song "Taurus" except for the presence of what is basically a minor chord with a descending bass line played as an arpeggio. In Stairway, this chord pattern may show up at the start of the song, but it's a stretch to say that without this starting point the song would have never evolved into something completely unlike the Taurus song. There are other "tell tale" sections of Stairway (like the guitar solo at the end or Robert Plant's last a cappella line). What lawyers for Randy California must do is establish that one section of his composition is completely original, that this section was intentionally lifted to become part of "Stairway to Heaven," and its presence is substantial enough to have partly authored the song, which now means he deserves a portion of royalty fees.



If the case is not dismissed, let's hope in the interest of justice the judge is not so biased he or she would make a statement like, "Had Led Zeppelin not started their song with a similar chord progression that appears in one part of the song "Taurus" the rest of 'Stairway to Heaven' would never have been created." No court of law can genuinely determine this. Let's hope when Randy's lawyers try to establish that Jimmy Page is a "notorious miser" to smear his character it's not allowable as evidence that he's guilty of copyright infringement. Let's hope the judge doesn't declare, "Well, since Led Zeppelin stole from Robert Johnson the line, 'Squeeze my lemon until the juice runs down my leg,' I can only conclude that they also stole the music to Stairway to Heaven."

But then some people don't want what is justice, and they have the desire to see a bunch of famous people who managed to make millions from their music fall flat on their faces.

a reply to: Petros312

you refuse an examination of a song like The Lemon Song

How many times do you need to be told you're comparing the wrong parts?

Transcribe the first twelve bars of Killing Floor. Transcribe the first twelve bars of the guitar solo in The Lemon Song. Look at them side by side. Tell us what you see.

It doesn't "well establish" a fact to keep repeating that some fact has been well established.

Of course it does not. But if you read back through the thread you will find plenty of references and links to successful lawsuits and threats thereof that caused Led Zeppelin to change the attribution of several well-known songs in their catalogue. Hard evidence, that is to say. And hard evidence is how a fact becomes well established.

Here. From this post

Here. From this post.

Here. From this post

If you looked at those links, why are you accusing me of lies and deceit? If you didn't look at them, but insist on denying the facts all the same, you've got a nerve calling me irrational.

Clearly, you're not a man for facing the facts until they are rubbed in your face. Very well. Here are the facts, taken from the Wikipedia entry on musical plagiarism. Let's see what you make of them.

• On Led Zeppelin's album Led Zeppelin II (1969), parts of the song "Bring It On Home" were copied from Sonny Boy Williamson's 1963 recording of "Bring It On Home," written by Willie Dixon. On the same album, "The Lemon Song" included an adaptation of Howlin' Wolf's "Killing Floor." In 1972, Arc Music, the publishing arm of Chess Records, brought a lawsuit against Led Zeppelin for copyright infringement over "Bring It On Home" and "The Lemon Song"; the case was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.
  
  
• Led Zeppelin's song "Whole Lotta Love" contained lyrics that were derivative of Willie Dixon's 1962 song "You Need Love." In 1985, Dixon filed a copyright infringement suit, resulting in an out-of-court settlement. Later pressings of Led Zeppelin II credit Dixon as co-writer.
  
  
• Led Zeppelin also paid a settlement to the publisher of Ritchie Valens' song "Ooh! My Head" over "Boogie with Stu" (from their album Physical Graffiti) which borrowed heavily from Valens' song.
  
  
• Led Zeppelin's song "Dazed and Confused" was derived from a 1967 Jake Holmes song of the same name, which had been performed by Jimmy Page when he was with The Yardbirds. In June 2010, Holmes filed a lawsuit against the guitarist for copyright infringement in a United States District Court, claiming Page knowingly copied his work. The case was dismissed with prejudice in January 2012 following a stipulation filed by both parties. The 2012 Led Zeppelin release Celebration Day credits the song to "Jimmy Page, inspired by Jake Holmes".
  
  
• The song "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You" by Led Zeppelin was thought to be a traditional song and was credited as "Trad. arr. Page" but it was actually written by folk singer Anne Bredon. Since 1990, the Led Zeppelin version has credited with Bredon, who received a substantial back-payment in royalties.

By the way, I think Jimmy Page and Led Zeppelin are great. He's pretty much my favourite guitarist and they're pretty much my favourite band. I think Page is an original and inspired musician, composer and producer. He uses other people's songs as building-blocks for his compositions, which is fine, but he doesn't like sharing the royalties, which is not fine.

It doesn't really make a big difference to me: I am not the one being ripped off by Led Zeppelin; on the contrary, I have gained a great deal from my exposure to and embrace of their music. But facts are facts, and must be faced. I trust you're facing them now. Don't be so quick to call other people liars in future.

Jimmy Page is a known pedophile and so is his buddy Roy Harper...

...one of my favorite bands of all time, but when I really did the research....

...ruined Jimmy page for me...

a reply to: Vaedur

I hear the sound of worms being uncanned.

Not getting into any arguments on this one, except to point out that nothing has yet been proved against either of them.

Harper's trial was supposed to have been in August this year, but I haven't heard anything yet — possibly because the trial is still in progress and comment at this stage would be prohibited under the sub judice rule. We'll have to wait and see. Some of his lyrics from way back are pretty explicit on the subject, but a lyric is not necessarily a signed confession.

Regarding Page, no specific accusation has been brought against him by any of his alleged 'victims' as far as I know. Lori Maddox, the best-known of his underage conquests, is apparently quite happy to let the matter go, even though Page dumped her and she isn't exactly rich.

a reply to: Astyanax

ive heard stories about page and the others...exploits of them on tour that involved ladies private areas and a mudshark
kind of turned me off to them....of course i dont know if it is true and i dont remember which book it was in but eeh.


www.rollingstone.com... -19691231

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Petros312

you refuse an examination of a song like The Lemon Song

How many times do you need to be told you're comparing the wrong parts?

Transcribe the first twelve bars of Killing Floor. Transcribe the first twelve bars of the guitar solo in The Lemon Song. Look at them side by side. Tell us what you see.

I'll tell you what I don't see:

originally posted by: Astyanax
I listen to The Lemon Song and I hear Howlin' Wolf's Killing Floor.

I don't see anywhere you admit you were wrong for making this statement, which undoubtedly means the two songs sound the same. In fact, I see you continuing on your quest to prove Led Zeppelin stole this song as a logical conclusion of some kind because Jimmy Page supposedly stole the first 12 bars of the solo for "Killing Floor" and put them into the guitar solo for The Lemon Song. This is known as "deceit."

I'm not wasting my time transcribing something for a person who obviously can't read music. It's not me who needs to learn something from this exercise. You can go back to your posts condemning the Beach Boys for a perfect example of your inability to discern what is and what is not the same piece of music. If anybody's interested: www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Astyanax
...if you read back through the thread you will find plenty of references and links to successful lawsuits and threats thereof that caused Led Zeppelin to change the attribution of several well-known songs in their catalogue. Hard evidence, that is to say.

Not "hard evidence" of the band being GUILTY of plagiarism! It's evidence the band were dealt several law suits ACCUSED of plagiarism. You are confounding being accused with being guilty. But look at yet ANOTHER convenient alteration you make to your twisted rhetoric. First you say:

originally posted by: Astyanax
If you know about these [court] cases, you cannot be in any doubt that Led Zeppelin plagiarized a lot of their material.

And now you say:

originally posted by: Astyanax
...if you read back through the thread you will find plenty of references and links to successful lawsuits and threats thereof that caused Led Zeppelin to change the attribution of several well-known songs in their catalogue.

A sophist says "a lot" instead of "several" as deceit to be convincing. In truth, these are two different claims. When made by the same person, it's a contradiction.

But more importantly, you are not "rubbing" any great "fact" in my face that supports your accusation that Led Zeppelin are "frightful thieves" who stole other people's music even if you posted links to hundreds of examples of court cases against the band. Of the ones you post and then authoritatively call "hard evidence" against the band, you include the ones that were either 1) unsuccessful, or 2) settled out of court, which do NOT "prove" the band was guilty of any copyright infringement! The reason you can't understand this is because your INTENTION is something like a smear campaign. If the band was challenged with litigation it could ONLY mean they must have stolen somebody's music. Of course, when you also use the kind of "hard evidence" that Page is an obvious miser (just Google it was your advice?) it only follows logically that the band were "frightful thieves." Rubbish.

a reply to: Astyanax


Umm Lori Maddox was 14 when they started dating Rolling Stone and not all victims of statutory rape complain.

a reply to: CardiffGiant

Hammer of the gods I think the book is.

a reply to: Vaedur

I'm aware that Maddox was 14 at the time. She isn't any more, and she still isn't complaining. My hat is off to Ms. Maddox; she has style.

*

a reply to: Petros312

I don't see anywhere you admit you were wrong for making this statement.

That is because I am right.

Go.

And.

Listen.

To.

The.

Songs.

And then transcribe them, if you need to — if the near-identity between those sections is not immediately bleeding obvious to you.

Now: why, if they believed themselves innocent of wrongdoing, did Led Zeppelin make all those out-of-court settlements, pay out all that money and change the writing credits on all those songs?

If you actually bothered to follow the link (but you never do, do you?), you would have discovered that all but one the examples I presented were from the section on that Wikipedia page headed 'Successful suits and settlements'. Got that? Successful. An out-of-court settlement in favour of the plaintiff means the plaintiff won.

Now what's your excuse going to be? That the judge was in the pay of the Rolling Stones?

originally posted by: Astyanax
Here are the facts, taken from the Wikipedia entry on musical plagiarism. Let's see what you make of them.

On Led Zeppelin's album Led Zeppelin II (1969), parts of the song "Bring It On Home" were copied from Sonny Boy Williamson's 1963 recording of "Bring It On Home," written by Willie Dixon. On the same album, "The Lemon Song" included an adaptation of Howlin' Wolf's "Killing Floor." In 1972, Arc Music, the publishing arm of Chess Records, brought a lawsuit against Led Zeppelin for copyright infringement over "Bring It On Home" and "The Lemon Song"; the case was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.

Led Zeppelin's song "Whole Lotta Love" contained lyrics that were derivative of Willie Dixon's 1962 song "You Need Love." In 1985, Dixon filed a copyright infringement suit, resulting in an out-of-court settlement. Later pressings of Led Zeppelin II credit Dixon as co-writer.

Led Zeppelin also paid a settlement to the publisher of Ritchie Valens' song "Ooh! My Head" over "Boogie with Stu" (from their album Physical Graffiti) which borrowed heavily from Valens' song.

Led Zeppelin's song "Dazed and Confused" was derived from a 1967 Jake Holmes song of the same name, which had been performed by Jimmy Page when he was with The Yardbirds. In June 2010, Holmes filed a lawsuit against the guitarist for copyright infringement in a United States District Court, claiming Page knowingly copied his work. The case was dismissed with prejudice in January 2012 following a stipulation filed by both parties. The 2012 Led Zeppelin release Celebration Day credits the song to "Jimmy Page, inspired by Jake Holmes".

The song "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You" by Led Zeppelin was thought to be a traditional song and was credited as "Trad. arr. Page" but it was actually written by folk singer Anne Bredon. Since 1990, the Led Zeppelin version has credited with Bredon, who received a substantial back-payment in royalties.

Case 1: Lawsuit for "Bring it on Home" and "The Lemon Song' settled out of court. That's not successfully proving plagiarism.

Case 2: Lawsuit for "Whole Lotta Love" settled out of court. That's not successfully proving copyright infringment. The band gave credit to Willie Dixon anyway.

Case 3: Lawsuit for "Boogie with Stu" source says the band "paid a settlement to the publisher," which is unclear if a court case was involved that successfully showed the band was guilty of plagiarism.

Case 4: Lawsuit against Dazed and Confused. The case was dismissed, so nobody could have possibly successfully shown that Led Zeppelin was guilty of plagiarism. The band gave credit to another song that Holmes inspired.

Case 5: Babe I'm Gonna Leave You. Apparently the band thought this was a traditional song, which does not constitute intentionally stealing a song. Looks like the author was successful at getting both credit and royalties due, but certainly this case cannot provide sufficient evidence for the bold claim that Led Zeppelin were "frightful thieves."

The more you continue down your road of sophistry, the more it will be revealed you are lost. You have the option to reconsider your line of sophist reasoning (not to be confused with being defeated in some way), which could bring this argument to a nice end, but apparently you see no need to on the simplistic grounds that can be summed up in your own words:

originally posted by: Astyanax
That is because I am right.

Go.

And.

Listen.

To.

The.

Songs.

So, I see you deleted a post just prior to your latest one above claiming the "hard evidence" you presented was all based on SUCCESSFUL court cases. I have shown above that's not true. I hope your deletion is a good sign, but of course I have reason to doubt a person who has provided evidence of a basic sophist argument.