6 ms·

Zeppelin have long been known to be notorious plagiarists: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/led-zeppelins-10-boldest-rip-offs-223419/ https://www.

Zeppelin have long been known to be notorious plagiarists: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/led-zeppelins-10-boldest-rip-offs-223419/ https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/led-zeppelins-...

agumonkey 7y ago
I think I saw a news recently that they've been dismissed for gateway to heaven
- klodolph 7y ago
  Stairway is not a ripoff of Taurus and it never was going to be, but there are plenty of other accusations against Led Zeppelin that are more credible. I have Spirit’s eponymous album, the part in question that is “ripped off” is so basic and found in so many songs you’d die before you could list them all. (FYI—You the news you “think you saw recently” is in the linked article above the fold, which features a photo of Robert Plant right next to the headline.)
  - Applejinx 7y ago
    Stairway to Heaven has contrary motion in the top voice of the guitar arpeggio, which I consider a really substantial change. They did grab lots of blues songs, occasionally gave some form of credit, otherwise not. It's an interesting question: blues is mostly delivery, so if you take a concept like 'lemon' or 'leave me' and deliver it in shrieky overwrought British rock star fashion, aren't you rewriting it, perhaps significantly? You can't copyright the pentatonic scale. It'd be like someone copyrighting the monotonic drone and then filing suit against half of EDM. I performed for a livestream recently and used a riff from Plastikman 'Marbles', except that riff is only note-note-rest-note-note-rest repeated infinitely on one note. Part of it is the tone and context, and I wasn't cloning that, just the way the extremely brief three-note chunk cycles over a 4/4 beat. Plagiarism? Plagiarism because I know of 'Marbles' and found it inspiring? What if I picked a simple repeating pulse because I'd heard that in some minimal techno, and intentionally did my own take on that because I'd liked it?
- coldcode 7y ago
  the one riff is vaguely similar, but the Taurus song includes a simple descending riff that sounds like something from a guitar intro book. All music has similarities to something. Even Bach and Mozart borrowed ideas from other composers and later ones did to same to them. You can't just take a snippet and go aha! No different than the Oracle attempt at Google over Java.
- djmips 7y ago
  I agree with all the arguments in this thread about Stairway to Heaven but also feel like for similar reasons the Blurred Lines case should have been dismissed.
slothtrop 7y ago
They outright covered songs in those early albums, but refused to pay royalties. I don't remember what their argument was.
- bobbles 7y ago
  Since when do cover artists pay royalties?
  - slothtrop 7y ago
    There's a difference between covering a song in a recording and being a cover artist. With the latter I don't find a consistent answer. I've read venues pay a licensing fee, and that depending on prop use it could cost more, etc. If you cover a song in recording, re-arrange it, whatever, you pay royalties to the original songwriter.
    - wahern 7y ago
      > With the latter I don't find a consistent answer. I've read venues pay a licensing fee.... IIRC, the licensing fee paid by the venue doesn't necessarily grant the performers any rights, it just waives the venue's liability. The nature of the relationship between the performer and venue is context dependent and it isn't always clear if the performers are covered or even could be covered by the venue's license, anyhow. In practice the licensor associations will leave the performers alone as long as the venue has a license, because what's the point of the venue license if artists face legal jeopardy for playing there. Alot of copyright works this way: the edges are very blurry and the incredibly broad scope of claims and defenses effectively corrals everybody into quasi-legal arrangements. Were it not for criminal liability and potential for ruinous monetary damages, this would definitely be a feature more than a bug. It's certainly deliberate. No law could ever be precise enough to properly balance such interests a priori.
  - fzzzy 7y ago
    Anyone can cover any song without permission as long as they pay compulsory royalties. https://www.thebalancecareers.com/what-is-a-compulsory-license-in-music-2460357 https://www.thebalancecareers.com/what-is-a-compulsory-licen...
seamyb88 7y ago
Repeatedly ripped off Robert Johnson, refused to pay royalties and dragged Johnson's family through the courts.

agumonkey 7y ago

I think I saw a news recently that they've been dismissed for gateway to heaven

klodolph 7y ago
Stairway is not a ripoff of Taurus and it never was going to be, but there are plenty of other accusations against Led Zeppelin that are more credible. I have Spirit’s eponymous album, the part in question that is “ripped off” is so basic and found in so many songs you’d die before you could list them all. (FYI—You the news you “think you saw recently” is in the linked article above the fold, which features a photo of Robert Plant right next to the headline.)
- Applejinx 7y ago
  Stairway to Heaven has contrary motion in the top voice of the guitar arpeggio, which I consider a really substantial change. They did grab lots of blues songs, occasionally gave some form of credit, otherwise not. It's an interesting question: blues is mostly delivery, so if you take a concept like 'lemon' or 'leave me' and deliver it in shrieky overwrought British rock star fashion, aren't you rewriting it, perhaps significantly? You can't copyright the pentatonic scale. It'd be like someone copyrighting the monotonic drone and then filing suit against half of EDM. I performed for a livestream recently and used a riff from Plastikman 'Marbles', except that riff is only note-note-rest-note-note-rest repeated infinitely on one note. Part of it is the tone and context, and I wasn't cloning that, just the way the extremely brief three-note chunk cycles over a 4/4 beat. Plagiarism? Plagiarism because I know of 'Marbles' and found it inspiring? What if I picked a simple repeating pulse because I'd heard that in some minimal techno, and intentionally did my own take on that because I'd liked it?
coldcode 7y ago
the one riff is vaguely similar, but the Taurus song includes a simple descending riff that sounds like something from a guitar intro book. All music has similarities to something. Even Bach and Mozart borrowed ideas from other composers and later ones did to same to them. You can't just take a snippet and go aha! No different than the Oracle attempt at Google over Java.
djmips 7y ago
I agree with all the arguments in this thread about Stairway to Heaven but also feel like for similar reasons the Blurred Lines case should have been dismissed.

slothtrop 7y ago

They outright covered songs in those early albums, but refused to pay royalties. I don't remember what their argument was.

bobbles 7y ago
Since when do cover artists pay royalties?
- slothtrop 7y ago
  There's a difference between covering a song in a recording and being a cover artist. With the latter I don't find a consistent answer. I've read venues pay a licensing fee, and that depending on prop use it could cost more, etc. If you cover a song in recording, re-arrange it, whatever, you pay royalties to the original songwriter.
  - wahern 7y ago
    > With the latter I don't find a consistent answer. I've read venues pay a licensing fee.... IIRC, the licensing fee paid by the venue doesn't necessarily grant the performers any rights, it just waives the venue's liability. The nature of the relationship between the performer and venue is context dependent and it isn't always clear if the performers are covered or even could be covered by the venue's license, anyhow. In practice the licensor associations will leave the performers alone as long as the venue has a license, because what's the point of the venue license if artists face legal jeopardy for playing there. Alot of copyright works this way: the edges are very blurry and the incredibly broad scope of claims and defenses effectively corrals everybody into quasi-legal arrangements. Were it not for criminal liability and potential for ruinous monetary damages, this would definitely be a feature more than a bug. It's certainly deliberate. No law could ever be precise enough to properly balance such interests a priori.
- fzzzy 7y ago
  Anyone can cover any song without permission as long as they pay compulsory royalties. https://www.thebalancecareers.com/what-is-a-compulsory-license-in-music-2460357 https://www.thebalancecareers.com/what-is-a-compulsory-licen...

seamyb88 7y ago

Repeatedly ripped off Robert Johnson, refused to pay royalties and dragged Johnson's family through the courts.