Led Zeppelin now in court over Stairway

If I were to ever have heard Taurus without knowing about a lawsuit or if they were the original songwriters or whatever... if I heard that song, I would think, Oh some band is doing an adapted version of Stairway. And because I would think that, that's makes it signature to the song and copyrightable.

Yeah, it definitely comes down to a jury's interpretation. Too bad they weren't allowed to hear/see all the evidence in the first lawsuit.

The fact that you don't see it that way and I do highlights just how subjective the debate is.

Speaking of rip-offs, Shakira stole a melody line with one of her spanish songs. I think I'm going to YouTube her for a while. :D
 
Chili said:
If I were to ever have heard Taurus without knowing about a lawsuit or if they were the original songwriters or whatever... if I heard that song, I would think, Oh some band is doing an adapted version of Stairway.
Click to expand...

But if there never was a "Stairway to Heaven"...and you heard the Taurus song, there would be nothing "signature" about it....just a chord progression.
IMO...LZ made it "signature", but they have a melody on top of the chord progression, plus lyrics...but either way, it's a common chord progression with a common descending line. There's nothing "signature" about it if it's been used in other songs even before Taurus.

Again....take a basic R&R or Blues chord progression, find some famous song that uses it...it's still just a common R&R/Blues chord progression.
It's the melody and lyrics that define copyright...not chords.
 
All this reminded me of this guy on another forum about 10-12 years ago...he had some chords that he was kinda finger picking with an arpeggio style, etc...and he was asking if anyone would come up with some lead lines and what have you.
So people said for him to post a sound clip so we could hear it...and he said he was concerned that someone would steal his "music" since he had not yet copyrighted it. :D
Point was...he just had these chords, it wasn't a song...but he didn't understand that.
 
Shit. I don't know which is worse, the lunacy of the law suit, or the length of this ridiculous thread.
:D
 
Chili said:
...And because I would think that, that's makes it signature to the song and copyrightable...
Click to expand...
Some chord sequences are instantly recognisable and are often associated with the the most famous songs that utilise them. That doesn't make the chord sequence itself protectable under copyright law; if it did, there would be more lawsuits than you could shake a stick at. The unique (and therefore copyrightable) elements of a song are in the main melody (usually vocal but sometimes instrumental too) and the lyrics. Even melodies are tricky because you can bet that somebody somewhere has already written the melody to your latest blockbuster. Lyrics are easier to make unique because they draw from a much wider base.
 
OK...this video by Rick Beato (love his video tutorials) says what I've been saying all along...only he really breaks it down and proves it perfectly that this lawsuit is a joke! LZ should hire his as an expert...this video nails it!


 
miroslav said:
OK...this video by Rick Beato (love his video tutorials) says what I've been saying all along...only he really breaks it down and proves it perfectly that this lawsuit is a joke! LZ should hire his as an expert...this video nails it!


Click to expand...


Saw that, 100% agree. Case closed!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top