bayoubill
I Am waiting for some corporation to declare they own Am!

Oh the horror!!!!!
 
Oh the humanity!!!!!!
 
 
Oh the Am!!!!!

sharke
Zep Rep: "Yep, We're Pepped"

They should have played the jury an excerpt of "Black Mountainside" alongside Bert Janch's earlier "Blackwaterside" just to give them an idea of how likely they were to plagiarize one of their songs.

From what I understand though, that wasn't Bert's either.  He got the song from Ann Briggs, whom says the song is an old folk traditional piece or something like that.  I forget how the whole story goes.  
 
Personally, I'm fairly shocked how much my heroes have lifted from others.  But I'm more disappointed they aren't happy to share the credit.  For crying out loud, you can put on a billboard that 'so and so' wrote the song, but 99% of fans just think it's yours.  No reason to shut out the original creators.  None at all.  

LaszloZoltan
just curious, some of you might have an interesting point of view/insight

The melody and lyrics are the only things protected by copyright.
Chords and "riffs" are not...
I thought the claims went deeper than chords/riffs.
That being the case, I'm surprised the judge would even hear the case.
 
If chord progressions where protected... there'd be a million and one law suits pending.
1-4-5 has been (over) used in all forms of popular music... for decades.  

from the simpsons re jimmy page: https://youtu.be/nx3U6xJfnSA

Voda La Void

sharke
Zep Rep: "Yep, We're Pepped"

They should have played the jury an excerpt of "Black Mountainside" alongside Bert Janch's earlier "Blackwaterside" just to give them an idea of how likely they were to plagiarize one of their songs.

From what I understand though, that wasn't Bert's either.  He got the song from Ann Briggs, whom says the song is an old folk traditional piece or something like that.  I forget how the whole story goes.  
 
Personally, I'm fairly shocked how much my heroes have lifted from others.  But I'm more disappointed they aren't happy to share the credit.  For crying out loud, you can put on a billboard that 'so and so' wrote the song, but 99% of fans just think it's yours.  No reason to shut out the original creators.  None at all.  

Yes it's a traditional Irish folk song and Bert learned it from Ann, but the distinctive guitar arrangement was Bert's. It's a very unusual arrangement too - I transcribed it some years ago and you can find it here among other places. There are measures of all different lengths, Bert was great at fitting a guitar part around a lyric and making it sound natural no matter how odd the timing. Incidentally I have collaborated on another transcription for the Bert Jansch foundation for an upcoming "official" book Bert Jansch transcriptions and we've tidied it up and revised a lot of it since that early transcription of mine (which admittedly was done under the influence of copious amounts of red wine ). It's also in standard notation now. 
 
Jimmy Page basically nicked the gist of Bert's piece and simplified it. So maybe it's not a note for note copy but it's undeniably stolen from Jansch. 

I believe it's impossible to write an original top-40 song. Every song you've written has been copied in some shape or form (not necessarily deliberately).

I don't think it's even possible to have an original thought. From an early age we've been inundated by music, books, television, advertisements teachers and parents that fill us with the thoughts and beliefs we now have.

Come up with an original thought or song and you'll probably be in a straight-jacket.

tom1
I believe it's impossible to write an original top-40 song. Every song you've written has been copied in some shape or form (not necessarily deliberately).
...
Come up with an original thought or song and you'll probably be in a straight-jacket.

So why would anyone in their right mind, spend time trying to do another top-40 song?
 
There is more music to be made, and pretty soon, everyone will be after every one, each and every week, on yet another song.
 
Sometimes, the whole thing is just sick, and it only shows how over populated and how bad the whole thing has become. 
 
I do find it sad, that a band, like SPIRIT, feels this way, when they themselves had a very nice legacy and very good material and did not need a LedThisorThat to help them, or create new music, but then, one can also look at the Dr. Sardonicus album and find 12 satires in their and one could say that riffs were taken here and there, probably with the exception of the some pieces (Space Child and When I Touch You) and of course the tremendous one named Nature's Way ... but sadly, because of bands like RS and LZ, Spirit could not ever get a better deal anywhere, and in some ways they were victims of the fall of the art in California, with the media leading the way into destroying every thing and making it sound bad.
 
I'm in the process of reading a book on Jefferson Airplane, and the fall is hard for everyone, and the destruction is worse. SPIRIT would probably have done better and have more respect in Europe. 

Moshkito
So why would anyone in their right mind, spend time trying to do another top-40 song?

I think you've answered your own question Pedro! 

Jim Roseberry
 
The melody and lyrics are the only things protected by copyright.
Chords and "riffs" are not...
 

If you can show me any case law to support that contention I would be surprised. There is certainly nothing in statute to support it. In the end, a work infringes a prior copyright if a judge or jury decides that it does. The basic question is whether there is substantial similarity between two contested works, or portions thereof, with some consideration given to whether the copied material represents a significant amount of the value of the original. Whose point of view decides these questions and how it is decided is not all that clearly delineated, and application of the tests available is not always going to get the same result.
http://www.pli.edu/public/booksamples/631_sample3.pdf
 
A series of possibly terrible sounding chords could certainly be created that would be unique enough to qualify for its own copyright. The defense that you suggest, i.e. that chord progressions (at least the ones that sound pretty) are likely to have been used by multiple authors is the practical reason that most people believe they can not be protected by copyright. Which of the several other authors' work has been infringed? If you can find an example far enough back in time that it has entered the public domain, then your defense is secure. If  an earlier work than either of the two contested works can be found as a source, then your defense against infringement against a later work would only hold if you were to claim you stole it from the earlier work. Of course if you could prove that you never heard another similar work, then your independant creation of an identical work is not infringement. 
 
As a matter of public policy, lawsuits like this one (which failed) and the recent successful Blurred Lines case represent a serious threat to the continued creation of any new music at all. To the extent that the style of a prior composition or a simple chord progression can credibly be claimed as property, there is a chilling effect on anyone making his own music. Copyright bullying has become the new norm on the internet with song matching robots monetizing YouTube postings etc.

Crap, I just realized that "Gloria" is "Louie Louie" backwards!