Band "Spirit" Claims Song Opening was Stolen; Led Zeppelin Guitarist:  Claims are "Ridiculous"
NEWTON: It's the legendary eight minute anthem that's kept every generation rocking out since the 1970s. Ok, I stopped to convince my kids of that. But whatever, it starts as a haunting acoustic slow dance and ends as a heavy metal head banger. And that final line, "She's buying a "Stairway to Heaven," I'll spare you, I won't sing it. Now a jury in the United States will have to decide if Led Zeppelin's megahit was a rip-off. Now in a lawsuit claims the beginning of "Stairway to Heaven" was copied from another band. I want you to take a look at yourself or take a listen at least. Such a classic, right, that was "Stairway to Heaven." Now a suit filed by the estate of songwriter for the band Spirit claims Led Zeppelin lifted that rift from the song "Torse." Jeff Peretz is the professor of music theory at New York University. Jeff it does sound really similar. Kind of explain what's going on there.</s>JEFF PERETZ, NYU PROFESSOR OF MUSIC THEORY: Well, yes, they sonically similar and they're using the same harmonic structure, the same chord progression, which is iconic classic chord progression. It's known as a minor line cliche.</s>NEWTON: Minor line cliche.</s>PERETZ: -- line cliche. It's a minor chord, the lowest note descends chromatically. It has been used in many, many, many song. "My Funny Valentine," Rodgers and Hart 1937. Stevie Wonder has used it. The theme song for "Sex and the City" uses the same chord progression.</s>NEWTON: "Sex and the City" theme song same one. It's landed in court. How and why?</s>PERETZ: I think because after the blurred lines case, people think that things that sound similar can be tried as being possible infringement.</s>NEWTON: Ok, now stopping there, let's remind everyone of the blurred lines. That is that song that unfortunately, annoyingly it was in everybody's head a few years ago.</s>PERETZ: It was and it sounded a lot like "Got to Give It Up" by Marvin Gaye. The math didn't line up, it's not the same chord progression, it's not the same melody, it's not the same rhythm, yet a jury found that it was copyright infringement. Probably more because everybody loves Marvin Gaye and people don't really maybe feel the same way about Robin Thicke.</s>NEWTON: Really?</s>PERETZ: I think the hubris of Robin Thicke in the personality contest of it all had a lot to do with it.</s>NEWTON: OK, but let me take from what you're saying, this is going to go to a jury now, this case of Led Zeppelin. And you're basically trying to tell me anything can happen.</s>PERETZ: anything can happen. The math behind it, it is that it is same chord progression, which is not copyrightable. What sounds the same are the recordings. About the plagiarism case, plagiarism speaks to the actual composition. This is not a copyrightable bit of information. It's a little harmonic sequence. This are only 12 notes in western music, seven when you're talking about a key. And if there's only seven docs, there's only but so many rows we can put them in. It's fair game to use them in any order you choose.</s>NEWTON: what do you think in terms of what's set out there? Do you think Led Zeppelin heard this beforehand?</s>PERETZ: Possibly, they may have heard it from "My Funny Valentine" from Rodgers and Hart, or "Don't You Worry About a Thing" from Stevie Wonder, or from "In a Sentimental Mode" for Duke Ellington. It's used so prevalently that possibly they heard it before. It's like the equivalent of me copyrighting the color red in a painting. If I use red and say no one else can use it because I discovered this color. It's basically a sonic collar.</s>NEWTON: In terms of the music industry itself, is this going to be kind of a legal fluke, like look, you can say a lot of songs sound alike but that doesn't mean they end up in court.</s>PERETZ: That's true. Anybody's guess at this point. After the blurred lines case which, you know, the math didn't line up. It's not the same song. And it was found to be the same song. Although the reward was reduced and I believe it will be eventually overturned. I would like to see the jury do the right thing and just throw this one out. Because it really has no merit.</s>NEWTON: So that's clear where you stand. If you had to deal with ignoramuses like me on the jury, who doesn't know about music. So I'm sitting there and part of this jury, and you have to show me. I just heard that from myself. What do you say? Clearly you have an opinion. You saying throw this out.</s>PERETZ: I think it's up to the judge to properly instruct the jury as to what is copyrightable and what is not copyrightable. The method -- the way in which the song is presented is not a copyrightable thing. The information that's being used, the melodic art would be. But there's no melody on top of the spirit song, and the chord progression is the same but that's something traditionally that's not copyrightable. The harmonic structure, the so same seven chords are there for everybody to use.</s>NEWTON: If it goes either way, if it's thrown out, do you think it will affect anything going forward? Do you think people will finally stop --?</s>PERETZ: Not really. I think this is kind of like it's big news today but i don't think it's going to become much. I think the way they snuck it into court with the re-release of the remastering, that's kind of cute. But I don't think it has any merit and if it is found to be infringement, it's going to further the gray area and make it a little bit more difficult. You know, when young artists are starting out, if they're not able to emulate their heroes and to write in different styles then how are they to start? And if this case does set a precedent, then Blind Willie Jefferson owns every blues that was ever written.</s>NEWTON: Now I get what you're saying. You're saying in order -- that's the reason you would put to this jury to say look, you couldn't possibly copyright this.</s>PERETZ: Correct, if I make a movie and there's two cops, buddy cops, that's a tropes, you know, and so there are many, many movies that have that same type of ideology behind it. So why can't my song have the same cord progression as another song?</s>NEWTON: You know, there's been a lot of criticism about the music industry in general. And a lot of people, you can say it, you know, people talk about the money side of it, people talk about the creative side of it. I mean in general when you see cases like this, does it give you hope in the music industry or you just think sometimes it's an absolute snake pit?</s>PERETZ: Well, that's --</s>NEWTON: We all know it is, yeah.</s>PERETZ: I think that you know the copyright laws are there to encourage creative and to inspire people to continue to do great work and I think that suits like this may go against that. You know, that methodology. We want them to be able to write. We want them to be able to use the information, to use the pieces of the puzzle that are there to build their own pieces of art. And if we start restricting that and we start getting litigious around that, it will go against the idea of fair use for creativity.</s>NEWTON: To use a term, thank heaven you were here to explain. We'll continue to watch this case. And we're having you back when something does happen.</s>PERETZ: All right, all right. My pleasure.</s>NEWTON: Still to come, this is Australia's current $5 bill. We'll show you the revamped version that's causing a bit of a stir on social media. That's right after the break.