Did Led Zeppelin Rip Off a Folk Singer?

[swandown]

It is very cut-and-dried. There's no need to look down the extra levels of detail. Just because Page turned the song into a 30+ minute monster doesn't erase that he took Holmes song to start with. Any court will see that

Maybe, maybe not. The court expressed skepticism toward Willie Dixon in 1987, leading him to settle just 3 days into his trial against Zep. He accepted a one-fifth writing credit when he could have potentially received 100% of the credits if he'd won. Not all judges are music lovers or historians.

And if it was such a cut-and-dried case, then surely Holmes would have filed suit in 1969, or even 1978 (when songwriter royalty rates were increased), or even in 1990 (when the boxed set was released). After all, Holmes was an experienced player in the record industry who obviously knew how music publishing worked. He certainly wasn't an amateur.

(If those words sound familiar, it's because you used them yourself as evidence of Page's guilt. Seems only fair to use them in Page's favor, eh?)

[cookieshoes]

Maybe, maybe not. The court expressed skepticism toward Willie Dixon in 1987, leading him to settle just 3 days into his trial against Zep. He accepted a one-fifth writing credit when he could have potentially received 100% of the credits if he'd won. Not all judges are music lovers or historians.

And if it was such a cut-and-dried case, then surely Holmes would have filed suit in 1969, or even 1978 (when songwriter royalty rates were increased), or even in 1990 (when the boxed set was released). After all, Holmes was an experienced player in the record industry who obviously knew how music publishing worked. He certainly wasn't an amateur.

(If those words sound familiar, it's because you used them yourself as evidence of Page's guilt. Seems only fair to use them in Page's favor, eh?)

Thanks for reminding me that you have an inability to keep things in context.

Who cares that Holmes waited this long? Who cares why he did/didn't sue in 69, 78, 88, or 98? It doesn't matter, because Holmes suing or not suing has nothing to do with whether the fact that Page lifted Holmes work. Just because Holmes didn't sue him until recently doesn't make his claim any less valid. Holmes' agenda is his own. Just as Jansch and Graham had the right to sue or not to sue Page. But that Holmes/Jansch/Graham didn't sue Page 20 years ago has noooooothing to do with whether or not Page was guilty of the theft. The crime exists whether or not anyone catches the person doing it, or takes action against them.

It's the same backwards logic. What's next, if a tree is chopped down in the woods and there's no one around to hear it....

[swandown]

The crime exists whether or not anyone catches the person doing it, or takes action against them.

It's not a crime if Jake Holmes says "What the hell, he can have it." It's not a crime if Jake Holmes says "It's a collaborative effort."

And it's not a crime if Bert Jansch says "This is a traditional song. Anyone can record my arrangement without giving credit to me."

[cookieshoes]

It's not a crime if Jake Holmes says "What the hell, he can have it." It's not a crime if Jake Holmes says "It's a collaborative effort."

And it's not a crime if Bert Jansch says "This is a traditional song. Anyone can record my arrangement without giving credit to me."

Oh, I get it. So, now it's turned to re-evaluating what the word "crime" means?

It's a "theft" a "nick" a "steal" a "copy" a "rip" a "lift". Whatever synonym gets used doesn't matter. The actions involved were the same.

See, just like with Black Mountain, evidence gets presented, and yet it's the same tail-chasing and apologist re-defining of what the terms are. You can't accept the answer to the real question, so you try and try and try to undermine it by going after the defintions of the words involved? This is not rocket science. Yet it's always the same vain effort to try and prove that somehow everyone else is at fault, and that Page was just somehow being a "genius" for taking the music he did, uncredited.

Page didn't get Holmes permission, nor did he get Jansch's or Grahams, or annnnnybody else. What's more is that anything those people said in response to Page having copied their work uncredited only would've mattered had they said it BEFORE Page committed the thefts. Holmes, Jansch, or the ghost of Graham can only provide exoneration at this point. But in any case, it doesn't remove the fact that the theft was committed. Otherwise, they wouldn't need to provide the exoneration, would they?

Seriously, give it a rest dude. You have no consistent logic here and it ends up being the same pushing of the "reset" button on your part.

[swandown]

Oh, I get it. So, now it's turned to re-evaluating what the word "crime" means?

It's a "theft" a "nick" a "steal" a "copy" a "rip" a "lift". Whatever synonym gets used doesn't matter. The actions involved were the same.

See, just like with Black Mountain, evidence gets presented, and yet it's the same tail-chasing and apologist re-defining of what the terms are. You can't accept the answer to the real question, so you try and try and try to undermine it by going after the defintions of the words involved? This is not rocket science. Yet it's always the same vain effort to try and prove that somehow everyone else is at fault, and that Page was just somehow being a "genius" for taking the music he did, uncredited.

I never said any of that. Sometimes I feel like you are having a debate with an imaginary person that you think is me.

[cookieshoes]

I never said any of that. Sometimes I feel like you are having a debate with an imaginary person that you think is me.

There is no debate here. I provide facts, you provide the same bizarre attempt at reasoning, over and over and over.

To be a debate, both people have to use facts. Not have one person obsess over what the word "crime" means, or insist that the order of things was different than it actually was.

Hey, did you hear that Page stole a lot of music?

Wait, define "music"....

Complete waste of time.

[swandown]

There is no debate here. I provide facts

You mean like your "fact" that Page lost lawsuits? Or your "fact" that the Beatles didn't set up their own publishing companies? Or your "fact" that no other musicians set up publishing companies?

To be a debate, both people have to use facts.

Oh, how ironic. You try to pass off your half-baked opinions as "facts" and then claim righteous indignation when caught.

[cookieshoes]

But where did Holmes get his song from and how original is it? For instance, many people recognize Porter Wagoner for his performance of Satisfied Mind before Darrell Scott's recent delivery of the song in Band of Joy concerts. But Porter Wagoner did not originate Satisfied Mind. Joe "Red" Hayes and Jack Rhodes co-wrote the song and first released it in 1954.

How thorough was the process when they issued the copyright to Mr. Holmes?

Why is that in question though? Nobody is bringing Holmes to court, so why even go there?

Holmes is bringing Page to court, for an obvious, and easily-traceable theft of the music that Holmes wrote and recorded.

If someone were to find out later that Holmes stole his music from someone else, then that party would have to step forward and make the claim. But it doesn't matter, because even if it turns out that Page had heard the melody and verses for "Dazed and Confused" from some other party besides Holmes, by some crazy and ultra-unrealistic alternate universe scenario stroke of luck, it STILL wouldn't put Page in the clear. Because, that would only mean that Page had stolen the music from that unknown person instead. See, you'd still have to explain how it was that the music appeared on Holmes' record before it appeared on Zep's. Either way you cut it, Page took the music and claimed it was his own, when it clearly wasn't. No matter how awesome anybody thinks Bonzo's drumming is, or how great Page's solo is. The obvious writer of the original source song was the man who put the music to record before Page recorded Zep I: Holmes.

Besides, Page took from lots of people, so he has a profile and history of thefts that works against him. It's not as if Dazed and Confused was the only thing he stole. Whereas, Holmes isn't documented to have ever taken from anyone. So, why on earth would anyone point the finger at Holmes? You can be sure that Page's lawyers will try their very hardest to do that. But it doesn't mean you put Page's thefts on hold. Holmes is the one bringing the case against Page, not the other way around.

[cookieshoes]

You mean like your "fact" that Page lost lawsuits? Or your "fact" that the Beatles didn't set up their own publishing companies? Or your "fact" that no other musicians set up publishing companies?

Oh, how ironic. You try to pass off your half-baked opinions as "facts" and then claim righteous indignation when caught.

Keep trolling dude. You're only coming off more crazy with each post.

Anyone with a brain can see the order of responses in either of these threads. Each waste of a post you make gets responded to, and you quickly jump to some other meaningless attempt and pretend that you're not getting responses. You've already been given answers to every little nugget that you insist on quoting and re-quoting, and yet you keep trying to revive them and everrrrry other silly attempt you've made. Don't make it a pride thing, man. Just take your licks and move on. You're just coming off crazy now.

[swandown]

Anyone with a brain can see the order of responses in either of these threads.

You've already been given answers to every little nugget that you insist on quoting and re-quoting

Divert, avoid, echo.

[Silver Rider]

Who cares that Holmes waited this long? Who cares why he did/didn't sue in 69, 78, 88, or 98? It doesn't matter, because Holmes suing or not suing has nothing to do with whether the fact that Page lifted Holmes work. Just because Holmes didn't sue him until recently doesn't make his claim any less valid. Holmes' agenda is his own. Just as Jansch and Graham had the right to sue or not to sue Page. But that Holmes/Jansch/Graham didn't sue Page 20 years ago has noooooothing to do with whether or not Page was guilty of the theft. The crime exists whether or not anyone catches the person doing it, or takes action against them.

This is a civil matter, not a criminal case, so therefore Page cannot be guilty. It's a question of who has what rights, if there is a liability at all, and if any damages flow. Page does have his own copyright on Dazed And Confused. As long as he changed the song sufficiently to satisfy the copyright law, that's all that Jimmy Page needs. Lifting the work of other artists is allowed as long as you do it lawfully. But you can't copy another's song word for word all the way through without their permission and without giving them proper credit. Jimmy Page did not copy the song word for word, which is why there is an issue. If he had copied it verbatim, this case would be a slam dunk.

If there is a statute of limitations that may apply in this case, the time it took to sue could be enough to get the case dismissed. If Holmes is merely interested in damages, that's not enough. He still needs to prove that Jimmy Page violated his copyright. And Jimmy Page has his own unique version of Dazed And Confused protected by his own copyright, which he has held for some years. And it being unique provides a defense for Page.

Possibly the court may consider whether or not there is an issue over unjust enrichment in regard to either one or both of the parties. If the court believes that Mr. Holmes should collect some damages for the use of his song, they would probably be modest, because Jimmy Page transformed that song into something unique that Mr. Holmes could probably never accomplish.

[Mercurious]

Whereas, Holmes isn't documented to have ever taken from anyone. So, why on earth would anyone point the finger at Holmes? You can be sure that Page's lawyers will try their very hardest to do that. But it doesn't mean you put Page's thefts on hold. Holmes is the one bringing the case against Page, not the other way around.

Holmes was an active member of the New York folk scene going back to what they call the acoustic era that gave us Dylan, so to say he's never taken anything from anybody can't possibly be true. Those folks did more stealing than writing -- it was a petrie dish. He also played for years with his wife as a folk-comedy spoof duo and, before he went solo, played in Tim Rose's band. Rose has had some high profile copyright issues (related to Hey Joe and Morning Dew). So far as lifting the work of others, Holmes was an old pro before the Yardbirds ever played in New York.

Tim Rose is deceased, and there may be others from that period who knew Holmes and worked with him, and may have been involved in the writing of "Above Ground Sound" who are no longer with us to tell the tale. But that's besides the point.

"Silver" has done a good job outlining what a songwriter can claim, and when you get into the structure issues of "Dazed", it's little more than an argument between guitar players over blues-raga patterns -- that doesn't fly in court. So Holmes will end up wanting to talk about the lyric, while Page will show that his lyric is different. This amounts to Holmes asking a court forty years later to give him a piece of a lyric that Page wrote.

Holmes has his own copyright and has had 40 years to capitalize on it. That's fair and reasonable. My guess is that Holmes, who has always had the money to take this to court, chose not to do so because he was worried that, in the process, the courts might take his copyrights away from him. In other words, he's always had something to lose -- and a good chance that he might not win.

[Mattmc1973]

I think the fact that Holmes waited so long is negated by the fact that Page has continued to release the song in so many formats and on so many compilations well into the 2000's. On the 2003 DVD set, there are 4 versions alone on there, plus the version on How the West Was Won...so 5 versions released in 2003. Then on Mothership in 2007, along with the whole catalog's release on iTunes the same year. So this isn't a song that was released in 1969 and now Holmes is coming after Page 40 years later. It's a song that has gotten released again and again, giving Zep fresh streams of revenue from it.

[Mercurious]

Either way you cut it, Page took the music and claimed it was his own, when it clearly wasn't. No matter how awesome anybody thinks Bonzo's drumming is, or how great Page's solo is. The obvious writer of the original source song was the man who put the music to record before Page recorded Zep I: Holmes.

If you were to cut it this way in court, you'd find that the easiest argument that Jones and Page can make is that Led Zeppelin's music is their own. The uniqueness of their sound is an automatic defense the courts have preferred over the argument you're making. Jimmy's musical ownership of his band's sound is well-established, and Holmes here is going after one of his masterpieces.

Then one can (and a judge and jury will, in all likelihood) consider whether it's appropriate within the common law for Holmes to be picking Jimmy's pocket while demanding a share in Jimmy's musical legacy. It's next to impossible to remove Holmes' claim to a time and place where those issues won't matter to a judge and jury.

[cookieshoes]

If you were to cut it this way in court, you'd find that the easiest argument that Jones and Page can make is that Led Zeppelin's music is their own. The uniqueness of their sound is an automatic defense the courts have preferred over the argument you're making. Jimmy's musical ownership of his band's sound is well-established, and Holmes here is going after one of his masterpieces.

Then one can (and a judge and jury will, in all likelihood) consider whether it's appropriate within the common law for Holmes to be picking Jimmy's pocket while demanding a share in Jimmy's musical legacy. It's next to impossible to remove Holmes' claim to a time and place where those issues won't matter to a judge and jury.

Just because a fan thinks that the song that resulted from the theft was "better" than the original doesn't make the thief any less guilty or the theft any less real. Look at what occurred with The Verve's sampling of the orchestral Rolling Stones with the song "Bittersweet Symphony". Look at the lawsuit against George Harrsion over "My Sweet Lord". Ask any fan and of course they'd say they preferred the songs by the Verve and by Harrison over the originals. Doesn't change the fact that courts have never sided with artists who lift from the works of others, no matter how "unique" or how much of a "masterpiece" a fan thinks the resulting theft grew into. Of course you think Page was innocent, because you like what Page did with what he stole from someone else. Doesn't change the fact that at the core of the song is a theft that has been uncredited. You wanna talk about "shares" in Jimmy's legacy, and yet somehow the names of the many artists that Page stole from doesn't matter? That's just silly. It's the thefts that Page did, and the many ways he's denied them over the years that only serve to tarnish his legacy.

The same backwards logic. Somehow Holmes is the one picking Page's pocket here? Somehow, Holmes apparently deserved to be ripped off. What's next, theories claiming that Holmes FORCED Page to rip off his song, so that he could wait 40 years in hopes that Page had made enough money off it? Even if you believe that nonsense, it doesn't in any way change the fact at all that Page committed the theft in the first place. It simply does not matter how long Holmes waited to make his claim. Even if the courts say the limitations expired, all that would say is that Holmes waited "too long". So, it would be his loss for having waited so long. That doesn't change whatsoever the fact that Page committed the theft in the first place, it only changes what Holmes could do about it.

Just like the Dixon thefts, the Howling Wolf thefts, the Jansch thefts, the Graham thefts, the Valens' thefts.....apparently all of these musicians, like Holmes were just waiting for someone as great as Page to copy their music and claim it as his own? Completely backwards.

[Silver Rider]

Just because a fan thinks that the song that resulted from the theft was "better" than the original doesn't make the thief any less guilty or the theft any less real. Look at what occurred with The Verve's sampling of the orchestral Rolling Stones with the song "Bittersweet Symphony". Look at the lawsuit against George Harrsion over "My Sweet Lord". Ask any fan and of course they'd say they preferred the songs by the Verve and by Harrison over the originals. Doesn't change the fact that courts have never sided with artists who lift from the works of others, no matter how "unique" or how much of a "masterpiece" a fan thinks the resulting theft grew into. Of course you think Page was innocent, because you like what Page did with what he stole from someone else. Doesn't change the fact that at the core of the song is a theft that has been uncredited. You wanna talk about "shares" in Jimmy's legacy, and yet somehow the names of the many artists that Page stole from doesn't matter? That's just silly. It's the thefts that Page did, and the many ways he's denied them over the years that only serve to tarnish his legacy.

The same backwards logic. Somehow Holmes is the one picking Page's pocket here? Somehow, Holmes apparently deserved to be ripped off. What's next, theories claiming that Holmes FORCED Page to rip off his song, so that he could wait 40 years in hopes that Page had made enough money off it? Even if you believe that nonsense, it doesn't in any way change the fact at all that Page committed the theft in the first place. It simply does not matter how long Holmes waited to make his claim. Even if the courts say the limitations expired, all that would say is that Holmes waited "too long". So, it would be his loss for having waited so long. That doesn't change whatsoever the fact that Page committed the theft in the first place, it only changes what Holmes could do about it.

Just like the Dixon thefts, the Howling Wolf thefts, the Jansch thefts, the Graham thefts, the Valens' thefts.....apparently all of these musicians, like Holmes were just waiting for someone as great as Page to copy their music and claim it as his own? Completely backwards.

Theft is a crime. Copyright issues are civil matters. There is no guilt involved, only a question of who has the rights? is there any liability? and if so, what are the damages?

And it's possible that the courts have sided with the artists on the basis of what is unique.

ehow.com/about_6626059_transformative-vs_-derivative-copyright-law

As for the concept of unjust enrichment, Holmes and Page both should have the benefit of their efforts. That's why each one holds a copyright for his own work.

[swandown]

Just because a fan thinks that the song that resulted from the theft was "better" than the original doesn't make the thief any less guilty or the theft any less real. Look at what occurred with The Verve's sampling of the orchestral Rolling Stones with the song "Bittersweet Symphony".

It's ironic that you keep bringing up "Bittersweet Symphony", since that song helps to shoot down your claims about Bert Jansch.

You see, that song's melody was primarily created by arranger David Whittaker. But Whittaker is not entitled to a writing credit or ANY of the song's royalties, because he used the Rolling Stones song "The Last Time" as the basis for the melody. No matter how unique it sounded, no matter how creative it was, no matter if Whittaker created sounds that had never been heard before on record -- the bottom line is that Whittaker was NOT entitled to ANY writing credits. Because Whittaker didn't technically write it; he merely arranged it.

And it's exactly the same with Bert Jansch. Jansch created something unique, but he didn't write it; he merely arranged it.

So yes, please keep bringing up "Bittersweet Symphony". Please keep insisting that arrangers don't deserve writing credits. And please keep exposing the logical fallacies in your arguments.

[Mercurious]

Doesn't change the fact that courts have never sided with artists who lift from the works of others, no matter how "unique" or how much of a "masterpiece" a fan thinks the resulting theft grew into.

This is such a dubious "fact" that you should definitely do your own case law research on this.

I think what you'll find is that it's very rare to see a "transformative" composition like Page's "Dazed and Confused" challenged. Even Holmes himself, ten years ago, was suggesting "collaborative" rights and acknowledging that Page and Jim McCarty transformed his dirge. This was in a letter sent to Page ten years ago after Page slapped an injunction on Epic and others for releasing the Cumular Limit package.

It's no coincidence that Holmes resurfaces when the Yardbirds and Epic are trying to package the Page era recordings. This is more about McCarty getting Page to relinquish on "Dazed" so that he can make a buck than it is about Holmes "rights."

Of course you think Page was innocent, because you like what Page did with what he stole from someone else. Doesn't change the fact that at the core of the song is a theft that has been uncredited. You wanna talk about "shares" in Jimmy's legacy, and yet somehow the names of the many artists that Page stole from doesn't matter? That's just silly. It's the thefts that Page did, and the many ways he's denied them over the years that only serve to tarnish his legacy.

I don't think Page is losing any sleep over this for the reasons I've stated, not because of what you think I might think. This isn't a cut-and-dried plagiarism suit or a theft case in which Page is being accused of stealing Jake Holmes' lawnmower and edge clipper. It's a murky issue in which a folk traditionalist is essentially claiming ownership of a bass line that appears in the opening and closing sections of a much larger composition.

Page shouldn't open his Led Zeppelin "Dazed" copyright to anybody, not Holmes and not McCarty, who's obviously wanted back in on it ever since he quit The Yardbirds.

[Mercurious]

I think the fact that Holmes waited so long is negated by the fact that Page has continued to release the song in so many formats and on so many compilations well into the 2000's. On the 2003 DVD set, there are 4 versions alone on there, plus the version on How the West Was Won...so 5 versions released in 2003. Then on Mothership in 2007, along with the whole catalog's release on iTunes the same year. So this isn't a song that was released in 1969 and now Holmes is coming after Page 40 years later. It's a song that has gotten released again and again, giving Zep fresh streams of revenue from it.

Holmes tends to speak up when the Yardbirds and Epic are trying to release Page era material. The letter he sent to Page in 2001 followed an injunction Page had slapped on Epic for releasing "Cumular Limit." Two months ago they released the "Glimpses" package, so it seems that Holmes, by filing suit last June may have been trying to head Page off legally, assuming that he would try to block "Glimpses."

The inferior quality of the Anderson Theater recordings and some of the other stuff is usually stated as the reason but the legal ground on which McCarty and Epic have continually tread is Page's "Dazed" copyright. There's something still to gain for those of the Yardbirds camp remaining if they can use Holmes to break through some of the legal restrictions on Page's work.

It's kind of sad that McCarty's still pulling this stuff, especially when you consider that his drumming on Dazed shows how limited he was as a musician.

[cookieshoes]

It's ironic that you keep bringing up "Bittersweet Symphony", since that song helps to shoot down your claims about Bert Jansch.

You see, that song's melody was primarily created by arranger David Whittaker. But Whittaker is not entitled to a writing credit or ANY of the song's royalties, because he used the Rolling Stones song "The Last Time" as the basis for the melody. No matter how unique it sounded, no matter how creative it was, no matter if Whittaker created sounds that had never been heard before on record -- the bottom line is that Whittaker was NOT entitled to ANY writing credits. Because Whittaker didn't technically write it; he merely arranged it.

And it's exactly the same with Bert Jansch. Jansch created something unique, but he didn't write it; he merely arranged it.

So yes, please keep bringing up "Bittersweet Symphony". Please keep insisting that arrangers don't deserve writing credits. And please keep exposing the logical fallacies in your arguments.

Hey, crazy's back!

Whaddy know, you're still missing the point. Keep running yourself in circles about comments that you still don't understand. No matter how many times you cut and paste my points. You're STILL obsessing about the angles of writing/arranging as if that somehow produces time travel and somehow erases Page's thefts. Do you even remember your own posts? You started your little contradictory journey trying to say that Page came up with his own interpretation for Black Mountain (which I proved false). Then, you tried saying that Jansch actually copied Isla Cameron (which I proved false again). Then you reduced your claim to "Well, Page's version isn't a 100% copy" (aka the "he did his own unique arrangement" bs line). There too I proved you false. You even brought up the guitar solo from Black Mountain as potentially being proof that added something, and I proved you wrong AGAIN. Face it dude, you're just sore, and now you're obsessed with trolling trying to find a loophole in my logic.

There isn't one. No matter how much you or any of the other apologists want to try and take the Page thefts and spin them into being so much more complicated than they are, it doesn't make it so. Page took from people. He made money using other peoples works. He didn't credit them. On and on and on. Doesn't matter how awesome "Dazed" became as a live piece. Doesn't matter how much better produced Zep I was than Jansch's "Jack Orion", and it doesn't matter if you never would have heard of Jansch or Graham if it wasn't for Page.

All you can do is keep trying to twist the point of the subject and draw some kind of bizarre parallel between what a potential court case might look like today, and why it would supposedly fail. That's straight-up fan fiction, which has nothing to do with the question you keep denying regarding Page's thefts. So, who cares what knew question you have about crime or copyright? Because all of these discussions about "well, that would never fly in court" only temporarily adds to the noise of people like you who keep insisting that Page never took anything, or worse, that somehow because a case couldn't survive in court due to a technical restriction or statute of limitations that somehow Page must not really have committed the thefts in the first place.

Cue up this thread, and you've got gems like "Well, do we know that Holmes version was even original?" Give me a break.

If this were the OJ Simpson trial, you would be the types of jurors saying "Okay, so the question is whether or not OJ Simpson killed Nicole Simpson....But really guys, shouldn't we really be asking whether or not Nicole Simpson didn't kill somebody herself instead?"

There is only so much apologizing you can attempt to do before it just becomes ridiculous. You guys have loooooong since passed that point in both of these threads.

All of this theorizing on "Well, Holmes couldn't take Jimmy to court because XXXXX reason" or "Jansch has no ability to sue Page because of XXXX" or "But Page created something so magical out of Dazed, so he shouldn't have to get sued" has NOTHING to do with the primary fact that Page stole from the people he did. Ever heard of the term "first cause"? We wouldn't be arguing any of these questions unless you first accept that Page committed the thefts that he did. Yet, instead you skip over it, as if somehow the technicalities and details of lawsuits somehow could provide some kind of "erasing" of Pages thefts having happened. All of the examples here about similar cases (the Verve, Harrison, etc.) are to provide context to the facts, not provide you with more ammunition to start making connections that don't make any sense at all. Yet, you keep trying.

The Verve lawsuit proves that people get sued for copyright, even if they are two degrees away. So, this PROVES my point, not disproves it genius. Whether Page gets sued for doing his rip of Jansch (1st degree), or for the credit owed Briggs (2nd degree), doesn't really matter in premise....because BOTH work off of the starting point that Page took music from others and called it his own. So, whether Briggs sues Page or Jansch sues Page, or....guess what....NOBODY sues Page doesn't change the fact that Page stole the music in the first place.

[swandown]

You started your little contradictory journey trying to say that Page came up with his own interpretation for Black Mountain (which I proved false).

Then, you tried saying that Jansch actually copied Isla Cameron (which I proved false again).

Ladies and gentlemen, I implore you...... Listen for yourselves

You just keep calling me crazy, cookie. I'll keep sticking to the facts.

[swandown]

^ Most accurate post in this thread. Pay up and move on, even if it's just to recline on the couch.

Joined: Today, 12:25 PM

Oh, waiter -- IP check please!! I mean, I've had my share of internet arguments over the years, but I can't imagine being so insane and desperate that I'd resort to creating fake accounts to agree with myself!!!

[Mercurious]

^ Most accurate post in this thread. Pay up and move on, even if it's just to recline on the couch.

If Jansch wanted BMS credit, certainly.

But the legal answer to the "Dazed" question is "No." Holmes moved on long ago but it's actually McCarty -- who walked away from the Yardbirds -- who has continually tried to capitalize on Page's work. Every time these Yardbirds things come up, you've got McCarty and Epic attempting to shift the copyright around. That's illegal. Page shouldn't give 'em an inch.

The entire thing is ridiculous. Material like "Dazed" and "Think About it" are the works McCarty and Relf walked away from. Leave what's Jimmy Page's to Jimmy Page, which is what he thought they did so long ago when they quit. Alas, McCarty keeps coming back for more.

[Silver Rider]

No matter how much you or any of the other apologists want to try and take the Page thefts and spin them into being so much more complicated than they are, it doesn't make it so. Page took from people. He made money using other peoples works. He didn't credit them. On and on and on. Doesn't matter how awesome "Dazed" became as a live piece.

Page exercised artistic license, but that does not prove that he infringed on a copyright. If he transformed music sufficiently so that it is substantially different from the original and unique, the courts often honor such actions by artists.

Theft is not the issue in this case because this case is a civil matter, and the criminal law does not apply. It's a mistake to confuse this case with the criminal law.

But if you insist, Jimmy Page "stole" the Dazed and Confused car, took it apart, installed some new and different parts, and painted it a dramatic indigo color with subtle burgundy undertones that was substantially different from the original black and white car that Jake Holmes assembled. Jimmy Page put a whole new car together. Dazed and Confused was Jake Holmes' song until it became a whole different song. Holmes still owns the old model of Dazed And Confused. If Jimmy Page hadn't taken the car apart and put it together in a whole new way, we wouldn't have this problem.

Jimmy Page's Dazed And Confused is substantially unique, and that actually does matter in a case where copyright infringement is at issue, because it provides Page with a defense.

With artistic enterprises, it is sometimes permitted to "steal' another's piece of intellectual property such as an idea or song, but only if you change it so it becomes something that is essentially new. If not, then you must get permission to use another's song and credit the original owner.

If you were to award damages to Mr. Holmes, then you would have the problem of where to draw the line to avoid picking Jimmy Page's pocket. Otherwise you open a can of worms with unjust enrichment. Jake Holmes did not produce the masterpiece. You can only allow Holmes the benefit of his original.

[cookieshoes]

If Jansch wanted BMS credit, certainly.

The entire thing is ridiculous. Material like "Dazed" and "Think About it" are the works McCarty and Relf walked away from. Leave what's Jimmy Page's to Jimmy Page, which is what he thought they did so long ago when they quit. Alas, McCarty keeps coming back for more.

Yes, the entire thing is ridiculous, because the excuses keep being made that it was some "okay" that Page did the thefts he did. "Leaving what's Jimmy Page's to Jimmy Page" sums it up, because you keep leaving out the fact that what Page started with was not his. Page can use Holmes' lack of lawsuit after all these years to mean that Holmes somehow "walked away" from having written a song. Holmes released "I'm Confused" a year before Page put "Dazed and Confused" on Zep I. The Yardbirds ripped Holmes off, and then Page followed with the theft. That is the focus.

Yet, this keeps getting wrangled back into the "Because Page made x number of awesome changes to the Holmes melody, Page now owns the song, and Holmes never existed". That's nonsense. The theft is still there in "Dazed" no matter how ornamental Page dressed it up.